A proposal for a supply system based on Tonnage

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

Hi all
This is my proposal

1) Supply source
Based on units instead of points in the map. These supply units will generate supply points according to their TOE, in which a supply generator equipment is included. This way every supply source could generate a different amount of supply points (equivalent in tonnage). These supply units will be static, but could be disbanded or created by events, as any unit. They will have also replacements, so that for example, the Allies take a port in Normandy, and a supply unit is placed by event there, but with a very low number of supply generator equipment that could increase with time with the arrival of replacements, increasing the amount of supply that the unit can deliver.

2) Supply lines
Instead of the current system in which every hex is checked for supply, in my proposal only HQ units get the supply points from supply sources, and only if they are placed in a road or rail hex.

3) HQs
They will have 2 new equipment slots, 1 for supply storage and 1 for supply delivery. Supply storage represents the maximum amount of points a HQ can store from supply sources. They get that supply by standing at the end of the supply line of a supply source. Supply points are lost with distance, so that only a fraction arrives to distant points. For example the 21st panzer HQ is placed at Tobruk, where there is no Axis supply source, so it gets supply from Bengasi by road (if the designer wanted supplies delivered by ship then he should place a Supply source at Tobruk). The Bengasi supply source delivers 2.000 supply points per turn, but given the supply radius in the scenario only 500 points reach Tobruk. The 21st Pz HQ get some of those points, but there are other HQs in the road so they have to share the supply, up to the 500 points available. The 21st Pz HQ has a limit of 900 supply points, after reaching that limit it gets no more supply, that is available for other HQs.
Units in each formation get supply from their parent HQs or other fully cooperative HQs, within a radius that is set in the HQ unit, with supply decreasing with distance, bad terrain, etc, just like now, but with a maximum radius, so that beyond that radius units get no supply at all. HQs can provide the supply points they have in storage. The idea is to simulate 3rd echelon supply, Hqs get supply points in the supply net (roads and rails) and they deliver to the units, they could do that while moving out of the supply net.


4) Units get a “total supply requirements” TSR number equal to 100% supply (unit weight could be a good guide here), and supply spending is calculated upon that. For instance an inf Regiment has a TSR of 200, so that with at 50% supply has only 100 supply points left, and with every movement point spend 2 supply points, while an Armoured Regiment has a TSR of 1.200 and every movement point cost 12 supply points.

To sum up, the game has to check only Supply sources, HQs and then a path from one to the others through a rail or a road. After that, the game check the situation of every unit relative to their HQs (it already does) and deliver supply points according to that. This would better simulate supply lines and supply echelons, as well as rewarding more historical gameplay in which units stay close to parent HQs.

[JAMiAM]

Let's revisit this if we get a chance to do a TOAW IV, and are able to redesign this from the ground up...[;)]

[PaladinSix]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Let's revisit this if we get a chance to do a TOAW IV, and are able to redesign this from the ground up...[;)]

Please do, if/when the opportunity arises. Although it would obviously require a total overhaul of the supply system (not practical for a patch or update), the basic outline above seems more realistic and more rewarding to manage. Of course, it also seems more limiting and perhaps less fun than the current, abstract system, so it might not be real popular.

PaladinSix

[Legun]

Inaki (and All interested in as well)
Please look at the proposition. I know - it's not perfect, but it's closer to reality (I hope):
http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl ... 56/195#195

[Bloodybucket28th]

The proposal sounds good, and I like Legun's system, also. While logistical considerations are always going to be the ugly sister at the marriage of tactical considerations to wargame design, they are critical if you want an accurate picture of what the "operational art of war" is really about.

I'd take it one step further and have the game track a couple of classes of supply - POL and ammo, and perhaps a third class of "everything else". Gasoline shortages have played a critical role in operations since the advent of mechanized warfare, and there have been a few examples of forces that were otherwise adequately supplied feeling the pinch of POL shortages. I think that ammo in a game of this scale really should reflect supplies of artillery munitions rather than the small arms stuff.

I doubt that most players have a taste for detailed logistical considerations (whoever heard of JCH Lee?) but by using a simplified version of the various classes of supply the scenario designer could more fully simulate events like the Allied fuel shortage in the late summer of '44 or the German problems with fuel in the Ardennes of that same year.

Having the tanks and trucks run out of gas while the units involved retain most of their combat power, and without impacting the performance of "leg" formations, would add an interesting and historical twist to the game. I know that even that icon of overabundance, the WWII US army in the ETO, was keenly aware of shortages in artillery ammunition at certain phases of that campaign.

Even somebody with a background in logistics would probably not enjoy dealing with nitnoids like clothing and comfort items (Quartermaster provides hot chow, every unit gets a 5% proficiency bonus, but loses 2% readiness due to weight gain and post-meal drowsiness) but a slightly more detailed supply system could make TOAW players and scenario designers better equipped (hah! pun intended) to understand and simulate these important elements of operational warfare.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: TheBloodyBucket

I'd take it one step further and have the game track a couple of classes of supply - POL and ammo, and perhaps a third class of "everything else". Gasoline shortages have played a critical role in operations since the advent of mechanized warfare, and there have been a few examples of forces that were otherwise adequately supplied feeling the pinch of POL shortages. I think that ammo in a game of this scale really should reflect supplies of artillery munitions rather than the small arms stuff.

Yeah. I don't think a third category's really necessary, though.

The good thing about this division is that it improves supply modelling without putting an additional burden on the designer or the player.

[Legun]

The proposal sounds good, and I like Legun's system, also.

Thanks.

I'd take it one step further and have the game track a couple of classes of supply - POL and ammo, and perhaps a third class of "everything else". Gasoline shortages have played a critical role in operations since the advent of mechanized warfare, and there have been a few examples of forces that were otherwise adequately supplied feeling the pinch of POL shortages. I think that ammo in a game of this scale really should reflect supplies of artillery munitions rather than the small arms stuff.

Good point, but I'm affraid that this is an abstrative discussion about the dreamy MiSS (Military Simulation System) [:(]. We can hope for small modifications only.

[Bloodybucket28th]

There's always TOAWIV![:D]

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: Legun

Inaki (and All interested in as well)
Please look at the proposition. I know - it's not perfect, but it's closer to reality (I hope):
http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl ... 56/195#195

It is certainly an interesting proposal and more adapted to the present game. As others pointed out, many players could be not interested in supply management, but I think that is encouraged by the game mechanics, as supply doesn´t matter too much, and you can still attack or run with units at 1% supply, that is why I made another proposal, I paste here.


"I think that a good and simple way to end the 1% supply limit problem would be that units with low supply (say 25% for instance) would be unable to attack, they would be able just to defend. Artillery would only fire in defense support, and planes would only flight defensive missions, effectively they would only enter combat in the friendly player turn"

That way supply would make a big impact in gameplay and players would be much more concerned about it, and it is also historically accurate, for instance the German army classified divisions, Kampfwert I (able to carry out all out attacks) Kampfwert II (capable of limited offensive operations) Kampfwert III (suitable only to defensive missions) etc

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

"I think that a good and simple way to end the 1% supply limit problem would be that units with low supply (say 25% for instance) would be unable to attack....

I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be 1% as a lower limit. I think that 0% should be the lower limit and that units that don't have any supply at all shouldn't be able to move or fire ( either defensively or offensively ). Or perhaps we could keep track of different categories of supply and ammo would be one of them. When you run outta ammo you don't fire. Period. And another category might be petrol. products. for armoured vehicles. When you're outta gas you don't move. Another might be foodstuffs...when you're outta food the readiness declines remarkably and maybe desertion sets in. Or something.

It might be harder to do gamewise but it would make for a more accurate depiction of actual warefare as it's waged on actual battlefields.

[murx]

Wuaaaa >.<
I had such a nice long post on this issue here - but server restart dropped my session and all is gone.
&nbsp;
To put it really short:
&nbsp;
Any mechanism that uses simple radius/percentage calculation for supply does NOT bring any more realism then the current system because the matters of logistics are just too complex to be averaged with a simple formula like that.
&nbsp;
murx

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be 1% as a lower limit. I think that 0% should be the lower limit and that units that don't have any supply at all shouldn't be able to move or fire ( either defensively or offensively ).

Then defeating any unit would be a simple matter of reducing its supply to zero. Then it'll collapse.

Doesn't work that way in reality. Infantry can be in an extremely poor supply state and still be able to defend themselves.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: murx

Any mechanism that uses simple radius/percentage calculation for supply does NOT bring any more realism then the current system because the matters of logistics are just too complex to be averaged with a simple formula like that.

Just being able to vary supply level dependent upon the number of units being supplied would be a great improvement. Obviously it's not perfect. Its never going to be perfect. But it would allow us to do lots of things that we can't do now.

[Catch21]

I don't know. Maybe someone was a quartermaster in a previous life.

Or perhaps we need a totally new game- TOAS- The Operational Art of Supply, in which everything happens behind the lines, whether shipping, loading, categorizing, prioritizing, delivering and ensuring that what's needed gets to the boys up front as quickly and efficiently as possible.

And where combat instead of supply is abstracted with a little circle with a number in it indicating combat intensity and the likelihood they'll need resupply, of what and in what quantities. Where a health indicator becomes a 'desperation' indicator, red being down to our last bullet/K-Ration, and green we're all nice and toasty and thanks for the Hershey bars.[;)]

[murx]

Well, to get more realism into supply several elements are needed:
1. The 'real' production (maybe in tons?) of the nation
2. The 'real' transportation capacity of railways and roads (for instance 10 trains/day on single line rails, 30 trains on double rail); roads need to 'remember' how much traffic passed through - right now only stacks impose a possible additional movement cost for overstacking - but a 'bridge' does not remember if a single company or whole AG/Nord has crossed it in one turn (let alone influence this the speed/amount of supplies that can move across)
3. The 'real' consumption (maybe in tons?) of units - Armored German Divisions during Barbarossa used estimated 30 tons/day inactive and up to 700 tons in heavy fighting while Infantry Divisions need 80 tons/day inactive and up to 1100 tons in heavy fighting. (This probably dropped since divisions later were ever smaller - both by TOE (down to 3/4 - 2/3 of earlier TOE) and of course losses due to fighting.
4. Change from 'simple' transport capacity numbers into batches on trains - usually 450 tons supply per train; Infantry Divisions need 35-40 trains; Armored Division double that number - and Heavy Tank units even more (4-6 Tiger per train or 6-8 Panther per train)
5. Road transport need 'Kraftwagenkolonne' (motorized supply column) - basically a small one consist of 12 trucks hauling 30 tons over 125 Km/day
[Transport capacities of the 'Kraftwagentransportregimenter' used during Barbarossa:
Rgt 602: 4.500 t
Rgt 605: 6.000 t
Rgt 616: 9.000 t                                                                                             ]

Other means of transportation (like packmules and horse wagon) are only used within the units and between division supply point and its subunits. (the same is true for the integral Nachschubgruppen(mot.) - supply companies etc - of all units)

So basically Rgt 602 can supply 2.250 tons 125 Km from railhead (they have to go both ways); 1.125 over 250 Km and so on - but according to history the 400 Km from railheads at AG/S put supply nearly over the edge in 1941.
Even tho 15.000 Km of railway was changed into European standard until the end of '41 the main problem was Gevatter Winter - only around 20% of train engines could work under those conditions.
Besides that AG/N lost 39% and AG/M 25% of their supply trucks.



Detailed information about all this can be found for instance in Handbook on German Forces (TM 30-410) (which can be freely downloaded on some US gouverment server, a document that was declassified by US upon some free information act, dont ask me the details [&:] forgot the exact address of it [&o])


For another slight glimpse on reality:

AG/Nord wanted 20 trains worth of supply and got 19 per day during Barbarossa
AG/Mitte wanted 32 trains worth of supply and got 16 per day
AG/Süd wanted 22 and got 15 per day
Totaling to 74 wanted and 50 delivered per day

From September'41 until Januar'42 8.717 trains reached the railheads - around 4 mega tons of supply (4.000.000 tons)
(source http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Soldat/Versorgung-R.htm)
Of course this does not include the amount that actually reached the front line

murx

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: murx

Well, to get more realism into supply several elements are needed:
1. The 'real' production (maybe in tons?) of the nation

I'd avoid using real world units or else we will get into endless debates over every single figure used.

Anyway, while all this is fine in theory we have to be circumspect. What is a) implementable and b) reasonable to expect players to cope with?

[Legun]

Sure, but you must know that there was an army of quatermaster to solve the problem. I would like to see it as simple as possible - just to emphesize real limits for the operational art of war.

[murx]

Well - it's up to the developers, the programmers and the immense calculating power of the pc to make a simulation as real as possible towards the processed data and at the same time as simple as possible towards the ease of use for the user&nbsp; [:D]
&nbsp;
And for using 'real world data' - what's wrong with that? Most scenarios have strong connections towards 'real world' - of course one could discuss the details. It is not that as a developer/programmer you have to get each formula approved by the audience - but of course the audience can (and should) be used as brainstorming/information pool - getting different views and opinions does not mean one has to implement them - or create a formula that pleases all sides.
If you really want to avoid such discussions about difference between 'real world' and 'game solution' you need to rewrite all scenarios as Blauland vs Rotland - and change the maps, they look too similar to some real world areas [:'(]&nbsp;-&nbsp;of course weapons and everything need their own naming too.
&nbsp;
murx
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Legun]

I'm not against detailed calculation, but there is a question of a scale of a player's decisions and amount of information he must take into account to make the decisions optimal. Detailed information about logistic limits based on capacity of rail and road network can be easily make overweight.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: murx

And for using 'real world data' - what's wrong with that?

Well if it's just 100 units of supply then one can fudge matters. If it's 100 tons then someone will start going off about how this army had heavier boxes for carrying supply, or whatever. Really, I'd stay well away from saying anything as bold as the word "ton". It will lead to disaster.

The previous version of my Grand Strategy game was set in the real world. Virtually every ruling I made was challenged by the players because they could always pull up some statistic or other which appeared to contradict me. I have no interest in researching the number of peas eaten by 3rd County of London Yeomanry in May 1940. I think it is sufficient just to have a relative and abstract unit of supply.

The bottom line is that this is a game about the Operational Art of War. I care about rifle squads and heavy rifle squads, but I'm not interested in discussions on whether the two LMGs in the latter will consume as many bullets each as the single LMG in the former.

Don't get me wrong- I think supply received by a unit should depend on the number of units drawing supply from a supply source. But calling it "tons" is asking for trouble, and adding the sort of complexity you're talking about will present the players with a choice between going through all the laborious detail or not properly managing their logistics problems. Saying the AI can manage it isn't convincing. Have you tried the Air Staff Assistant lately?