|
|
Post by ATD on Oct 15, 2014 16:44:14 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. That's what I understood, yes. We may have to accept that the nature of the game precludes practical implementation of the rules with complete fidelity. It's pretty close though. As I've said above, heavy weapons consumption rates (at least) should be correctly reflected. Recon ammo value is 1; that's correct. Another thing I checked with 'the creator'. The data tables - I omitted the banner heading "Here be dragons". Individual editing of those sheets would be very ill-advised, with consequences that could not be foreseen. Protection of the sheets in general is to avoid inadvertent alterations as much as anything. If there's anything that definitely needs changing, I will do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Miller on Oct 15, 2014 17:02:25 GMT
The recon value of 1 makes sense as, almost by definition they are not getting into full on firefights.
|
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 15, 2014 18:29:54 GMT
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. The data tables - I omitted the banner heading "Here be dragons". Individual editing of those sheets would be very ill-advised, with consequences that could not be foreseen. Protection of the sheets in general is to avoid inadvertent alterations as much as anything. If there's anything that definitely needs changing, I will do it. I totally understand the concern about inadvertent changes. The thought was tossed out since it is a simple table value and there's honest disagreement to what that value means and how it would be used. The choice is yours about protecting that tab - you can leave it locked and update those Italian values as requested, or unlock it. I'm happy either way. The German and CW units that do have extra capabilities are weak enough that they're unlikely to be used for AT fire or Barrage. |
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 15, 2014 18:52:11 GMT
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. 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. See my previous post that lists all of the Italian, German and CW unit types with Barrage and AT capabilities. Those would have a ammo expenditure of 4 or 3 - the chart I attached very early in this thread spells that out unit type by unit type. There's about 8 Italians and a few others. You're leaving out one thing, that your default to 2 assumes that the "main use" is close assault. You are also using capacity as a short-hand for typical expenditure. Clearly we disagree on both points. Significant effect? In most of the cases, those Heavy Weapons units have decent, for Italians, Barrage or AT ratings. So I would expect them to often be using more than your "main use" capacity levels. So your totals do not reflect the potential ammo expenditure for those units. The more work argument is specious - you had the files open and were correcting them, so this fix could have been added easily. As in the post just above, there are two simple options - update those 8 or so Italian units, or unlock the table. I too would like to move forward with the game and literally find myself being forced to consider building new Land Forces spreadsheets to fix this issue. While that may seem extreme in this particular instance, it offers a number of other benefits for flexibility. |
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 15, 2014 19:10:58 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. 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! : ) That was the friendly way of saying that you were right.  On those "poor bloody infantry" units. And missing that critical bit of data fed how I responded to what I saw as a wholesale problem. So, as penance, I am going to build that promised Change log, starting from the errata, working through v1.2 and then our subsequent work. That way all of us can check at a glance to see what changed and when, if not why. |
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Oct 15, 2014 19:20:52 GMT
Updating the charts in some cases is not necessarily as straightforward as you may assume. The program code, for example, takes account of the formatting of the numbers. The significance of the colours might be realised by someone editing the tables (and therefore not deliberately changed) but maybe they wouldn't - and there are other subtler dependencies to protect. It's not a simple matter for me to make changes, without carefully considering the knock on effects Tim.
My earlier replies must have taken the best part of an hour to draft. I understand that you need the confidence provided by some explanations but having to defend an accusation of speciousness is not just uncalled for; it's also unproductive. I'm still not certain I understand your objection and need to be sure that there isn't some misapprehension going on.
Building a parallel set of sheets? A complete non-starter. It would be a useful exercise in one respect though. You would see that there's vastly more going on in the rules, tables and sheets that you seem to realise at the moment. It's a very understandable position. I might never have undertaken the project, had I known just how laborious it was going to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Oct 15, 2014 19:23:42 GMT
Hair shirt in the post... We may need to discuss the ammo thing. We are probably well overdue for a three-way conference by now anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 15, 2014 20:03:36 GMT
OK - try four thousand two hundred and three, exaggerating slightly, to explain my objection to the hard-coded ammo capacity value:
1) "Ammo Cpcty" column - does not reflect the ammo capacity of the specific unit types cited: p,q,r,s,t,dd,ee,ff,vv
2) From your discussion you are using that value to mean something like typical expenditure. A front-line commander could use that, sure. But they would also want to know how much ammo the unit can hold before needing to store it in trucks.
3) Units of the specified types are in the initial Italian setup, mostly in front line garrisons
4) "Ammo Cpcty" is mapped to be an input to the "Supply Requirements" entry in the summary at the top of the screen
- Using the capacity value for this purpose has merit if it reflects the potential ammo expenditure, for these units it does not
Thanks for your explanation on the intricacies involved. But there are no colour issues here, that column seems to be plain old black text on white. And now that the scope is narrowed to these nine Italians and a few others, the effort still does not seem to be huge. So we're really down to whether you change those or not.
As for a parallel effort, I envision more of a database using a spreadsheet to draw data out for display and user interface. That would be a long-term project for sure. Short term, we both want to play the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Oct 16, 2014 18:08:44 GMT
On the last point first Tim, I did think after posting my previous message, that maybe you meant an additional draw off of information, rather than a replacement as such. Clearly, I would have no problem with the former (especially if it get you off my back). : )
The conference would be a good idea on this particular point alone because I keep feeling I must be missing something, as the effects of the difference seems to me to be so small as to be well within the bounds of satisfactory. It would benefit from the three of us discussing it.
As I mentioned earlier, I doubt whether other attempts to play the game even bothered implementing fuel and ammo capacity at all.
1) just confirming that it does do this and it is simply the different bases on which the capacity is calculated, or are you saying that there Is a different issue.
The indication of ammo use for front line commanders was purely in the nature of a casual enhancement, as a guide and was never intended to be a critical element. It is informational rather than operational. If I’d known this element was going to be a feature in this level of debate and delay, I might well have omitted it!
|
|
On those "poor bloody infantry" units.