I needed to look into the rules a bit in order to avoid any major cock-ups in the BCW set-up. I realised that some difficulties could arise, particularly in respect of the provision of stores to units.
It turns out that this problem is anticipated by the rules, as I discovered the existence of "mini supply dumps" for non-liquid supplies.
Some additional rules will be required, if only to avoid an impractical mess. Nevertheless, some sort of tracking system will be required. Also, we need to decide whether these dumps should be represented on the map(?).
Post by Michael Miller on Jun 20, 2014 18:18:50 GMT
Is this in regard to the in-hex ammo and stores rule? I had wondered about that. Would seem best to keep track of those similarly to full supply dumps since they don't automatically get up and move with the units in said hex. More record-keeping! Yay!!
Agreed. Just whether to have markers as well. I also wondered about a system to reduce the clutter. After a few turns (seems a distant reality at this stage), there could be quite a proliferation in many locations. I'm toying with various ideas for cleaning up the map. Eg. any mini dump in an unoccupied hex at the start of each turn (rather than opStage I think), is dismantled and added to the nearest main dump, less a proportion based on the distance from that dump (pilfering and other wastage).
Post by Michael Miller on Aug 6, 2014 12:12:23 GMT
Did you come up with something to handle the in-hex supply disposition, Tony? I am thinking along the lines of –20% of supplies lost per CP distant from the nearest proper dump. We should allow truck pickup of the supplies in full during the turn though.
Not yet Mike. I was initially (and mainly) concerned to find a good way to account for these supplies. Once I saw how we can do this on Cyberboard, I relaxed a bit.
A brief rest before embarking on the campaign will have been useful. Ready to crack on in keeping with the anniversary to which you referred earlier.
Have been thinking along the lines you suggest for the supplies. I think it necessary that the system "mops up" each dump regularly, in order to prevent a proliferation of these things all over the map. Some thought also given to the level of disclosure required between the sides.
As the "tail" commander I would very much like stuff to stay where I put it. Having the computer arbitrarily re-allocate my supplies would make life very difficult for me and, by extension, the commander who expected me to feed him. Yes, it would be nice to have some sort of marker on the board for me to keep track of such unofficial stockpiles but it's not necessary. I'm not convinced that the game board is going to be much use to me at all, really. Letting the computer move my stuff to keep clutter game board clutter down for others though - yeah, that would be a problem for me.
Post by Michael Miller on Sept 21, 2014 4:52:04 GMT
It sounds like you find the proposed clarification and removal rules for such mini-dumps unworkable, Bob. I haven't myself given it a lot of thought, as I have other things to worry about. Have you spoken directly with Tony on this? I know part of the genesis of the extra mechanic here was representing losses to supplies in such ad hoc, effectively unguarded locations after the combat units have moved on. Things like natives walking off with food (stores).
Well, everyone has a right to expect things to be reasonably well thought through and to be practical. This in turn may suggest some justification, though in this case I tried somewhat to provide this in advance advance.
I foresaw two problems arising in this area of the game. Firstly, without markers the position of a myriad of such dumps would rely solely upon bookkeeping, without a double-check on the map. A simple transposition error in noting the hex number would be unfortunate. Several errors would be unconscionable.
Apart from the internal bookkeeping, there’s the external accounting to the other side to consider. It’s an important guiding principle of the beginning of this game that much, if not all, activities will be open to scrutiny by all players. I find myself repeating previous explanations at this point but briefly, the reason for scrutiny is to ensure that everyone is implementing the rules correctly and consistently. If the sides were to diverge due to different practices then by the time it were discovered, it could be too late.
The second problem is that without some means of cleaning up the map, these mini dumps could proliferate into just about every hex. That’s not historical and it actually increases the workload in keeping track of everything. The solution is I believe a workable and reasonably faithful one, representing as it does, wastage and redistribution below the texture of the game mechanics.
During the construction of solutions to the above problems, I was mindful of other possibilities and considered that the changes would meet with considerable approval. Indeed, it seems surprising that the original rules did not themselves bother to resolve these difficulties directly.
Since the mechanics of the rules are known, not subject to disproportionate variation and being equally applicable to both sides (asymmetric quantity and distribution of supplies notwithstanding), I’m sure that our high-calibre logistics and rear areas commanders will cope with ease.