CNA Oldtimer

[rangerdave]

Just wanted to create my own stand alone thread.



I'll check-in a couple of times weekly to see if there is anything I can do to help get CNA playable.



I haven't played CNA since around the year 2002. Played a lot in the 80's, then started slacking in the 90's (Got married, got kids). Now back in the groove (still married, kids off to college).



Evolved into playing a reduced size wall mounted magnetic version to save space. Debating whether to remount it since it's weathered rather poorly.



Have some good paper-based playing aids that are on excel. Have been slowing making progress with macros/vba to ease play of the air game.



Open minded on how best to play. Live in Jacksonville, FL.



David

[blu3wolf]

Well, if our host doesnt object, I wouldnt mind picking your brains for how certain rules interact. Im still trying to get my head around the rulebook. The original one plus errata, as our gracious host has not seen fit to make his custom rules public yet.

[rangerdave]

I can only give you my understanding of the original rules and errata. The host(s) seem to have quite of few home rules/clarifications that I cannot comment on.

David

[blu3wolf]

Well, until those rulings are made public, I cant do much with them either. And as it happens it was the original rules and errata that Im seeking help with, so thats excellent!

Ive not seen any objects to the contrary, so if I find another question for you, Ill post it here.

Ive been working on a project to implement the original rules into a software tool to remove the paperwork and the seemingly endless calculations by hand. Computers obviously being much better at doing those. The issue so far has been running into cases where I cant figure out how the original rules are supposed to work, and having to stop to think about it.

ATD seems to be further along than my hobby project, so perhaps my tool wont see much or even any use. But so far its been educational for me, so Ill keep pottering away with it.

[rangerdave]

Well, I'm open to discussing any rule. Can't count how many times I've read them.

Without some serious programming by a Master programmer, I do not see how this game could ever be fully computerized. That being said, I do think it's possible to have a mounted map with mounted counters with computer based playing aids that can hold/track almost all data and process repetitive and/or painful tasks (like evap & Spill/pasta, fuel consumption, etc.). That way 2 or more people live on a computer could (hopefully) play the game.

As such, I'm still pecking away at automating my excel playing aids and using macros/VBA code to make it easier. I am now adding references to rules as I go along. I'm working on Malta Raid. It's slow going and very simple VBA since I'm a VBA Novice.

Playing CNA is on my Bucket list.

[blu3wolf]

Well, Im no master programmer. I also dont aim to fully computerise the game - for now. Id been thinking more along the lines of a sophisticated play aid.

Essentially, the software would replace the paperwork. Each side would run a copy of the software, without the software talking to the other side - not a multiplayer game, in other words. The user would input changes to the game state into the software - so in the movement step, for example, you click a unit on your ground commanders 'sheet' (think window, or tab, instead of sheet), then click a 'Move' button. A window pops up, allows you to enter a destination hex, number of CPs expended, breakdown points accumulated... The software then would expend fuel, track breakdown points, adjust cohesion if required, track CPs expended...

Just like the pen and paper version, you need to talk (or email, etc) to your opponent(s). For combat, you would have to get the list of targets from your opponents, to input into the software, for example.

Perhaps in the future it could be expanded to allow a networked environment, with multiple players all using the software to connect to a multiplayer game, but that would be a fair bit of work. Seems easier to focus on a core feature set and making that work, first, before getting too far ahead of myself.

Based on what we've seen from ATD, it seems like they have a similar approach, judging by the data entry screens we've been teased with.

[blu3wolf]

Alright, odd question. 12.23 says that to barrage, you state which hexes you intend to fire from, and your opponent then lists targets in the adjacent hexes, as Gun #1, Gun #2, Infantry #1, Inf #2, Armor #1, Armor #2, etc etc. You then select targets, assign your firing TOE Strength Points to those targets, and resolve the barrage at some point (in the simple case, presumably about the same time).

So, the odd question which seems not to be addressed in the rules. Could you decide which units you want to fire with, state those hexes you intend to fire from, get the list of targets, then decide not to fire? Perhaps to conserve ammunition? Or does gaining that information count as a privilege of firing?

I must admit the Barrage rules feel somewhat clunky compared to the Anti Armor and Close Assault rules. I cant imagine this situation would be likely to come up, chances are you either want to fire, or don't. Still, the question stands - is the number of battalions and companies and their Types given information freely, or only if you are Barraging?

[ATD]

The system doesn’t seem to reliably alert me when new posts are made but I am trying to keep in touch with things. Not sure if this fills your criteria for “master programmer” but here is the screenshot referred to earlier (I really wasn’t meaning to tease!).

The game is a huge amount of work from any angle. To play it properly with all rules included and not skipping over some things is huge. Correcting and completing the rules has been huge. Mike (Miller) has contributed some detailed historical data, to add to the research I’d done myself.

The scale of the rules (and state of the originals) is such that I wouldn’t think there much value in debating individual points at this stage. I’m desperate to get this started and it’s really not far away, which point players could have all the materials and the benefit of the up-to-date rules. If I’d known how much work was going to be involved from the very start, I probably have placed it on a commercial basis! If I needed the money, that might have speed things up too. : )

Anyway, there seems to be plenty of interest and I’ll be looking for a maximum of six players perhaps.

[rangerdave]

blu3wolf,

Ref Your question on 12.23. I also do not see this as being a likely scenario. Given that... 1. Combat is Mandatory between adjacent units. Must at least Barrage (Regular or Holding Off), Close Assault, or Probe (-4).[10.31,11.0]

My thinking is ..."Each Player decides which of his units will Barrage which Enemy hexes (see Case 12.2),..."[11.0]. As such, you first decide to Barrage, then the opposing player lists the battalions so you can decide targets. Given the rule requirements of a Holding Off Barrage, [10.34] you may have to increase the number of Barraging units to fulfill the requirement. However, you may not have enough and therefore must redo your whole plan (It happened to me). As such, if you can increase/decrease for Holding Off, you should be able to increase/decrease for Regular Barrage - even down to zero. Is this an abuse of the rules? Maybe, but I don't see this happening often. Although it might be an option/useful if you plan to retreat before assault.

Well, that's my two cents.

[blu3wolf]

Huh. A close reading of 10.31 suggests that a normal artillery barrage is sufficient to satisfy the requirements for mandatory combat between adjacent units. Despite 10.35 then seeming to contradict that and require at least a holding off barrage.

So my interpretation there then is that you need to either achieve a holding off barrage, a probe (if basic diff is -4 or more), or a close assault.

So then before firing, you dont know if you can hold off with barrage. After firing, you dont yet know whether a probe is enough, as you only find out the basic diff once you commit to fight... That really feels like draft rules! You more or less have to plan to close assault rather than probe if there is any question of who has the bigger force, I guess.

[blu3wolf]

Heres another. 51.0 tells me that TOE Strength Points, Guard Points, and Prisoner Points require Stores.

Do Replacement Points require Stores? It seems like the logical reply is 'yes'. The interesting part is several Infantry Replacement Points would then each require 4 Stores Points, until they are all combined into a TOE Strength Point, and then only require 4 Stores Points for the one TOE Strength Point.

[ATD]

The entire original rulebook is a draft! I've been banging on for years about the widespread poor standard of rules authorship, both technically and in terms of presentation. There are a couple of exceptions to prove the rule too.

[blu3wolf]

Certainly in presentation. Having to hunt through the rules to find WHEN certain actions occur or even CAN occur, for instance. And previously Id thought the 18xx rulebooks were poorly laid out... how little I knew!

Almost a shame that its interesting enough to warrant spending all this time on it!

[blu3wolf]

Feb 11, 2019 10:05:12 GMT blu3wolf said:

Heres another. 51.0 tells me that TOE Strength Points, Guard Points, and Prisoner Points require Stores.

Do Replacement Points require Stores? It seems like the logical reply is 'yes'. The interesting part is several Infantry Replacement Points would then each require 4 Stores Points, until they are all combined into a TOE Strength Point, and then only require 4 Stores Points for the one TOE Strength Point.

Still thinking about this. The counter argument at present would be that Stores on Truck Convoys are not available for use until they are unloaded (51.15) - and Replacement Points are Truck Convoys until they reach their assignment (20.46). I can hardly see those Replacement Points stopping every turn, unloading stores, consuming stores, then continuing...

Ah. Right above where Im reading, I see 20.45 - "Like other normal units, Replacement Points require Stores..." I guess thats that sorted, then!

[blu3wolf]

Well, shipping seems to have not been given as much thought as it could be. Short cases!

So you schedule Replacements in say Ops Stage 3, GT 3. In the Convoy Schedule Phase of GT 4, you assign them to a convoy which will be 'landed' at the start of the Stores Expenditure Stage of GT 5 - in which case, the Replacements cant be unloaded until the Arrivals Phase of Ops Stage 3, GT 5. Except that 56.28 says that supplies and personnel are unloaded immediately and can be used immediately. So Replacements and Shipping dont seem to 'mesh' well.

Alright, so you cant schedule more tonnage than the port can handle. The convoy sails per GT, but the ports load/unload per Ops Stage. So lets say you schedule 7500 tons to Benghazi, planning to unload 2500 tons each Ops Stage (the limit for Benghazi). What happens when the dastardly CW bomb Benghazi, lowering its port capacity? The rules are clear that the capacity is lowered, so obviously I wont be able to unload the convoy as planned. The rules are silent on what happens to the supplies on the convoy! Do the ships wait around in the port, waiting to be unloaded? This seems the likely answer, but the rules do not seem to answer! Does the convoy have to return, taking precious supplies away? who knows??