|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 18:32:55 GMT
There's a note on the ID sheet, indicating the rationale for the ammo requirements. The "normal use" of the unit type won over "maximum use" as the supply requirement indications are obviously just a guide, being heavily dependent as they are on the actual activity of the unit. It could even be questioned whether it was worth including these things but on balance I thought some idea might be better than nothing. So, one is in error, the other is by design. The HQs need to work properly (absolutely correctly) and I will have a look at it. My least favourite bit of the system. You mean the note labeled "ammo expenditures"? Sorry, I'd copy it here for reference, but that too is protected. The label isn't great since we're talking about capacity rather than expenditure. But that's a minor concern. A real concern, as described in the attachment is that the numbers hard-coded into the system fail to meet that standard. Infantry units do not close assault for 1 ammo point, yet a number of Italian units have that capacity rating. So there you would at least agree is a bug, right? Now that you explain the rule of thumb you are using I still clearly disagree with the logic, and the consensus so far does also. Sure, the capacity figure is a guideline. But you take that number and repeat it in the summaries at the top of the unit screen. Given that the consensus seems to be to use that maximum capability as the key instead of an arbitrary number based on unit type, correcting/updating those values would make sense. This seems to be a one-shot fix to the ID table and the rest will flow forward into the units. The problem with dismissing something as a guideline is that you are encouraging us to not use the tools provided. As noted above, a mistake/design intent like this bleeds into other areas, even to the separate supply summaries that I developed. Now I am okay with pointing at a specific thing like the ammo capacity value you've entered and ignoring it until we address it in a future update. Known bugs can be managed. But once they build up beyond a given point we will have to address them (this comes from my background in software change management). If you wish to defer this for now, I understand. If you'd like help that offer stands.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 17:20:29 GMT
But a more important issue is that the ammo capacity for units with inherent capabilities should be based on the capability that allows the unit to expend the most ammo, to "fire once" as the rules put it. That would be: Barrage = 4; Anti-Armor = 3; Close Assault or Anti-Air = 2. Even units with parenthesized values could use that capability, so they should be able to hold that much ammo. I believe I commented on the rationale for this in the accompanying documentation. The fuel capacities are of course clearly too high however. I'm surprised that no-one (including me) spotted that previously. HQs caused all sorts of problems in development; in fact the rules in general did not lend themselves easily to computer implementation. I'm not finding that, I looked at the "Player Introduction" and "Using the Spreadsheets" is there are no references to ammo or fuel capacity calcs. Clearly that went into the development work, but that wasn't discussed. Just to be clear, in my mind both are in error, not just fuel. This came to light by playing through an Ops Stage to get a feel for supply use and the re-supply process. Better to find these kinds of simple bugs now than when we're trying to play for real. As for HQs with no capabilities, I agree - hence the question marks on that attached list. I would lean towards them having a fuel rating and capacity but no ammo capacity. Their attached TOEs, if any, would be treated like any TOEs in other units, retaining their ammo/fuel ratings.
|
|
|
ZOCs
Oct 13, 2014 16:49:41 GMT
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 16:49:41 GMT
Bob - yes the Axis does have some over-sized divisions. Or at least some where somebody thought that stacking in bodies would make up for a lack of support weapons and modern equipment.
The re-arranging works for me. Whether the example is of an 8 Battalion eq. Division or an 11 Battalion one, players should in time be familiar with what they're facing.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 16:39:31 GMT
We probably will want to use a blend of rolls, on and off system. There's a ton of things that we don't need to show publicly like repair and refit die rolls. But things like Weather, Close Assault rolls, and such would probably be better done in a secured system. Unless we're working in a video-skype like session, in which case one could roll those real dice where everybody can see them.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 6:00:58 GMT
Fair enough - and I missed this until now as I was focused on the logistics side more than the spending side of the supply chain. But now that I'm doing a rough run-through these items are coming to light.
|
|
|
ZOCs
Oct 13, 2014 5:25:46 GMT
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 5:25:46 GMT
Slowdowns like those are endemic to PBEM games. C'est la guerre. "Talking of ZOC, I've made a small but significant change to the rules ..." Would you care to be a bit more specific about this change or is it incumbent upon us to compare the current docx to the original rules to ascertain the nature and extent of this "small" change? ZOC rules can make or break entire game systems and, in general, it's not a good idea to futz with them unless absolutely necessary. It's in rule [10.26] - Basically for a friendly unit in the hex to negate a ZOC it has to start that turn in the hex, have enough ammo to fire (a requirement for a unit asserting a zoc). It also says that the friendly unit that is negating a ZOC can't move itself - basically it spends that movement phase screening. On a side note, changes to the rules are highlighted in yellow if they're new to the version you are looking at. Otherwise the text is Blue (canon errata), or Purple (ATD version changes). To be honest, the lightly colored text changes can be subtle, but they are marked. As for movement and ZOCs, to be honest, given the continual movement process all one would do is move their units and then ask if any units now adjacent to the enemy are NOT in ZOCs. If any are not, those units could continue moving. Or we could agree to a general continuation of the movement phase for any units within a given range of the non-ZOC'd hex. Or just any units that hadn't finished their movement.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 5:12:12 GMT
Sure, I think Mike's re-rewrite is spot on as far as it goes. I think 30.5 should be folded in as well but that can wait. By the way, Tim, why are you an "associate member"? Did you transgress an unwritten law or something? To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I wouldn't be a member of a club that would have me. Dunno, don't care. Doesn't stop me from posting here.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 4:02:22 GMT
To sort of meld this with the discussion regarding Coastal shipping in the Sequence of Play thread: I read [30.5] as allowing CW troop transport limited only by port capacity, while [56.3] refers only to the Axis Coastal Shipping, with only the reference in passing to the CW capability. While it does appear that the rules are consistent, in my opinion they are awkwardly structured and placed. I'd suggest moving Coastal shipping rules for both Axis and CW under [55.0] PORTS AND SUPPLY, into new sections [55.4] Axis and [55.5] Commonwealth, while leaving a pointer reference in the old [56.3] rule as follows: [55.4] AXIS COASTAL SHIPPING The Axis had a small fleet of boats that they used for coastal transfer of small amounts of supplies. These were old shipping boats and aging tramp steamers that could ill afford to venture too far from land. They have a limited capacity. [55.41] Axis coastal shipping is represented by several ship counters. Each ship counter has its tonnage capacity printed on it. Each ship has a CPA equivalent of 50. Each sea hex costs one point. Axis Coastal Shipping moves four "Tripoli-Tunis" boxes per Stage. [55.42] Axis coastal shipping moves only during the Truck Convoy Phase. Coastal shipping does not require fuel for game purposes. [55.43] To use coastal shipping, the Axis Player loads supplies on his boats at the beginning of the Truck Convoy Phase (at a cost of 5 CPs) and then moves the boat. Unloading supplies costs 5 CPs. Only one type of cargo may be carried at any one time by any one ship marker. [55.44] Axis coastal ships cannot be attacked from air or land. They may not enter a port that has been neutralized (having a current Capacity Level of zero), nor may they enter an Enemy-occupied port. [55.45] Shipping such supplies is subject to and limited by Port Capacity (see rest of [55.0]), to the lowest calculated tonnage, in the port of departure (outgoing), and destination (incoming). [55.46] No personnel, tanks, guns, etc., may be shipped via Axis coastal shipping. [55.47] Coastal ships may stop and unload in one port and then continue on to another port, etc., as long as they do not exceed their CPA. [55.5] COMMONWEALTH COASTAL SHIPPING The Commonwealth had far more capable and numerous merchant ships available for use than did the Axis. Commonwealth Coastal Shipping is not represented by counters. [55.51] To use coastal shipping, the Commonwealth Player notes supplies to be moved on his boats at the beginning of the Truck Convoy Phase. These are considered transferred to the destination port at the end of the Truck Convoy Phase. [55.52] Shipping such supplies is subject to and limited by Port Capacity (see rest of [55.0]), to the lowest calculated tonnage, in the port of departure (outgoing), and destination (incoming). [55.53] Coastal shipping cannot be attacked from air or land. Supplies cannot be transferred to a port that has been neutralized (having a current Capacity Level of zero), nor to an Enemy-occupied port (though the Axis player would surely be grateful for such a contribution). [55.54] No personnel, tanks, guns, etc., may be shipped via coastal shipping, however see [30.5] for rules regarding naval movement of CW troops and equipment. [56.3] AXIS COASTAL SHIPPING (Moved to [55.4]) Sounds like this is the consensus on updating the shipping rules to clarify that the Commonwealth can ship units, replacements, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 3:41:08 GMT
Second issue found:
Fuel Capacity column (column 23) is incorrectly totalled when there is more than one TOE in the row. The Fuel Rate column seems to be the TOE type's fuel rate TIMES the number of TOEs. Then that value seems to be multiplied by the CPA/5 and then again by the number of TOEs again to get the Capacity.
The good news is that the Fuel rate usage summary in column 16/row 10 is correct. And the Ammo use in column 14/row 9 just reflects the incorrect summary of the ammo capacity column discussed in the first post.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 3:13:12 GMT
Bob - this is the spreadsheet forum, so yes that's what we're talking about. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with them, if only because we need to see some of that data as we work with the Air or Front Line commands.
One of my challenges is that my summary and admin sheets were relying on some of the figures summarized on each Land Forces sheet. And as I start double-checking them I am finding errors.
Looks like I need to have the sheets unlocked to dig into the calculations.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 12, 2014 22:32:28 GMT
In light of the discussion about supply capacity, and a dummy play through I'm doing, I am seeing issues with the ammo capacity of many Axis units. A quick glance is showing similar issues on the CW Land Forces sheet. One issue is that HQ units with no inherent capabilities are assigned ammo values. For example, the Italian HQ class unit "a" has no Barrage, anti-armor, AA or Close Assault ratings. Yet it is assigned an ammo value of 1. A related one is that gun units, AR, AT, AA units have ammo ratings, when those things should come from the assigned TOEs not the unit cadre itself which has no capabilities. But a more important issue is that the ammo capacity for units with inherent capabilities should be based on the capability that allows the unit to expend the most ammo, to "fire once" as the rules put it. That would be: Barrage = 4; Anti-Armor = 3; Close Assault or Anti-Air = 2. Even units with parenthesized values could use that capability, so they should be able to hold that much ammo. Ammo capacity comes from one of two places. Either the unit has inherent values, for example in Infantry, HW and some HQ units. Or those values should come from the TOE points assigned to the units. Attached is a list of what I think those ammo capacities should be for Italian units when units drive the capabilities rather than TOEs. Note: I also looked at inherent fuel ratings and don't see any issues in the Italian forces. [edits] Changed Title Adding further details on bugs in the Land Forces sheets
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 12, 2014 20:10:03 GMT
So, for planning purposes, I can assume that all tank, gun, and truck TOEs/points carry fuel in their tanks as per case [49.19], all units carry ammo as per their max consumption in case [50.2], and no units carry water or stores "on their persons", as it were. Doesn't make a lot of sense but I can deal with it. That still leaves the question of whether or not HQs carry (or even need to carry) fuel in their tanks. Sounds like we all agree with the above about fuel and ammo. HQs, Engineer, and Recce units - it looks like Tony took HQs and Recce units into account and assigned them a fuel rate of 1 (as well as a breakdown rate). See the Land Forces Spreadsheets for details. Now that I'm aware of that, I'm fine with it too. And I say that thinking that this may be covered somewhere in the rules but wasn't in the original tables. As for water and stores, the units are carrying some. But they're consuming the water and food etc. as time goes by. The weekly distribution is mostly to restock their emptying haversacks and canteens/bowsers. And of course the "daily", per Op Stage, pasta water usage. I prefer to think of the 1st Line trucks as those organic vehicles you're referring to - ones subject to breakdown and expending fuel and water.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 12, 2014 19:46:50 GMT
Thanks, Tim. So, to mash this all together at the 30kft level, "coastal shipping" (from whatever rules section) allows the Axis to ship supplies (only) by boats subject to boat and port capacities and the CW to ship supplies and troops subject only to port capacities. Okay so far? We can build on that? Well stated. That's pretty much the goal of a rule update. Well, Guido in Agrigento has a few boats you can have - for a price.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 12, 2014 17:45:25 GMT
I certainly agree with "awkwardly structured and placed", Mike. This whole thing is making my head spin. I'll re-read your suggestion and the applicable rules a little later; right now, though, I'm trying to sort something else out - I'll bring that up in another thread. Ask and ye shall recieve. Here is the Coastal shipping discussion from the other thread, since they tie together.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 12, 2014 17:11:12 GMT
In effect we're allowing for an ad-hoc stockpile of supplies that it intended to be temporary, hence the guard. Otherwise one is limited by the non-dump limit, or has to build a supply dump, or keep everything on trucks (1st line etc.).
So far that is the consensus - are you okay with initiating play with that Tony?
And yes Mike, that was exactly where I was going with those comments. But I'm fine with this method too.
|
|