Wirraway_Ace,
LOL! Yeah, Triandafilov is turning in his grave as we speak
. What can I say, I'm just the craaazzzzyyy sort of guy who likes to mix and match my nomenclature [:D]
witpqs,
Well, it is a philosophical issue really. I think Tracker is an excellent tool for presenting data as is the sunk ships tool and various other utilities. However I believe that since the tactical is subordinate to the operational and the operational to the strategic the KEY layer to keep an eye on is the strategic layer (or national policy objective layer if you have a meta-narrative in which that layer is active ). I don't believe in getting down into the nitty gritty. E.g. I don't have any idea about the main gun layouts of USN CAs or CLs or which DDs have 4 inch guns vs 5 inch guns or what the FlAK values of the various ships are. I just generally assume that a CA is a CA is a CA, a CL is a CL is a CL and so on and so forth.
My focus is all about manoeuvre and fire creating dislocation which results in strategically important outcomes. Tracker focuses on the technical-tactical characteristics of units, the minutiae of tracking sigint across the map and the specifics of convoys plowing certain routes. I tend to view all of that as irrelevant detail at the strategic level. I tend to concern myself with whether a base has "enough or not enough" supply/AV support/naval support etc. I also don't bother with intel reports from subsidiary theatres most of the time. I view them as potential distractions from the theatre of decision ( in most of my games I don't even bother to read sigint etc ).
E.g. for the Ramree operation I don't have any tabulation of what forces I'm sending. I know I'm sending "enough" infantry ( about 1.5 to 2.5 divisions, I'm not sure precisely how much since 1.5 is enough to take the empty base and so is 2.5 divisions and their role after Ramree is taken is to demonstrate a threat which must be countered. Again 1.5 divisions is enough for this, 2.5 divisions would simply be a bonus. ), "enough" AV support and "enough" engineers ( about 300 engineer equivalents). I'm also sending "enough" AAA - 2 to 4 units, I forget how many and "enough" coastal defence (1 to 2 units ).
Once "enough" is available I'm happy to launch the invasion. I don't need to know precisely how much is present. Given this viewpoint I feel that Tracker would simply add lots of data but little information which would impact on my decision-making so I don't use it.
E.g. 2@ How many planes will I commit to resupplying Shimushiri-jima? Well, I don't know. I've decided I'm going to commit the uSAAF heavy bombers and medium bombers to the mission as well as my PBY-4/5s. I'm simply going to look through my air units and commit 100% of the heavy and medium bombers and 66% of the PBYs, whatever that number is. This is a major decision point and warrants that commitment. Of course I will assess how much 100% of the heavy and medium bombers and PBYs is. I want to deliver about 600 tons a day by air so if that commitment won't do it then I'll have to bring in additional planes but I won't clutter my planning by doing a count. My sense is that what I have available is "enough" and that's good enough for my planning purposes.
I do understand that that sort of approach would strike some as slapdash and horrify them but I view it as concentrating on the bigger picture and leaving the unimportant details to my staff [:D].
My view is that if you can't describe all of your plans across the entire map in a 5 or 6 sentence paragraph in sufficient detail to pick up the game again after 6 months away then you're probably getting bogged down at layers below the strategic and are unlikely to have the laser-sharp focus on the strategic layer necessary for truly good play, IMO.
For example, my paragraph would be:
Try to hold the Kuriles islands while building up the Aleutians in preparation for a push into Hokkaido next spring. Hold him by the belt buckly in the rest of the Pacific pushing forward opportunistically if he retreats from his far-flung holdings. Conduct littoral amphibious ops a la Warsaw Pact vs Norway along the Burmese and Malaysian coastline. Clear Oz and push north to Davao using FT Tfs and LBA to cover hops. In China pin his forces in place and keep Hengchow in my hands ready for transformation into a major bomber base once UK forces create a proper overland route into China via Thailand. Cut off the Japanese economy's supply of oil via a Cannae-like double-envelopment with the short pincer being Singapore to Southern Borneo and the long pincer being Hengchow to the Davao.
At that stage I expect Damian to surrender. If he doesn't then I'd add another two lines. "Continue the land push along the island chain from Formosa to Japan while also clearing Korea via land campaign. Once both prongs are in position threaten landings from Korea, the island chain leading from Formosa and Hokkaido and, if he doesn't surrender then, actually follow through with the landings."
So, nothing against Tracker at all. I just think it tends to distract people from what's important.
