ORIGINAL: moses
I'm just pointing out that "global" supply, by which I mean the total amount of supply existing on the map at any one time, is probably not a problem. It is a red hering which halts any attempts to discuss, much less fix, actual potential problems.
The ease with which both sides can move supply about the map is an issue which gives a less then historical feel to the game. The ability to instantly convert supply into anything needed at a specific location also gives rise to issues which might profitably be addressed.
Many possible changes have been discussed to improve supply. These are generally lost in the noise of those who are intent on demonstrating that the game is "broken" or "worthless".
Well, taking it from the bottom up . . . the game as published was simply riddled with bugs. That's for openers. As far as I know it's still riddled with bugs, but as I haven't played it for half a year I could be wrong about that--I don't believe I'm wrong about that, but it's just possible. [8|]
As for the game design itself: it's so piss poor when it comes to the logistics side of matters that I'm
almost without words to describe my disappointment. The war in the PTO was all about "supply" in all it various forms, quantities, nuances, distributions and the difficulty to get it where it was needed when it was needed in sufficient quantity. The game system as published does not address this reality in any manner, shape or form that I am aware of. But. If you disagree with that summation, please feel free to correct me
specifically where I have that wrong somehow. I'm always willing to learn.
And it's a "red herring" to complain about too much "supply" sitting
for free here, there or the next place?
I laugh (to myself) whenever Russ tries to talk around these little problems with his assertion that the game is really just a strategic treatment of the war, and so these "details" are unimportant to play. Which is, of course, exactly backward. Were the game strictly a strategic treatment of events then
LOGISTICS would be the one thing that would need to be designed correctly if the game had any hope whatsoever to function convincingly. About the best example I could offer of the other extreme end of that game-design scale would be a strictly tactical system, like
Squad Leader, say, where "supply" might be abstracted, or even done away with completely, and still offer reasonably intelligent play. But the farther back you step, and smaller the map scale becomes, then the more largely looms the spectre of all things logistics.
This is most especially the case in a game on the Pacific Theater of Operations, where, on the one hand, Japan needed to get basically everything it needed for survival somewhere else, ship that back to Japan, convert that into war stuff (this requires time, by the way--a supply point doesn't automatically convert into an artillery round the moment it's off-loaded), then further ship that war stuff to the military at the front; whereas the Allies, who already had what they basically needed, were required to ship everything needed by its collective military merely
from somewhere--mostly America--to its forces at the front, with the vast majority of this war stuff transported on ships, but the logistical effort made by the Allies outstripped Japan's by at least two orders of magnitude, both in terms of size of the effort and the technical expertise shown to overcome the many real problems this overall operation entailed.
A dumbed-down logistics model in that kind of scenario equates into saccharine play automatically, strips the design of any possible meaningful relevance to World War II in the Pacific. In short, it doesn't work because it couldn't work because it ignores the obvious. Everyone knows (except the Japanese fanboys) that once the Allies get what they need where it's needed and begin to fight the Japanese, then the war will begin to wind down. That's because once that happens the equation has been reduced to one of simple attrition, a case where the Japanese are screwed. All of this is what's called a "given" or "truism." The
fun part should be to try and correctly manage that logistics effort, for either side. That's where the real meat of play is. The rest (combat strategy) is no more than a mechanical exercise in, again . . . attrition warfare.
Now, should someone try to counter that with, "But wait a minute, I'm only interested in the fighting aspects of play, I don't care about the detail of supply," then I would be forced to point out that
all three combat models also happen to be fried. In fact, I'm not sure in which area the game falls down worse in, logistics, which is patently hopeless, or the three combat models. You tell me. Which works "best" for you?
