|
Post by Michael Miller on Oct 2, 2014 13:37:06 GMT
1. Replace my first sentence with Tim's version.
2. Agree on 28.15 clarification. 2b. 28.16 refers to "the Sirte box on game-map A". This of course is referring to the generically named "Tripolitania" box connected to Nofilia, and should be changed accordingly.
3. Looks good to me.
4. [moved to new thread].
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Oct 2, 2014 18:31:35 GMT
Look guys, this whole thing is getting seriously out of hand. It very much illustrates the point that I have been trying to make lately about too many fingers in the pie. I have direct experience of this in previous attempts to play the game years ago. There were about 10 of us and it was killed stone dead by an avalanche of “viewpoints”.
The overhead on reading and responding to all this stuff is onerous in itself. I’m not talking about genuine good catches and resolution of specific problems, just all the fluff that is going with it.
“[36.17] An airfield is a supply dump”. There’s no point in making the rules any more verbose than they need to be.
We should not be labouring endlessly over a wording unless there is clearly something demonstrably incorrect, missing or ambiguous. Voting is for elections.
Kindly telephone me if anyone doesn't see the sense in this and wants to debate this sentiment further.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 2, 2014 19:09:47 GMT
Look guys, this whole thing is getting seriously out of hand. It very much illustrates the point that I have been trying to make lately about too many fingers in the pie. I have direct experience of this in previous attempts to play the game years ago. There were about 10 of us and it was killed stone dead by an avalanche of “viewpoints”. The overhead on reading and responding to all this stuff is onerous in itself. I’m not talking about genuine good catches and resolution of specific problems, just all the fluff that is going with it. “[36.17] An airfield is a supply dump”. There’s no point in making the rules any more verbose than they need to be. We should not be labouring endlessly over a wording unless there is clearly something demonstrably incorrect, missing or ambiguous. Voting is for elections. Kindly telephone me if anyone doesn't see the sense in this and wants to debate this sentiment further. Tony, While I see your point that this could get out of hand, I am not sure that's where we're at. The point of this forum is for discussion. To be honest, each new case, for example Michael's about off-map airfields, should be in its own thread so that the discussion process is clear. And once conclusions are reached, the last post can summarize any changes and we stop using the thread so that it drops down in the forum. What is happening here is that we're each digging into sections of the rules as we focus on an aspect of planning or early game play-testing. So these questions or suggestions are coming to light in different areas as we come across something that may seem confusing, or in error, etc. I agree that we all should prioritize and raise the major issues or questions, while deferring things that are less of an issue for starting the game. An example of a lesser issue would be converting rules that are text blocks into cases, like the Mike's Off-Map Air Facilities. For a future version of the rule that kind of update for clarity's sake makes sense. But we don't need it to start playing. Tim
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Oct 2, 2014 19:15:21 GMT
I believe Bob's use of the term "stuff hastily stacked in a hex by units" is just a description of what "mini-dumps" (or his term "stockpiles") represent. The is no wet stuff in mini-dumps!
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Oct 2, 2014 19:40:52 GMT
That's a constructive post Tim.
I will integrate and fix everything commented upon above over the weekend. It will be done diligently. If, after that, there is anything material I have got wrong then I will expect to go back and fix it. Some judgement calls may be necessary, depending on the "SPI gap", though any such decisions are quite unlikely to be significant enough in game terms to merit serious dissent. Duplicating the effort, without good reason, would be unwelcome.
In terms of critical path analysis, as mentioned, refreshing the rules would not occasion additional delay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2014 2:19:00 GMT
Thanks for the clarification on 21.23, Tim.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 4, 2014 5:22:14 GMT
Bob Posted: [24.9] "Supplies may be placed in a hex not containing a constructed supply dump. The only restriction on such is that trucks 'in convoy' may not load such supplies." It does mention that there are restrictions on the number of points that may be so deployed but I don't have those handy. There are reasons one might expect to find all four types of supplies in such a hex. Fuel, ammunition, and stores not only can but MUST be off-loaded into hexes before use and one cannot assume that all units will at all times have all the first line trucks sufficient to carry their supply allotments.
Fuel: [49.16] "fuel from convoying trucks must be off-loaded first" Ammunition: [50.15] "ammunition on truck convoys may not be used until it is off-loaded" Stores: [51.15] "Stores on truck convoys cannot be used until of-loaded." Water: No mention of an "off-load" requirement, only that water may be transported by trucks. Nevertheless, it seems water might conceivably be left in a well hex if a unit were to draw more than it could carry or if water were off-loaded for use by a unit short on trucks.
There is, on the other hand, no mention of - let alone a provision for - "mini-dumps" anywhere that I can find. Supplies are either in a dump, on a truck/ship/plane, held by a TOE, or in a hex.
Side note: In [53.25], the authors use the term "cache" to refer to a bunch of supplies not in a convoy or dump; I would consider that a reasonable, maybe even preferable, alternative to "stockpile." Mike Replied: The restriction to Stores and Ammunition is implicit in the Supply Dump Capacity Chart [54.13]: 50 each Ammo and Stores, zero each Fuel and Water. ============================================================= Mike Replied: The restriction to Stores and Ammunition is implicit in the Supply Dump Capacity Chart [54.13]: 50 each Ammo and Stores, zero each Fuel and Water.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 4, 2014 5:32:05 GMT
Rules version problem.
Bob, you're quoting the first sentence of rule 24.9, as it was originally written but ignoring the update to the Note in v1.1+ of the Land Rules.
Mike is referencing the Supply capacity chart - it's 54.12 by the way. And In V1.1+ of the Land Rules, Tony changed the "Note" that followed 24.9 to explicitly reference that capacity chart and the limitation that only 50 Ammo and 50 stores are allowed to be dumped in a non-Supply dump hex (a.k.a Cache or mini-Dump).
I agree both with Mike's interpretation, and feel that Tony's change to 24.9's Note is consistent with the intent of the rule that only non-liquid supplies could be just dropped off in a hex. As logistics Commander I would LOVE to be able to drop off all supplies, but I do not think that we can do that.
Please note that I follow that same logic in the supply narrative I posted the other day, that Fuel and Water have to be conveyed directly from truck to truck (or gas tank/radiator) or picked up from a supply dump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 15:20:01 GMT
I'm not "ignoring" anything, Tim. I am looking at both the original rules and ATD 1.1. Case 24.9 is identical in both. If you guys have changed the rules again, I wasn't aware of it and that's a Bad Thing. The dump capacity chart is 54.13 in both the original and ATD 1.1 rules; if it's 54.12 in yours then Mike and I are not using the same rules you are and that is, again, a Bad Thing.
The arbitrary limitation on supplies in a non-dump hex is going to cause problems. For example, just how the Hell am I supposed to build an airfield (100 stores, 50 fuel) if I can't dump the required materials in the hex? Build a dump first? That seems wasteful - and, by the way, would that dump cost me 20 stores [24.9] or 10 stores [24.17]?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Miller on Oct 5, 2014 17:01:41 GMT
There was a typo either in the original paper charts where the capacity table was labeled 54.12, or the printed rules which were referring to same as 54.13. When I converted the charts to Excel sheets, I didn't catch this error, so the discrepancy remained.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 5, 2014 17:53:12 GMT
Here's the rule I'm talking about, quoted from the rules Tony sent out 9/13. The "Note" section is highlighted in Yellow, and is a change from the earlier 1.1 version. The latter point, plus the lack of in-document labeling lead to my email the other night abut version controls. If you're working from different versions, I agree that is a problem. I've re-sent out that rules email so we are on the same page again.
I too access the original rules and will compare them to updates for reference sake. In this case, Tony has incorporated the restrictions in Table 54.12 in the common charts (that is the number on the printed copy I'm holding) into the Note. But Mike's note was posted while I was working on this message - the rules call the table 54.13 and the table is labeled 54.12 (the spreadsheet version has 54.13 on the chart itself but the tab is 54.12). So that needs to be fixed.
Let's look at the other issue separately, how we build stuff that exceeds those 50 Ammo and 50 Stores limitations.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 5, 2014 18:12:26 GMT
You do raise a good point about how you build things to get around that limitation. It took me a minute, but I think that I have some solutions:
1) Dump them in a supply dump or air facility in the hex (since the latter act as supply dumps) 2) Load the supplies into 1st Line Trucks attached to a unit in the hex
I don't think they have to be attached to the constructing unit itself, but haven't thoroughly re-read everything on the topic. The point being that convoying (2nd/3rd) trucks have to unload stuff before it can be used, not 1st Line trucks.
The discrepancy between the rule and the chart is a good question. I want to look to see if there are any other discrepancies, though I'd lean towards the chart. But we can resolve those as we come to them.
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Oct 5, 2014 19:35:04 GMT
Sorry for the confusion if different versions have been distributed. I've started using version numbers strictly now to avoid any future difficulty. Bob's sudden, though welcome, arrival added the need to redistribute some stuff, which turned out to be awkward as I couldn't tell what was getting through and what was being bounced by the email systems.
On the above, it is undoubtedly true that there is a clear determination in the original rules for mini-dumps to comprise only ammo and stores (limited quantities too). It seems likely that this was an addition, the need for which would have become clear during the course of SPI's play testing.
SPI rules have never been the best, nor has their structure and organisation, which lacks any sort of imagination or respect for the way that humans assimilate information. Consequently CNA suffers more than most games, for obvious reasons. Bob’s point about the availability’s of supplies for a specific purpose (in this case construction) is a perfect example of the “gaping hole” variety of rules deficiency.
I haven’t yet had occasion to look in detail at all the possible disjoint between the sequence of play, the rules and supply distribution in the game but I’m not surprised that a problem, such as the one Bob raises, have surfaced so soon. I remember being pleasantly surprised, after realising there was a problem with stores distribution, to find that provision in the form of so-called “mini dumps” had been made in the rules.
So, some further original rule writing is required. I can think of a few solutions in general terms which are predicated on facilitating the availability of supplies for construction without too much fuss. Shouldn’t be difficult to arrange, perhaps a tweak to the sequence of play would cover most of it.
By the way, I was never very keen on the term mini dumps and much prefer Bob’s “stockpiles”, so intend to rename them in the next version. Any advance on “stockpiles”?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Miller on Oct 6, 2014 0:01:21 GMT
The Construction chart [24.17] shows two projects – Temporary Repair Facility and Airfield, which require expenditure of supplies, in both cases Stores, in excess of the magic 50 point limit. The former can only be built in a Village or City, while the latter in several types of terrain. I'd suggest just adding an exception to 24.9/54.18 for this purpose only. Such supplies are considered expended at the beginning of construction, so there should be no problem of oversized "stockpiles" or gamey tactics like declaring start of construction and then moving away to leave a super stockpile.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 6, 2014 1:34:08 GMT
I'm okay with Stockpile to refer to piles on supplies not in a Supply Dump or Air Facility - changed the topic header to match. The Construction chart [24.17] shows two projects – Temporary Repair Facility and Airfield, which require expenditure of supplies, in both cases Stores, in excess of the magic 50 point limit. The former can only be built in a Village or City, while the latter in several types of terrain. I'd suggest just adding an exception to 24.9/54.18 for this purpose only. Such supplies are considered expended at the beginning of construction, so there should be no problem of oversized "stockpiles" or gamey tactics like declaring start of construction and then moving away to leave a super stockpile. Don't forget fuel, which one can't drop in a hex with no storage facility (Dump or Air Facility). That also affects building a Temporary Repair Facility (50f 250s), and Airfield (50f 100s) as well as - Rebuilding a Repair Facility level (10f 50s) - Rebuilding an Airfield level (10f 20s) - Building an Airstrip (10f 20s) - Building a Flying Boat Basin (25f 50s) - Rebuilding a Flying Boat Basin level (10f 10s) - Building a Flying Boat Alighting area (10f 10s) It doesn't affect clearing ports, building supply dumps or dummies, building fortifications, laying minefields, or building and repairing roads or railroads. Please note that by using attached 1st Line trucks these things can all be done. The question at hand is whether this seems to have been an omission or if it was intentional. The one issue that does need to be decided is the discrepancy that Bob pointed out about the cost of a Supply Dump. I would lean towards 10s, given what other things cost.
|
|