Re: Screwy UI Resupply Code

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Peter Garrone wrote:

> > I disagree. As Jim points out, there are times where manual 
> > give/take is still useful. This functionality should continue to 
> > be available, even if much of it can be automated in many cases.
> 
> Of course it is useful. But it is too tedious. If it is disabled, then
> no one can do it, and it is fair for all.

*Sigh*  Your argument resembles various societal and legal trends 
here in the US. Placing a strange notion of "fairness" before 
"freedom"....

Actually, you are starting to me remind of the "Handicapper 
General" in a Kurt Vonnegut short story, "Harrison Bergeron", that 
the teacher made us read in freshman lit in high school.

If resupply is largely automated, then I fail to see how it can be 
tedious. And the fact that some people may choose a little tedium 
to give themselves an advantage is, __how shall I say it, normal 
and reasonable.

> The image that leaps into my mind is a lot of units moving around
> stealing fuel off each other. I dont know where you are going here.

I think it is reasonable to not receive donations from mobile 
units. This avoids the "Fighter takes fuel from Bomber, then 
Bomber needs fuel so it takes it from Fighter" scenario that we 
were presented with earlier.

> I dont think real navy vessels in general can resupply each other with fuel.

With WWII era vessels, you are wrong. With modern ones, I don't 
know.  I have seen photos of a destroyer refueling a sub at sea, a 
carrier refueling a destroyer at sea, and, of course, 
tankers/oilers/supply ships refueling various vessels at sea. It's 
a fact.

> Obviously they are at a
> combat disadvantage while doing so as well. So a realistic situation
> would be to have the unit occupy the refueler, and to have a combat
> disadvantage.

Having a Carrier _enter_ a Tanker is realistic?! C'mon Peter....

> also from the point of software, because there is one set of software to
> impose some constraints, and another set to get around it.

This was my original point, and I am suggesting that we remedy 
that situation. But, not by making it disappear....

Eric