supply - esp for mech units

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Maybe I missed something here but I still couldn't firgure out how a unit firing less than 10 rounds per combat can still have half of the combat strength as one firing 100 rounds per combat? Do they all become trained snipers automatically when ammo reduces?[&:]

I'll just repeat what I said originally in this thread (even the post you quoted):

"There are clearly diminishing returns for ammo expenditures. The first rounds (that catch the targets least prepared and the firers most prepared) are the most deadly. Subsequent rounds find the targets more and more covered, dispersed, and responding with counterfire."

...

"Contrast providing a "volume of fire" that one might do if flush with ammo vs. "making every shot count" as one would do if really short. That's unaimed vs. aimed fire. Think of a bombardment mission. The first shells catch the targets concentrated in the messhall. The next ones catch them scattering for their bunkers, the next ones find them diving into their bunkers. From then on, the shells just pound the earth, with the odd one hitting pay dirt. Think if it was just you against one enemy. He has one pistol with 6 rounds. You have ten pistols with 6 rounds each. Now, you are better off than him, but not that much. Etc., etc."

[X.ray]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Maybe I missed something here but I still couldn't firgure out how a unit firing less than 10 rounds per combat can still have half of the combat strength as one firing 100 rounds per combat? Do they all become trained snipers automatically when ammo reduces?[&:]

I'll just repeat what I said originally in this thread (even the post you quoted):

"There are clearly diminishing returns for ammo expenditures. The first rounds (that catch the targets least prepared and the firers most prepared) are the most deadly. Subsequent rounds find the targets more and more covered, dispersed, and responding with counterfire."

...

"Contrast providing a "volume of fire" that one might do if flush with ammo vs. "making every shot count" as one would do if really short. That's unaimed vs. aimed fire. Think of a bombardment mission. The first shells catch the targets concentrated in the messhall. The next ones catch them scattering for their bunkers, the next ones find them diving into their bunkers. From then on, the shells just pound the earth, with the odd one hitting pay dirt. Think if it was just you against one enemy. He has one pistol with 6 rounds. You have ten pistols with 6 rounds each. Now, you are better off than him, but not that much. Etc., etc."

I have read all these points and agree that they are vaild points - to some extent. The issue is, what is the magnitude of the difference the effect you described can cause? I can accept that there may be an exponential effect there, i.e. in order to achieve twice as much damage, you need to throw in 2^2=4 times fire power, and in order to achieve three times damage, you need to throw in 3^2=9 times fire power, and so on. This is in line with the Lanchester's Law. But if you are telling me that you need to throw in 10 (i.e. 2^2.3) times more fire power just to double the effect, I'm simply not convinced. You need to let me know why this is so calculated.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: X.ray

I have read all these points and agree that they are vaild points - to some extent. The issue is, what is the magnitude of the difference the effect you described can cause? I can accept that there may be an exponential effect there, i.e. in order to achieve twice as much damage, you need to throw in 2^2=4 times fire power, and in order to achieve three times damage, you need to throw in 3^2=9 times fire power, and so on. This is in line with the Lanchester's Law. But if you are telling me that you need to throw in 10 (i.e. 2^2.3) times more fire power just to double the effect, I'm simply not convinced. You need to let me know why this is so calculated.

Just contrast the week-long bombardment that preceeded the Somme vs. the 4-hour bombardment that preceeded the Kaiserschlacht.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Just contrast the week-long bombardment that preceeded the Somme vs. the 4-hour bombardment that preceeded the Kaiserschlacht.

1.1 million shells fired in five hours for the Kaiserschlacht. In seven days before the battle of the Somme the British fired 1.7 million shells.

To take your methodology, at six hour turns the Germans fired all their shells off in 8 rounds of combat. That's 137,000 shells per round. The British fired theirs off over some 280 rounds of combat, or 3,500 shells per round.

According to your argument, every four rounds the British would have dealt nearly half as much damage as the Germans did in each of their rounds- but the British were firing for more than thirty times as many rounds, so would deal about four times as much damage. Your argument actually favours delivering a large number of shells over a long period of time. Which of the two bombardments was actually more effective, Bob?

Then there's another question: which is more effective, ten guns firing a hundred rounds each or a hundred guns firing ten rounds each? Under your system, the latter group would be five times as effective as the former group- even though both are firing the same number of shells.

But this all rather misses the point. The function of firepower is to suppress the other guy. Artillery does by the by kill a good few enemy soldiers- but the main thing is to prevent them from standing to when your infantry goes over the top. This is why artillery alone in TOAW is ineffective whereas it greatly increases the effectiveness of infantry attacks.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

1.1 million shells fired in five hours for the Kaiserschlacht. In seven days before the battle of the Somme the British fired 1.7 million shells.

The Kaiserschlacht was a much bigger offensive than the Somme. So, proportionately, the British fired far, far more.

To take your methodology, at six hour turns the Germans fired all their shells off in 8 rounds of combat. That's 137,000 shells per round. The British fired theirs off over some 280 rounds of combat, or 3,500 shells per round.

It can't be looked at in that fashion. Both were continuous bombardments. They have to be treated as a whole. Don't think TOAW; think just of the historical reality. The Kaiserschlacht, with far fewer shells (proprotionately) was actually much more effective.

Then there's another question: which is more effective, ten guns firing a hundred rounds each or a hundred guns firing ten rounds each? Under your system, the latter group would be five times as effective as the former group- even though both are firing the same number of shells.

The latter case is more effective. In the first case, 10 rounds are in the 1st salvo (the most effective one); in the latter case, 100 rounds are in it. The 1st case takes 100 salvos to deliver the rounds, the latter only 10. Most of the latter case's rounds will strike while the defenders are still poorly prepared defensively. Not so in the 1st case.

But this all rather misses the point.

No. It doesn't miss the point at all - which is that there are diminishing returns for more and more ammo expenditures.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note one realistic feature of Norm's supply method (illustrated between the 70 prof and 30 prof figures): The higher the proficiency of the unit, the less the contrast between its full supply combat strength and its 1% supply combat strength. If what I'm saying about the unit supply value being related to the unit's rate of fire, that means high proficiency units employ better fire discipline than low proficiency units. The poor units blow off their supply when fully supplied, then really suffer when they start to run low. By employing fire discipline when fully supplied, good units retain a higher rate of fire when they get low.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note one realistic feature of Norm's supply method (illustrated between the 70 prof and 30 prof figures): The higher the proficiency of the unit, the less the contrast between its full supply combat strength and its 1% supply combat strength.

I like this feature, but it is much, much less valid for artillery than it is for infantry. See situations like 6th Army at Stalingrad. Did the German artillery continue to play a key role? No, it was down to the grit of the infantry to hold on despite awful conditions when the artillery stopped firing.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The Kaiserschlacht was a much bigger offensive than the Somme. So, proportionately, the British fired far, far more.

Well the Kaiserschlacht was an offensive launched in stages. The overall size of the offensive isn't really the issue.

It can't be looked at in that fashion.

But that's exactly how you're looking at it. If the first ten shells are so deadly, why not fire off just ten shells every few hours and forget the rest? What's the point in a five hour preliminary bombardment if after the first ten shells your shots are virtually wasted?

No. It doesn't miss the point at all - which is that there are diminishing returns for more and more ammo expenditures.

There are diminishing returns- that's obvious. The last ten rounds are not one tenth as effective as the first ten rounds however. That's absurd.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note one realistic feature of Norm's supply method (illustrated between the 70 prof and 30 prof figures): The higher the proficiency of the unit, the less the contrast between its full supply combat strength and its 1% supply combat strength.

I like this feature, but it is much, much less valid for artillery than it is for infantry. See situations like 6th Army at Stalingrad. Did the German artillery continue to play a key role? No, it was down to the grit of the infantry to hold on despite awful conditions when the artillery stopped firing.

So give artillery lower prof. Then they will be more affected by the 1% level, and will lose equipment faster once unsupplied.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Well the Kaiserschlacht was an offensive launched in stages. The overall size of the offensive isn't really the issue.

What is an issue is ammo expended per unit of equipment. So your figures that you gave have to be divided by the relative sizes. It was 25 divisions at the Somme vs. 75 at the Kaiserschlacht (or about 3000 guns vs. 9000 guns). So each gun at the Somme fired an average of 4.6 times as many rounds as at the Kaiserschlacht.

But that's exactly how you're looking at it. If the first ten shells are so deadly, why not fire off just ten shells every few hours and forget the rest? What's the point in a five hour preliminary bombardment if after the first ten shells your shots are virtually wasted?

Had they been able to do that (and the defenders had continuously fallen for it) they might have gotten even better results. But, of course, that would have taken infinitely longer, allowing reserves to get to the site far ahead of any assault. So they didn't have such an option. Clearly, in the case of the Somme, most of the week long bombardment was just a waste.

There are diminishing returns- that's obvious. The last ten rounds are not one tenth as effective as the first ten rounds however. That's absurd.

No it's not.

[morganbj]

This is an excellent discussion (or is it rediscussion?), but it's pretty pointless, in my opinion.  The problems with the TOAW engine, including this one, have been identified, complained about, and reidentified, and recomplained about over and over again.  Right after the game was introduced, Norm prepared some comments about several problematic issues, this one included, in which he essentially said that he made many compromises for playability.  He knew, for example, that sea and air operations were totally inadequate, but explained that the purpose of the game was to model only the operational ground aspects of warfare.  Similarly, he mentioned that the supply rules were a gross abstration and were meant to portray supply effects at the operational level, not the tactical level.  He assumed that being low in supply would force a player to stop the operations for some units, thereby forcing the same results of a more complicated supply system.  I found his remarks interesting since the basic building block of each unit was individual vehicles and squads of infantry, engineers, etc.  But, I accepted his explanation and played the heck out of TOAW, and ALL of its successors, for many, many years.
 
TOAW is one of the classic games of all times, but it should be rememebred that it was developed when 486's were still the predominate chip on most computers and memory in excess of 256 meg was very expensive and rare.  The engine ran very, very slow in those days, as I recall, so if Norm made a few compromises, I guess it was the right thing to do.  Were the same type of game developed today, I suspect it might model things quite a bit differently.  BUT, here's the real issue:  Having a more perfect game logisitically probably would not sell and would cost much more to produce.  Players would complain about its complexity and moan and groan that it can't be played.  So, for that reason, I doubt that anyone will ever develop TOAW, or a successor game, to the point that everyone here, me included, would be completely happy with it.
 
But, you're points are all well taken.  We all learn from them.  Maybe someone out there will one day recast TOAW into something really cool, so we can all complain that it doesn't model this or that very well.
 

[damezzi]

I think you are completely right here. Toaw will never come to the point of being the game each one of us dream of. The point is that it doesn’t need to. To the moment it is still the best operational wargame available for those, like me, who want flexibility. If someone can point me a game that can represent all the major conflicts of the last century while being fun to play, please tell me.

Reading through ASL forum I learned something. People there are passionate about the game they love and assume it as a game, nothing more… ok, some have the illusion that it is a combat simulator, but most people there state and repeat that it is only a game… a very entertaining game which challenges you mentally while REPRESENTING (not simulating) the subject their players love. ASL, as far as I could understand, was almost dead (like Toaw) and came back. It’s forum is one of the most active I have ever seen and people don’t even care about a computer version, even if they play a lot on the net through a computer interface. They praise their game, know each aspects of it, discuss tactics and, if it is the most popular tactic level boardgame, this is not only due to its system, but also to the posture of its community. One can discuss if lock’n load or ATS represents one or other aspect of warfare better or not, but they will have a hard time trying to take the place of ASL for the simple fact that this last is establish onto years of test, development of scenario, new rules and an ever increasing community.

Toaw has the same advantages, but I think it is passing through a survival test period. I have seen people here waiting long to find an opponent. I can’t say exactly, since I only played against Elmer till this date, but it seemed so for me. I feel some are giving up the game because of very high expectations. Today, computer simulations can calculate the path of a shot with precision, but so what? That’s not what Toaw is about; that is not what ASL is about. Chessmaster or Fritz, for example, will have each time more powerful AI and analysis tools, but will always bring the same game. Why shouldn’t it; the game is great, too.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t discuss this kind of things – I myself have done it – and, in fact, I think this kind of discussion is very useful as a guideline to development, but the lack of implementation of our ideas in the game, doesn’t make it worse. In fact, the only things I really think MUST be tweaked (independently if Toaw is already a great game) are the gamey aspects: ant units attacks, turn asymmetries, etc.

Of course we all expect additions to the next version. A good naval combat model, better handling of air units, a strategic layer etc. But the fact that Toaw could be better doesn’t overshadow (or shouldn’t) the fact that it is already great.

Sometimes it seems to me that people are waiting for Matrix to transform Toaw into their dream game, while most of the great games today were developed with the help of their communities (which adopted them) and third parties add-ons. This is the path that Silvanski and Bonnierat, for example, follow.

Perhaps the main change to Toaw in the next version would be greater design flexibility.

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: damezzi
Toaw will never come to the point of being the game each one of us dream of. The point is that it doesn’t need to. To the moment it is still the best operational wargame available

Ditto!
For me TOAW is the best electronic version of "counter shuffle" wargames.. maybe because I always liked the scales which hovered between the tactical and strategic (remember AH's Russian Front, Next War In Europe etc)

[alexzhz]

[font=arial]Thanks, bjmogan and dammzi.These moving words voiced the common feeling deep in the hearts of all our TOAW players. We do not need many changes which would made TOAW strange but really need it to be even better. I don't expect someone to change the sea and air combat engine, I can't imagine how these types of combat coexist with ground combat system, they are radically different in simulation method because their time span are varying between so disparate levels, a ground combat may take 7 days a turn in TOAW, the matter is how to simulate air and sea combat in these period? Maybe a minuteness time span could solve the problem, but anyway we DO NOT accept this solution, it will make TOAW a strange game, lose all it fundamentals.So in my opinion, the air and sea combat system is just right for TOAW and all fo the turn-based war games, and, to be honest ,it is far better than SSG air and sea combat system.TOAW DO NOT need some major change, but only some bug fixing,like supply system etc, and then it could be perfect.[/font]
[font=arial][/font] 

[Veer]

I hate to come to this discussion late and especially since I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about but I had always assumed that the % number of supply that shows up in a unit screen (i.e.: 1% or 90% or 150%) represented how much supply the unit has on hand. While the amount of supply the unit receives per turn is denoted by those little white&blue circles that appear on the map with the number in the middle (the number being how much resupply the unit is receiving).

[el cid]

Veers, you know you are right.

But the values of 1%, 90% or 150% are some abstract number that nobody knows for sure what they stand for.

In this game you never run out of supply, even if unsupplied. In one turn you can go from 100% supply to 30% supply or even less. But once you reach 1%, thats it, you will never go below that number, no matter how much you fight.

Supply is definitely something that could be modeled better in TOAW. At least in a way that has some meaningfull interpretation.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Veer

I hate to come to this discussion late and especially since I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about but I had always assumed that the % number of supply that shows up in a unit screen (i.e.: 1% or 90% or 150%) represented how much supply the unit has on hand.

That seems to be the default position everyone assumes (thereby forming the basis for a lot of charges of supply unrealism in TOAW). But, other than assuming that, is there any real evidence that that is in fact what it means?

Because there is very real evidence that it doesn't mean that. Specifically, the equations that effect how supply affects combat strength contradict that assumption. This is easy to see:

Each combat round costs a unit 10% of its unit supply value. If that really means 10% of its supply stockpile, then the unit combat strength should not vary with unit supply - they should remain constant (since firepower would remain constant) until the unit reaches 1%, at which point they should drop precipitously to a very low value, if not zero.

That's not how it works. Combat strength decreases with unit supply levels to a equilibrium level well above zero (how far above depending upon unit proficiency). That has to mean that less firepower is being expressed with each decreasing unit supply level. Therefore, the unit supply level would be related somehow to the rate of supply expenditure, not the stockpile (at least not directly).

And, I would ask players to consider which of these two versions better conforms to reality? Do real units blow off all their ammo in a few short combats - oblivious to how short or flush they in fact are? Or do they become more and more careful as supplies run low? Are real units easily reduced to zero combat strength? Or are they very resilient and difficult to reduce to very low combat strength?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: el cid

In this game you never run out of supply, even if unsupplied.

That is not true. Unsupplied units suffer equipment losses that represent guns running out of ammo and vehicles running out of fuel. Being unsupplied is very severe in TOAW.

[el cid]

Curtis, what you say does appear in the manual. Yours is an interpretation of what the game is doing.

From the manual:
Each unit has its own Supply Level, which is a percentage value
reflecting the unit’s own internal Supply stockpile (food, bullets,
gasoline, etc.). These supplies are actually in the hands of the
troops, available for immediate use.
Which is exactly what Veers stated.

The 1% supply that is always there means that no matter what your supply capability is in that hex, and how much fighting the units goes in the turn, the unit is always able to get enough supply to maintain that 1% level. This is unrealistic, whether it means what the manual states or your interpretation. If a unit with 1% would limit, not only its strenght, but also its will to fight (say after 1 round it will break off an attack, or retreat) then I would say that the unit its trying to preserve its amunition. But the will to fight is related to unit proficiency and loss tolerance setting.

As far units unsupplied it states that they are subject to desertion effects. Which could be similar to what you are stating but with a different name, if it wasn´t because the units will suffer those effects even if it wasn´t firing. So desertion is not the same as leaving guns behind because they run out of ammo.

[Veer]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Because there is very real evidence that it doesn't mean that. Specifically, the equations that effect how supply affects combat strength contradict that assumption.

I guess the real question is what does the supply % on the unit screen actually do, i.e.: how is it used calculate combat & movement pts.

Going through the TOAW help files I found this equation:

Unit Combat Strength Calculation

Strength = equipment strength x (2 x proficiency+readiness+supply)/4

Now I'm not sure if this is actually used in the game or is merely for player reference, however it would seem to indicate that supply, rather than being a key variable, is only one variable among others (prof, readiness, equp. strength) which is presumably why a unit with 1% supply still performs reasonably in combat (it's lower, but not 98% lower than a unit with 100 supply for example).

Indeed since proficiency is fixed in the scenario, readiness can't go below 33% (I think) and supply can go down to 1 the combat strength difference between a fully ready unit and a completely exhausted unit is:

Maxed Unit:

Strength = 10,000 (say) x (2 x 80% (prof) + 100% (read) + 150% (oversupply))/4
= 16500

Exhausted Unit:

Strength = 10,000 x (2 x 80% + 33% + 1%)/4
= 5700

I think that's about right? It's about 2/3 lower and can't fall beyond that. I think that adequately addresses the fact that a unit with 1% supply won't be completely combat ineffective. Now if only Movement points would be scaled to represent that, i.e: a motorized equipment have MP 2/3rd lower when their supply hits 1%. Which I think works out to your avg. motorized unit being slower than a fully supplied infantry unit.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That is not true. Unsupplied units suffer equipment losses that represent guns running out of ammo and vehicles running out of fuel. Being unsupplied is very severe in TOAW.

I believe you are talking about desertion effects, from the manual:

Unsupplied units with very low supply and readiness levels are subject to desertion effects. Deserting troops and equipment are lost permanently. They are not placed in the replacement pool. The number of deserters increases as supply and readiness levels decrease, and decreases with higher unit proficiencies. Desertions tend to start slowly (particularly in high proficiency units) and accelerate over time

Not exactly the same thing as running out of petrol and ammo, but I guess it achieves the same result in the end. However if it's a function of supply rather than morale it shouldn't be linked to proficiency.