william bowen Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Please correct me where I am wrong here. For example lets say Riga has an army corp inside the city [for easy math say a corp is 100,000 troops] and after an attack by many axis units it was reduced from a 10 to a 2, that means to me that 80,000 troops have been lost. Axis have the city surrounded and the Russian fleet has been destroyed, and the axis have multiple fleets off the coast of Riga, on resupply Riga goes from a 2 to an 8 or more, that means that Riga received 60,000 troops Huh! Common sense tells me that this is impossible. Now I know this is just a beer and pretzles game but I would like something done about supply. In the global game I noticed fleets running out of supply quickly, how do you keep these fleets in supply? A new wargame is coming soon called World in flames and all they talk about is supply and how it affects their game, they might not be able to implement it properly but it seems to be their major concern, zones of control etc. Could this game improve the supply dilemna that I see or am I wrong. thank you Bill Bowen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 First off, don't count strength rating as a simple manpower count, because it isn't. You have food, fuel, ammo, etc. Even a cut off city would be able to supply much of that, for a while, anyway. Secondly, what are you worried about? You have Riga surrounded, it's going to drop the next turn. For the surface ships, move them back near a port after a few turns at sea, they'll resupply. Subs don't have that problem, they can stay out forever, as long as they don't do anything. A lot of this is just game design issues. World in Flames will be making their own choices, and probably won't get it perfect either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 william if you completely surround a city then the max reinforcement for a unit tops out at strength = 5 which might help your situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william bowen Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 Originally posted by Hubert Cater: william if you completely surround a city then the max reinforcement for a unit tops out at strength = 5 which might help your situation. Hubert does that also apply to a port city like Riga even though they are totally surrounded by air land and sea. It seems to me they get more than that.[could be wrong on that.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 A lot of this is just game design issues. World in Flames will be making their own choices, and probably won't get it perfect either True. And, far as I can tell, and Going by my own X-perience Having played WiF-FE the board-game All the way through, full global, Three times, I am supposing that, If you play EVEN the computer version A couple hours EVERY single evening, Every single day of the week, You MIGHT get to: "Polish the Captains twin-bar brass" STAGE, Ummm, X-cuse... the brass-polish... phase, For the Nov-Dec '39 game turn, Oh, in about - a month or 2? :eek: That's gonna be a lasting blast! LOL! Crimeney, How complicated, How many Everyday Average Players Really want To play WW2 GS such as that? 27? 72? That's gonna make 'em a LOTTA profit. (... what was "Axis & Allies?" Junk for punks? Well, the guy what made it sure as shootin' SOLD a bunch of cardboard, eh? ) Well, I'd also X-pect a Matrix kind of price To surpass -> 3 figures. Same as with Harper's current Reich rip-off, That'll really make the cash register Ring and ding! ------------------------------------------ Far as supply, And not much doubt this'll Get - not much interest, but How about heeding Thoreau's advice And... "simplify, simplify, simplify?" You are either IN supply, And can do - anything, Or... you are OUT of supply, And you whither away to nada In a couple turns. (... recall, Lars, we had quite the animated discussion on this - some years ago wadn't it? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 william you might actually be right here, the port supply to land units was new for Bltizkrieg and may not take into account a unit being fully surrounded by land and sea. I'll take a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Oh yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Look, I've said this before, surrounded and completely cut off are not synonymous. Take a page out of the encyclopedia of real life, ever hear of a completely isolated environment excepting theoretical terms? Ever hear of smuggling? Is it possible that the resident soldiers could, after being temporarily incapacitated, somewhat recovery and even resist when actually wounded and rejuvenated? Nahhh...could never happen...totally unrealistic. And DD, I concur, I should hope I live long enough to ever finish a game of WiF.....I'll be triple digits. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 And DD, I concur, I should hope I live long enough to ever finish a game of WiF.....I'll be triple digits. :cool: LOL, yeah SM, how I did it Remains a mystery to this day. But, once, I was a REALLY dedicated WW2 GS board-game player. (... even made ~3 pages of "house rules" and added some new units from another "miniatures" type game, and got "Axis & Allies Europe" where it was truly fun!!!! To play ) LOVED to roll out dem bones, man, There WAS just... nuthin' like it! :cool: Now, Only sorting and setting up the game pieces Puts me to sleep. Far as MWiF, I guess I just don't get it. Why in dickens do you want to Oppose the most common-sense principal EVER proposed, IE, INSTEAD of taking the simple, The elegant, The elemental, The geometrically true, The rhapsody in blue, The basically beautiful, And making it COMPLEX!! Why not? Take what is complex (... as for example, WW2 is, IMO, not even CLOSE to being remotely understood, philosophically OR - "historically/statistically") And make it simple? As Lars mentioned, OVER engineering, socially speaking Or plain mechanically, Is the bane of our existence. :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william bowen Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 Hubert are these people smoking pot or what? Hate smart as----. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Originally posted by william bowen: Hubert are these people smoking pot or what? Hate smart as----. bill Got sum quandry queries fer ya, b bowen: 1) Who are... "these people?" Thatta way we ken ken who yer All riled-up -> about? 2) How could Hubert possibly KNOW Who wuz smoking -> what? 3) You hate! :mad: That's Self-harmful, and quite stressful too. Not good, IMO. 4) People as "smart" as... well, we need Let's see, a 4-letter word So to fill in yer blanks, here Allow me help: "Smart as a whip?" "Smart as an elephant?" "Smart as Einstein, or, Stephen Hawking?" "Smart as - you?" And so, Riddle me those, b bowen, And I myself Could even answer a question or 2, And better, suppose you ain't Uptightly intolerant, nor Sargeant @ Arms At the personal opinion or free X-pression door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts