Stockpiles: Supplies in hexes without a Dump (aka mini-dump)

[Michael Miller]

Good point regarding fuel needing to be present. How about a broader exception to 24.9/54.18 allowing fuel any required supplies to be offloaded for construction projects if the constructing unit is present in the hex at that time? Alternatives would be to require first line trucks present with fuel, or pre-existing supply dump.

Agree on Supply dump cost, should be 10 Stores per the chart in 24.17. Change 24.9 accordingly.

[ATD]

I was thinking along similar lines Mike. Requires unequivocal commitment of supplies to nominated task to receive dispensation, simply the expenditure in advance, rather than for the supply to be co-existent in the hex at the commencement. I have enough info now to devise a suitable system.

[tim]

Oct 6, 2014 15:59:38 GMT ATD said:

I was thinking along similar lines Mike. Requires unequivocal commitment of supplies to nominated task to receive dispensation, simply the expenditure in advance, rather than for the supply to be co-existent in the hex at the commencement. I have enough info now to devise a suitable system.

As with the discussion on stockpiles, I'm okay with either the rules as-is or with some kind of reasonable restraint on how we can stow supplies.  But as we discussed on the phone, the rules do allow construction to take place using 1st Line Trucks.  So this isn't a point upon which the rules are broken.  However, we can always agree to make a change to simplify something as long as we aren't making it unrealistic.  

[ATD]

I've not been free to consider this in as much detail as would be the case normally but had more or less assumed that the issue must have been predicated on some particular deficit in the base rules. That appears not to be the case, as Tim points out above. It might be a little clumsy or onerous to assign 2/3 L trucks to 1L duty simply to facilitate supplies being available however.

If we consider what would happen in practice, it's clear that supplies would be delivered to the location in advance of and perhaps during the course of construction (depending on the time-scale of the project). Everything having to turn up with the unit as attached 1L transport isn't exactly historical but close enough for me if it is felt preferable to respect the base game mechanics.

[Deleted]

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?

[ATD]

lol?

[tim]

Oct 11, 2014 6:24:00 GMT @grognard said:

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.

[Michael Miller]

So the idea I get from Bob's last post is that supplies could potentially be offloaded ahead of time for an upcoming construction project, provided the hex remains secured for the duration by some unit, until whatever Engineer or whatever required unit actually arrives there to perform the construction. However, if the "guards" all move away for any reason, these supplies are plundered and ruined.

Do I understand the intent correctly?

[ATD]

Having been on Berners-Lee's creation before most people had ever heard of it, I'm quite familiar with such acronyms. It was rather the "why", than the "what" Tim.

A little while ago I suggested, in general terms, that some flexibility in connection with construction supplies would be sensible. You disagreed with this idea then and I accepted your position. Following Bob's message, you have now changed your mind?

That's also what I thought Bob seems to be saying Mike but surely that would be ridiculous on two or more counts, not the least of which being inconsistency with previous discussions. Must have misunderstood.

[tim]

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.

[tim]

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.

[Michael Miller]

Perhaps we consider that what is being done in this case is actually just creating a plain old supply dump, and expend the 10 Stores for that, as given in [24.17]? So in that case, a single TOE point of any sort is required for the unloading and setting up whatever basic facilities make a functioning dump. Maybe we could credit the 10 Stores (or some random amount) back if the project is begun or built in the succeeding Op Stage, reflecting that construction was essentially underway from the outset?

On double checking this, once again the rule in [24.9] disagrees here with the chart, stating 20 Stores to create a Dump, while the chart states 10. [this has been noted previously by Tim].

The presence of guards at supply dumps or construction sites in a war zone is sufficiently common sense that making it mandatory is actually a little bit amusing to me,

[ATD]

It looks as though we will never know for sure what Bob found funny Tim.

Odd that supplies for construction are being viewed as in need of explicit guards, whereas potentially prolific stockpiles are not (and not subject to "attrition" either. The idea that the only presence on the game map is that represented by the counters - now that IS funny. To make it clearer, supplies dropped off for construction would be hardly unguarded - nor would an entire combat battalion be designated for their care.

The reference to TBL was in the nature of an experiment.

[Deleted]

"Never" is a long time, Tony. What I found amusing was the suggestion that the way to handle abandoned supplies might be to not abandon them in the first place. My "lol" was in the nature of "Heh heh. Well, yeah, of course."

I'm not a fan of "crediting back" the cost of a supply dump when construction starts. That just doesn't sound realistic to me. Requiring that supplies be guarded whether in an actual "dump" or not seems much more realistic and, in fact, simpler to implement.

[tim]

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.