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

macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

I've always strived to make whatever requests as minimally invasive as possible. Some of the ideas I've seen mentioned would look a little contrived.

Navairint would work exactly like landairint. I think house rules may still have a place, as this idea of surrounding ships in order to eliminate them would not be realistic. Ralph mentioned something about surrounded units fighting their way against the weakest surrounding unit -perhaps that could be incorporated. Ralph already added the naval value, which is teats on a hog for most land units -what's one more value?

I'm not saying Ralph's job will be easy implementing this, but in the end the game will basically look and play the same. In the combat report for naval units, the first round will show the engagement determination, then advantage determination, and the rest will not change at all. The only sacrifice this makes is with regards to chronology. The Brit may not be able to decide to send the 51st inf to Alex, and then have it be done in one,perhaps even two weeks time. I plan on slowing down the naval movement to as much as a third of what would seem to be the capability. Call it 'refueling and resupply' perhaps even some training which while essential to ships, isn't represented.

But the idea of sub killing groups being able to race across the Atlantic to pounce on whatever sub gets spotted would not occur, not to mention the disadvantage of all that movement on spotting and combat. Move a desron 10 hexes(250km)and the likelihood of finding a sub should be reduced to almost nil.

Mobile supply points may act differently, but will look like other units. If you want to add qualitative supply? Now that's 'non-trivial' as every unit will than have to monitor fuel, food/med, and bullets. It would help naval units as much as any, but I don't see it as essential as the other changes.
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've always strived to make whatever requests as minimally invasive as possible. Some of the ideas I've seen mentioned would look a little contrived.

Navairint would work exactly like landairint. I think house rules may still have a place, as this idea of surrounding ships in order to eliminate them would not be realistic. Ralph mentioned something about surrounded units fighting their way against the weakest surrounding unit -perhaps that could be incorporated. Ralph already added the naval value, which is teats on a hog for most land units -what's one more value?

I'm not saying Ralph's job will be easy implementing this, but in the end the game will basically look and play the same. In the combat report for naval units, the first round will show the engagement determination, then advantage determination, and the rest will not change at all. The only sacrifice this makes is with regards to chronology. The Brit may not be able to decide to send the 51st inf to Alex, and then have it be done in one,perhaps even two weeks time. I plan on slowing down the naval movement to as much as a third of what would seem to be the capability. Call it 'refueling and resupply' perhaps even some training which while essential to ships, isn't represented.

But the idea of sub killing groups being able to race across the Atlantic to pounce on whatever sub gets spotted would not occur, not to mention the disadvantage of all that movement on spotting and combat. Move a desron 10 hexes(250km)and the likelihood of finding a sub should be reduced to almost nil.

Mobile supply points may act differently, but will look like other units. If you want to add qualitative supply? Now that's 'non-trivial' as every unit will than have to monitor fuel, food/med, and bullets. It would help naval units as much as any, but I don't see it as essential as the other changes.

There are lots of problems with the above. Would you actually like me to list them?
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 »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
There are lots of problems with the above. Would you actually like me to list them?
What now? Grammar? Spelling? The fact is you didn't. Don't stress yourself trying. You can only take this devil's advocate role but so far.
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

My God Ralph. How many years has it been you haven't developed a realistic supply model! These static supply points are so absolutely unrealistic and the kicker is that you actually meddled with the supply and totally overlooked these glaring inadequacies. I wonder. You contemplate re-designing the shape of the tires while overlooking the fact that they need air. PLEASE FIX THIS GAME.
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by Panama »

What do you mean by 'static supply points'? What in game mechanic are you poking at? [&:]
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

I figured that on a thread titled 'Naval re-supply' that I didn't have to elaborate this. Any vitriol is due to my current status in a game. But that doesn't change the fact that without modeling sea-supply correctly -especially if you're modeling American or British conflicts; and that's the lion's share, you shoot this game in the foot.
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

Anzio 1944
Downloaded: 25
On to Philadelphia - 1914
Downloaded: 20
Armageddon 2015
Downloaded: 18
Acre War 2011
Downloaded: 18
Double Eagle-Rising Sun 1904-1905
Downloaded: 17
Alternative ww3 - Southern Front
Downloaded: 15
1941 - Operation Barbarossa At Tactical
Downloaded: 14
Verdun 1916
Downloaded: 13
Alternative ww3 - US Invasion of Cuba 1997
Downloaded: 12
Europa 1947
You know what this is? This a list of the 10 most popular scenarios from the strategist. Notice any constants? All give you one; the majority ALL HAVE NAVAL UNITS AND WOULD BENEFIT GREATLY FROM REVISING THE SEA SUPPLY AND NAVAL OPS IN GENERAL. And not so long ago, the majority was even greater. Does anybody from the devteam pay attention to these? Two are of the others are of the same campaign. I'm so sick of the ignorance and disdain matrix and the devteam have displayed toward the glaring naval inadequacies of this game for OVER 7 YEARS that I just want to puke right now. Excuse me.
User avatar
1_Lzard
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:36 pm
Location: McMinnville, OR

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by 1_Lzard »

Your excused.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"I have the brain of a Genius, and the heart of a Little Child. I keep them in a jar under my bed!"
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4839
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by Oberst_Klink »

Let them fix the 'parallel to river road/bridge hex demolition bug' first, no?

kLiNk, Oberst
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by Panama »

He is correct. Naval supply isn't modeled. It's because it isn't a naval game any more than it's an air game. Because it's a land wargame that's why the emphasis is on 'fixing' the land war.

If you want to make it a naval game just turn all the land tiles to sea tiles. Modify all the land units to act like sea units. Make every tile a rail tile maybe. I'm sure there are things that can be done to make it a purely naval game.
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

I wonder what you guys told your mother when she asked you to mow the lawn? Oh wait! That's her mowing it now. Mam -why isn't your son doing that? 'Oh, he's not designed to mow the lawn'. What a crock of bullpucky! You guys do realize what self-serving defeatists you all sound like with your lame excuses. If Norm Koger was willing to employ such scheißelogik, we'd have no TOAW at all. So thank your lucky stars for the better people than you who persevered.
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4839
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by Oberst_Klink »

From Norm's reply to the Grognard; 12 years ago...

Quote

The game has an inadequate air and naval system, even after allowing for the fact that the game is primarily concerned with land combat. These are so overly simplified that they have little capability to portray the War In the Pacific in World War II...

Guilty as charged. We had no intention of modelling the Pacific War in any detail. Please see page 95 of your players' guide, under the heading "Make It Fit".

End of quote


Your passion for a 'working' naval system is admirable, but it simply eats up resources of the guys who're trying to fix the little glitches that would improve the game play (as intended) even better.

The same applies for the 'monster game' fanatics; it's called O P E R A T I O N A L art of war.

Found this, just c/p it:

The United States Army field manual FM 100-5, on the definition of the operational level of war:

"Operational - the operational level of war uses available military resources to attain strategic goals within a theatre of war. Most simply, it is the theory of larger unit operations. It also involves planning and conducting campaigns." US Army Field Manual FM 100-5 Operations

"Military strategy employs the armed forces of a nation to secure objectives of national policy by applying force or the threat of force." US Army Field Manual FM 100-5 Operations

In simple terms:

Strategic: involves production of new units as well as supply
Operation: involves supply of forces but not production of new units
Tactical: involves neither production nor supply (though there may be ammunition limits)

(Good article from Kent Reuber)

OK, back to hack my way through and see if the Schlieffen Plan works for me...

kLiNk, Oberst

Image
Attachments
fig21.gif
fig21.gif (17.78 KiB) Viewed 266 times
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

Let's go back to the bogus claim of me wanting a naval model like Pacific War, or a 'Strategic level simulation'. 5 threads and dozens of posts later and you're still employing the same defense. Strategic simulation is already possible with clever use of the scenario design. See my list for the most popular scenarios. A few small, subtle changes that are entirely innocuous to your precious Russian Front simulation would have an immense impact on the majority of the most popular scenarios. I cherish the moment when, with your encouragement, Ralph sits on his duff long enough for another game to blow this one out of the water both literally and figuratively. And that's probably what you should want as well. Because until then I will continue to point out the glaring inadequacies of this game
User avatar
1_Lzard
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:36 pm
Location: McMinnville, OR

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by 1_Lzard »

Testy, isn't he!
 
[:D]
"I have the brain of a Genius, and the heart of a Little Child. I keep them in a jar under my bed!"
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4839
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by Oberst_Klink »

I thought only the Kaiser and Tirpitz were 'obsessed' about the Kriegsmarine...

kLiNk, Oberst




Image
Attachments
pic784074_md.jpg
pic784074_md.jpg (43.41 KiB) Viewed 265 times
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by Panama »

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I wonder what you guys told your mother when she asked you to mow the lawn? Oh wait! That's her mowing it now. Mam -why isn't your son doing that? 'Oh, he's not designed to mow the lawn'. What a crock of bullpucky! You guys do realize what self-serving defeatists you all sound like with your lame excuses. If Norm Koger was willing to employ such scheißelogik, we'd have no TOAW at all. So thank your lucky stars for the better people than you who persevered.

Well actually children are designed specifically to do all sorts of odd jobs around the home. If a parent hasn't the imagination to come up with ways to get them to do the job well, then it's left to them. [;)]
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by Panama »

I really don't see the naval game going any further than it already has. It is meant as a transitory support mechanism. Once the boys get ashore it is merely artillery. In TOAW it is a taxi, it is an artillery piece meant to support the lads on the beach and it is an airfield and that only rarely.

A completely separate supply model for naval forces would consume so much time and effort that it probably would slam the door on any further improvements to the game for two or three years. Especially given that the only one working on it isn't doing it full time. And that is why it will never happen. No matter how many times you kick the door or break a window or shatter a dinner plate, I don't see that amount of time and effort being directed towards a part of the game that is represented as I have stated above.

However, I also support your effort to ask for whatever you please in the game. If you want nude beaches modeled, so be it. But I would ask that they only be allowed in 3d with infinate zooming. [:)]

BTW, Ralph just might surprise you if you don't insult him too much. Oops, too late?
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

I'm making my case. To you it's insulting Ralph. And at the same time you try to devalue my opinions and underestimate Ralph's capability. If I had my choice, it'd surely be you that I insult. Let's call it your influence over Ralph that I want to insult. We'll see soon enough where it sits. I've semi-given up on Ralph. Though he has made attempts to re-assure me. Problem is, people like me...they buy the game and download the scenarios, as is evident by the strategist at any rate. They don't articulate their desires for the game like you and I do perhaps. A passion for this game and the time to express it is what I have. You can interpret that as ...insulting -whatever you want. If another game surpasses this in scope and capability, it likely won't be one of us developing it. But I do believe it will happen, whether Ralph develops this one or not.
User avatar
Panama
Posts: 1362
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:48 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by Panama »

[:D][:D][:D][:D]

Insult away. You are a nobody in my life. Any insult you can come up with is meaningless.

BTW, my influence over Ralph is equivalent to your meaing in my life. Zero.
macgregor
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:44 pm

RE: Naval (re)supply and new supply rules

Post by macgregor »

I'm very happy for you Panama. But you know what? For the second time the same thing happened to me. I attacked a Norwegian 1-1 regiment with 2 German divisions from Oslo. They had little movement left, I figured 1 would stay behind but no, they both advanced. Then another 1-1 Norwegian unit steps into Oslo moving my air force. Fine. I'm sitting her now with 2 German divisions and the entire turn. But this is Oslo and I need it for supply. I ship in from Germany another 8 regiments. Now, my regiments are like 4-6, while my divisions alike 14-18 or something. I still have absolute air superiority and bombers everywhere. The attack fails. I don't know what you guys are looking for in a wargame, but this one does it for me. I'm through with Ralph and I'm through with this idiotic conversation. This game sucks and yes, I'm angry over a bad result, but if you can tolerate this kind of glitch after Ralph's what? 6 years working on this game? You're a better man than I. I'm outta here.

This game is a dead parrot. Lovely plumage...but dead.
Post Reply

Return to “Public Beta Feedback”