Blizzard fix ETA

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 9:02 am

quote from Ed
Then why did Gary not allow units to get special supply from multiple HQs?

reply
Obviously he did? Isn't that what we're talking about is an exploit?

quote from Ed
Does anyone know of an example of units being routinely "co-managed" by multiple HQ organizations? Doesn't this sound just a little bit bizzare?

reply
They are not being co-managed in any stretch of the imagination. They are simply transferring extra supplies they have available through a logistical supply process. Nope, not bizzarre at all.

The game turn is a static period of plotting, moving units and distributing supplies. During the execution phase of the game NO command is ever given and no support is ever received outside of the Corps established chain of command. The only thing that can be attributed to the non-chain of command HQ is a percentage of fuel, ammo, replacement parts, etc. of the Corps supplies that were transferred within the region. Meaning the supplies, or OP points had to be in the region of the Corps to begin with (or railed in, let's not go there) to be able to be transferred using special supply which requires a 5 hex range and clear path.

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 10:40 am

Originally posted by BrickReid:

The game turn is a static period of plotting, moving units and distributing supplies. During the execution phase of the game NO command is ever given and no support is ever received outside of the Corps established chain of command. The only thing that can be attributed to the non-chain of command HQ is a percentage of fuel, ammo, replacement parts, etc. of the Corps supplies that were transferred within the region. Meaning the supplies, or OP points had to be in the region of the Corps to begin with (or railed in, let's not go there) to be able to be transferred using special supply which requires a 5 hex range and clear path.[/QB]

BrickReid,

OK, now you have done it, you have opened the command and control range "BUG". There is no range limitation for HQ command and control only a range limitation for special supply. I hope you are proud of yourself.
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Svar

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 10:56 am

Originally posted by BrickReid:
I believe they never saw it because Grigsby and the play testers never played the game with the limitations you propose

Limitations? You mean applying historical accuracy is a limitation? The real world is too restrictive? Interesting idea there. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

It has nothing to do with my desired "limitations" anyway. This problem never surfaced until Arnaud started fixing bugs and adding modest features. Somewhere along the line, we suddenly discovered the blizzard bug. The consensus is it was the reduction in airpower effectiveness that caused it to surface, but it could be some other change, or a combination of things. No beta testers working for SSI would have been able to see this.

My guess is Grigsby and company were special supplying their butts off. And rightfully so according to their vision of how it should be used.

How do you know what Gary's vision was?

If they were beta testing, and using special supply like it was going out of style, how long do you think it would have taken for someone to use the HQ mule bug? Just about everybody discovers it independently of each other. Either the testing period was short or they weren't special supplying their butts off.

IF YOU ARE A COMMANDER OF SEVERAL CORPS IN AN EXTREME CRISES (Summer '41 for the Soviets and Blizzards for the Germans) AND YOU HOLD BACK RESERVE SUPPLIES FROM THOSE UNITS IN DIRE STRAIGHTS, you deserve to have your Corps shatter.

Uhh, wrong argument. We're talking about the blizzard bug, not special supply abuse. In our case you are absolutely correct, we should give special supply to units in a crisis, including the Germans in '41 blizzard. For the Germans though, if they do give supply THEIR KORPS SHATTER. That is the problem, what is supposed to help ends up hurting. That's the bug.

Then you need to drawn, quartered, and hung by piano wire.

A bit drastic don't you think? <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 11:41 am

Obviously he did? Isn't that what we're talking about is an exploit?

Which thread is this now? The special supply abuse or the blizzard bug? Oh yea I see.... <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

No he didn't, you have to change HQ control to get special supply from other HQs. If this had been intended to happen there would not have been this restriction.

They are not being co-managed in any stretch of the imagination. They are simply transferring extra supplies they have available through a logistical supply process.

Name me a modern army that deliberately sets up multiple logistical operations for its units. If this is advantageous, why isn't everyone doing it now?

Nope, not bizzarre at all.

Nope, very.

command HQ is a percentage of fuel, ammo, replacement parts, etc. of the Corps supplies that were transferred within the region.

Major army level command headquarters units are not supply depots! If this is what Gary wanted he would have given you something like supply trains or something, a separate unit for providing extra supply like a truck with a half moon supply symbol, not use the HQ units as "non-chain-of-command HQs". What does the command staff of the non-chain-of-command HQ do anyway if they're just acting as a supply source with no combat units of their own?

Can ANYONE tell us if a modern army level headquarters unit was ever used solely as a supply source for units commanded by someone else?!?

You can try to rationalize this as much as you can, but modern army level HQs are not used as pack mules, if they were meant to do this then the HQs reserve units could maintain 99% readiness. No military I've ever heard of creates extra HQs just for the purpose of being a pack mule, they do not share chain-of-command of a unit on a battlefield, and redundent logistical systems do not double the effectivness of a unit, they just cause confusion as to who and where different elements of that combat unit get their resupply from and therefore is inefficient. If there is a bottleneck in the supply chain, 2 HQ logistics organizations have no more of a chance to overcome that problem than a single HQ's logistics system.

How many times must I say this? If multiple high-level HQs really helped this much for a single combat unit, then the US would have had at least 2 other commanders with a complete HQ structure besides Stormin' Norman in charge of Desert Storm.

If the testers had been special supplying their butts off as you say, and this was ok with Gary, then why in the hell didn't he make it easy to do this?

[ September 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 11:43 am

Originally posted by Svar:
OK, now you have done it, you have opened the command and control range "BUG". There is no range limitation for HQ command and control only a range limitation for special supply.

Really? How far away can an HQ reinforce a combat?

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 12:34 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Really? How far away can an HQ reinforce a combat?

I don't have a clue but if memory serves me correctly, I have had Panzer Korps subordinate to Panzer Armies that I purposely removed all the infantry divisions. At some point during combat these Panzer Korps are reinforced with infantry divisions . Where they come from I don't know but when a higher level commander takes charge of a battle there is no telling what he is able to do with all the units under his command.

Svar

PS. I just reread the paragraph on page 21 of the manual on HQs and that is probably why I have always thought OPs were supplies.

moonfog · Post by **moonfog** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 11:01 pm

Hi all,

I think I have just discovered another bug with blizzard penalties for Germans (perhaps it's already known, though?).

In the manual is written, that all german units EAST OF WARSAW will face penalties in blizzard turns 1941. In my last turn of PBEM (January 42, Blizzards), I transfered 1. rumanian Pz Div from OKH to a Korps in northern Berlin city hex (that's two hexes of movement and certainly west of Warsaw). The Div had two Pz Bn with 51 Panzers each before transfer. The transfer dropped it's panzers to 35 Pz per Bn due to attrition losses!

Was the "border line" for blizzard penalties removed with a reason or is it a bug, that units WEST OF WARSAW also loose equipment when moving??? I don't think Berlin ever saw a blizzard...

Moonfog

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 12:33 am

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Major army level command headquarters units are not supply depots! If this is what Gary wanted he would have given you something like supply trains or something, a separate unit for providing extra supply like a truck with a half moon supply symbol, not use the HQ units as "non-chain-of-command HQs". What does the command staff of the non-chain-of-command HQ do anyway if they're just acting as a supply source with no combat units of their own?

Can ANYONE tell us if a modern army level headquarters unit was ever used solely as a supply source for units commanded by someone else?!?

You can try to rationalize this as much as you can, but modern army level HQs are not used as pack mules, if they were meant to do this then the HQs reserve units could maintain 99% readiness. No military I've ever heard of creates extra HQs just for the purpose of being a pack mule, they do not share chain-of-command of a unit on a battlefield, and redundent logistical systems do not double the effectivness of a unit, they just cause confusion as to who and where different elements of that combat unit get their resupply from and therefore is inefficient. If there is a bottleneck in the supply chain, 2 HQ logistics organizations have no more of a chance to overcome that problem than a single HQ's logistics system.

How many times must I say this? If multiple high-level HQs really helped this much for a single combat unit, then the US would have had at least 2 other commanders with a complete HQ structure besides Stormin' Norman in charge of Desert Storm.

If the testers had been special supplying their butts off as you say, and this was ok with Gary, then why in the hell didn't he make it easy to do this?

[ September 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

I don't give a crap about what a "modern army" did or didn't do. I also don't require that the options available to a player are strictly those that were actually tried before. I don't think Grigsby had to provide every type of ingenious alternative style unit that may have ever been imagined. I think the point is that, if it was possible to be done, no matter how bizzarre a limited thinker may think it is, it should be available to the armchair general to try to implement and see if their idea could work. Grigsby didn't need to make up special "supply trains or something" he simply made the game flexible. The special supply from another HQ is quite easy to do in the game. Try it sometime, you may learn something.

I also believe the blizzard bug is associated with the so called supply bug. Once the game was changed to limit a HQs ability to support its Corps, the units started shattering.

And, no, I don't think my draconian method of dealing with grossly imcompetent generals who allow thousands of men to die and be captured is too extreme.

This post is a statement of my final opinion on this. Feel free to state yours without tearing my opinion down and we can be done with this, between us anyway. I know my temper is now flaring and from the way you responded to my last post, so is yours. I'm right, you're wrong and You're right, I'm wrong. Others will decide. I'm sure we'll find something new to argue about.

Oh, and I don't mean to say you shouldn't continue to defend and promote your position with others in the forum, just that I'm annoyed as I care to get on a game issue.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 2:13 am

Originally posted by moonfog:
Hi all,

I think I have just discovered another bug with blizzard penalties for Germans (perhaps it's already known, though?).

In the manual is written, that all german units EAST OF WARSAW will face penalties in blizzard turns 1941. In my last turn of PBEM (January 42, Blizzards), I transfered 1. rumanian Pz Div from OKH to a Korps in northern Berlin city hex (that's two hexes of movement and certainly west of Warsaw). The Div had two Pz Bn with 51 Panzers each before transfer. The transfer dropped it's panzers to 35 Pz per Bn due to attrition losses!

Was the "border line" for blizzard penalties removed with a reason or is it a bug, that units WEST OF WARSAW also loose equipment when moving??? I don't think Berlin ever saw a blizzard...

Moonfog

I am fairly sure this is one of the many errors in the manual compared to how the game originally shipped, as I don't think there used to be a blizzard limit at all before. It was an issue we discussed early on, and it was at least partially fixed I thought. It sounds like you found another part that needs to be fixed, as I would guess it happens in Italy also.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 3:50 am

Originally posted by Svar:

PS. I just reread the paragraph on page 21 of the manual on HQs and that is probably why I have always thought OPs were supplies.

The closest thing to a definition of "special supply" is when the manual refers to it as a "special readiness boost". Frustrating. It defines what it does, but doesn't define what it is.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 4:33 am

Originally posted by BrickReid:
if it was possible to be done, no matter how bizzarre a limited thinker may think it is, it should be available to the armchair general

And you keep ignoring the problem that your tactic for the armchair general has never been used by modern armies (from WWII on). You do have to deal with modern armies. Should things that never happened because they couldn't have happened be available to the armchair quarterback too?

I also believe the blizzard bug is associated with the so called supply bug. Once the game was changed to limit a HQs ability to support its Corps, the units started shattering.

Brick, you've got this back-asswards. German units during the Blizzards of '41 are shattering during combat after they got special supply. They shatter AFTER THEY GOT SPECIAL SUPPLY. That's what I've been arguing about here for Christ's sake. What you just said above is the opposite, as if you were arguing about the abuse of special supply, which is a different argument. The blizzard bug is totally unrelated to the special supply abuse bug. I'm not sure what you're arguing about now. Maybe you've mixed up the threads here?

This post is a statement of my final opinion on this. Feel free to state yours without tearing my opinion down and we can be done with this, between

I'm just trying to understand what it is you're really arguing about here, the blizzard bug or special supply abuse? It doesn't matter that much since we disagree about both of them anyway. I backed out of the other thread that was about special supply abuse because there was no middle ground and no room for compromise. We could argue this for weeks and get nowhere. This thread though, was supposed to be about the blizzard bug, but as best I can tell you've got the 2 issues mixed up.

us anyway. I know my temper is now flaring and from the way you responded to my last post, so is yours.

I'm annoyed yes, but not angry, not yet anyway. There's a huge real world out there that renders our little game, and all the issues about it, totally irrelevent and insignificant. Our passonate arguments here are no more important than an H2O atom in the Pacific. So I try to keep things in perspective.

I'm sure we'll find something new to argue about.

I have a feeling we will too. Your idea of what an armchair quarterback should be allowed to do in a game purporting to be a (historical) military simulation is practically guaranteed to have us butt heads again.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 5:02 am

Originally posted by RickyB:
It sounds like you found another part that needs to be fixed, as I would guess it happens in Italy also.

Its not the just West/Italian Fronts, Rick. It happens with other normal HQs transfering a divisions to a nearby corps in the Berlin area.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 8:55 am

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Its not the just West/Italian Fronts, Rick. It happens with other normal HQs transfering a divisions to a nearby corps in the Berlin area.

Exactly, I wasn't talking fronts or HQs here, but the actual geographic region, which the game should account for, and Arnaud did do for some parts of the blizzard effects, but not this one obviously.

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 10:02 am

quote from Ed:
Brick, you've got this back-asswards. German units during the Blizzards of '41 are shattering during combat after they got special supply. They shatter AFTER THEY GOT SPECIAL SUPPLY. That's what I've been arguing about here for Christ's sake. What you just said above is the opposite, as if you were arguing about the abuse of special supply, which is a different argument. The blizzard bug is totally unrelated to the special supply abuse bug. I'm not sure what you're arguing about now. Maybe you've mixed up the threads here?
End Quote

Ed, did those units get special 1 time? 1 time only? I don't believe 1 special supply is enough to get them above the critical threshold to prevent the shatter. They need multiple special supplies in the most vulnerable units.

I think of it this way: Grigsby wanted to allow special supply. How to do it? IMO, he chose to allow multiple special supplies so that a player could add a variety of levels of extra supply. For example. One guy has a front being attacked on a wide area. He would want to spread the special supply to many units to give all of the units he expects to get attacked (a lot of them) boosted up a little. This would require him to ration his special supply by only giving one special supply to each of many units. That would make it so none of them are at 99% readiness, BUT, they would be better off than they were. NOW, a second player, vs. a different opponent, faces concentrated attacks in a very narrow area. This player would want to focus his special supply on those units being attacked while witholding special supply from lower-threat areas. So he would want to give them as much supply as he could. Since Grigsby, IMO, PROBABLY decided to allow multiple special supplies (instead of making special supply simply use up OPs until the unit was at 99%, which is what I would expect if he had wanted it to be a one time affair), the player must special supply multiple times. NOW, to connect this to Blizzard, if I can. Those units that are shattering after receiving special supply ONLY ONE TIME are doing so because the ONE special supply is not sufficient to get them above the shatter threshold that multiple special supplies would allow. Just a theory on my part.

Oh, and you made your point on the HQ mules. It is an exploit. It is one the flexibility of the game allows. However, Grigsby probably never envisioned them being used in that way. I don't have a problem with someone using that ability and would find it a tragedy to restrict the games, IMO, intended flexibility.

Guess we're done on that one anyway. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 11:23 am

Originally posted by BrickReid:

Ed, did those units get special 1 time? 1 time only? I don't believe 1 special supply is enough to get them above the critical threshold to prevent the shatter. They need multiple special supplies in the most vulnerable units.

[/QB]

BrickReid,

The bug that Ed is referring to is very confusing so I will do my best to explain it. When blizzard weather occurs in 1941, the game engine divides the German CV by 4 to check for retreat and shatter events at the end of a battle. It also gives the German player 1/4 of all existing squads as a minimum for that check. However when the actual combat occurs, the combat losses are taken from the actual readiness. In a test I did a long time ago, the higher the readiness the greater the losses. When a very strong unit is at 99 readiness there is a very high probability that it will shatter when hit by a reasonable force. The lower the readiness the lower the losses and the higher the probabiltiy that the same unit will hold. In fact if the readiness is only 10, the losses are very small because only 10% of the force is exposed to losses but for event checks 25% of squads minus the losses are used and the unit never retreats. The next patch is supposed to fix this. This condition wasn't present in Gary's WIR v1.1 because I checked that version also and the same very strong unit at 99 readiness never retreated or shattered. For your information if you can't get a German unit up to readiness 99 you have a much better chance that it will not shatter but its losses will be higher than it would if you never gave it special supply to begin with. My advice has been to not give special supply to any unit if that raises the readiness over 50 during 41 blizzard weather. The CV is divided by 2 in first 11 weeks of 1942 if the weather is blizzard but the automatic 1/4 minimum squads goes away. That condition makes it very tricky for German players against other human players and most opt to limit the Soviet advance to the first 4 weeks. The Soviet AI does not take advantage of this bug and looks at the unmodified CV to decide whether to attack or not.

I hope that is not too confusing.

Svar

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 12:52 pm

BrickReid wrote...

Ed, did those units get special 1 time? 1 time only? I don't believe 1 special supply is enough to get them above the critical threshold to prevent the shatter. They need multiple special supplies in the most vulnerable units.

I have to say something here. I was one of the original "finders" of the blizzard bug and RickyB may still have my saved game where I did find it. In that case I spent 5 or more weeks preparing my position, diging in troops, using special supply (1 time only since that is what the rules allow) to raise my readiness of my critical units to as high as possible. I had a Infantry Korp with 3 INF divisions, 1 StG battalion, 2 ARTY, 1 FLAK at a scale 5 entrenchment in the mountains (SL 3+) shatter when a single soviet Army attacked it. I had other units shatter as well including a Pz Korp at 99% readiness, in a scale 5 entrenchment in a minor city (where according to the manual it is immune to blizzard effects or so I thought although I don't believe that is actually writen in the manual but I am not sure anymore).

It doesn't matter how many times you use special supply 1 is enought if the readiness is high. And I made damn sure I had at least 20 OP left in each ARMEE HQ so that I had nothing odd happening due to lack of OPs. I only ever use special supply 1 time per unit...that is all the rules allow, and I could care less if you can work around this somehow.

I also had a unit shatter where the troops had been just a few week earlier railed in from Germany and had never been in combat so they were essentially at full strength.

The whole situation is nuts. I would expect the russians to have pushed me back a bit in the south where my line was a bit weaker (since I had been conducting limited offensives there to stabilize it) but in the north forget it. Those troops were neither exhaused, nor unfortified. Even with the blizzards I should have had little difficulty repulsing attacks.

The same is also true for the soviets in early 41. I have seen an army of 1 tank corps and 3 inf divisions defending behind a river, in a scale 2 entrenchment shatter due to an attack. I have seen 4 Inf divisons, 1 AT, 1 ARTY division in a major city also shatter with a single attack. It makes no sense when enhancing the readiness increases the chance of the unit coming appart at the seams in either the early part of 41 (soviets) or else in the blizzards (germans).

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 11:46 pm

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:

I have to say something here. I was one of the original "finders" of the blizzard bug and RickyB may still have my saved game where I did find it. In that case I spent 5 or more weeks preparing my position, diging in troops, using special supply (1 time only since that is what the rules allow) to raise my readiness of my critical units to as high as possible. I had a Infantry Korp with 3 INF divisions, 1 StG battalion, 2 ARTY, 1 FLAK at a scale 5 entrenchment in the mountains (SL 3+) shatter when a single soviet Army attacked it. I had other units shatter as well including a Pz Korp at 99% readiness, in a scale 5 entrenchment in a minor city (where according to the manual it is immune to blizzard effects or so I thought although I don't believe that is actually writen in the manual but I am not sure anymore).

It doesn't matter how many times you use special supply 1 is enought if the readiness is high. And I made damn sure I had at least 20 OP left in each ARMEE HQ so that I had nothing odd happening due to lack of OPs. I only ever use special supply 1 time per unit...that is all the rules allow, and I could care less if you can work around this somehow.

I also had a unit shatter where the troops had been just a few week earlier railed in from Germany and had never been in combat so they were essentially at full strength.

The whole situation is nuts. I would expect the russians to have pushed me back a bit in the south where my line was a bit weaker (since I had been conducting limited offensives there to stabilize it) but in the north forget it. Those troops were neither exhaused, nor unfortified. Even with the blizzards I should have had little difficulty repulsing attacks.

The same is also true for the soviets in early 41. I have seen an army of 1 tank corps and 3 inf divisions defending behind a river, in a scale 2 entrenchment shatter due to an attack. I have seen 4 Inf divisons, 1 AT, 1 ARTY division in a major city also shatter with a single attack. It makes no sense when enhancing the readiness increases the chance of the unit coming appart at the seams in either the early part of 41 (soviets) or else in the blizzards (germans).

Paul and Svar,
Thanks for setting me straight on this and clarifying the details. I had not meant to challenge your efforts to test the legitimacy of your work. Looking back on my post I see that I was not even thinking about efforts to verify the bug. I apologize for jumping too quickly into something I didn't understand well enough to have an opinion on.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 12:02 am

Originally posted by BrickReid:
Ed, did those units get special 1 time? 1 time only? I don't believe 1 special supply is enough to get them above the critical threshold to prevent the shatter. They need multiple special supplies in the most vulnerable units.

Look at Svar's and Paul's responses.

I think of it this way: Grigsby wanted to allow special supply. How to do it? IMO, he chose to allow multiple special supplies so that a player could add a variety of levels of extra supply. For example. One guy has a front being attacked on a wide area. He would want to spread the special supply to many units to give all of the units he expects to get attacked (a lot of them) boosted up a little. This would require him to ration his special supply by only giving one special supply to each of many units. That would make it so none of them are at 99% readiness, BUT, they would be better off than they were.

Ok.

NOW, a second player, vs. a different opponent, faces concentrated attacks in a very narrow area. This player would want to focus his special supply on those units being attacked while witholding special supply from lower-threat areas. So he would want to give them as much supply as he could.

Note to everyone: This discussion is now shifting to special supply abuse.

Look at it this way, as you and others have argued special supply is just about supplies: The logistical system has a fixed capacity, so very heavy actions in a confined area are likely to bring that logistical system to 100% capacity trying to help all units there, but it can't help all because the local road and rail net is the bottleneck. So having extra "supplies" elsewhere using HQ mules, doesn't help since you can't shove more supplies through the fixed-sized logistical pipe you have.

If you want to argue units should be able to get more than 1 special supply that may be a reasonable debate. I wouldn't argue against a unit being allowed 2 special supplies, I'd sit on the fence and let everyone else argue about it, but the specific debate here so far has included many special supplies per unit and the use of HQ mules.

Since Grigsby, IMO, PROBABLY decided to allow multiple special supplies (instead of making special supply simply use up OPs until the unit was at 99%, which is what I would expect if he had wanted it to be a one time affair), the player must special supply multiple times.

He did allow multiple special supplies, but only from the receiving unit's HQ, not multiple HQs as with the HQ mule tactic.

NOW, to connect this to Blizzard, if I can. Those units that are shattering after receiving special supply ONLY ONE TIME are doing so because the ONE special supply is not sufficient to get them above the shatter threshold that multiple special supplies would allow. Just a theory on my part.

Look at Svar's and Paul's responses.

Oh, and you made your point on the HQ mules. It is an exploit. It is one the flexibility of the game allows. However, Grigsby probably never envisioned them being used in that way. I don't have a problem with someone using that ability and would find it a tragedy to restrict the games, IMO, intended flexibility.

Great! If we agree about HQ mules, then with the rest we are very close. You may be right, 1 special supply might be too restrictive, 2 might be more reasonable, I just don't know. A half dozen or more though just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I wasn't here when the decision to restrict special supply was made, so I don't know what the rationale was for allowing just one special supply.

[ September 03, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 8:39 am

Hi, Ed.

Maybe we are returning to civility, you and I. Anyway, in my last post you commented on you mention that I'm returning to the mule issue. I'm not. The HQ that controls a unit is capable of multiple special supplies if he has enough OP points for the #/type of units in the Corps receiving them. So no HQ mule would need to be involved. I've also been made aware of the real reason and test result efforts of the shattering bug (apparently you were so excited about jumping on my post that you failed to read the last post I made that thanked Paul and Svar), so my "IMO the shatter bug" comment is poof, gone from consideration.

Oh, the whole (paraphrased) "the roads are full to capacity and you couldn't run any more supplies down them if you wanted to" argument is creative, even entertaining, but doesn't do you justice from some of your better reasoned arguments of before. My example (defending against concentrated attacks need for multiple special supply) is a good one. Whether it is correct or not is another story since I'm trying to say what Grigsby may have been thinking, but, you'll have to give a better effort than that. One such as, "Yeah, well I talked to Gary the other day, and he says you're full of crap." That'd work. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: BrickReid ]</p>

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Sep 04, 2001 10:23 am

Originally posted by BrickReid:

The HQ that controls a unit is capable of multiple special supplies if he has enough OP points for the #/type of units in the Corps receiving them. So no HQ mule would need to be involved.

Damn, and I thought we were making progress....

You still aren't making sense here. In the current game, v3.0, the last public release, the HQ can NOT give multiple Special Supply (SS) to a unit. This is why I'm still trying to figure out what you're talking about. In the original versions, 1.3 and earlier, the HQ could give multiple SS, but only to units assigned to it (you could however change the corps's HQ to get more SS).

What you can do now is assign units to one HQ, use up all that HQ's OPs on SS then shift those units back to an HQ with plenty of OPs, air support, and a decent leader. You can still only give one SS per corps though, unless you use the rename-corps "feature", but this does require many unused corps names in the pool, and each corps name in the available list can only be used once, and the corps is then unable to plot movement that turn, and more importantly, you can't change its HQ anymore that turn.

(apparently you were so excited about jumping on my post that you failed to read the last post I made that thanked Paul and Svar)

No, I don't jump on them because they are your posts, I jump on them after reading their content. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Oh, the whole (paraphrased) "the roads are full to capacity and you couldn't run any more supplies down them if you wanted to" argument is creative, even entertaining, but doesn't do you justice from some of your better reasoned arguments of before.

Oh come on, I spent a whole 5 MINUTES on that argument, its PERFECT! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

If you can come up with arguments that aren't quite so confusing, then I promise to spend a little more time on mine. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

One such as, "Yeah, well I talked to Gary the other day, and he says you're full of crap." That'd work.

Could you give me his phone number? You must have it considering you're the one claiming to know what Gary intended. This statement sounds like its coming from you, not me. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>