I will edit the stores changes into the official rules Tim. Reading through the original text, a ruling is needed for dumps that may be inaccessible at the time. I shall add a brief rule on that.
In the interests of avoiding an undue workload, shall we agree to avoid minor edits unless they are essential. That test would not exclude proposals such as those presently under consideration.
I believe in the discussions about prisoners the intention is that the stores could be taken from any dump so as to avoid war crimes. Apparently some playtester marched his prisoners into camps set up in wadis and far from supply sources so that they'd either attrit by starving to death or get washed away by rain.
Then again, given that trucks have to head back to rear zones to replenish, it wouldn't be that hard to ship the P.O.W.s back to the home country where they disappear from the game (and the guards are freed to return to duty).
I'll re-read the section again, Tim; you may be right. I will, of course, argue to the contrary if my re-read confirms my interpretation.
If I may be so bold as to rip open the "mini-dump" wound again, I would suggest that we are going the wrong way on those. Both nature and Tony would deprecate the creation of such things so I think we might change 54.19 to read: "[54.19] As it is terribly difficult to re-locate things in a shifting environment, supplies unloaded in a hex (as per 24.9 and 54.18) and subsequently abandoned become unrecoverable if not maintained. To maintain such a non-dump stockpile a unit with at least 1 TOE must either end a friendly operations phase in that hex or spend 3 CP in that hex before moving on. Non-dump stockpiles become unrecoverable (i.e., are lost and removed from the game) in the first Stores Expenditure Phase in which they were not maintained in the previous turn." or something to that effect.
That would give the front line a week to pick up their toys or the rear area to pick up after them. The point is to discourage the teeth from being wasteful, not to increase the bookkeeping burden on the tail, right?
Following a telephone conversation with Tim, I agreed to suspend the rules (which I spent so much time considering, planning and implementing!). Before, during and after the exercise, the rules seem to me to be very practical, historical and un-contentious. Really, I did (and do). It seems like a sensible failsafe; so the offer to suspend the rule is rather against my better judgement.
I re-read this rule augmentation myself just now and still find it to be well-founded. There just wasn’t piles of stuff sitting in the desert in an infinite number of unoccupied locations. Your further suggestion is welcomed Bob but I think this could be pretty fiddly to implement and perhaps we shouldn’t go any more fiddly than we already have on our hands.
One other reason for leaving the rule in from the beginning is that it is less contentious to have it there from the start, than to have to implement the fix later when both sides have a vested interest, based on perhaps an asymmetric supply situation.
In any event, I have made the offer to pull the rule in the interests of team cohesion and getting the game started and will keep my word on that issue unless anyone has second thoughts.
As mentioned, I shall honour my undertaking to suspend the rule, despite "artistic differences". I'm surprised that there isn't universal approval of the attempt to enhance historical fidelity, given the synergy deriving from it being also a play-helping practical measure.
Notwithstanding that, I still prefer B, C and A in that order. D could be impractical in terms of disproportionate effort/benefit.
Fine, if magical teleportation is preferable is actually paying the cost for irresponsibility, so be it. I will drop the topic for the time being after noting that a cost will be levied for leaving stuff laying around, if not by the rules, then by me. People who leave stuff laying around obviously already have more than they need.
OK. It is however axiomatic that "Prevention is better than cure". It will be more difficult to implement a solution later. One advantage though is that we will by then have a good idea as to the scale of the problem (if indeed it is problematic).
At least mini dumps do not requite E & S. The existing dump control spreadsheet should of course be used to keep track of mini dumps. Note that it is possible to backup this info on the CB map, as the flag markers have an associated text facility. As this sort of information is on the secret side of transparency, it would require a code of honour not to peek. I expect commanders will wish to eschew this capability.
I like "concise." Nevertheless, be advised that 49.3 as suggested leaves the rule's applicability to fuel and water "loose" in hexes (be it in TOE, stockpiles, air facilities, trucks, or airplanes) open to interpretation.
IN TOEs, trucks and aircraft, as in, in their fuel tanks and radiators - that's already specifically excluded from evaporation and spillage.
Air facilities - that's a loose one. To be honest I was lumping air fields and strips under dumps, but no harm in being specific.
Not sure what you mean by stockpiles, that to me sounds like dumps.
I use "stockpiles" to refer to what you guys have been calling "mini-dumps" to help me avoid confusion between the stuff hastily stacked in a hex by units (and air facilities) for ready access and the supplies carefully placed and maintained by the stalwart but unappreciated logistics troops. The latter have counters and specific rules thereunto appertaining while the former (heretofore) don't and keeping the terminology distinct helps me keep the considerations distinct. Sorry for the confusion.
As for "radiators and gas tanks", I'm sorry but I don't see the specific exclusion in the most recent (5 posts up), otherwise excellent, proposal for the re-wording of 49.3. I recall seeing it in previous iterations but not the latest, not that I'd choose to return to the previous by any means. I did include what I thought was a concise exclusion in my suggestion but it got stripped out in the latest.
I considered the wording carefully and it specifies what IS subject to evaporation and spillage. The only meaning that could be derived correctly from that is that anything not listed, is not subject to loss. No exclusion is necessary because the rule is a positive and therefore excludes everything else by default. “Dumps” is not limited in the specification and as the rules already refer to air facilities as having intrinsic dumps, they would naturally be included.
“the stuff hastily stacked in a hex by units” – er, what’s that? We have dumps with markers, air facilities, geographic locations and mini dumps (probably best if we all stick to the same nomenclature). Is there some instantaneous point at which supplies have been unloaded from trucks, to be picked up by first-line units in the same hex, or do you have something else in mind Bob?
1. I vote for Tim's wording and no, I wouldn't add the "radiators and gas tanks" back in unless it were in the form of some sort of wisecrack similar to the ones the original authors made.
2. New topic, rule question: In [28.15] the implication is that 4 POW points would NOT burn a stores point but I don't think that's the intent - am I correct to believe that it should read "... for every 5 (or fraction thereof) ..."?
3. Another rule question, sort of: The example in [21.26] implies that it continues (or leverages off of) the example in [21.23] but there is no example in 21.23. Anyone have idea where that lead-in information regarding LII(M) Bn might be?
I have some more typos to report, so I'll head over to the other thread. Making good headway recently but still feeling daunted by the sheer amount of data I don't have (or, more likely, have not yet found.)