Comprehensive Wishlist

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Quite right. My mistake.

I think you have the wrong thread. Here, when someone corrects you on a simple statement of fact, you're supposed to outright deny it so that we can argue for eight pages.

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Are you brain-dead or just retarded?

You know, I couldn't figure out if Ben's jab was at you or Bob...

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious




I think you have the wrong thread. Here, when someone corrects you on a simple statement of fact, you're supposed to outright deny it so that we can argue for eight pages.

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Are you brain-dead or just retarded?

You know, I couldn't figure out if Ben's jab was at you or Bob...

To be serious for a moment, I have admitted on three occasions in this thread alone when I erred, made a mistake, proposed an idea that had a serious flaw. I also habitually offer evidence to support my assertions. Finally, on the occasions when Bob advocates something that will actually improve matters, I readily say so.

Otherwise, I will fire back when fired upon. If Bob wants to go trumpeting about like a bull elephant in musth, he's gotta accept that some of us are going to pull out the ol' Nitro Express and take a few shots. Anyway, the real problem isn't who he is. It's where he is -- in the driver's seat. So when he has one of his brainstorms, we are in imminent peril of being subjected to it. We can also pretty much rest assured that any needs we might perceive will get short shrift. In fact, it won't get any shrift at all. There'll be this trumpeting noise, and...

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Where are your sources for units commonly being without fuel but having plenty of ammo or vice-versa? When was this a problem? Once?

If an army isn't primarily mechanized, fuel is not a big issue in the first place. If it is mechanized, then fuel is necessary to distribute the ammo. I'm very skeptical that it was especially common for there to be plenty of ammo but a crying shortage of fuel, or for there to be a shortage of ammo but plenty of fuel.

You've displayed remarkable faith in the abilities of quartermasters in the past -- in your book, they can simply magically generate whatever tonnage is needed.

I wouldn't go that far myself, but they can at least correctly apportion fuel and ammo. They are really very similar. They've both commodities that usually can't be found locally, are needed in large volume, and have to be brought up to the front. If there's no fuel, the ammo can't be brought up, so any fundamental shortage of fuel but not ammo is moot. Ammo that can't be distributed might as well not exist.

So why -- and where -- would one be short but not the other? If the army's driving but not fighting, the quartermasters will automatically start shipping more fuel and less ammo. If it's fighting but not driving, the ratio will reverse. This is not a necessary change. It's not even an advantageous one. It's just going to introduce a complication that probably usually wasn't there in the first place.

You're a big fan of the 'not in most scenarios' argument as well. Even if you do have some instance of a force chronically being short of ammo but not fuel or vice-versa, can you really say this was a common problem? Given that quartermasters do have brains if not magical powers, I doubt if it was.

This doesn't affect distribution, only expenditure. While fuel and ammo may be distributed in tandem, they are not expended in tandem. It is undeniable that units do not expend ammo just by moving. Conversely, combat mostly expends ammo.

This flaw affects all scenarios. Now, forces can't afford to manuver because they will be treated as if they are out of ammo by the time they get there. This makes the best tactic to just bludgeon straight ahead. It's a serious TOAW shortcoming. This change would permit units to manuver and still arrive with their full ammo load - and thereby most of their combat strength. And then they can fight while still retaining most of their mobility.

And, furthermore, it will justify lower CS/MA values than can be justified for just 1% supply. If we know that the unit has blown off its fuel instead of its ammo, a lower MA value for 1% fuel could be justified. If we know that a unit has blown off its ammo instead of its fuel, a lower CS value for 1% ammo could be justified. That, if you will recall, was what this discussion started about.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


It's a serious issue. Take the Commonwealth in the desert - mostly motorized infantry. Vs. the Italians - mostly foot infantry. The Italians dig in on a dune or badland hex. All a motorized infantry unit can do is stare at it. You can provide the Commonwealth with a few foot units to address this, but it's absurd that the motorized infantry can't deal with them instead. Let them convert to a foot unit long enough to do so.

There really was a difference between panzergrenadiers/motor rifle battalions and ordinary leg infantry that happened to be getting a ride in trucks. The former had organic transportation that stayed with them; the latter didn't.

Rather than screwing around with units that transform, I'd go with one of two solutions. Either...

(1) Truck 'carrier' units that can transport non-armoured units in the same way that aircraft carriers carry aircraft.

or...

(2) Something similar to rail capacity that allows non-armored units to 'entrain' and go galloping off. As noted, this can already be set up to some extent with a work-around, and it works surprisingly well.

That doesn't solve the problem. You still have a motorized infantry battalion that can only stare at a dug in Italian foot unit in a dunes hex. Why can't the infantry get out of their trucks and get after them? Are they glued into their seats?

The trucks would be sent (temporarily) to the pools. After the Italians were cleared out, they would be returned via the replacement system.

And, there were plenty of officially "motorized" units that had their transport stripped for logistics duty in the Desert War.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

This is what Rommel got from rail supply (daily average):

august: 151 tons
september: 211 tons
october: 134 tons
november: 122 tons

I'll admit I had never heard of that. But, that totals 18,825 tons in four months. That's about 8% of his needs. I suppose it depends upon one's definition of "activated".

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

Actually, water was not a big problem. It would have been if the operations moved south to the desert, but that didn't happen. Biggest supply issue was the fuel.

Clearly, water is only going to be an issue in a desert scenario, and even then it doesn't come from a factory in the homeland, but from a local well source.

Oh, I was talking about Africa, and said "desert" as opposed to the coastal area. Here's what Generalmajor A.Toppe said about this issue, in his study of the N. Africa campaign:

The water supply for the German troops in Africa was never a troublesome problem; therefore, it did not influence or hamper operational decisions. The chief reason for this was that there were always enough wells available.

In all combat operations, our chief concern was about motor fuel and not about the water supply. Only the garrison of Halfaya suffered severely from the lack of water after its well had been destroyed by gunfire.

He even said that getting water was easier than Africa compared with the non-cultivated areas in the Russian steppes.

And I was agreeing with you.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Otherwise, I will fire back when fired upon. If Bob wants to go trumpeting about like a bull elephant in musth, he's gotta accept that some of us are going to pull out the ol' Nitro Express and take a few shots. Anyway, the real problem isn't who he is. It's where he is -- in the driver's seat. So when he has one of his brainstorms, we are in imminent peril of being subjected to it. We can also pretty much rest assured that any needs we might perceive will get short shrift. In fact, it won't get any shrift at all. There'll be this trumpeting noise, and...

And fire when not fired upon - continuously. And no lie is too big for that purpose. Let's start with the oft-repeated lie that I'm in the driver's seat (see above). Or the one about how I'm opposing all improvements.

[Meyer1]

And I was agreeing with you.

Oops, sorry for the confusion.

I'll admit I had never heard of that. But, that totals 18,825 tons in four months. That's about 8% of his needs. I suppose it depends upon one's definition of "activated".

Yes, it was not enough. That's why they had to try with air supply from Crete, and they also were using the "normal" supply way (trucks). But, or course, that was not enough either. That's why they had supply problems [:)]

About the "activated" rail line definition, I think is pretty clear: if a line is being used at near maximun capacity, looks like pretty active to me. It certainly wasn't passive.
And the article suggest that the line was not used at all, this is how I understand it, this is how You understood it as well, is pretty unambiguous. Nolfi screwed up there, no doubt about that.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And fire when not fired upon - continuously. And no lie is too big for that purpose. Let's start with the oft-repeated lie that I'm in the driver's seat (see above). Or the one about how I'm opposing all improvements.

Improvements do tend to be subjective don't they? [:D]

[Panama]

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

[Meyer1]

GUI nitipick: I would like to get rid of the autocentering mouse feature. Really annoying.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

One can argue that at TOAW's scale, the river has already been crossed when the engineers get to work.

The Germans storm the Meuse with infantry in assault boats, drive the French a kilometer or so away from the river, and continue to advance -- but on a scale that wouldn't represent a whole hex in TOAW. Meanwhile, the engineers get to work, and by late that turn, the tanks are coming across.

Your complaint's valid, but I think the game should avoid attempts at tactical detail. Perhaps have engineers make their attempt in the combat round? This would avoid the instantaneous crossing/'pile in engineer battalions until the bridge is fixed.' They'd still be able to 'wave at the defenders' -- but at least one could avoid the instantaneous bridge repair.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

One can argue that at TOAW's scale, the river has already been crossed when the engineers get to work.

The Germans storm the Meuse with infantry in assault boats, drive the French a kilometer or so away from the river, and continue to advance -- but on a scale that wouldn't represent a whole hex in TOAW. Meanwhile, the engineers get to work, and by late that turn, the tanks are coming across.

Your complaint's valid, but I think the game should avoid attempts at tactical detail. Perhaps have engineers make their attempt in the combat round? This would avoid the instantaneous crossing/'pile in engineer battalions until the bridge is fixed.' They'd still be able to 'wave at the defenders' -- but at least one could avoid the instantaneous bridge repair.

I guess it's somewhat a matter of scale too. At 2.5 kilometers per hex the bridge is probably going to be able to be shot at with direct fire weapons. At 10 kilometers not so much. [;)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

GUI nitipick: I would like to get rid of the autocentering mouse feature. Really annoying.

Revised in 3.4 to address this.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Meyer1

About the "activated" rail line definition, I think is pretty clear: if a line is being used at near maximun capacity, looks like pretty active to me. It certainly wasn't passive.

Contrast this with how much tonnage the CW could move down that same line, or how much a normally active rail line could be expected to carry. I would say there are degrees of activation, rather than a simple yes or no. They could have brought more carriers or whatever else was needed to fully activate it.

Clearly, I can't represent it as a functioning rail line in CFNA, the way things work now. That would put El Alamein in full supply.

And the article suggest that the line was not used at all, this is how I understand it, this is how You understood it as well, is pretty unambiguous. Nolfi screwed up there, no doubt about that.

Yep.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

Personally, I prefer to defend on the super river rather than behind it.

And, if we had Item 2.2 in the Wishlist implemented that would be an even clearer choice.

[Curtis Lemay]

I thought of another benefit of Component Supply: finer control of unsupplied unit equipment desertions.

Currently, equipment desertions begin for unsupplied units when unit supply drops below 100-Unit Proficiency - and accelerates the further below that level it goes.

With supply split into fuel and ammo, this could be better fine tuned.

For example, guns might base this on the unit ammo level while vehicles base it on the unit fuel level. Self-propelled guns might base it on the worst of fuel or ammo. Finally, squads might base it on the higher of fuel or ammo. Thus, squads could be given an edge in staying power, just like Colin wants.

Also, there is a deduction in supply made for unsupplied units in the interturn calculations. That could be fine tuned as well - perhaps most of the deduction would be to the fuel number, with little or none to the ammo. This would again help keep squads around longer.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

Personally, I prefer to defend on the super river rather than behind it.

And, if we had Item 2.2 in the Wishlist implemented that would be an even clearer choice.

What benefit do you get from defending on the river. Well, other than the obvious hiding in water breathing through hollow reeds tactic. [:D]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

Personally, I prefer to defend on the super river rather than behind it.

And, if we had Item 2.2 in the Wishlist implemented that would be an even clearer choice.

What benefit do you get from defending on the river. Well, other than the obvious hiding in water breathing through hollow reeds tactic. [:D]

At OPART's scale, it's kind of a question of semantics if being on the river hex means you're 'on' the river. After all, if you're defending a river line, that presumably means you're within a couple of kilometers of the river in question. That would be 'on' the river at most scales.

Plus, it would address a lot of problems. Like the engineer one just brought up.

Then too, it would mean that rivers would wind up being handled more like wadis. I imagine that thought will make the idea still more appealing to Curtis.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

There's a super river in front of my units with a blown bridge. I need to fix the bridge so I can assault the six battalions on the other side of the river. I waltz up with an engineer battalion and repair the bridge, waving at the bad guys across the river. They smile and wave back. 'Good job on the bridge.', they say. Then I move up my tank and mech battalions, shell them into oblivion and attack.

So what's wrong with this? The engineers get a free pass, that's what. Shouldn't they take some kind of fire that would produce casualties and perhaps render the bridge operation, at least for that turn, unseccessful? Maybe they only work on bridges at night.

Personally, I prefer to defend on the super river rather than behind it.

And, if we had Item 2.2 in the Wishlist implemented that would be an even clearer choice.

What benefit do you get from defending on the river. Well, other than the obvious hiding in water breathing through hollow reeds tactic. [:D]

It's like a trench.

Only with indoor plumbing, no less.