Supply & Combat Newbie questions

[ceyan]

Hopefully I'm not repeating an oft-answered set of questions, but I couldn't find a lot of reference in the manual and a quick search of the forums didn't help much either.

1) Is there some user-guide on how supply works? I understand the Lines of Communication and such, but what I don't get is how supply is distributed, especially reflected thorugh the point system. What does the "supply" value mean in the situation briefing? And when I hit the button to show and hide supply points, what is the map showing on the setting where it shows a supply value in hexes around my units?

2) Is there some way to prioritize replacements, or at least see who is getting them each turn (not even what they are, just trying to find out where they are going)?

3) I couldn't find a good breakdown of how combat is resolved. I thought I got the gist of it from reading the manual, but I was playing the Leros scenario earlier today, attacking one of the Luftwaffe groups with a total defense of ~10 and the stack had been out of supply for at least three turns. Yet when I ordered a grand total of 64 attack points against it, I couldn't dislodge the group. Unless I'm missing some detail in my battle report, I couldn't figure out how in the hell that could be possible.

[Menschenfresser]

The supply numbers you see surrounding (and under) your unit reflect the supply which would be added to the unit's supply level during the bookkeeping phase if all other factors were set to 100%. (I think this is true.) These other factors, like formation supply distribution, whether or not a unit is adjacent to an HQ, whether or not the unit moved, etc., decrease this number by certain percentages. For instance you might see a value of 30 on the map, but from one turn to the next your unit might only gain, say, 15 points of supply due to these other factors (which are many).

Replacement priority can only be set in the editor, meaning it is a preset variable for all units. It ranges from Very High to None. This isn't a variable you can see in the scenario once a game is underway. A designer should include a general idea of replacement priorities in a scenario briefing, but few do. You can always open a scenario in the editor and check out what is what.

I would avoid thinking of a unit's combat strength in terms of the numbers listed on the counters. Those numbers are quite abstract from the way in which the combat routines deal with combat. Some times five 10-10 infantry divisions will burn themselves out on a single 2-2 security regiment simply because the latter has a wealth of supporting artillery, or some other reason. Once you become intimate with the game through trial and error, you'll forget all about the numbers on the counters. I use them only as a general 'strength' indicator...more akin to the supply flag on the counter than a direct comment on how well it attacks or defends. After a while you will instinctively know what has a chance of working and what does not.

[KarlXII]

Ok, so if we are not to go to much after attack/defense strength on the units, can one trust the probability of success and estimation of losses on the plan-of-attack screen ? Will those judgements be based on the other underlying factors (like equipment types, flankings etc) other than just pure strength versus defense ? Personally - as a rookie in this game - I always judge my attacks by the estimiation of the plan-of-attack and only in rare cases goes against it if I must.

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: karlxii

Ok, so if we are not to go to much after attack/defense strength on the units, can one trust the probability of success and estimation of losses on the plan-of-attack screen ? Will those judgements be based on the other underlying factors (like equipment types, flankings etc) other than just pure strength versus defense ? Personally - as a rookie in this game - I always judge my attacks by the estimiation of the plan-of-attack and only in rare cases goes against it if I must.

Nope, not at all, this 'little helper' is so unreliable that you should forget about it right away and never look at it again.

What it will do is basically add up the attack points against the attacked units defence points and base it's recommendations on those results. But as Menschenfresser already wrote, those are no good indications of a real units strength.

For example in a Barbarossa scenario you might attack a soviet rifle division in mobile status (25-19) with a panzer regiment (10-8), from the points given the combat planer will probably predict excessive losses for you and a very low chance of success.
What'll really happen is that your panzers will slice through that soviet division like a hot knife through butter, because of what the combat planer didn't take into account (just some possibilities):

- Your army is operating at a positoive shock, the soviets at a negative shock
- your proficiency is much higher than the soviet rifle divisions proficiency
- the soviet rifle division will have few anti armor weapons and will be quite helpless against an all armor attack
- you will have many indirect artillery pices supporting your attack (they aren't taken into account by the combat planer, for that you'd had to assign them to direct bombardment), while the soviets will have no friendly arty fireing in their support
- a Ju-87 Sturzkampfgeschwader will support your tanks in close combat support

So, it's better to simply ignore the combat planer in this aspect and better start to develop a feeling for how a battle will go, that is something no AI can ever replace [:)]

[KarlXII]

Thanks! It seems as a beginner I have to leave those attack/defense values and begin to really look at what kind of equipment/proficiency I have and start doing judgements based on that. The only problem is that the turns will take more times to complete
 
 

[Catch21]

Check: http://www.wargamer.com/toaw/scenplay/strategy.htm

Or a list to include above: http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forum ... hp?t=42681

Hope this helps.

[KarlXII]

Thanks! The first link I´ve come across but not the second one. I´ll dig into this.

[hank]

If the prediction at the bottom of the "attack planning" dialog box is not reliable, then why is it still there?
 
I would rather see this eliminated in a subsequent patch or make some improvements ... at least change the wording of the prediction to something that will let the player know not to trust what its saying.  ... I can't come up with anything good to put there but this is a misleading piece of Vital information (especially to newbs like me)  ... this isn't the first time i heard this but i still look at it and think ... "well that doesn't sound too bad" ... close window and move on
 
 

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Industrial
- Your army is operating at a positoive shock, the soviets at a negative shock

This is reflected in the numbers on the unit icon.

- your proficiency is much higher than the soviet rifle divisions proficiency

So's this- though there's also the impact on how likely the unit is to break off combat which is very important.

Anyway, the general point stands: ignore the prediction. The planner can be useful for other things, though.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Industrial
- you will have many indirect artillery pices supporting your attack (they aren't taken into account by the combat planer, for that you'd had to assign them to direct bombardment), while the soviets will have no friendly arty fireing in their support
- a Ju-87 Sturzkampfgeschwader will support your tanks in close combat support

So, it's better to simply ignore the combat planer in this aspect and better start to develop a feeling for how a battle will go, that is something no AI can ever replace [:)]

Actually, the Attack Planner does take into account indirect artillery and air support for the attacker. It's the defender's artillery and air support that is not accounted for.

But, regardless, the Attack Planner is useful for determining whether any unit added to the attack will delay the attack. This can be calculated manually, of course, but it remains wise to run a check through the planner to be safe.

[hank]

ORIGINAL: hank

If the prediction at the bottom of the "attack planning" dialog box is not reliable, then why is it still there?

I would rather see this eliminated in a subsequent patch or make some improvements ... at least change the wording of the prediction to something that will let the player know not to trust what its saying.  ... I can't come up with anything good to put there but this is a misleading piece of Vital information (especially to newbs like me)  ... this isn't the first time i heard this but i still look at it and think ... "well that doesn't sound too bad" ... close window and move on

I'm very curious if there is any comment on this item in the attack planning window. It seems to be a very misleading item based on what I've read in other posts and at other forums.
At first I depended on this line as to whether an attack is going to be successful, marginal, or not a good idea. The post above has been passed over and I'm wondering why? I think IMHO its a critical item in that attack planning window.

Has this been addressed somewhere else? If its misleading it needs to be changed.

hank

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: hank

ORIGINAL: hank

If the prediction at the bottom of the "attack planning" dialog box is not reliable, then why is it still there?

I would rather see this eliminated in a subsequent patch or make some improvements ... at least change the wording of the prediction to something that will let the player know not to trust what its saying.  ... I can't come up with anything good to put there but this is a misleading piece of Vital information (especially to newbs like me)  ... this isn't the first time i heard this but i still look at it and think ... "well that doesn't sound too bad" ... close window and move on

I'm very curious if there is any comment on this item in the attack planning window. It seems to be a very misleading item based on what I've read in other posts and at other forums.
At first I depended on this line as to whether an attack is going to be successful, marginal, or not a good idea. The post above has been passed over and I'm wondering why? I think IMHO its a critical item in that attack planning window.

Has this been addressed somewhere else? If its misleading it needs to be changed.

hank

Think of it as fog-of-war. Your staff informs you that the attack is sure to succeed. But that is based upon their foggy grasp of the enemy's deployment. They don't know how much support the defenders will receive. You are expected to factor that in to your decision. No guarantees in real life and none in TOAW either.

[hank]

I suppose I was assuming the fog of war issue was addressed by random number generation that would add the factor of risk to attacks.  I suppose I was wrong. 
 
Can I assume the attack and defend numbers of my opponent's units is correct or is there some fog of war to this also?
 
I guess if I had my way is to do away with this "prediction" at the bottom of the attack planning window and replace it with simple numbers accumulated from the units involved in the attack .... like: 
Attacker's Points:  35
Defender's Points:  12
 
At least this way I can determine my odds (with the addition of terrain factors, entrenchment, etc etc) without going through and adding numbers off units.
 
thanks .. I appreciate all the info I can get
 
hank

[Menschenfresser]

You could easily find out by hotseating a game and setting up attacks against unidentified units, marking the enemy points and then cancelling the attack. But do it from the point of view of player 1...otherwise you'll have a bookkeeping phase in between that will probably change the numbers of one or more of the units.