Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

This forum is for feedback on any Public Beta updates. Feedback and issues related to official releases should go in the Support forum. All Beta version feedback and issues should go here.

Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky

ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Telumar
ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Add major river hexes offshore and a blown bridge that ferry units can allow supply to transit over, and you're getting somewhere.

Ummm... this doesn't work anymore with the new supply rules. Ralph said he would "fix" this in the next patch. Now as i write... reminds me of your anti-air problem you wrote about earlier this day... something gets fixed or improved but unintentionally breaks other things..

Well, hopefully it works if one opts for the old rules.

Checked that. Yeah, sea roads still work if one selects the old supply rules. Might even work with the new -- these sea roads are pretty long. Haven't really read the 'What's new' concerning the new supply rules too carefully. Does supply drop to zero if you're too far out?
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by ColinWright »

No...the new supply rules seem to 'fix' sea roads pretty good.  If the sea roads still worked, those units should show as supplied:

"...Also, note that under this formula, the supply level will continue to attenuate –
perhaps all the way to zero at some point. It will still be “Supplied” at that level, though..."


That's mildly disappointing, but okay.  The new supply rules were intriguing, but they weren't really going to help the scenarios I'm involved with anyway.  For one, I want the supply units to have their most marked effect when units are poorly supplied otherwise -- and under the new rules, just the opposite seems to occur.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by ColinWright »

Oh shi...

It seems that one is forced to use the new supply rules with PBEM games. So much for backwards compatibility...and so much for my scenarios.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2196
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am
Location: niflheim

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by Telumar »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Oh shi...

It seems that one is forced to use the new supply rules with PBEM games. So much for backwards compatibility...and so much for my scenarios.

No, no.. you still can start a PBEM with the old supply rules. Or what do you mean?
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

For the absolute most realism we need a 'supply unit' that, like I said, itself would not be in supply but could supply other units until it reached a certain supply level. This way they would have to be transported. Now if naval movement allowances could be fixed, you might see the difficulty supplying the Philippines because, realistically, while Sydney would be a supply source, Manila would not be. These units might have to be transported back to where they were in supply so they could recoup.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9932
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by sPzAbt653 »

There's nothing that prevents you from putting a supply point on every costal hex ...

Technically there is, as we can only place up to 99 supply points. Certainly enough for most scenarios, but not enough for most theater scenarios.
... we need a 'supply unit' that, like I said, itself would not be in supply but could supply other units ...

Merchant Fleets ?
... Sydney would be a supply source, Manila would not be.

Just dreaming about this, but Manila would be a supply source, but of limited capacity. This way the US units on the island would be 'in supply' in TOAW terms, but would not be able to 'resupply' when under constant attack. Unless of course the US had a large enough merchant marine fleet to keep Manila 'resupplied' via link with Sydney, along with enough combat fleet/air units to provide appropriate escort. Very easy for me to envision in TOAW terms. I can also picture a very nice cake, but could never make it.
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

There's a sealift capacity. I say move supplies like we move everything else. If subs ever get effectively represented perhaps all that's required is giving transported units some more of the qualities of ...transports. Merchant fleets are cool if there were were resources, but at this point we really are getting into another realm. So many years of waiting has me setting my sights a little lower. There are some that want to see me stretch my expectations in order to then claim I'm expecting too much. That much easier to justify doing nothing.

Manila might be a limited supply source in 1941, but hardly in 1944.

Ralph may be capable of integrating some of these changes his apologists have labeled 'revolutionary' or 'non-trivial' but in how many years, I have yet to actually see anything. Like Gen. Petraeus, he kinda writes his own report card.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9932
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by sPzAbt653 »

Manila might be a limited supply source in 1941, but hardly in 1944.

Yes, but in TOAW we can remove that limited supply source at Manila once the enemy occupies it, or whenever we bloody well feel like it !

And all of us have dreams, even Ralph ! Some of my dreams are nightmares, and I'm sure some of yours are too.

[X(]
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

The difference is I guess Petraeus has spent over a trillion dollars whereas Ralph has had to keep his day job.
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: macgregor

The difference is I guess Petraeus has spent over a trillion dollars whereas Ralph has had to keep his day job.

Also, Petraeus can figure a force with three units has five-ten officers whose sole purpose is to manage all aspects of coordinating and supporting those three units -- whereas we are shooting for a system where one guy can come home from work and do a decent job of managing two hundred units while having a beer.

I mention this because you seem to only concern yourself with accuracy. The system also needs to be simple -- compared to real life.

I am argumentative -- if you decide to argue for simplicity I'll cheerfully switch sides and demand scrupulous accuracy. At the same time, it is true that we need to look at 'bang for buck.' The benefits have to be weighed against the cost -- both in programming time and book-keeping for players.

Personally, I tend to concern myself with advocating changes to things that are simply simulated wrong as opposed to advocating greater detail -- particularly detail that concerns things that are peripheral or really can't be simulated correctly.

Submarines, for example...

Submarines were important -- but in an extra-TOAW sense. It's not like you should be able to move your 'submarine' unit and block all supply to the Philippines, or order your submarines to chase down and take out a particular battleship. They didn't -- and couldn't -- work like that. They are best simulated via the sealift and force supply level and perhaps events to cause warships to abruptly disappear. U-505 (or whatever) sank Barham about half-way through my Mediterranean scenario. I don't want to screw around with some mechanism that will allow a 'sub' unit to attack the 'Barham' unit (the sinking was entirely serendipitous). That would be grossly unrealistic. I just have events that make RN battleships likely to withdraw on random turns. I'd say in an ideal world, only if they put to sea, but come to that, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, and Royal Oak were all taken out in harbor.

I don't want all the detail simulating all this would take -- especially since the simulation wouldn't be interesting anyway. So you finally come up with a mini-submarine unit the Italians can use against battleships and harbors. So what? Of course it sails over to Alexandria and has a go.

Just make an event. Let Ralph spend his time elsewhere -- where he can do some good. I want volume supply, flak that works like flak, interdiction that makes rapid movement difficult, separate truck units -- things that matter, were universal or at least common, and that can be simulated well in OPART. I don't want to be fobbed off with submarines.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

I may harbor some consternation over a lack of progress in certain areas, but my purpose is to continue to do whatever I can to see this game progress for the scenarios that I love. Which there has been little if any progress on so far. I may label some of you as 'apologists' but that's because you are the focus of my consternation.
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I may harbor some consternation over a lack of progress in certain areas, but my purpose is to continue to do whatever I can to see this game progress for the scenarios that I love. Which there has been little if any progress on so far. I may label some of you as 'apologists' but that's because you are the focus of my consternation. My fear is that Ralph is taking the easy way out, allowing you all to defend his action, regardless of how little he's taken on the areas of the game where it needs it the most.

I'm not actually in a position to know -- but my gut feeling is that this is unfair to Ralph.

First off, he has gone out of his way to accomodate my wishes on at least one occasion, and secondly, if computer programming is like anything from fixing cars to raising good strawberries, there's more work involved than one might think.

So be nice to Ralph. I'd guess we're getting our money's worth.

As to being an 'apologist,' one can pick that term if one chooses. At the end of the day, it takes time to make changes, and I will freely admit that I want to see the time devoted to making the changes I want made rather than those someone else might want made.

Given that Ralph is going to program for ten hours, I'd just as soon those hours went into implementing the change I favor rather than the one you favor. No offense.

I certainly don't want frigging submarines. For the reasons I have discussed elsewhere, I think those are silly. Now, if they could be had for free, well I'd say let you have them for free.

The thing is they can't, and the hours that go into implementing them could have gone elsewhere. You are, of course, at liberty to argue the reverse. But at the end of the day, Ralph will only put in so many hours.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

It would not be fair to Ralph, except that I expressed it as 'a fear' and did not level it as a full-blown accusation. Regardless, I omitted it.
Given that Ralph is going to program for ten hours, I'd just as soon those hours went into implementing the change I favor rather than the one you favor. No offense.

And I loathe the thought that we would make this a debate, though unless remaining quiet and hopeful starts to show signs of success, I think I have to remain vocal, There are indeed plenty of people who want what I want, who are indeed remaining quiet and hopeful. It appears as though those who are most vocal are somewhat guiding this game's development. I've been quiet for quite awhile now.

I said what I wanted with regards to subs, and then spent the next ten posts re-explaining it. The addition of 'ASW' as a weapon value and target type. That is all I want.
ASW as a weapon value that works against subs, and subs as a target type.

Naval interdiction as an air mission choice.

Locking zocs.

Stack movement.

Variable movement allowances.

A spotting round based on air presence, weather, and the number of adjacent units.

The ability for ships to be either advantaged, neutral, or disadvantaged based on the air superiority and/or # of movement points left of participating units.

Some form of mobile supply source for beacheads.
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

I think an important aspect of these mobile supply points is that they are multiple hit units that use supply based on the # of units drawing supply. Designers can make them as big or as small as they want. They would be vulnerable to attack while on the sea or by air where they deploy. Continual supply would best be represented by having two units per beachead; one that is deployed while the other is returned to another supply source, where it can recover. This would be perhaps the most realistic representation of supply I've ever seen. Usable for every scenario from Africa in WW2, to Vietnam, to the Falklands.
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I think an important aspect of these mobile supply points is that they are multiple hit units that use supply based on the # of units drawing supply. Designers can make them as big or as small as they want. They would be vulnerable to attack while on the sea or by air where they deploy. Continual supply would best be represented by having two units per beachead; one that is deployed while the other is returned to another supply source, where it can recover. This would be perhaps the most realistic representation of supply I've ever seen. Usable for every scenario from Africa in WW2, to Vietnam, to the Falklands.

This leads back to how we are planning to revise naval warfare. At the moment, any such unit would never suffer any hits at all while it was 'at sea' -- since it would embark, sail right across most maps, and debark all in the same turn. Nor am I aware of any existing mechanism by which units could 'draw' on it and deplete it while it was ashore.

As I've said before, the whole naval/air thing is a package, and it really needs to be overhauled as such. Only then the interaction between that and the supply system (also to be overhauled) be usefully discussed.

Your idea is one way we could go -- but really. We first need to work out what the systems it is going to exist in would be. It couldn't usefully exist in the current system.

It's all a bit like discussing what car you should get. How much money you have, how many kids you have, what you like to do, where you live -- all these are up in the air. But we're going to decide what car you should get. Right answer at this point could equally well be a Mazda Miata or a Mercedes-Benz four wheel drive truck. We just don't know.


I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by ColinWright »

Reminds me. My birthday's coming up, and I've worked out which I want. The truck.

Image


I am not Charlie Hebdo
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

Perhaps yes, one implementation requires others. What's your point? Naval air interdiction as I proposed will slow units down considerably. Subs and raiders can block sea lanes to some degree, though in my rules, a path must exist. Will everything I've proposed be chronologically accurate? No. Not to the hour, day, or maybe week. But to the month and more importantly to the mission, yes. And the results will be accurate. Ralph does not have to insure this. He merely has to provide the tools for the SD to create his own units.
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Reminds me. My birthday's coming up, and I've worked out which I want. The truck.

Image
Oh great. Play to your crowd. I'm back to playing the role of Atticus Finch.




ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: macgregor
ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Reminds me. My birthday's coming up, and I've worked out which I want. The truck.

Image
Oh great. Play to your crowd. I'm back to playing the role of Atticus Finch.





'Despite what some fans claim, the Army didn't buy them to rescue broken-down Hummers.'
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Perhaps yes, one implementation requires others. What's your point? Naval air interdiction as I proposed will slow units down considerably. Subs and raiders can block sea lanes to some degree, though in my rules, a path must exist. Will everything I've proposed be chronologically accurate? No. Not to the hour, day, or maybe week. But to the month and more importantly to the mission, yes. And the results will be accurate. Ralph does not have to ensure this. He merely has to provide the tools for the SD to create his own units.

I am playing the devil's advocate here. But we do need a general game plan. If we just keep modifying the system (and almost everything you propose requires more extensive modifications than you mention) to permit specific additions, we'll wind up with a mess.

It all fits together. We don't want to wind up with something that looks like something drawn by Rube Goldberg. The way I see it, the first questions are what would a valid air/naval system look like, and what would a workable quantitative supply system look like -- and what kind of a time frame are we talking about for the anticipated programming work? Then is the time to figure out how other changes would fit into those -- and perhaps how it could be implemented in the meantime.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
Post Reply

Return to “Public Beta Feedback”