|
Post by tim on Nov 3, 2014 22:00:20 GMT
I like the summary Mike. 54.2 looks great - concise and clear.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 3, 2014 21:58:10 GMT
I concur with going with the rule as updated. I really don't anticipate doing this. So some game experience will prove whether this is workable or needs revision.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 15, 2014 20:03:36 GMT
OK - try four thousand two hundred and three, exaggerating slightly, to explain my objection to the hard-coded ammo capacity value:
1) "Ammo Cpcty" column - does not reflect the ammo capacity of the specific unit types cited: p,q,r,s,t,dd,ee,ff,vv 2) From your discussion you are using that value to mean something like typical expenditure. A front-line commander could use that, sure. But they would also want to know how much ammo the unit can hold before needing to store it in trucks. 3) Units of the specified types are in the initial Italian setup, mostly in front line garrisons 4) "Ammo Cpcty" is mapped to be an input to the "Supply Requirements" entry in the summary at the top of the screen - Using the capacity value for this purpose has merit if it reflects the potential ammo expenditure, for these units it does not
Thanks for your explanation on the intricacies involved. But there are no colour issues here, that column seems to be plain old black text on white. And now that the scope is narrowed to these nine Italians and a few others, the effort still does not seem to be huge. So we're really down to whether you change those or not.
As for a parallel effort, I envision more of a database using a spreadsheet to draw data out for display and user interface. That would be a long-term project for sure. Short term, we both want to play the game.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 15, 2014 19:10:58 GMT
Yes Tony. The discussion would have been shorter if you or the edited rule had referenced the errata. So what seemed a "house rule" wasn't one. Come on let's put things a bit more friendly eh? The errata was incorporated so long ago that anyone would be hard pushed to remember every reference. If there's a difference, it's the first place to check before blaming me! : ) That was the friendly way of saying that you were right. On those "poor bloody infantry" units. And missing that critical bit of data fed how I responded to what I saw as a wholesale problem. So, as penance, I am going to build that promised Change log, starting from the errata, working through v1.2 and then our subsequent work. That way all of us can check at a glance to see what changed and when, if not why.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 15, 2014 18:52:11 GMT
We are primarily talking about the variety of Italian Infantry type units with a range of capabilities. Those can expend 3 or 4 ammo points in a single attack easily. I am not as worried about a slight overcapacity of a mixed AA/AR unit. On that we seem to agree. So, yes for that element to be of use at all it should reflect the 'highest and best use'. Otherwise it does not reflect the ammo capacity of the unit, let alone a common expenditure for it. Feel free to provide concrete examples where that would not be the case just as I've provided a specific list where that does apply. The sheets already take account of heavy weapons allocations. Such designations are clearly colour coded. Can you let me know where the "3 or 4 points" comes from please? I was under the impression that '2' was the specified value for enhanced infantry. I still think that "main use" is the best guide but there's certainly a case for basing capacity on "maximum". Often the maximum use may be restricted to particular circumstances though. As it makes no difference to expenditure and in order to avoid further work for what seems to be a very small difference and get the game going, I would like to leave it alone. If it can be shown that there is a significant effect that I have underestimate, then I would consider it further. See my previous post that lists all of the Italian, German and CW unit types with Barrage and AT capabilities. Those would have a ammo expenditure of 4 or 3 - the chart I attached very early in this thread spells that out unit type by unit type. There's about 8 Italians and a few others. You're leaving out one thing, that your default to 2 assumes that the "main use" is close assault. You are also using capacity as a short-hand for typical expenditure. Clearly we disagree on both points. Significant effect? In most of the cases, those Heavy Weapons units have decent, for Italians, Barrage or AT ratings. So I would expect them to often be using more than your "main use" capacity levels. So your totals do not reflect the potential ammo expenditure for those units. The more work argument is specious - you had the files open and were correcting them, so this fix could have been added easily. As in the post just above, there are two simple options - update those 8 or so Italian units, or unlock the table. I too would like to move forward with the game and literally find myself being forced to consider building new Land Forces spreadsheets to fix this issue. While that may seem extreme in this particular instance, it offers a number of other benefits for flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 15, 2014 18:29:54 GMT
The key here is that the data element we are talking about comes from the ID tab unit ID table. That table is locked down. If it were not, then Tony could use that data element his way and we could use it ours with no affect on the other players. So whether we resolve this discussion or not, the table could be unlocked so that it may be managed locally. The data tables - I omitted the banner heading "Here be dragons". Individual editing of those sheets would be very ill-advised, with consequences that could not be foreseen. Protection of the sheets in general is to avoid inadvertent alterations as much as anything. If there's anything that definitely needs changing, I will do it. I totally understand the concern about inadvertent changes. The thought was tossed out since it is a simple table value and there's honest disagreement to what that value means and how it would be used. The choice is yours about protecting that tab - you can leave it locked and update those Italian values as requested, or unlock it. I'm happy either way. The German and CW units that do have extra capabilities are weak enough that they're unlikely to be used for AT fire or Barrage.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 15, 2014 18:23:38 GMT
While we are at it - note the effect of the change of air missions to waves. That cost is per target group. One AA unit could fire 2 or more times in an Air phase.
I have no opinion on how to resolve either. Let's watch the first turn or three air missions and pay attention to actual expenditures and what impact these things will have.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 14, 2014 15:31:14 GMT
Not one use of each, one use of the 'highest and best' use. Tony has opted for a more generalized standard based on unit type. We agree that standard works for most units, but I see a large gap for most Heavy Weapons units with mixed capabilities. This applies mostly to Italian units, affecting types: p, q, r, s, t, dd, ee, ff. We don't have unit types for germans in the spreadsheet, but it could apply to a few of their Infantry types, j, p and t. For the CW, it only affects type r.
It should also be noted that close assault costs for Recon units are not covered by either the existing or errata entries. Tony has set those to be 1 ammo, as if they're infantry. I'm okay with that but thought I'd raise it as it applies to the topic at hand.
The key here is that the data element we are talking about comes from the ID tab unit ID table. That table is locked down. If it were not, then Tony could use that data element his way and we could use it ours with no affect on the other players. So whether we resolve this discussion or not, the table could be unlocked so that it may be managed locally.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 14, 2014 13:55:13 GMT
Yes Tony. The discussion would have been shorter if you or the edited rule had referenced the errata. So what seemed a "house rule" wasn't one.
We are primarily talking about the variety of Italian Infantry type units with a range of capabilities. Those can expend 3 or 4 ammo points in a single attack easily. I am not as worried about a slight overcapacity of a mixed AA/AR unit. On that we seem to agree.
So, yes for that element to be of use at all it should reflect the 'highest and best use'. Otherwise it does not reflect the ammo capacity of the unit, let alone a common expenditure for it. Feel free to provide concrete examples where that would not be the case just as I've provided a specific list where that does apply.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 14, 2014 3:41:40 GMT
From the Spreadsheet topic – [50.2] AMMUNITION CONSUMPTION RATES TABLE. Change to Close Assault Ammo expenditure by plain Infantry (not including MG or Heavy Weapons units) should be highlighted in Purple, reflecting a locally originated edit in the same style as elsewhere. Actually that should be Blue - it's an errata fix. grognard.com/errata1/cna.htmlAction Ammo Barrage 4 Anti-armour 3 Close Assault: Armour-class, Gun-class, MG-inf, Hvy Weapon-inf 2 Anti-air at single target group 2 Rearm any portion of a squadron’s planes’ tacair rating 1 Rearm one plane with bombs, torpedoes, or mines 1 Infantry 1
However, it should be relabeled as that seems to apply to Close Assault of non MG or Heavy Weapon Infantry. I would also group it together with the other Close Assault row for clarity sake, for example: Barrage 4 Anti-armour 3 Anti-air at single target group 2 Close Assault: Armour-class, Gun-class, MG-inf, Hvy Weapon-inf 2 Close Assault: Infantry (exc. MG and Hvy Wpn) 1Rearm any portion of a squadron’s planes’ tacair rating 1 Rearm one plane with bombs, torpedoes, or mines 1
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 14, 2014 3:38:43 GMT
I stand corrected - the official errata does set Infantry to use one ammo point in the chart [50.2]. However, as I noted that should be clarified to be for Close Assault, and apply to non-MG or Heavy Weapons units. Those latter are called out separately for close assault. Still leaves the issue of interpretation of ammo capacity for those non-plain vanilla Infantry units. Grognard.com errata page: grognard.com/errata1/cna.html
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 20:49:24 GMT
Yeah, I called it up after I posted and saw that change. Another "house rule" to get accustomed to (read: re-build all CNA rules-based planning charts to reflect), I suppose. Assuming that we play with that variant, the rules are okay since they don't specify ammo usage rates. The table will require fixing to re-order the entries and probably re-labeling that entry to something clearer like "Close Assault: Infantry-class (non-MG or HvyWpn)".
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 20:32:26 GMT
[50.2] shows Phasing Bn-Eq consuming 1 if the Logistics game is abstracted. If the Logistics game is actually played, infantry consumes 2 (see line 3 of the chart). Of course, I am reading the chart in the rules. YMMV (or, more accurately, YSMV). Well, it does vary - look at the spreadsheet version of that chart. Another entry has been added for "Infantry".
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 20:11:04 GMT
The Ammo Consumption chart [50.2] shows the poor bloody Infantry with a consumption rate "1". Am I misunderstanding something? Wow. That isn't in the rules as written, and it isn't colored to indicate a change. Placing it in the edited version under the air stuff is sneaky. So that's clearly a mistake. Unless you're telling us that our hordes of glorious fascist infantry can cut their Barrage/Close Assault/Anti-Tank ammo costs. Otherwise we'll need to fix that in the final copies of that document, or update the Rules so that this isn't a stealth change.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 20:04:21 GMT
"...So there you would at least agree is a bug, right?" Er, no Tim. To begin with, ammo is by TOE, not unit and where did you get the idea that 1 ammo point is wrong for some Italian units? CNA-Charts-Both.xls [50.2] Ammo Consumption If the Infantry were set correctly, that would work to a point. But it ignores the Infantry-type units with additional capabilities. The model also doesn't take into account cases where AA guns with no barrage capability are attached to AR units, as well as for AA guns with AT capability. If the purpose is to display the ammo capacity of units, this fails in many particular instances despite working for others. Given that fact, and that isn't a matter of opinion, and that you have set this up to be driven based on Unit ID, then it makes sense to correct it where possible. An example of that are the variety of Infantry-type units with other capabilities, as well as AA guns as, at least for the Italians, those have AT strength. A complete fix would take into account assigned gun units, and to be honest I've not looked that closely at German or CW Tank and Gun characteristics but they seem similar to those of the Italians. However their unit types have fewer major variances, which may be a commentary on Italian organization and support weapons assignments.
|
|