No, I have not yet discussed this with Tony but then I would not consider this to be a CW-specific issue so I seek discuss it with the community at large. Have you discussed this arbitrary re-allocation of supplies with Tim? (Assuming he is your rear-area guy.) According to the rules, supplies may be off-loaded and left behind when the troops move on. Fine. I, as the supply guy, will then have to track the evaporation of the fuel and water in that "dump". Again fine. Ammo doesn't evaporate. Even more fine. Bedouins might walk off with stuff? What? Are you kidding me? Bedouins might spot LRDCs and maneuvers that otherwise escape reconnaissance, too, shall we add rules to address that? Come on. Leave my supplies where I put them and levy penalties upon me for lack of maintenance - fine. But don't arbitrarily move them around or add a whole additional layer of complication (random indigenous theft?) to an already unwieldy situation.
No, Tony, on the contrary, the rules specifically state that much of the game will happen outside of the enemy's view and that both sides are going to have to be honest and conscientious for the game to work. Having said that, it would be no problem for me to provide documentary evidence of the supplies, including wastage, if you were to arrive in a hex and say "I will pick up the 400 tons remaining of water we left there" and were challenged by Mike to prove that such were actually there. That's my job, after all. As I said, I am rapidly losing any faith that the game board will be of significant help to me. I know it wasn't any help when playing FTF; I had rather hoped that the miracle of on-line gaming might afford us a map only we could see. Ah, well. If wishes were horses... Nevertheless, it is my job to distribute and track supplies. The very last thing I need to do is go through every hex on the board to try to determine where the computer might have thrown your supplies so that I might clean them up and deliver them to you again.
I have written to you directly on this one Bob. your reply seems to completely ignore everything I wrote. It is not my understanding of the rules either that units can simply drop off fuel and water in a hex! Only stores and ammunition may be so deposited.
Post by Michael Miller on Sept 23, 2014 2:52:50 GMT
From the original printed rules 24.9:
"Note: Supplies may be placed in a hex not containing a constructed supply dump. The only restriction on the use of such supplies is that trucks "in convoy" may not load such supplies. Players should keep track (obviously) of the presence of supplies in a hex with no supply dump. However there are restrictions on the maximum number of points which may be so deployed–see the Logistics Game."
So in one paragraph there are no restrictions, and there are restrictions. Brilliant.
The Logistics rules case 54.13 refers to "Supply Dump Capacity Chart", which was labeled in the common charts as 54.12.
The line of interest is "Non-Dump", shown with limits of 50 Ammo, zero Fuel, 50 Stores, zero Water.
So only Stores and Ammo are affected. The proposed rules reflect more than just native pilferage, but a lot of simple waste, fraud and abuse; for reference look at pretty much any government operation ever. Throw in a sandstorm burying the last few engine parts for the trucks back where 7th Armoured was bivouacked last month, now nobody can find it.
The provisions in the proposed 54.19 address this sort of thing, and also the efforts by small parties to recover such supplies. It is surely cumbersome to have to calculate loss, but so is maintaining a database of supplies across hundreds of hexes. Maybe just attrit the supplies in all these a fixed percentage (say 25% per Op Stage, rounded up) if not accompanied by a unit (would prison guards count for this?).
I really don't care how this is implemented as long as it is consistent (since we are lacking comparative WFA data – I'm joking, I think. This is all about not abstracting too though, right? Yes, definitely joking.). As long as Bob and Tim agree on it, I will go along.
Tony: I am so far behind in the email traffic I haven't seen that email. I'm only on this thread because I got an email notification it had changed and yours is probably farther down the queue. Believe me, I am not intentionally ignoring anything from any one of you (unless I tell you otherwise, and I will.) Until things reach a steady state between you and I, please assume a stack overflow rather than malice.
Michael: The nature of the supplies dropped int he hex are completely irrelevant to my point. I don't want the computer arbitrarily (or even systematically) moving my stuff, I don't care if it's a stack of il Duce's pictures we left in a port-a-potty. I WILL MOVE MY STUFF. Would you sit still if the rules were changed such that any airplane you neglected to move automatically flew to another base in a fit of pique?
No one ever said that the two types of supply applicable to mini dumps would be moved by the computer automatically or arbitrarily. It is implemented in the rules as a game mechanic, just like any other. The player simply follows the procedure.
Part of the apparently overlooked comments are actually mostly in the post above - for example, with regard to the transparency issue. I’m afraid that the subtlety of my writing is probably to blame in that particular message.
Use of the phrase “this game”, rather than “the game” is instructive. You are quite right that “the” game provides extensive and perhaps even unique opportunities to recreate the fog of war. I also agree that this is a highly desirable feature, adding as it does an extra degree of simulation. This point has been discussed recently with your opposite number on the axis side, Tim.
All the above will come but… at the start it is subservient to the need for the game to be run properly and for the games systems to be implemented correctly and consistently by all concerned. We can keep the level of disclosure to a minimum and will use the first ops stage to decide as each event occurs, just what that level will be.
I hope that this further explanation (and my email messages) will serve to bring us all together in a consensus going forward.
On a more important point; the most recent delivery of supplies to my HQ, substituted 250 taps for the caps that were ordered. The delivering officer has been shot.
Post by Michael Miller on Sept 23, 2014 13:25:44 GMT
As long as the rules are agreed to the extent possible beforehand, and can show some basis in terms of modeling reality, I'm fine with it. Omniscient, 100% control of every loaf of bread is not possible. One thing that bothered me about the original, vague rules here is that among the variety of things simulated by Stores is food, so a division can conceivably walk into a hex where Stores were dropped a year ago and fill their bellies. Obviously this is not historical. However, things such as construction materials and spare parts can sit for long periods, then be used without much of a problem. It is therefore arguable to me that modeling logistics at this level of detail perhaps called for further breaking down Stores into perishable and non-perishable components, but we won't be doing that, thankfully.
Can we just get a decision one way or another?
By the way, we are missing a large number of photographs of Il Duce which were recently sent over to boost the morale of the troops. Has anyone run across them?
Hi, Tim here. I'm the Axis logistics guy and am okay with the proposed mechanism for limiting mini dumps. Or not. Either is fine.
Right now I'm looking at a supply dump chain of over fifteen dumps, not including those for the glorious Italian Flying Circus. So toss in forward area dumps to pleasure the pasta principal and we quickly will have a paperwork chsllenge.
The two points arising from the most recent posts are quite supportive of the principal. As Tim points out, there is plenty to do without having to track supplies in every hex on the map. As Mike points out, some of the stuff would be perishable anyway. There's a lot happening below the texture of the game and the mini dump rules (which are quite simple anyway) are practical and represent this fine detail activity.
Well said, Tim, and thank you. I fully realize that you are much farther along in your planning process than I am so, if necessary, I will defer to your opinion since I am arguing mainly on principle. Frankly, I don't expect to have a lot of extra supplies either so any commander who's sloppy enough to leave supplies littering the desert may well find themselves not getting any more any until they clean up what they were already given. (Or, if they simply can not be disciplined about it, make sure I have the trucks to roam around and clean up after them.)
A caveat before I continue: I have been and still think like a military staff officer. I will vehemently disagree with logic and suggestions I find faulty, will defend my position energetically, and then - win or lose - will salute smartly and do my best to implement whatever harebrained idea my commander decides to implement.
Having said that, I finally located 54.18 and .19 and disagree entirely with the concept and the addition. It is likely the game developers specifically limited "mini-dumps" to stores and ammo to avoid the problem of wastage/evaporation. Face it, there's really no difference between leaving a 40-gallon drum or a crate in the desert so there really was no realistic reason for them to make those limitations in the first place.
I apologize for picking a bad example the first time; I was unaware that water/fuel could not be left in a hex. That does not change my point even one iota. I do not want my supplies moved by anyone. Period. Tony, you say "No one ever said that the two types of supply applicable to mini dumps would be moved by the computer automatically or arbitrarily." How do you reconcile that with your statement "any mini dump in an unoccupied hex at the start of each turn ... is dismantled and added to the nearest main dump, less a proportion based on the distance from that dump"? Is that not movement by the computer? And, what's worse, doesn't it a provide a benefit for irresponsible play just like the auto-supply rules for POWs? Why waste time, effort, and trucks to track and move supplies if the rules will let me move stuff around for free if I just have the lads with it step aside for a moment?
I appreciate that you've made little flags to mark "mini dumps", I really do. Thank you. Unfortunately, I do not yet see me using them very much since the whole board and everything on it, as far as I know, is visible to both sides. I do not intend to give Tim any more clue than I absolutely must as to where I have my (um, our) stuff, especially since he will want it quite badly. (Might make for an interesting trap, though. Hmmm.)
I will return to reading the rules and the documentation and hope to be caught up soon. The tempests at work appear to be clearing and things might therefore be returning to my approximation of normal very quickly. Again, gentlemen, please do not take offense at anything I have said as there is certainly none intended. I merely wish to save us all time by making my thoughts as clear as possible as quickly as possible as we get this show on the road.
Actually, I should clarify that I don't have a problem with 54.18, as far as it goes. I'm not sure I agree with the limitation of only 1st line trucks being able to pick the stuff up but that's certainly something I could live with - if the mifwick (scatalogical but none-the-less respectful idiomatic reference to the senior commander) lets me have some first-line trucks with which to do so. Hint, hint.
It's the automatic (and, yes, arbitrary) movement of stuff that should stay put that bothers me. I could see the reasoning behind a rule that says an abandoned mini dump disappears (buried, stolen, inhabited by sand fleas, etc.) if not revisited within some period of time but to arbitrarily move it to some safer location because someone dropped it just does not make sense to me.
Post by Michael Miller on Sept 24, 2014 14:02:09 GMT
It has been a long while (US Air Force 1980-84) since I have heard or used "mifwick" (MFWWIC if my way-back acronym memory is accurate – MFer what who's in charge). That brought a smile to my face.
Regarding the mini-dumps, since so little actual gameplay is documented anywhere, it's hard for anyone to predict how much of a problem this would all pose. In general it is probably a good idea to minimize departure from the rules, but we have seen numerous examples of vague, contradictory or plain wrong. And when the players are not face to face it is necessarily more difficult to tell if everyone is acting consistently enough to have a reasonable degree of confidence in the results.
To briefly enumerate, we have:
Rules as written – 50 stores/ammo, unmarked on map, infinite lifetime.
Previously proposed change – Marked on map, subject to wastage and movement to nearest full dump.
My own vague proposal – Marked*, apply straight percentage (I previously threw out an arbitrary value of 25%) of waste/loss per turn/week rather than per Op Stage, no auto movement to nearest dump. List item 3
In the proposed case 54.19, I wonder if the time is too short before the auto movement and waste/loss. It is also possible as you say Bob, that the perishable, largely food components of Stores are abstracted by prohibiting Fuel and Water storage in hex. I hadn't thought of that before.
* I do think such supply caches should be marked though, as otherwise there is no way for an opponent to determine if there might be much-needed supplies present that could be captured by driving/strolling through. However it now occurs to me that perhaps instead of (or in addition to) marking such caches, this could be simulated by some sort of CPA expenditure for searching and scrounging? Obviously there is already a cost for loading up any such, but that cost likely is assuming that the location of those supplies is known and represents a quick grab-and-go. Maybe just requiring units to expend off-road/track hex costs for scrounging would be sufficient.
Bottom line, let's just decide this and move on, today if at all possible. Best regards.
The position of such dumps must be marked for reasons already explained and those sensibly pointed out by Mike in the post above. The addition did not seem at the time (and does not now) to be a potentially contentious one. In fact, it seemed imperative that a means of avoiding the ludicrous situation of every hex in on the board containing some supplies.
It is ahistorical to have the entire desert cluttered up with numerous mini supply dumps, without some sort of rectification below the texture of the rules of the game. More than that, it would seriously clutter up the game both in terms of the map and the bookkeeping.
Whether the frequency and detail of the changes are precisely right is difficult to predict and therefore may be worth reviewing at some time in the future.
Having spent hundreds of hours developing all sorts of systems to facilitate play of this game, even the creation of the forum in which this discussion is now taking place, I am disappointed that further time is now being expended on such discussions at this stage.
This is the tip of a much bigger potential problem. I think the project would be put at risk at risk by everyone constantly pulling in different directions. Ultimately, we need to have one person to have a final say and in order to avoid a chaotic free for all. Without deferring to that principle, impasses are bound to occur. There’s a lot of stuff that is had to be done, not only to improve playability but also historical accuracy. By the time we reviewed everything that has been done, we will never get started.
I could say a lot more but at this stage, I will simply ask that in the interests of the project proceeding smoothly (or at all), that everyone offers their full support and cooperation. If there’s any spare energy, putting it into systems that facilitate play (such as filling in what gaps may exist in our knowledge of Cyberboard) would be far more productive.
Tony, again I agree with Bob. I said this in an earlier discussion, that we are adults and it is reasonable to expect that we come to a consensus about things.
Or to look at it another way - pick your battles. Mini dumps are not likely to get huge. Let's play s turn or two and see whether that assumption is correct. We can revisit whether to implement yh ed new rule for GT3. Ok?