Comprehensive Wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Another point in the ever-resuming volume supply debate.

The current system makes it impossible to discriminate between an ability to attack in one or two sectors and the kind of supply stockpile necessary to launch attacks all along the front.

Right now in the match of Seelowe I am playing, the Germans can attack everywhere just as easily as in one sector. If there are enough supplies for one corps to attack, there are enough for all of them to attack. German supply is magical -- whatever level it is set at, there will be the same number of loaves and fishes for all.

How many times do you want to rehash this over and over?

Oh well. Let's see, there are these things called "Supply Units". They can be used to focus supplies onto a section of the front at the expense of other sections. Of course, that's already been discussed repeatedly.

I do want to point out that the abstraction that Ben proposed to address port capacity wouldn't benefit this issue.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Another point in the ever-resuming volume supply debate.

The current system makes it impossible to discriminate between an ability to attack in one or two sectors and the kind of supply stockpile necessary to launch attacks all along the front.

Right now in the match of Seelowe I am playing, the Germans can attack everywhere just as easily as in one sector. If there are enough supplies for one corps to attack, there are enough for all of them to attack. German supply is magical -- whatever level it is set at, there will be the same number of loaves and fishes for all.

How many times do you want to rehash this over and over?

Oh well. Let's see, there are these things called "Supply Units". They can be used to focus supplies onto a section of the front at the expense of other sections. Of course, that's already been discussed repeatedly.

I do want to point out that the abstraction that Ben proposed to address port capacity wouldn't benefit this issue.

Supply units, while they do allow some emphasis to be placed on one sector rather than another -- albeit with a rather strange and arbitrary paradigm -- hardly address the essential point that supply does not work like a television signal. It does indeed matter how many mouths there are to be fed.

...in the real world, that is. Not in TOAW. In TOAW, if you've got enough gas to fuel one tank, you've got enough gas to fuel a thousand -- and as long as you stick with that paradigm, TOAW will work in spite of its supply rules, not because of them.

[ColinWright]

Thinking about the supply thing...

What about a piggy-back system (I believe JAMiAM suggested something like this)? The current paradigm remains there. Bob Cross can make no use of the addition if it pleases him. Others might want to have a minimal level of traditional supply, or no traditional supply at all.

Then there would be supply units. In their creation, aside from the usual values, the designer would set the following:

1. How many 'supply points' they contained. One supply point would be sufficient to provide one weight point with 100% of its supply.

2. What radius they were to distribute these points over. Same hex only? One hex? Seven hexes?

If the designer put supply units in the scenario at all, players would move them as they would normal units, then disband them whenever they liked.

When they were disbanded, the program would look at all cooperative units within the radius of the supply unit, look at their weight points multiplied by the percentage they were short of supply, and adjust by their loss setting. It would then allocate the supply points to each unit. This is a routine similar to that already used for distributing replacements.

Some points.

1. The cooperation level would allow the designer to make it possible for one force to be favored over another when it came to getting the goodies. Like, in a North Africa scenario, maybe only German units get all gassed up -- not Italian. The US Marines get all topped up -- not their Wookie allies.

2. The loss setting would allow players to guide the distribution of the supply points. 'Minimize losses' -- multiply the 'need' by zero. 'Limit losses' -- by one. 'Ignore losses' -- by two, or four, or whatever value seemed best. Since the distribution would be instantaneous, this wouldn't affect the unit's behavior in combat. The player could reset the loss setting to whatever he wanted once the supply unit had been disbanded and its contents distributed.

Now, someone may well have suggestions as to how this could be improved, or note practical problems with the programming required. However, for those who cling to some more sweeping objection, I have a response.

Don't use it in your scenarios.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Then there would be supply units. In their creation, aside from the usual values, the designer would set the following:

1. How many 'supply points' they contained. One supply point would be sufficient to provide one weight point with 100% of its supply.

2. What radius they were to distribute these points over. Same hex only? One hex? Seven hexes?

If the designer put supply units in the scenario at all, players would move them as they would normal units, then disband them whenever they liked.

When they were disbanded, the program would look at all cooperative units within the radius of the supply unit, look at their weight points multiplied by the percentage they were short of supply, and adjust by their loss setting. It would then allocate the supply points to each unit. This is a routine similar to that already used for distributing replacements.

Some points.

1. The cooperation level would allow the designer to make it possible for one force to be favored over another when it came to getting the goodies. Like, in a North Africa scenario, maybe only German units get all gassed up -- not Italian. The US Marines get all topped up -- not their Wookie allies.

2. The loss setting would allow players to guide the distribution of the supply points. 'Minimize losses' -- multiply the 'need' by zero. 'Limit losses' -- by one. 'Ignore losses' -- by two, or four, or whatever value seemed best. Since the distribution would be instantaneous, this wouldn't affect the unit's behavior in combat. The player could reset the loss setting to whatever he wanted once the supply unit had been disbanded and its contents distributed.

Well, that's a simple version of a discrete supply system. It's not too different from the one already in the wishlist.

The one thing you're missing is a re-definition of what constitutes being "Unsupplied". Technically, under the above, units would remain in supply without ever needing to get any delivered. They'd eventually be at 33/1, of course, but still in supply. There's also an issue about units needing to consume some supply, even in a quiet section of the front with no combat or movement. Otherwise, units at 100/100 stay that way forever without ever seeing a supply unit. This almost necessitates inclusion of component supply to the algorithm.

And I don't like the distribution-radius thing, since that introduces all sorts of complications (interdiction issues, path issues, MP cost issues, etc.).

I had envisioned the supply being "lifted" by the units, rather than being part of their TO&E. That's a simpler way to do it. But perhaps there could be a combat effect such that loss of Supply Unit transport equipment also destroyed an equivalent fraction of their supply "points". And I wanted the lift units to be ad hoc units created on the fly, rather than official parts of the OOB. Your way may be better - simpler at least. But scenarios already at the OOB limits will have a problem.

You don't cover the return trip for the supply units, though. I assume you mean for them to just reconstitute back at the supply point, skipping that return trip. There's also the issue that units in an "unsupplied" condition can't disband. So an isolated pocket with a big horde of supply units wouldn't be able to use them. A refinement might be to design the supply units to "deposit" the supply in the hex without disbanding, then deny them reconstitution. Then they'd have to make a round trip and wouldn't have to be in supply to distribute their load.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Then there would be supply units. In their creation, aside from the usual values, the designer would set the following:

1. How many 'supply points' they contained. One supply point would be sufficient to provide one weight point with 100% of its supply.

2. What radius they were to distribute these points over. Same hex only? One hex? Seven hexes?

If the designer put supply units in the scenario at all, players would move them as they would normal units, then disband them whenever they liked.

When they were disbanded, the program would look at all cooperative units within the radius of the supply unit, look at their weight points multiplied by the percentage they were short of supply, and adjust by their loss setting. It would then allocate the supply points to each unit. This is a routine similar to that already used for distributing replacements.

Some points.

1. The cooperation level would allow the designer to make it possible for one force to be favored over another when it came to getting the goodies. Like, in a North Africa scenario, maybe only German units get all gassed up -- not Italian. The US Marines get all topped up -- not their Wookie allies.

2. The loss setting would allow players to guide the distribution of the supply points. 'Minimize losses' -- multiply the 'need' by zero. 'Limit losses' -- by one. 'Ignore losses' -- by two, or four, or whatever value seemed best. Since the distribution would be instantaneous, this wouldn't affect the unit's behavior in combat. The player could reset the loss setting to whatever he wanted once the supply unit had been disbanded and its contents distributed.

Well, that's a simple version of a discrete supply system. It's not too different from the one already in the wishlist.

The one thing you're missing is a re-definition of what constitutes being "Unsupplied". Technically, under the above, units would remain in supply without ever needing to get any delivered.

How do you figure? Unless a supply unit was brought in and disbanded, unsupplied units would be unsupplied just as they are now.

They'd eventually be at 33/1, of course, but still in supply. There's also an issue about units needing to consume some supply, even in a quiet section of the front with no combat or movement. Otherwise, units at 100/100 stay that way forever without ever seeing a supply unit.

How does this differ from the current system?

This almost necessitates inclusion of component supply to the algorithm.

And I don't like the distribution-radius thing, since that introduces all sorts of complications (interdiction issues, path issues, MP cost issues, etc.).

I see the distribution radius thing as necessary (or at least very desirable) for two reasons.

On the one hand, you don't want supply units that are Father Christmas and give everyone on the map a supply bonus. That's going to perpetuate all kinds of problems and create some new ones.

On the other hand, you don't want silliness with units forming stacks with the supply unit to garner the supplies -- nor do you want myriads of little supply units all over the place.

An adjustable radius lets designers get whatever effect they want. Now, if you want to incorporate terrain, interdiction effects, etc, that could be an improvement -- but it might also make it unnecessarily complex for players to calculate the effects and use the units intelligently. After all, neither you nor I want to see properly manipulating one's supply units as the key to victory. For my part, I just want something that allows for a supply system that is essentially volume-based for those designers that feel the need.

I had envisioned the supply being "lifted" by the units, rather than being part of their TO&E. That's a simpler way to do it. But perhaps there could be a combat effect such that loss of Supply Unit transport equipment also destroyed an equivalent fraction of their supply "points". And I wanted the lift units to be ad hoc units created on the fly, rather than official parts of the OOB. Your way may be better - simpler at least. But scenarios already at the OOB limits will have a problem.

They would only have problems if they were modified to take advantage of the additional mechanism. It's like the introduction of guerilla units. You don't have to put them in your scenario

You don't cover the return trip for the supply units, though. I assume you mean for them to just reconstitute back at the supply point, skipping that return trip. There's also the issue that units in an "unsupplied" condition can't disband. So an isolated pocket with a big horde of supply units wouldn't be able to use them. A refinement might be to design the supply units to "deposit" the supply in the hex without disbanding, then deny them reconstitution. Then they'd have to make a round trip and wouldn't have to be in supply to distribute their load.

It seems to me that the program could just be told to allow supply units to disband regardless of their supply status -- or to regard them as always in supply. And if this can't be done -- oh well. The supply units would still improve matters for most situations in most scenarios.

In general, though, I will grant that there are all kinds of possible refinements and improvements. However, I wanted to start with something that was as simple as possible and that yet would yield a clear and significant improvement over the current situation.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
How do you figure? Unless a supply unit was brought in and disbanded, unsupplied units would be unsupplied just as they are now.

Under the current rules units are only rated "unsupplied" if they lack a supply communications path back to a supply point. That would have to be revised in some fashion to require players to deliver some supply to non-isolated units. Furthermore, because of this, unsupplied units are also, by definition, "isolated". So the consequences of being unsupplied also include consequences associated with being isolated (stragglers, etc. sent to dead pile instead of the pools, for example). We'd actually need separate definitions of "unsupplied" and "isolated" - with separate consequences.

How does this differ from the current system?

Currently a non-isolated unit doesn't consume supply just sitting there. An isolated one does. That's fine for an abstract system. But now, this needs to apply to all units, regardless of supply state, since we're going to be accounting for the actual delivery and associated lift requirements.

This almost necessitates inclusion of component supply to the algorithm.

And I don't like the distribution-radius thing, since that introduces all sorts of complications (interdiction issues, path issues, MP cost issues, etc.).

I see the distribution radius thing as necessary (or at least very desirable) for two reasons.

On the one hand, you don't want supply units that are Father Christmas and give everyone on the map a supply bonus. That's going to perpetuate all kinds of problems and create some new ones.

On the other hand, you don't want silliness with units forming stacks with the supply unit to garner the supplies -- nor do you want myriads of little supply units all over the place.

An adjustable radius lets designers get whatever effect they want. Now, if you want to incorporate terrain, interdiction effects, etc, that could be an improvement -- but it might also make it unnecessarily complex for players to calculate the effects and use the units intelligently. After all, neither you nor I want to see properly manipulating one's supply units as the key to victory. For my part, I just want something that allows for a supply system that is essentially volume-based for those designers that feel the need.

I understand your concerns, but I'm also sure it's going to introduce a lot of complexity into the coding task because it's an amalgamation of both discrete supply and abstract supply at the same time. And it will cause a realism hit.

Just take the interdiction issue. Under the current abstract method, supply interdiction is abstracted during the calculation phase based on the enemy interdiction level. That level is based on the combination of the amounts of air assets assigned to interdiction versus the enemy map area they have to cover. Under a pure discrete supply system, their would be no such abstraction. Rather, the supply units themselves would be subject to unit movement interdiction. But with an amalgamation, the supply units themselves get interdicted traveling up to the radius range, then the rest of the way has to be abstracted somehow (based on what?). And that last bit is the part where interdiction is most likely (closest to the front).

Then there is the path issue. I would assume you want at least some path code. Otherwise it would broadcast supply to isolated units. Beyond that, there is a timing issue. The supply unit gets within range of the front with its last MP, disbands, and the front gets supplied like magic. And that radius could even be multiple turns of movement away from the front. In that case, there actually wouldn't be a guarantee that the supply would ever have gotten there, due to subsequent enemy action that might have isolated that section of the front.

I think a better solution is to focus coding on a "Quartermaster Assistant" that would relieve the player of some of the burden (necessary for the PO regardless). Or maybe there's an even better way we haven't thought of yet.

I had envisioned the supply being "lifted" by the units, rather than being part of their TO&E. That's a simpler way to do it. But perhaps there could be a combat effect such that loss of Supply Unit transport equipment also destroyed an equivalent fraction of their supply "points". And I wanted the lift units to be ad hoc units created on the fly, rather than official parts of the OOB. Your way may be better - simpler at least. But scenarios already at the OOB limits will have a problem.

They would only have problems if they were modified to take advantage of the additional mechanism. It's like the introduction of guerilla units. You don't have to put them in your scenario

You don't cover the return trip for the supply units, though. I assume you mean for them to just reconstitute back at the supply point, skipping that return trip. There's also the issue that units in an "unsupplied" condition can't disband. So an isolated pocket with a big horde of supply units wouldn't be able to use them. A refinement might be to design the supply units to "deposit" the supply in the hex without disbanding, then deny them reconstitution. Then they'd have to make a round trip and wouldn't have to be in supply to distribute their load.

It seems to me that the program could just be told to allow supply units to disband regardless of their supply status -- or to regard them as always in supply. And if this can't be done -- oh well. The supply units would still improve matters for most situations in most scenarios.

In general, though, I will grant that there are all kinds of possible refinements and improvements. However, I wanted to start with something that was as simple as possible and that yet would yield a clear and significant improvement over the current situation.

The thing is, there's not going to be a kaleidoscope of discrete supply systems developed. We have to settle on the best one. Note that I'm not discounting that some of your ideas may be better than mine. We're just discussing it.

An advantage of "ad hoc" supply units it that it would give the players some needed flexibility. And the return trip requirement is a realism issue.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
How do you figure? Unless a supply unit was brought in and disbanded, unsupplied units would be unsupplied just as they are now.

Under the current rules units are only rated "unsupplied" if they lack a supply communications path back to a supply point. That would have to be revised in some fashion to require players to deliver some supply to non-isolated units. Furthermore, because of this, unsupplied units are also, by definition, "isolated". So the consequences of being unsupplied also include consequences associated with being isolated (stragglers, etc. sent to dead pile instead of the pools, for example). We'd actually need separate definitions of "unsupplied" and "isolated" - with separate consequences.

How does this differ from the current system?

Currently a non-isolated unit doesn't consume supply just sitting there. An isolated one does. That's fine for an abstract system. But now, this needs to apply to all units, regardless of supply state, since we're going to be accounting for the actual delivery and associated lift requirements.

You're not making sense to me. The only explanation I can see for your remarks is that you are referring to some system you have in mind that differs from what I have proposed.

How have I started 'accounting for the actual delivery and associated lift requirements'? I don't think I've set up an mechanism for that at all.

This almost necessitates inclusion of component supply to the algorithm.

And I don't like the distribution-radius thing, since that introduces all sorts of complications (interdiction issues, path issues, MP cost issues, etc.).

I see the distribution radius thing as necessary (or at least very desirable) for two reasons.

On the one hand, you don't want supply units that are Father Christmas and give everyone on the map a supply bonus. That's going to perpetuate all kinds of problems and create some new ones.

On the other hand, you don't want silliness with units forming stacks with the supply unit to garner the supplies -- nor do you want myriads of little supply units all over the place.

An adjustable radius lets designers get whatever effect they want. Now, if you want to incorporate terrain, interdiction effects, etc, that could be an improvement -- but it might also make it unnecessarily complex for players to calculate the effects and use the units intelligently. After all, neither you nor I want to see properly manipulating one's supply units as the key to victory. For my part, I just want something that allows for a supply system that is essentially volume-based for those designers that feel the need.

I understand your concerns, but I'm also sure it's going to introduce a lot of complexity into the coding task because it's an amalgamation of both discrete supply and abstract supply at the same time. And it will cause a realism hit.

Just take the interdiction issue. Under the current abstract method, supply interdiction is abstracted during the calculation phase based on the enemy interdiction level. That level is based on the combination of the amounts of air assets assigned to interdiction versus the enemy map area they have to cover. Under a pure discrete supply system, their would be no such abstraction. Rather, the supply units themselves would be subject to unit movement interdiction. But with an amalgamation, the supply units themselves get interdicted traveling up to the radius range, then the rest of the way has to be abstracted somehow (based on what?). And that last bit is the part where interdiction is most likely (closest to the front).

Well, this presupposes that the current interdiction model is a particularly faithful or accurate representation of reality. I don't think it is, so it doesn't disturb me that we may be affecting how it operates.

Then there is the path issue. I would assume you want at least some path code. Otherwise it would broadcast supply to isolated units.

I'd tend to see this as not necessarily essential. People who really didn't want isolated units benefiting when a supply unit disbanded could simply set the radius of supply units to zero or one -- or refrain from using supply units at all. After all, units that are in isolated positions often do manage to obtain sporadic supply. It's not like it would necessarily be all that unrealistic if the disbanding of a supply unit led to supplies reaching that stack isolated two hexes away -- nor would it necessarily solve those units' problem. Indeed, the owning player might not want to piss away his supply that way -- in which case he would set them to 'minimize losses' while he disbanded the supply unit.

However, if you can code a path algorithm for the distribution of supply points from the supply unit, I won't object to the feature. I just don't see it as either vital or overwhelmingly important.

Beyond that, there is a timing issue. The supply unit gets within range of the front with its last MP, disbands, and the front gets supplied like magic. And that radius could even be multiple turns of movement away from the front. In that case, there actually wouldn't be a guarantee that the supply would ever have gotten there, due to subsequent enemy action that might have isolated that section of the front.

Yeah. However, the supply unit is to some extent an abstraction in the first place: see it as representing the locus of supplies that have actually been brought up somewhat earlier and are now actually getting to the units in the area in question. Alternatively, one could always put in code preventing the unit from disbanding after it has expended movement points.

I think a better solution is to focus coding on a "Quartermaster Assistant" that would relieve the player of some of the burden (necessary for the PO regardless). Or maybe there's an even better way we haven't thought of yet.

They would only have problems if they were modified to take advantage of the additional mechanism. It's like the introduction of guerilla units. You don't have to put them in your scenario

It seems to me that the program could just be told to allow supply units to disband regardless of their supply status -- or to regard them as always in supply. And if this can't be done -- oh well. The supply units would still improve matters for most situations in most scenarios.

In general, though, I will grant that there are all kinds of possible refinements and improvements. However, I wanted to start with something that was as simple as possible and that yet would yield a clear and significant improvement over the current situation.

The thing is, there's not going to be a kaleidoscope of discrete supply systems developed. We have to settle on the best one. Note that I'm not discounting that some of your ideas may be better than mine. We're just discussing it.

An advantage of "ad hoc" supply units it that it would give the players some needed flexibility. And the return trip requirement is a realism issue.

As a player, I'd rather not have to jerk around with moving 'exhausted' supply units that -- like MP's, rail repair units, etc -- would really be something of an abstraction in the first place. In the search for 'realism' it needs to be borne in mind that we may not be simulating something that is particularly 'real' in the first place. After all, supply units generally don't move as concentrated hordes located in one particular hex. I'm just using units to move supply because they are easily seen and controlled by the player.

Naturally, players might do all sorts of things, but the way I tend to visualize using such a system would be to have a minimum of traditional supply -- like 5%. Then a modest number of supply units -- like maybe one for every fifty units appearing each turn. These move up to the front and disband. The focus can either be on getting everyone ready to withstand the impending onslaught, by going first to one sector and then another, to unleash Bagration by the same means, or to quickly pump up one sector and deliver something like Citadel.

Note how well this could work. Like, when the Russians go over to their own attacks in response to Citadel, one of the reasons I will be motivated to abandon my own attack is that I will need to start diverting my own supply units to refuel those units who are resisting the Russian onslaught.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
You're not making sense to me. The only explanation I can see for your remarks is that you are referring to some system you have in mind that differs from what I have proposed.

I'll try one more time. Currently, the supplied/unsupplied state is based on one thing and one thing only: whether the unit has a communications path back to a supply point. So, unless that is changed, delivery of supply units will not affect the unit's supply state.

How have I started 'accounting for the actual delivery and associated lift requirements'? I don't think I've set up an mechanism for that at all.

We're talking about discrete supply handling. Lift is fundamental to that.

Well, this presupposes that the current interdiction model is a particularly faithful or accurate representation of reality. I don't think it is, so it doesn't disturb me that we may be affecting how it operates.

It doesn't presuppose anything about the current system. It presupposes that the discrete supply system we adapt (whatever it is) will be a particularly faithful and accurate representation of reality.

Then there is the path issue. I would assume you want at least some path code. Otherwise it would broadcast supply to isolated units.

I'd tend to see this as not necessarily essential. People who really didn't want isolated units benefiting when a supply unit disbanded could simply set the radius of supply units to zero or one -- or refrain from using supply units at all. After all, units that are in isolated positions often do manage to obtain sporadic supply. It's not like it would necessarily be all that unrealistic if the disbanding of a supply unit led to supplies reaching that stack isolated two hexes away -- nor would it necessarily solve those units' problem. Indeed, the owning player might not want to piss away his supply that way -- in which case he would set them to 'minimize losses' while he disbanded the supply unit.

Wow. I guess if that's your attitude, then a distribution radius (sans any other code support) is ok, provided it's a trivial feature to code. If it's non-trivial, however, I'll revive my objections.

Yeah. However, the supply unit is to some extent an abstraction in the first place: see it as representing the locus of supplies that have actually been brought up somewhat earlier and are now actually getting to the units in the area in question. Alternatively, one could always put in code preventing the unit from disbanding after it has expended movement points.

I don't see it as any more of an abstraction than any other unit. And even if it has to wait a turn to disband, that's only one turn. As I said, the radius could extend multiple turns away.

As a player, I'd rather not have to jerk around with moving 'exhausted' supply units that -- like MP's, rail repair units, etc -- would really be something of an abstraction in the first place. In the search for 'realism' it needs to be borne in mind that we may not be simulating something that is particularly 'real' in the first place. After all, supply units generally don't move as concentrated hordes located in one particular hex. I'm just using units to move supply because they are easily seen and controlled by the player.

There might be alternate ways to do it. Suppose supply units pay double the MP cost for each hex they enter. The thing that needs to be modeled is the interdiction chance and supply cost of the return trip. Remember that it's the fuel the supply units themselves consume that accounts for the exponential decay of supply values for a given distance from the supply source. Wihout modeling that, supply would be projected unrealistically far.

But, personally, I'd rather just include the return trip.

Naturally, players might do all sorts of things, but the way I tend to visualize using such a system would be to have a minimum of traditional supply -- like 5%. Then a modest number of supply units -- like maybe one for every fifty units appearing each turn. These move up to the front and disband. The focus can either be on getting everyone ready to withstand the impending onslaught, by going first to one sector and then another, to unleash Bagration by the same means, or to quickly pump up one sector and deliver something like Citadel.

Note how well this could work. Like, when the Russians go over to their own attacks in response to Citadel, one of the reasons I will be motivated to abandon my own attack is that I will need to start diverting my own supply units to refuel those units who are resisting the Russian onslaught.

I think an amalgamated system would be much harder to code and would be useful for far fewer of the, currently, impossible-to-model topics. Better to have a choice of two systems, one abstract & the other discrete.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
You're not making sense to me. The only explanation I can see for your remarks is that you are referring to some system you have in mind that differs from what I have proposed.

I'll try one more time. Currently, the supplied/unsupplied state is based on one thing and one thing only: whether the unit has a communications path back to a supply point. So, unless that is changed, delivery of supply units will not affect the unit's supply state.

Okay. I'm not sure I see that as a real problem. After all, even if we bring a supply column into Stalingrad, until we establish a permanent line of communications, they're still isolated. Half of their losses shouldn't go into the pool and all that.

How have I started 'accounting for the actual delivery and associated lift requirements'? I don't think I've set up an mechanism for that at all.

We're talking about discrete supply handling. Lift is fundamental to that.

Why? I'm talking about designer determined supply units that appear as he decides with the strength he decides and the attributes he decides. How does 'lift' enter into this?

Well, this presupposes that the current interdiction model is a particularly faithful or accurate representation of reality. I don't think it is, so it doesn't disturb me that we may be affecting how it operates.

It doesn't presuppose anything about the current system. It presupposes that the discrete supply system we adapt (whatever it is) will be a particularly faithful and accurate representation of reality.

Oh that'd be a bit ambitious -- and likely be unnecessarily complex. I'd settle for something that merely qualifies as an improvement over the current situation. Now, if you want to improve matters still further, that could be good. However, first, it's not a prerequisite, and second, it may or may not be practicable.

Then there is the path issue. I would assume you want at least some path code. Otherwise it would broadcast supply to isolated units.

I'd tend to see this as not necessarily essential. People who really didn't want isolated units benefiting when a supply unit disbanded could simply set the radius of supply units to zero or one -- or refrain from using supply units at all. After all, units that are in isolated positions often do manage to obtain sporadic supply. It's not like it would necessarily be all that unrealistic if the disbanding of a supply unit led to supplies reaching that stack isolated two hexes away -- nor would it necessarily solve those units' problem. Indeed, the owning player might not want to piss away his supply that way -- in which case he would set them to 'minimize losses' while he disbanded the supply unit.

Wow. I guess if that's your attitude, then a distribution radius (sans any other code support) is ok, provided it's a trivial feature to code. If it's non-trivial, however, I'll revive my objections.

Yeah. However, the supply unit is to some extent an abstraction in the first place: see it as representing the locus of supplies that have actually been brought up somewhat earlier and are now actually getting to the units in the area in question. Alternatively, one could always put in code preventing the unit from disbanding after it has expended movement points.

I don't see it as any more of an abstraction than any other unit. And even if it has to wait a turn to disband, that's only one turn. As I said, the radius could extend multiple turns away.

Well, aside from everything else, I would prefer a system where the effects are relatively easily predicted by the player -- and where he doesn't have to spend an undue amount of time calculating what they will be. I don't want to play the 'Operational Art of Logistics' -- I merely want some system that operates on principles more in accord with actual reality than the current one.

Hence my preference for a relatively simple (for the player, anyway) mechanism with easily understood effects that requires a minimum of book-keeping. However, if it is more complex, I can live with that too.

As a player, I'd rather not have to jerk around with moving 'exhausted' supply units that -- like MP's, rail repair units, etc -- would really be something of an abstraction in the first place. In the search for 'realism' it needs to be borne in mind that we may not be simulating something that is particularly 'real' in the first place. After all, supply units generally don't move as concentrated hordes located in one particular hex. I'm just using units to move supply because they are easily seen and controlled by the player.

There might be alternate ways to do it. Suppose supply units pay double the MP cost for each hex they enter. The thing that needs to be modeled is the interdiction chance and supply cost of the return trip. Remember that it's the fuel the supply units themselves consume that accounts for the exponential decay of supply values for a given distance from the supply source. Wihout modeling that, supply would be projected unrealistically far.

But, personally, I'd rather just include the return trip.

...Well, there's nothing intrinically accurate about including 'the return trip.' It's not like this will automatically reflect the actual cost of delivering supplies anything more than anything else.

Indeed, the simple mechanism of the supply units can reflect the attrition you refer to. If one has so many supply units that will keep reconstituting themselves after being disbanded, the further they have to travel from their start hex, the less effective supply they can deliver.

Assume that the mechanism only permits supply units to be disbanded at the start of a turn . Let's look at two cases. In the first, the supply units take one turn to reach their destination. Let's assume six supply units. At the start of a given turn, two units have just appeared, two are in position to be disbanded, and two are somewhere in the bowels of the reconstitution process. Two supply units worth of supply will be delivered each turn.

Now assume the trip takes four turns. On a given turn, one unit has just appeared, three are in route but too far away to benefit anyone if they disband, one is in the process of reconstituting, and only one is delivering effective supply.

Part of the beauty of this system is that the designer can determine how strong this effect will be -- simply by manipulating the remoteness of the appearance hex and the movement rate of the supply unit. Almost any desired rate of attenuation of supply can be obtained.

Naturally, players might do all sorts of things, but the way I tend to visualize using such a system would be to have a minimum of traditional supply -- like 5%. Then a modest number of supply units -- like maybe one for every fifty units appearing each turn. These move up to the front and disband. The focus can either be on getting everyone ready to withstand the impending onslaught, by going first to one sector and then another, to unleash Bagration by the same means, or to quickly pump up one sector and deliver something like Citadel.

Note how well this could work. Like, when the Russians go over to their own attacks in response to Citadel, one of the reasons I will be motivated to abandon my own attack is that I will need to start diverting my own supply units to refuel those units who are resisting the Russian onslaught.

I think an amalgamated system would be much harder to code and would be useful for far fewer of the, currently, impossible-to-model topics. Better to have a choice of two systems, one abstract & the other discrete.

...Hopefully you're wrong. The enormous advantage of an amalgamated system is that it allows one to have most of the benefits of discrete supply without having an enormous book-keeping chore. You just conciously bring up supply for your 'big push.' You don't have to fret about those divisions peacefully moldering in the Vosges.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Okay. I'm not sure I see that as a real problem. After all, even if we bring a supply column into Stalingrad, until we establish a permanent line of communications, they're still isolated. Half of their losses shouldn't go into the pool and all that.

It's needed. The current definitions are very crude. They need more sophstication, even within the current abstract system, but especially for discrete supply. It's not that big a of a deal. I was just mentioning it. No need to dig in your heels.

Why? I'm talking about designer determined supply units that appear as he decides with the strength he decides and the attributes he decides. How does 'lift' enter into this?

I'm talking about implementing a discrete supply system in general, not treating your suggestion like it was the unchangeble Word of God. What would be the point of coding something that contained 90% of the elements of a discrete supply system, but then stopping short of actually creating one?

Well, aside from everything else, I would prefer a system where the effects are relatively easily predicted by the player -- and where he doesn't have to spend an undue amount of time calculating what they will be. I don't want to play the 'Operational Art of Logistics' -- I merely want some system that operates on principles more in accord with actual reality than the current one.

Hence my preference for a relatively simple (for the player, anyway) mechanism with easily understood effects that requires a minimum of book-keeping. However, if it is more complex, I can live with that too.

I suppose a radius of 1 (adjacent to the supply unit) would be doable, and would simplify things significantly.

...Well, there's nothing intrinically accurate about including 'the return trip.' It's not like this will automatically reflect the actual cost of delivering supplies anything more than anything else.

I don't understand why you think that. Supply transport really does take round trips. They don't deliver their supply and then "poof" into vapor, to reappear magically back at the supply point. The round trip means that they pay fuel costs both ways and suffer interdiction both ways.

Indeed, the simple mechanism of the supply units can reflect the attrition you refer to. If one has so many supply units that will keep reconstituting themselves after being disbanded, the further they have to travel from their start hex, the less effective supply they can deliver.

Assume that the mechanism only permits supply units to be disbanded at the start of a turn . Let's look at two cases. In the first, the supply units take one turn to reach their destination. Let's assume six supply units. At the start of a given turn, two units have just appeared, two are in position to be disbanded, and two are somewhere in the bowels of the reconstitution process. Two supply units worth of supply will be delivered each turn.

Now assume the trip takes four turns. On a given turn, one unit has just appeared, three are in route but too far away to benefit anyone if they disband, one is in the process of reconstituting, and only one is delivering effective supply.

Part of the beauty of this system is that the designer can determine how strong this effect will be -- simply by manipulating the remoteness of the appearance hex and the movement rate of the supply unit. Almost any desired rate of attenuation of supply can be obtained.

I don't see the beauty of leaving my supply system at the mercy of the caprices of the reconstitution system. Nevertheless, there's no reason we can't have it both ways. Designers can choose whether supply units can reconstitute or not (or perhaps we can add an option as to whether they can disband or not).

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



I'm talking about implementing a discrete supply system in general, not treating your suggestion like it was the unchangeble Word of God.

I believe it's 'unchangeable.' Also, you should have capitalized 'Your.'

[rhinobones]

Would like to see the designer able to write events (or maybe some other function) that start the scenario with suggested/recommended default Advanced Option settings. It would be up to the designer as to which options are defaulted; some, all, none, whatever. As always, Player 1 would the have the option to accept the default values or make changes.

If the designer did set defaults, maybe on Player 1 Turn 1 a screen would pop up before the game was initialized advising the player that defaults had been set and a visual of the defaults either shown or explained in text. The player would then have the option to “Continue” or “Reset Advanced Options”.

Regards, RhinoBones

[golden delicious]

Agree. Should be fairly simple, and will become increasingly important if we add more radical game settings

[KASHANKA]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Designers can choose whether supply units can reconstitute or not (or perhaps we can add an option as to whether they can disband or not).

I agree, I think just as we have the "reconstitute-or-not" setting, we should have a "disbandable-or-not" setting.
Some scenarios would benefit (A stalingrad scenario for example - the player would be free to disband the Hungarian 2nd army, but not the encircled 6th Army in Stalingrad).

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: KASHANKA

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Designers can choose whether supply units can reconstitute or not (or perhaps we can add an option as to whether they can disband or not).

I agree, I think just as we have the "reconstitute-or-not" setting, we should have a "disbandable-or-not" setting.
Some scenarios would benefit (A stalingrad scenario for example - the player would be free to disband the Hungarian 2nd army, but not the encircled 6th Army in Stalingrad).

In this connection, note that currently air units cannot be disbanded.

One wonders why. Anyway, it would be nice if they could be disbanded.

[ColinWright]

A fairly simple idea.

At some point in my current tussle with Curtis LeMay, the idea of separating the combat effect of negative shock from its other effects (primarily, the tendency of formations to go into reorg) came up.

It occurred to me that I already do this -- in effect. In one scenario, for some specific formations on a specific turn (it could just as easily be a range of turns), there is a probability that a 'form'n orders' event will fire, causing them to go into garrison deployment for one turn.

This led me to the thought that it would be very useful if one could have 'Form'n Orders -Army' and 'Form'n orders - Force.'

Then -- with dependent cancelling events of course -- one could have in effect the ability to create probabilities for not just one formation but an entire army or even the entire force changing deployment orders in whatever way was desired.

[rhinobones]

Withdrawn

[rhinobones]

Would like to see an assault class of ships added. Unlike the purely cargo class, the assault class would be able to disembark (land) troops on the same turn that it arrived in a coastal hex. Landing, of course, would require that a minimum amount of movement points be available to conduct the maneuver. There might also be limitations on the terrain and troops that can conduct such an assault.

Regards, RhinoBones

[ColinWright]

I was just thinking about a way of simulating minefields -- won't work, but it could easily be made to work.

The genesis of the idea came from my observations of the effects of 'contaminated' hexes. There's a huge movement penalty, and units will supposedly lose readiness if they sit in the hexes.

So...one could 'lay mines' by having a nuclear attack on vacant hexes.

The problem, of course, is that the effect is permanent, and randomly affects nearby hexes. Also, it would be nice if engineer units could 'lay' the mines rather than having some specialized bomber unit governed by house rules flying about to do the job. Then too, one wants engineers to be able to clean them up, or if one wants to reduce the bookkeeping, just have them evaporate once no unit is adjacent or within some given radius. Probably the latter, as minefields that aren't supported by defenders lose most of their military value. Not necessarily desireable to have your combat engineers diligently tidying up minefields long after the war has moved on.

However, the main point is that it strikes me that much of the programming must already be in place to permit 'minefields' if they are approached in this way.

[fogger]

[font="times new roman"]Some ideas for future updates[/font]

[font="times new roman"]The ability to assign air units to a recon role and the ability to assign an area for that unit to recon.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Air units to be able to bomb an empty hex or airfield. (I think that there is an enemy unit hiding there) [/font]
[font="times new roman"]The ability to assign artillery units to counter battery fire only.  [/font][/ol]