Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Saying the AI can manage it isn't convincing. Have you tried the Air Staff Assistant lately?

And I was just about to say, "Couldn't we let the computer handle the details, and leave the player to make the big decisions?" Given the well-documented performance of the Air Staff Assistant, maybe that's not such a good idea.

I still like the the concept of beefing up the supply management aspect though.

PaladinSix

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Have you tried the Air Staff Assistant lately?

You must mean the ASS (Air Staff (Assisted) Suicide). No thank God. I always keep them under guard, lock and key. Talking acronyms, we could call the new game TOAST- The Operational Art of Supply Techniques.

Seriously though, given everything else there is to sort out, I'd dare to suggest the current abstraction is sufficient for now.

ORIGINAL: General Staff

Talking acronyms, we could call the new game TOAST- The Operational Art of Supply Techniques.

If only we were still play COW. Then we could have toasted beef sandwiches.

Seriously though, given everything else there is to sort out, I'd dare to suggest the current abstraction is sufficient for now.

I dunno. There are bits and peices- but reworking the supply model is a big deal.

ORIGINAL: General Staff

I don't know. Maybe someone was a quartermaster in a previous life.

Why, yes, yes indeed.

I'm with GD on avoiding real world units of measure in TOAW supply. While I have a background in military logistics, I would not find it entertaining to try to figure out how much bottled water was needed per division in a modern Middle East campaign, nor get in debates about how much room could be saved by dispensing with the plastic and cardboard and simply shipping the water in bulk (trust me, it isn't as much fun as it sounds), but as a player of TOAW interested in having a supply system that acts plausibly without becoming the focus of the game, I can see there is room for improvement.

The scope of the game is vast enough that having "units of supply" would be more flexible than figuring out real tonnages, and would help keep the focus of the game where it should be, on combat.

The goal would be to give the player or scenario designer the power to make choices that logistics impose on a commander, not to make the player a logistician. Deciding where a limited amount of fuel should go might be interesting, but working out how it should get there would be tedious.

This discussion reminds me of the infamous supply system in the boardgame version of The Campaign For North Africa:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Campaign_for_North_Africa
 
I for one very happy that the TOAW version of CFNA keeps track of interesting details like, say, Italian divisions historically needing extra water rations for cooking pasta...it does it internally I suppose, so I don't have to.  I suspect that if I ever played the boardgame version, I would find having to focus on such supply concerns rather tedious.  [:)]

I like the idea of units with a low supply percentage not being able to attack, perhaps restricted to armoured units only. This is a simple idea and simple is best?. Armoured units at 1% supply could suffer a high attrition rate in mechanised equipment for each movement point used. This would be historical and a nice simulation of having to abandon heavy equipment, the equipment being possibly recoverable later.
Dave

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson
This would be historical and a nice simulation of having to abandon heavy equipment, the equipment being possibly recoverable later.

Sent to replacements unless the evacuated hex was an enemy ZOC.