|
Post by tim on Oct 12, 2014 17:05:36 GMT
Charts [4.47] [4.48] and [4.49] cover the fuel rates of guns and tanks. Aircraft have their own chart, but that's in total fuel points not pts per 5/CPA.
As for Ammo, I've always played by the best/worst case scenario. If a unit can Barrage (AR and HW, etc.) they have a 4a capacity, if it can anti-armor but not barrage, 3s, Close-Assault but not AT or Barrage, then 2. Does that sound reasonable?
As far as I know there is no inherent carrying capability for water or stores. On water, think about the rules comment on carrying a 20 pound jerry can full of fuel across the desert. Yes a man can carry enough water to take care of himself for a day, but not enough for 3-4 days in desert conditions. So it seems reasonable that those need to be hauled in, just like the weekly delivery of food and miscellaneous gear that stores represent.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 11, 2014 20:13:18 GMT
As specified in [30.5], "Coastal Shipping" is limited to only supplies. Troops are transferred by "Naval Transport" which is the same thing but under a different name. Where we have discussions of TOE/supply trade-offs, we're actually discussing trades between operations performed under cases 35 and 56. Um, I read [30.5] differently, "Only the Commonwealth has the ability to transport troops by sea". So all we are talking about is voluntary unit transfers. Case [56] is about importing supplies and replacements, not units. So stacking points do not apply to that rule section, just [30.5]. Just to be clear, I don't think there is an effect on port capacity for Reinforcements [56.24], entire units and their 1st Line trucks received under charts [4.43b] Axis and [4.43a] CW. Rule [20.12] notes that arrival dates were adjusted for "the logistical problems of debarkation, etc." Also, a number of Reinforcements reflect when the units are released to this theater of operation, for example most early Italian reinforcements were already in Libya prior to the start of the game. Likely those units were deployed on the Western frontier or were garrisoning Tripoli, or other off-map areas. In essence, the reinforcement 'arrival' date is the date that the entire unit is in theater and available for use on an operational level.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 11, 2014 16:25:15 GMT
P.S. - the Arpanet comment isn't meant to mock Mr. Berners-Lee or what he did. I am just amused by the fact that two of the inventions that add to our daily lives came from military program[me]s: the internet and superhighways.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 11, 2014 16:14:10 GMT
Arpanet? I suppose the joke was the sufficient supply of trucks. Though any joke that has to be explained isn't. Besides, 1st Line trucks were my suggestion for the construction project issues.
You misstate what I said, as well as ignore most of the intervening discussion. Bob's solution is simple, elegant and just adds a little flexibility to the existing "Non-Dump" limitation in the Supply Dump Capacity Chart [54.12] a.k.a. [54.13].
To summarize, all of us have sought a way to limit the scattering of supplies across the map. That has been a singular point of agreement on the topic dating back to your rule update. Requiring the use of a 1 Stacking Point unit is going to limit the application of this concept, and at the same time facilitate building airfields and other costly projects. Or for those supplies to be available for pick up by 1st Line Trucks.
So yeah Mike, that is how I read the intent of Bob's suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 11, 2014 15:41:51 GMT
From the discussion thread on Construction costs:
Please change the following supply costs: [24.9] Change stores to 10 [24.83] Change Fuel to 50 [24.84] Change Fuel to 10
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 11, 2014 15:27:11 GMT
I do not think the game means to limit the CW to shipping only supply by coastal shipping. Otherwise there is no need for the Stacking point import/export capability limits. And it makes the change we are discussing elsewhere about those limits being adjusted for supply imports unnecessary.
Also, the layforce rule is about amphibious landing, not just port-to-port shipping. So that limitation won't necessarily apply.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 11, 2014 15:22:48 GMT
Looks good. Let's try doing it that way.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 11, 2014 15:14:22 GMT
lol. The whole issue of stockpiles of any origin can be solved by enough 1L trucks. No one in their right mind is going to leave anything laying around if they have sufficient trucks in which to store it. That said, it is not unreasonable to assume that the supplies engineers need to build/repair something would be sent with them; as I said, no one in their right mind is going to just pile stuff up in the desert without some sort of guard - the Bedouins would be selling it in Marrakesh within a day. Which leads me to my latest proposal on this whole "stockpile" issue: I recommend that any hex occupied by at least one stacking point be considered "Other Terrain" rather than "Non-Dump" for the purposes of [54.12] where supplies in that hex (other than those carried by the unit) are concerned. If, at the end of any Supply Distribution Segment, a "stockpile" hex is not occupied by a stacking point, Non-Dump would apply and the rest would be lost. Would that be acceptable? Sounds like a simple plan. I like it. Thanks Bob. Tony - "lol" = 'Laugh Out Loud' It's how kids these days talk and text.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 10, 2014 6:00:06 GMT
Supply and Admin worksheet - on the Truck Convoy tab the cargo capacity of Heavy Trucks are off in two columns. For Ammo and Water, Heavy Truck capacity and utilization are calculated using the Medium Truck capacity. Ammo should be 8, not 4, and Water 200 not 100. I spot-checked the other truck type rows and supply type columns and they seem to be working fine. Note: This is a low priority item. There is no impact on fuel cost calcs or anything other than the # of needed trucks for a given amount of supplies. Attachments:Axis Supply Admin.xlsx (97.29 KB)
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 10, 2014 5:02:30 GMT
As you note in your message of 27 September Tony, we will need some mechanism in the land spreadsheet to add new tabs representing either reinforcements or ad hoc battlegroups. And if I was really lazy, some links from the "Commands" tab back to the detail tab for each unit would be helpful. Neither of these issues seems to be critical to start, but we need to address them soon afterward. One can't use the built in Copy Tab function? As an aside, for the Axis Admin totals to work, added tabs need to be entered before the last tab (MeGar).
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 10, 2014 0:54:33 GMT
I am confused by a rule. This replaces the original muddied version that referenced a chart that doesn’t exist ([30.59]). That chart was probably replaced by the [55.3] Port Capacity and Efficiency Level Chart. So a fix was definitely needed - I just do not think this makes sense.
The problem I have is that shipping in supply reduces port capacity one way, while shipping in units reduces them by another. Using Benghazi as an example – the port can ship in 2 SP and 2,500 tons of supplies. So if you ship in 1 SP, you can ship in 90% of 2500 tons (2250), or 2 SP and you can ship in 80% (2000). But if you ship in more than 1250 tons (50% of capacity, you can only ship in 1 SP. So which is which?
Note also that this limitation only applies to the CW side. The Axis only receives ships Stacking Points by Sea through the reinforcement process, and scheduled reinforcements do not count against capacity per [55.15].
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 9, 2014 5:49:35 GMT
I'm still going through the first one, Tim; I haven't started on the second. Right now, I only have two issues (thought I might come up with more as I catch up with you in planning): 1) There is no mention in the current process of CW coastal shipping and 2) I can't read whatever characters those are you put in front of what I infer are changes (in IV, before "HQ and engineer units ...", e.g.) They show up as little squares with hexcode in them. (Trivial, yeah, but distracting, sorry.) Side note: I'm glad you're working on this and I think it's going to be helpful - especially when we try to figure out the overall process of gameplay (the "meta-SOP" we discussed). If we can get the dramatic issues sorted out, I should be ready within a week (maybe 10 days if the magnetic tape for my counters is delayed) plus whatever time it takes to adjust to the gameplay process. Sorry about the gibberish characters - I'm copying and pasting from a Word document. Those are secondary bullet points that showed up as hexcode. I fixed those. CW coastal shipping seems to be pretty much you saying "I move this from here to there", subject to port limits. But that is a guess on my part. Below are the two rule sections that apply, but they seem to be incomplete. I found no specific reference to the Commonwealth shipping supplies, but clearly you can. [30.5] Naval Transport of Troops - this entire section is for your side only, the Axis can only move troops by sea via the Axis Convoys from Italy/Sicily etc. I can't use Coastal Shipping. At the end of this case it makes reference to CW transport of supplies by coastal shipping being "covered in Caste 56.0." However, that case is only about Axis Naval Convoys and Axis Coastal Shipping. And yes, this is a step towards that Meta-SOP we talked about. I felt it best to start with the areas that we're involved in as Logistics commanders. You'll notice that step 2 was where we interact with the Front Line commanders.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 8, 2014 20:01:43 GMT
Either side may have no more than two Temporary Repair facilities at any time [24.85]. The Axis starts with two, the Commonwealth with one.
Taking a step back, there are three levels of repair available: Field; Temporary and Major. Field is obviously mechanics or motor pool guys with basic tools and parts, running out the back of a truck. Temporary Repair Facilities can only be built in city or village hexes, so the stores required are probably for sheds and shade and more advanced tools to do a better job. The fuel is for lubricants and so on. Repairing bomb/artillery damage is set above at one fifth of the original cost to build the Temporary facility.
So basically the question the discrepancy creates is how much lubricants etc. would be needed to set up and run a garage / vehicle body and armor repair facility? Just to set up and repair, I'd lean towards the chart cost. That 50 fuel is about half of the load of a medium truck, or several oil drums worth of grease, etc.
For a future rules update (not for now): Looking at all of this it occurs to me that the cost to repair applies to both Major and Temporary Repair facilities. So we could consider using the Rule cost of 30 fuel for repairing a Major facility.
[edit] Changed the comment about repair costs to emphasize that this should only be considered as a possible future adjustment to the rules. It is not needed to start the game.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 8, 2014 2:37:19 GMT
Updated the Supply Process flow (first post), adding in rules references.
I did add some bold text to the Front Line Unit process, but no other changes there. Still working on that one and looking for some input from you guys, particularly you front line folks who will be living with how that works.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 7, 2014 14:39:29 GMT
Bob raised the question of Supply Dump Building costs, and I found several other discrepancies between construction costs listed in individual rules versus what's on Chart 24.17
Item Rule # Cost Chart Cost Supply Dump 24.9 20s 10s Temp Facility 24.83 250s 150f 250s 50f Facility repair 24.84 50s 30f 50s 10f
All of the other items are correct, or the rules don't specify supply costs.
However, the chart needs some correction for Ports. The section about blocking ports on lines 23/24 is fine [55.22 + 55.23], but we need to add a section for unblocking [55.26]. Unblocking needs three rows: Ports 50a 25s Tobruk 25a 10s Benghazi 100a 50s
Other than the addition for unblocking ports, the question being asked here is whether to use the rule costs or the chart costs. We've agreed, I think, that we use the chart costs for Supply Dumps. That seems to be a logical choice for temporary repair facility construction and repair. Any thoughts on that?
|
|