Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
It should. There are routines for Armored strength, etc. I'd include Artillery in that too, though. I'd want to make the fact that suppy is critical (below 33%?) very apparent to the player somehow too by adding a black little icon instead of red or something.

Please tell me you're not seriously considering the above.

Nothing will be done without research and talking to the Beta team about consequences, etc. I don't like some things, like artillery being able to fire with very few rounds, but that's a personal preference, and won't be reflected in the design of TOAW without firm justification. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean that it doesn't model reality well within TOAW. I know that I'm a programmer, and not a historian or a scenario designer. The fact that it's lasted this long with this strong an audience indicates to me that it does a reasonable job of modeling operational warfare.

Right now, some people do pay attention to supply, and it makes a difference in gameplay, so it's possible that what really needs adjustment is the UI to make it clearer to people exactly what the impact of supply is to help them manage it better.

There are a lot of factors in TOAW that are not very apparent like that, terrain being another one that I'd like to make more apparent.

Thanks,
Ralph

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
It should. There are routines for Armored strength, etc. I'd include Artillery in that too, though. I'd want to make the fact that suppy is critical (below 33%?) very apparent to the player somehow too by adding a black little icon instead of red or something.

Please tell me you're not seriously considering the above.

Nothing will be done without research and talking to the Beta team about consequences, etc. I don't like some things, like artillery being able to fire with very few rounds, but that's a personal preference, and won't be reflected in the design of TOAW without firm justification. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean that it doesn't model reality well within TOAW. I know that I'm a programmer, and not a historian or a scenario designer. The fact that it's lasted this long with this strong an audience indicates to me that it does a reasonable job of modeling operational warfare.

Right now, some people do pay attention to supply, and it makes a difference in gameplay, so it's possible that what really needs adjustment is the UI to make it clearer to people exactly what the impact of supply is to help them manage it better.

There are a lot of factors in TOAW that are not very apparent like that, terrain being another one that I'd like to make more apparent.

Thanks,
Ralph

Awesome.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Regardless, try and imagine the impact if units can be reduced to zero combat strength so trivially.

IMO if you think getting down to 1% supply is trivial then that's teh best argument I have for introducing the system - it will stop it beign trivial!

It can be reached trivially. Whether it is trivial itself is not the point.

I have to credit SMK here with being logically consistent. Given his assumption about what 1% supply means, he's taken it to its logical conclusion. If it means you have no fuel or ammo, then you're going to be immobile and helpless = 0 MP and 0 combat strength.

That that conclusion is absurd argues better than I ever could that it can't mean that. And it doesn't.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...
I have to credit SMK here with being logically consistent. Given his assumption about what 1% supply means, he's taken it to its logical conclusion. If it means you have no fuel or ammo, then you're going to be immobile and helpless = 0 MP and 0 combat strength.

That that conclusion is absurd argues better than I ever could that it can't mean that. And it doesn't.

Again , pardon me for asking, but in the above you clearly say that 1% supply , does not mean what SMK is implying, then what does it mean?

I'm assuming from what you posted before , that meanwhile you have come to an more conclusive answer that is still eluding me:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...Again, what does 1% supply mean, considering the above factors? It's a very abstract factor.

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...
I have to credit SMK here with being logically consistent. Given his assumption about what 1% supply means, he's taken it to its logical conclusion. If it means you have no fuel or ammo, then you're going to be immobile and helpless = 0 MP and 0 combat strength.

That that conclusion is absurd argues better than I ever could that it can't mean that. And it doesn't.

Again , pardon me for asking, but in the above you clearly say that 1% supply , does not mean what SMK is implying, then what does it mean?

Simply, it means the baseline level of supply that a unit in continuous action and with a line of communication can be expected to sustain for indefinite lengths of time.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

IMO if you think getting down to 1% supply is trivial then that's teh best argument I have for introducing the system - it will stop it beign trivial!

It can be reached trivially. Whether it is trivial itself is not the point.

It is for me!! If it carried major problems, rather than some inconveniences, then people would pay a lot more attention to not achieving it.

I have to credit SMK here with being logically consistent. Given his assumption about what 1% supply means, he's taken it to its logical conclusion. If it means you have no fuel or ammo, then you're going to be immobile and helpless = 0 MP and 0 combat strength.

Well it is the lowest supply state possible in the game - there is no such thing as 0% supply - if there was then I'd argue the point for 0% instead of 1%.

That that conclusion is absurd argues better than I ever could that it can't mean that. And it doesn't.

why is the conclusion absurd? It seems perfectly logical to me - the lowest supply state you can achieve is 1%.....in "real life" the lowest supply state you can achieve is to have no supplies. the 2 seem logically equivalent.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Simply, it means the baseline level of supply that a unit in continuous action and with a line of communication can be expected to sustain for indefinite lengths of time.

It took a couple of reads, but I think I have deciphered the meaning to this statement. Is this a correct paraphrase:

A unit with an X% supply rating is capable of providing the unit with X% supply for the next tactical round of combat and movement.

Correct? If so, does the X represent the amount of 100% that the unit would need in order to fully utilize all weapons, or enable all movement, during the next tactical round of combat? There seems to be some confusion, from myself at least, concerning exactly what 1% represents in the real world of logistics.

Regards, RhinoBones

OK - I'm confused....1% supply represents continuous supply at a level which can sustain continuous combat?
 
What is it that represents no supply then??!![&:][&:] 

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

OK - I'm confused....1% supply represents continuous supply at a level which can sustain continuous combat?

What is it that represents no supply then??!![&:][&:] 

Being cut off from supply: The word 'unsupplied' in the unit info panel, where it shoudl read 'supplied'.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That that conclusion is absurd argues better than I ever could that it can't mean that.

Why not? A gun without bullets is just a lump of metal. An artillery peice without shells is just a really big lump of metal- and if you don't have any fuel or fodder, you can't move it.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Simply, it means the baseline level of supply that a unit in continuous action and with a line of communication can be expected to sustain for indefinite lengths of time.

Simply put, it is the point where Jesus Christ gets into uniform and starts feeding the 5,000 howitzers.

Or: the point of simulation at which the TOAW model for supply consumption ceases to operate, since no more supply can be taken away from the unit.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: jmlima
Again , pardon me for asking, but in the above you clearly say that 1% supply , does not mean what SMK is implying, then what does it mean?

Simply, it means the baseline level of supply that a unit in continuous action and with a line of communication can be expected to sustain for indefinite lengths of time.

Exactly. It means just what the formulas for movement allowance and combat strength imply that it means.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That that conclusion is absurd argues better than I ever could that it can't mean that.

Why not? A gun without bullets is just a lump of metal. An artillery peice without shells is just a really big lump of metal- and if you don't have any fuel or fodder, you can't move it.

So Panzer Divisions, after a bit of movement and combat routinely became immobile and helpless. Lots of case histories of grandmothers with brooms wiping out the Waffen SS.

It's absurd to think that combat units blow off all their supply, oblivious to how short they're getting. The condition doesn't represent an out-of-supply state or even a near out-of-supply state. And if TOAW actually operated as if it did then it would be a joke.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It's absurd to think that combat units blow off all their supply, oblivious to how short they're getting. The condition doesn't represent an out-of-supply state or even a near out-of-supply state. And if TOAW actually operated as if it did then it would be a joke.

The crowd stands and cheers!! Loudly!!

it's up to the player to chose how oblivious to supply he wants to be.
 
The situation also applies to cut-off units - they can be without supply for long periods, but according to you they would never run out of anything!

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

OK - I'm confused....1% supply represents continuous supply at a level which can sustain continuous combat?

What is it that represents no supply then??!![&:][&:] 

Being cut off from supply: The word 'unsupplied' in the unit info panel, where it shoudl read 'supplied'.

And jsut what effect does that have?? None. The unit still gets to operate at the 1% supply level, regardless of how long it has been cut off, and apparently this represents adequate supply.

If this is really how TOAW is supposed to operate then it is even more of a flaw than I supposed!!

Units DID run out of supply - often surrendering because of it. Zhukov notes in his memoirs that some of his units had a ration of 1-2 shells perday for their artillery in the Moscow offensive - their supply state was so parlous that effectively their artillery was useless - my proposal would ahve those units operating their artillery at very low effectiveness at 1% supply.

how is that wrong?

There's an awful lot of rhetoric and passion being thrown against my idea, but bugger all else that I can see.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

OK - I'm confused....1% supply represents continuous supply at a level which can sustain continuous combat?

What is it that represents no supply then??!![&:][&:] 

Being cut off from supply: The word 'unsupplied' in the unit info panel, where it shoudl read 'supplied'.

And jsut what effect does that have?? None. The unit still gets to operate at the 1% supply level, regardless of how long it has been cut off, and apparently this represents adequate supply.

If this is really how TOAW is supposed to operate then it is even more of a flaw than I supposed!!

Units DID run out of supply - often surrendering because of it. Zhukov notes in his memoirs that some of his units had a ration of 1-2 shells perday for their artillery in the Moscow offensive - their supply state was so parlous that effectively their artillery was useless - my proposal would ahve those units operating their artillery at very low effectiveness at 1% supply.

how is that wrong?

There's an awful lot of rhetoric and passion being thrown against my idea, but bugger all else that I can see.

Well, for starters, I didn't say you were wrong. [;)] Not that I'm saying you're right...[:D]
Second, as to what effect it has: Have you ever had a unit at 1% supply cut off from replacements for a while? It's not a good thing. As well, a unit that is cut off from supply sees all of its casualties lost, with nothing returing to the on hand pool, another serious detriment to being cut off.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So Panzer Divisions, after a bit of movement and combat routinely became immobile and helpless. Lots of case histories of grandmothers with brooms wiping out the Waffen SS.

It's absurd to think that combat units blow off all their supply, oblivious to how short they're getting. The condition doesn't represent an out-of-supply state or even a near out-of-supply state. And if TOAW actually operated as if it did then it would be a joke.

You're assuming no other changes to the system, and that all equipment types would be treated the same. This is a bit like objecting to cars because they won't run on railway tracks.

Firstly, you'd have to revise the supply situation as suggested by Jarek over at TDG- it would take a lot longer to get to 0% supply but it would happen. Secondly, infantry would last a lot longer than vehicles and artillery.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

OK - I'm confused....1% supply represents continuous supply at a level which can sustain continuous combat?

What is it that represents no supply then??!![&:][&:] 

Being cut off from supply: The word 'unsupplied' in the unit info panel, where it shoudl read 'supplied'.

And jsut what effect does that have?? None. The unit still gets to operate at the 1% supply level, regardless of how long it has been cut off, and apparently this represents adequate supply.

If this is really how TOAW is supposed to operate then it is even more of a flaw than I supposed!!

Units DID run out of supply - often surrendering because of it. Zhukov notes in his memoirs that some of his units had a ration of 1-2 shells perday for their artillery in the Moscow offensive - their supply state was so parlous that effectively their artillery was useless - my proposal would ahve those units operating their artillery at very low effectiveness at 1% supply.

how is that wrong?

There's an awful lot of rhetoric and passion being thrown against my idea, but bugger all else that I can see.

No effect of being unsupplied? What game are you playing?

Unsupplied units in TOAW suffer severe debilitation: loss of equipment. That represents guns running out of shells, and vehicles running out of gas.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So Panzer Divisions, after a bit of movement and combat routinely became immobile and helpless. Lots of case histories of grandmothers with brooms wiping out the Waffen SS.

It's absurd to think that combat units blow off all their supply, oblivious to how short they're getting. The condition doesn't represent an out-of-supply state or even a near out-of-supply state. And if TOAW actually operated as if it did then it would be a joke.

You're assuming no other changes to the system, and that all equipment types would be treated the same. This is a bit like objecting to cars because they won't run on railway tracks.

Firstly, you'd have to revise the supply situation as suggested by Jarek over at TDG- it would take a lot longer to get to 0% supply but it would happen. Secondly, infantry would last a lot longer than vehicles and artillery.

I was assuming just exactly what SMK posted. And that would be a disaster and you know it.

Of course you can tear up all the code and start over in some other fashion. But what you would ultimately end up with would be pretty much what we have now - units that are very resilient & resourceful and can't be reduced to extremely low combat strength without some sort of break in supply communications - because that's how real units function.

And considering that that's how the game functions now, it's foolish to rip it all up if the few limitations can be fixed in some other fashion. It's the supply lines themselves that most need the fix.