ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Taken in context, that's a really witty remark.
I suppose I should keep quiet while being falsely accused of ... whatever it was you were implying.
You are, after all, the guy who thinks supply is like cell phone coverage. If ten people can talk in Eastern Oregon, a hundred can, and likewise with the supply paradigm TOAW uses. If the Wehrmacht can support an attack by two divisions on Murmansk, it can support an attack by twenty.
Didn't I just answer this canard back on post #89 in the FITE Opinions thread?
Regardless, I'll repeat it: That was never my position. My position was that addressing this would only usefully benefit a specific suite of scenarios. Most would not really benefit. It was a priority issue.
Then there's your refusal to admit that artillery and armor simply become useless when they run out of supplies.
No. I refuse to admit that artillery and armor (or anything else) are out of supply just because they've reached 1% unit supply levels. That would be absurd (again, see that post #89).
Then there's your idea that one can move just as fast in the presence of heavy interdiction as otherwise.
Again, that was not my position. My position was that the total exposure incurred getting from A to B in daylight is independent of the speed you take to get there. There was no evidence that moving slower got you any real cumulative benefit. The real way to get from A to B in the presence of heavy interdiction is to move at night. Furthermore, the mechanism you proposed was severely flawed.
Then there's your notion that the way to model AA's effect is to have it shoot down planes.
Well, it does shoot down planes! But you want it to affect bombardment efficacy as well. I say that's already built in. We know that because bombing results are respectably historical. The game assumes that bombers are taking precautions against AAA. Perhaps there should be a bombing boost for those rare occasion where the target has no AAA, and the bombers know it. But those are rare exceptions.
Then there's your notion that wadis are like trenches.
My position is that the Wadi
tile in TOAW is modeling a dry river bed - and nothing else. As such, it's only benefit would be to shelter defenders inside it. Canyons, cliffs, marsh, mountains, etc. are features that have to be added.
Try and actually understand my position before you erect your straw men.
Finally, and perhaps worst of all, once you've adopted your position on any of these issues or anything else, you will bitterly and vociferously defend it, making free use of whatever abusive language comes to hand. You just keep concocting increasingly spurious defences of whatever your original position was, no matter how absurd the claims you have to start making as a consequence. The 'wadi' argument was an excellent illustration of that.
I do change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong. But my positions are reasoned and I stick to the facts. My comments are directed at the positions, not the person.
You, on the other hand, revert to personal comments right from the getgo every time. It's your MO. Take this post, for example - it's nothing but personal comments. And it's the same in almost every post you make.
Here's a novel idea: Just once, stick to the facts and defend your position on its merits alone. Wouldn't that be a sight!
