|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 20:04:21 GMT
"...So there you would at least agree is a bug, right?" Er, no Tim. To begin with, ammo is by TOE, not unit and where did you get the idea that 1 ammo point is wrong for some Italian units? CNA-Charts-Both.xls [50.2] Ammo Consumption If the Infantry were set correctly, that would work to a point. But it ignores the Infantry-type units with additional capabilities. The model also doesn't take into account cases where AA guns with no barrage capability are attached to AR units, as well as for AA guns with AT capability. If the purpose is to display the ammo capacity of units, this fails in many particular instances despite working for others. Given that fact, and that isn't a matter of opinion, and that you have set this up to be driven based on Unit ID, then it makes sense to correct it where possible. An example of that are the variety of Infantry-type units with other capabilities, as well as AA guns as, at least for the Italians, those have AT strength. A complete fix would take into account assigned gun units, and to be honest I've not looked that closely at German or CW Tank and Gun characteristics but they seem similar to those of the Italians. However their unit types have fewer major variances, which may be a commentary on Italian organization and support weapons assignments.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 20:11:04 GMT
The Ammo Consumption chart [50.2] shows the poor bloody Infantry with a consumption rate "1". Am I misunderstanding something? Wow. That isn't in the rules as written, and it isn't colored to indicate a change. Placing it in the edited version under the air stuff is sneaky. So that's clearly a mistake. Unless you're telling us that our hordes of glorious fascist infantry can cut their Barrage/Close Assault/Anti-Tank ammo costs. Otherwise we'll need to fix that in the final copies of that document, or update the Rules so that this isn't a stealth change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 20:28:30 GMT
[50.2] shows Phasing Bn-Eq consuming 1 if the Logistics game is abstracted. If the Logistics game is actually played, infantry consumes 2 (see line 3 of the chart). Of course, I am reading the chart in the rules. YMMV (or, more accurately, YSMV).
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 20:32:26 GMT
[50.2] shows Phasing Bn-Eq consuming 1 if the Logistics game is abstracted. If the Logistics game is actually played, infantry consumes 2 (see line 3 of the chart). Of course, I am reading the chart in the rules. YMMV (or, more accurately, YSMV). Well, it does vary - look at the spreadsheet version of that chart. Another entry has been added for "Infantry".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 20:36:36 GMT
Yeah, I called it up after I posted and saw that change. Another "house rule" to get accustomed to (read: re-build all CNA rules-based planning charts to reflect), I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 13, 2014 20:49:24 GMT
Yeah, I called it up after I posted and saw that change. Another "house rule" to get accustomed to (read: re-build all CNA rules-based planning charts to reflect), I suppose. Assuming that we play with that variant, the rules are okay since they don't specify ammo usage rates. The table will require fixing to re-order the entries and probably re-labeling that entry to something clearer like "Close Assault: Infantry-class (non-MG or HvyWpn)".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 22:21:20 GMT
Fortunately, I build spreadsheets for things like this so that the parameters can easily be adjusted as required and in situations such as this.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 14, 2014 3:38:43 GMT
I stand corrected - the official errata does set Infantry to use one ammo point in the chart [50.2]. However, as I noted that should be clarified to be for Close Assault, and apply to non-MG or Heavy Weapons units. Those latter are called out separately for close assault. Still leaves the issue of interpretation of ammo capacity for those non-plain vanilla Infantry units. Grognard.com errata page: grognard.com/errata1/cna.html
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Oct 14, 2014 9:03:51 GMT
Yes, as I said, standard infantry do use ammunition (according to the errata). One of the first questions I put to RB many years ago. "But it ignores the Infantry-type units with additional capabilities". Are you sure? You refer to heavy weapons? Ammunition use/capacity is based on the unit type in terms of the unit's normal activity. Surely that is quite reasonable. The game is littered with exceptions and alternatives. If you are suggesting that primarily AA guns be attached to say a medium artillery regiment and that causes a significant problem, I can't agree. Ammunition usage rates would be unaffected and the difference in capacity (on these relatively few occasions) would be small. I doubt that anyone trying to play the game previously has even implemented capacities at all. What "house rule"
|
|
|
Post by Michael Miller on Oct 14, 2014 12:48:25 GMT
And I missed that erratum when converting the charts. Well done, Tony. Even though that chart now has a slightly different look than mine do. Yes, I'm pretty obsessive over trivial formatting issues. This game probably attracts obsessives. At least a few of us.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 14, 2014 13:55:13 GMT
Yes Tony. The discussion would have been shorter if you or the edited rule had referenced the errata. So what seemed a "house rule" wasn't one.
We are primarily talking about the variety of Italian Infantry type units with a range of capabilities. Those can expend 3 or 4 ammo points in a single attack easily. I am not as worried about a slight overcapacity of a mixed AA/AR unit. On that we seem to agree.
So, yes for that element to be of use at all it should reflect the 'highest and best use'. Otherwise it does not reflect the ammo capacity of the unit, let alone a common expenditure for it. Feel free to provide concrete examples where that would not be the case just as I've provided a specific list where that does apply.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Miller on Oct 14, 2014 14:47:37 GMT
So as I understand it, the idea here is that the ammo capacity should be large enough to permit one use of each capability requiring ammo points? I guess then the problem would become the fungible nature of such, as light arty and anti-tank ammo is somehow used in the rifles. This sort of thing might be at least partly addressed by the stockpile rule, so we are perhaps splitting hairs here. Tony's sort of middle ground limit makes good sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 14, 2014 15:31:14 GMT
Not one use of each, one use of the 'highest and best' use. Tony has opted for a more generalized standard based on unit type. We agree that standard works for most units, but I see a large gap for most Heavy Weapons units with mixed capabilities. This applies mostly to Italian units, affecting types: p, q, r, s, t, dd, ee, ff. We don't have unit types for germans in the spreadsheet, but it could apply to a few of their Infantry types, j, p and t. For the CW, it only affects type r.
It should also be noted that close assault costs for Recon units are not covered by either the existing or errata entries. Tony has set those to be 1 ammo, as if they're infantry. I'm okay with that but thought I'd raise it as it applies to the topic at hand.
The key here is that the data element we are talking about comes from the ID tab unit ID table. That table is locked down. If it were not, then Tony could use that data element his way and we could use it ours with no affect on the other players. So whether we resolve this discussion or not, the table could be unlocked so that it may be managed locally.
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Oct 15, 2014 16:15:05 GMT
And I missed that erratum when converting the charts. Well done, Tony. Even though that chart now has a slightly different look than mine do. Yes, I'm pretty obsessive over trivial formatting issues. This game probably attracts obsessives. At least a few of us. Yes sorry, I wanted to make a version that was most convenient to use on wide screens, so that some unnecessary scrolling could be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Oct 15, 2014 16:34:56 GMT
Yes Tony. The discussion would have been shorter if you or the edited rule had referenced the errata. So what seemed a "house rule" wasn't one. We are primarily talking about the variety of Italian Infantry type units with a range of capabilities. Those can expend 3 or 4 ammo points in a single attack easily. I am not as worried about a slight overcapacity of a mixed AA/AR unit. On that we seem to agree. So, yes for that element to be of use at all it should reflect the 'highest and best use'. Otherwise it does not reflect the ammo capacity of the unit, let alone a common expenditure for it. Feel free to provide concrete examples where that would not be the case just as I've provided a specific list where that does apply. Come on let's put things a bit more friendly eh? The errata was incorporated so long ago that anyone would be hard pushed to remember every reference. If there's a difference, it's the first place to check before blaming me! : ) The sheets already take account of heavy weapons allocations. Such designations are clearly colour coded. Can you let me know where the "3 or 4 points" comes from please? I was under the impression that '2' was the specified value for enhanced infantry. I still think that "main use" is the best guide but there's certainly a case for basing capacity on "maximum". Often the maximum use may be restricted to particular circumstances though. As it makes no difference to expenditure and in order to avoid further work for what seems to be a very small difference and get the game going, I would like to leave it alone. If it can be shown that there is a significant effect that I have underestimate, then I would consider it further. The main problem just now is getting started and all these detailed discussions take so much time. I'm not for a moment suggesting that there aren't some important issues that crop up but the game is becoming one of never-ending development, when what we all want to do it play the bloody thing!
|
|