supply - esp for mech units

[SMK-at-work]

Yes - that's the point.
 
as an aside I wonder if vehicles are abandoned for lack of fuel mostly on retreat, not on attack?  If you're running out of fuel on attack you just stop moving entirely.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
If you're running out of fuel on attack you just stop moving entirely.

And I'm wondering why if you're out of supply, why can you continue to shoot?

[SMK-at-work]

Because you can still beat them to death with your rifle butt!![8D]

My rationalisation for such things is that when you're finally actually out of ammo then your unit disintigrates.

Units low on ammo try to conserve it - they fire less often, or even not at all unless actually under attack. They can continue to do this even if they are not receiving supplies because they carry a certain amount with them.

In "Stumbling Colossus" (about hte Red army pre-WW2 & up to a couple of months into the war) David Glantz notes that Red Army artillery formations sometimes had as little as 1.5 "combat loads" of ammunition available at the start of Barbarossa and soon after - that's sweet f-a, and for me a unit with that little ammo should be in the red - able to fight, but ready to disintigrate.

I'd liek to see supply split into 3 broad areas - fuel for movement, ammo for fighting power, and food for maintaining front line fitness/quality of troops.

Cant' see it happening any time soon tho.

[Zort]

Supply can be fun but at some point you have to make it easy for the player. Now you are in area of how much fuel is available, where is it refined and where does the oil come from. So putting in logistics can make the game very complicated. I like to micro manage stuff but not many people do. Remember the old board game Campaign for North Africa which was basically a logistical game because it had fuel and ammo to be transported to the front.

So doing something like the OCS system seems more to what might be appropriate. General supply along rail lines and a few hexes out, with extenders. Supply units to resupply ammo and for fuel. Will slow down the attack across the entire front syndrone.

[SMK-at-work]

I'm not too worried about refining and drilling for oil at this level!!

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

So, for example, Panzer unitis in FITE/Barbarossa never have to halt to await fuel as 4th Pz did at Orel

How long was the 4th Pz halted for lack of fuel? Was the entire division unable to function or were 'kamfgruppes' available? Was the movement halt entirely for lack of fuel or was mud a contributing factor?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Your recall is faulty. Better check again.

People who disagreed with you: Colin, Jarek, myself. People who agreed with you: yourself. Other people active in the discussion: none.

This is really the problem. TOAW doesn't actually have "very tenuous" supply lines. Unsupplied units are very debilitated. But supplied units, even at the lowest possible level, are not. Again, the problem is mostly on the distribution end.

Here you're right. One could just have a function whereby after passing through two more supply radii after supply falls to the minimum level, supply no longer carries at all. Anything past that point might as well be encircled. Perhaps add an intermediate level of zero supply gain without the other penalties of being unsupplied. This change could also be an optional alternative to the current one.

This would certainly deal with the worst abuses. That Panzer division rolling off into the step quickly becomes a collection of 1-1s. However the resulting system would have to be tried out before we can tell if it would be entirely satisfactory.

1. Supply is not differentiated between fuel, ammo, & etc. Ammo dominates the tonage figures. So, in an abstract sense, a unit with 1% supply may still be near full fuel stockpiles.

Well, ignoring the fact that combat vehicles use a lot of fuel when they fight, if a unit is at the extreme end of its supply lines it's probably moved a long way since it was last able to receive good supply.

Of course, differentiating these two would be an advantage, and probably wouldn't be all that complicated.

But TOAW is reflecting it! Unsupplied units abandon vehicles as they "run out of fuel". And even supplied units without full supply move at lower MP rates, reflecting grinding to a halt, waiting for more fuel, and only then moving some more.

Half of full move for a unit on 1% supply. Patton wasn't moving at half of full move.

[Monkeys Brain]

Daniel McBrides's scenario The Great War have this situation when supply radii is just 1 or 0 (can't remember) and when I played it - you could actually get your unit unsuplied with only one hex into enemy territory of course if enemy is here because his ZOC is blocking your supply and you can get very bad situation in just one turn.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

Daniel McBrides's scenario The Great War have this situation when supply radii is just 1 or 0 (can't remember) and when I played it - you could actually get your unit unsuplied with only one hex into enemy territory of course if enemy is here because his ZOC is blocking your supply and you can get very bad situation in just one turn.

The reason a unit's health can decline so rapidly in this scenario is the turn scale; supply loss through being unsupplied is directly proportional to turn length, which IIRC in this scenario is half week turns.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
People who disagreed with you: Colin, Jarek, myself. People who agreed with you: yourself. Other people active in the discussion: none.

Even in that case, I think you've mischaracterized the end result, but I was referring to a more recent discussion at GameStop.

Here you're right. One could just have a function whereby after passing through two more supply radii after supply falls to the minimum level, supply no longer carries at all. Anything past that point might as well be encircled. Perhaps add an intermediate level of zero supply gain without the other penalties of being unsupplied. This change could also be an optional alternative to the current one.

This would certainly deal with the worst abuses. That Panzer division rolling off into the step quickly becomes a collection of 1-1s. However the resulting system would have to be tried out before we can tell if it would be entirely satisfactory.

Very similar to what I've already suggested. See item 5.7 in the Comprehensive Wishlist document. Even that may need more refinement. There is such a huge gap between a unit that is "supplied" (even minimal supply) and one that is "unsupplied". We might need a third level between those two.

Well, ignoring the fact that combat vehicles use a lot of fuel when they fight, if a unit is at the extreme end of its supply lines it's probably moved a long way since it was last able to receive good supply.

It could have been sitting there all winter, then been depleted by enemy attacks in the spring. Ammo would be low while fuel still at full stockpiles.

Of course, differentiating these two would be an advantage, and probably wouldn't be all that complicated.

Agreed. Item 5.12 in the Comprehensive Wishlist doc.

Half of full move for a unit on 1% supply. Patton wasn't moving at half of full move.

Again, what does 1% supply mean, considering the above factors? It's a very abstract factor.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Even in that case, I think you've mischaracterized the end result, but I was referring to a more recent discussion at GameStop.

Is that what they're calling Warfare HQ, I mean, Strategy Zone Online, I mean Xtreme Gamer these days? Anyway, I couldn't tell you as I don't read that board any more.

Very similar to what I've already suggested. See item 5.7 in the Comprehensive Wishlist document. Even that may need more refinement. There is such a huge gap between a unit that is "supplied" (even minimal supply) and one that is "unsupplied". We might need a third level between those two.

Yeah. What I outlined would just be something that fits in very easily to the current system. Your "third level" would presumably involve no supply or readiness recovery and no replacements.

Again, what does 1% supply mean, considering the above factors? It's a very abstract factor.

In TOAW, 1% is the minimum amount of supply you can have. In the real world, the minimum amount of supply you can have is none.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

So, for example, Panzer unitis in FITE/Barbarossa never have to halt to await fuel as 4th Pz did at Orel

How long was the 4th Pz halted for lack of fuel? Was the entire division unable to function or were 'kamfgruppes' available? Was the movement halt entirely for lack of fuel or was mud a contributing factor?

It might have been as little as 15 hours, since that is teh time noted at http://tinyurl.com/27r3b8 for fuel trucks to reach teh division from teh nearest source - plus time for the actual distribution. Hence my comment above to Zort that I hadn't thought of how long a turn is.

It was, apparently, the whole division, and mud was not a factor

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Yeah. What I outlined would just be something that fits in very easily to the current system. Your "third level" would presumably involve no supply or readiness recovery and no replacements.

That's one way. Or, how about the reverse:

Semi-supplied: Units receive supplies, readiness recovery, and replacements. But suffer desertions as if unsupplied.

Now there's a reason to stop and build up supplies. A 70% prof unit would want to stop if its supplies fell below 30% (to avoid desertions).

Or we could play around with all the above factors.

[JAMiAM]

Since it will have to wait until we break out supply into discrete quantities for fuel, ammo, and (possibly) food in TOAW IV, the level of abstraction that Bob claims is the best way to look at the supply routine in TOAW III.

It is pretty apparent to me that Norm intended the supply distribution and usage portion of the game to assume that given a supply line, however tenuous, the quartermasters were all going to be doing their jobs and making sure that at least enough supplies would get to units to keep them fighting at a basic and sustainable level of efficiency. This baseline is the notorious 33/1 status, plus current supply distribution. The lack of replacements to and total loss of all disabled results and stragglers for units that are do not have an LOC very quickly degrades the effectiveness of those units which move or are in combat, and mirrors the historical fact that unless actively pressed, units which are surrounded or bypassed could and did hold out for weeks, or months, at a time without a significant loss of actual fighting capability.

With respect to current behavior for TOAW III, I think that there are few clean and easy solutions to attempting to recreate "out of fuel" conditions. That is, none that do not cause potentially more problems in terms of gameyness and abuse, than they solve, given the lumping of supply into one single parameter. The best thing that I can think of would be to code in a routine that affects movement straggler percentages based on current (or turn starting) supply level and the number of vehicles in the moving unit. Then, make this straggler effect more pronounced as the supply level approaches 1, and more likely to affect the vehicular equipment of the unit. Alternately, readiness might make a better variable to use for this. In any case, a lot of testing would be required to see if such a change breaks every scenario out there. As it is now, there are so many scenarios that I feel have inadequate supply levels, and I can well imagine the howls of anger from players when they move their Panzer divisions through the Soviet hinterlands only to find out that they reach the end of their movement with only a small fraction of their starting force, due to the straggler routine being too harsh.

Another possibility is making the movement rate drop-off be icon dependent. However, there are already enough cases where I see foot infantry not only keeping up with, but outrunning motorized forces in supposedly mobile campaigns, simply because of the fact that the the motorized units eat up their supplies faster due to higher movement rates and more combat opportunities.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
...Now there's a reason to stop and build up supplies. A 70% prof unit would want to stop if its supplies fell below 30% (to avoid desertions)....

I thought that desertions only kicked in if the unit was "cut-off" from it's supply source(s). I used to stop all my units that were 39% or lower in supply to avoid desertions too, but I noticed that Karri doesn't ( in our FITE game ) and so I thought WTF?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
...Now there's a reason to stop and build up supplies. A 70% prof unit would want to stop if its supplies fell below 30% (to avoid desertions)....

I thought that desertions only kicked in if the unit was "cut-off" from it's supply source(s). I used to stop all my units that were 39% or lower in supply to avoid desertions too, but I noticed that Karri doesn't ( in our FITE game ) and so I thought WTF?

Bob is posing some hypothetical directions for "solutions" to the lack of any real out of fuel effect in the game. He's not stating an existing behavior in the engine.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

The lack of replacements to and total loss of all disabled results and stragglers for units that are do not have an LOC very quickly degrades the effectiveness of those units which move or are in combat, and mirrors the historical fact that unless actively pressed, units which are surrounded or bypassed could and did hold out for weeks, or months, at a time without a significant loss of actual fighting capability.

But in practice, they can do much more than that. Units receiving 1 point of supply a turn can move and attack astonishingly well- especially in the case of artillery. So much so that more than one designer has placed house rule restrictions on the freedom of artillery to launch direct bombardments.

In any case, a lot of testing would be required to see if such a change breaks every scenario out there.

If you make it optional, you can have it tested in a live-fire environment.

Another possibility is making the movement rate drop-off be icon dependent. However, there are already enough cases where I see foot infantry not only keeping up with, but outrunning motorized forces in supposedly mobile campaigns, simply because of the fact that the the motorized units eat up their supplies faster due to higher movement rates and more combat opportunities.

It's much more likely to be because of bad or obsolete design. Let's take 10km/hex and half-week turns. A fast motorised unit will have a maximum of 32 move and something like 18 or 19 at 1% supply. A true leg infantry unit will have a maximum of 13 move.

Anyway, motorised units should only fight if they really have to. They're experts at movement, not combat.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
The lack of replacements to and total loss of all disabled results and stragglers for units that are do not have an LOC very quickly degrades the effectiveness of those units which move or are in combat, and mirrors the historical fact that unless actively pressed, units which are surrounded or bypassed could and did hold out for weeks, or months, at a time without a significant loss of actual fighting capability.

But in practice, they can do much more than that. Units receiving 1 point of supply a turn can move and attack astonishingly well- especially in the case of artillery. So much so that more than one designer has placed house rule restrictions on the freedom of artillery to launch direct bombardments.

In any case, a lot of testing would be required to see if such a change breaks every scenario out there.

If you make it optional, you can have it tested in a live-fire environment.

If it's optional, you've got to figure out how to convert 'new scenarios to 'old supply rules. I don't really want to force designers to place two sets of supply, one old and one new. This may be as simple as saying that all the new supply sources supply equal amounts of the 'old' supply, but we'll need to test that.

We've also got to figure out how to diplay the supply in a meaningful fashion. I don't want to make this a quartermaster game.

The hard part is making sure that Elmer has some basic understanding of the new supply rules. That's not going to be as easy as it sounds. People are able to figure out encirclement and other patterns a lot better than computers. Go is a very simple game that people can still beat the computer at. The answer may be that if you're playing an African campaign, that you should use the old supply rules, but I'd like to make Elmer a competent player.

Ralph

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
If it's optional, you've got to figure out how to convert 'new scenarios to 'old supply rules. I don't really want to force designers to place two sets of supply, one old and one new. This may be as simple as saying that all the new supply sources supply equal amounts of the 'old' supply, but we'll need to test that.

The optional change Bob and I were discussing would be at the end of the supply line, not the source. Quantified supply is another issue.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
If it's optional, you've got to figure out how to convert 'new scenarios to 'old supply rules. I don't really want to force designers to place two sets of supply, one old and one new. This may be as simple as saying that all the new supply sources supply equal amounts of the 'old' supply, but we'll need to test that.

The optional change Bob and I were discussing would be at the end of the supply line, not the source. Quantified supply is another issue.

Do you have a link to the Gamesquad discussion?

Ralph