TOAW Supply

[solops]

My biggest complaint against TOAW was the engine's inability to use ports properly as links in a supply line. Ex: Germans cutt off in Courland should have supply from Riga (idf they hold it) or the minor ports. Port suppression is a linked issue.

Will this be addressed?

[nemo69]

ORIGINAL: solops

My biggest complaint against TOAW was the engine's inability to use ports properly as links in a supply line. Ex: Germans cutt off in Courland should have supply from Riga (idf they hold it) or the minor ports. Port suppression is a linked issue.

Will this be addressed?

I would see this as a design issue, more than a shortcoming on part of the engine. A designer can place a supply point anywhere on the map; placing it on, say, Riga is strictly speaking a design decision. There's a finite number of supply points to place however: 36 (from memory) - in large / complex scenarios that can lead to drastic design choices being made.

[solops]

I have always thought it a terrible limitation in the engine. Depending on a limited number of defined supply points is terribly inflexible. In areas like the Med, it makes a long scenario impossible. Any major or minor port should be able to provide supply of some quality. That is not true at this time. And port suppression should also be available. Historically both of these issues were paramoint in maritime and amphibious operations. If the engine can be taught to handle these issues properly it would be a boon to designers and it would make scenarios far more realistic to play. Designing around the engine's supply shortcomings is a pain and it often introduces gamey responses from the players.

It is a highly desirable feature. One of many, I'm sure. In my opinion it is one of the most important things that might be fixed.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: solops

I have always thought it a terrible limitation in the engine. Depending on a limited number of defined supply points is terribly inflexible. In areas like the Med, it makes a long scenario impossible.

Well, it's an operational rather than a strategic game.

Any major or minor port should be able to provide supply of some quality. That is not true at this time. And port suppression should also be available.

One can do both of these things to some extent by running roads between the ports across the sea.

Historically both of these issues were paramoint in maritime and amphibious operations. If the engine can be taught to handle these issues properly it would be a boon to designers and it would make scenarios far more realistic to play. Designing around the engine's supply shortcomings is a pain and it often introduces gamey responses from the players.

It is a highly desirable feature. One of many, I'm sure. In my opinion it is one of the most important things that might be fixed.

The trouble is that once one gets into the supply system it opens up a huge can of worms. If you want to look into the amount of supply that can be debarked at ports of varying sizes then one immediately needs to quantify supply. You then need to totally change the way supply is distributed across the transport network and to reform the system for supply useage in combat.

This is just such a massive undertaking that I don't see it being dealt with for some time, especially as for a lot of campaigns it isn't a problem. Further, the examples you use are situations which are difficult to model in TOAW anyway without the massive undertaking of adding a proper naval simulation.

[solops]

I had rather thought that instead of quantifying supply, major ports would supply any number of troops and minor ports would supply some number of divisions, similar to SPI's War in Europe port system. Equally simple rules could be applied to suppression or excess units. Yes, this would make things more complex for the programmers. But, if you limited the compexity of the model it would be both manageable and an improvement. Naval interference might be dealt with in a similar fashion.

However, I agree that a comprehensive and detailed naval supply system would be overwhelming, at least. A simpler model should be a doable improvement.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: solops

I had rather thought that instead of quantifying supply, major ports would supply any number of troops and minor ports would supply some number of divisions, similar to SPI's War in Europe port system.

What sort of divisions? How many artillery battalions? What if one of the divisions is at half strength? What about engineer detachments? How much supply does the air force use? etc. etc. etc....

Going by "number of divisions" isn't really any good at all.

[Tim McBride]

An idea for supply that uses in game data might be to use unit wieght. Set each supply point to only be able to support 'x' amount of weight per turn, units supply percentage can be based on the % of wieght available to them (with the modifery for priority already in place). This way you can have minor and major supply points, even static ones that run out(supply dumps)...This would also simulate how 'heavy' units such as armor require so much more supply then a light infantry unit....

Just a thought that ran through my head.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Tim McBride

An idea for supply that uses in game data might be to use unit wieght.

The calculation I used for GS3 is based on unit weight.

If I were starting again, I would say supply consumption = unit weight + (total AP strength)/10. That's a fairly straightforward formula which covers a multitude of sins. For aircraft, I used number of engines instead of unit weight (in TOAW as it stands all aircraft weigh 1).

This also allows for easy separation of fuel/food and ammunition. Weight would be the former and AP strength the latter.