supply - esp for mech units

[Veer]

On doing some basic playing around with the game it seems as if movement penalties approximate a 40% reduction between a fully supplied unit and one at 1 supply & 33 readiness. This is probably not quite harsh enough (the fact that the unit still retains significant combat capabilities is something i can live with).

If possible the movement pt reduction of low readiness should be reduced and the penalty for low supply increased. Say at 1% supply a unit can only move at 25% of it's 100 supply rate (a 75% reduction). Maybe make this apply only to motor/mech units, afterall infantry can still walk (they can remain at the 40% reduction level).

btw el cid, I'm Veer, not Veers (that is some other dude!)

[el cid]

Sorry about that. Somehow what you were writing did not correspond to what Veers normally writes, and that shoudl have hinted me.

If I understnd your post, a unit with a 1% supply can move less than the same unit with 100%? This is all news to me. How is that:
- do the terrain modifiers become greater, or are the unit movement points reduced?

[Veer]

ORIGINAL: el cid

- do the terrain modifiers become greater, or are the unit movement points reduced?

looks like mvt. pts. are reduced. Not by very much, but they are reduced nonetheless. The effect just has to be made greater for motorized units to simulate running out of oil (not to zero though). I would also suggest the exact levels at with mvt. pts. get reduced to detailed somewhere, so players can take that into account when planing strategy.

[el cid]

Are you sure that this is due to supply being at 1% and not because the unit has lost some trucks or horses?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I can see how that could be interpreted in that fashion, but the key word is "reflecting" - as opposed to "equal to". The manual is often wrong, regardless.

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.

It is not unrealistic in the latter case. I've given a realistic interpretation of it in my post #127. The unit would maintain a significant buffer of ammo that would allow it to maintain that 1% expenditure rate relatively indefinitely - provided it still had normal supply communications.

And, as I stated, the way TOAW works is far more realistic than if units could be reduced to zero combat strength in a trivial fashion.

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.

How can an artillery peice or vehicle desert? In those cases, it must model abandonment due to lack of ammo or fuel. Regardless, it was not true that a unit can run around at 1% supply indefinitely if it lacks supply communications in TOAW. It will wither away to nothing.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Veer

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.

That's the equation. It is what is used in the game. Note one other benefit: Lower prof units fall to a lower (proportionate) strength at 1%/33%. So it reflects that low prof units are more profligate with supply than high prof ones are.

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.

Unit Supply Levels do affect unit movement allowances.

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.

It should if high proficency units husband supply better than low proficency ones.

[Veer]

ORIGINAL: el cid

Are you sure that this is due to supply being at 1% and not because the unit has lost some trucks or horses?

yes. I loaded units into the editor and simply changed the supply levels. The Mvt. pts. went up and down. I didn't actually move them and no combat was involved.

[Veer]

How can an artillery peice or vehicle desert? In those cases, it must model abandonment due to lack of ammo or fuel.

More likely because of the crew deserting. But as I said, it has the same effect so is not really worth arguing over.

I believe the discussion is over the strength of the effects, not whether it happens or not. It does, units at 1% supply have a combat value of about 1/2 what they started at and Mvt. pts. of about 60%. Personally I think the penalties should be harsher. The combat value may be hard to change since the equation is hard coded into the game. Mvt. pts. for motorized units @ 1% should definitely be reduced however.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Veer

More likely because of the crew deserting. But as I said, it has the same effect so is not really worth arguing over.

I agree that the effect is what counts. Once a unit is unsupplied, it is going to ultimately wither away. Whether one accounts for that due to desertion or loss of fuel/ammo doesn't matter too much.

I believe the discussion is over the strength of the effects, not whether it happens or not. It does, units at 1% supply have a combat value of about 1/2 what they started at and Mvt. pts. of about 60%. Personally I think the penalties should be harsher. The combat value may be hard to change since the equation is hard coded into the game. Mvt. pts. for motorized units @ 1% should definitely be reduced however.

The residual combat strengths can range from the 50's to the 20's, depending on proficiency. I would not want those figures worsened. Good units should not be trivially reduced to helplessness after a single turn of combat. We don't want grandmothers with brooms easily wiping out the Hitler Jugend. Remember, these are units with valid lines of supply. If they are cutoff from supply they will properly wither away, but if they're not, they should be able to retain significant combat strength.

I continue to believe that the problem people are having with this issue resides entirely in their assumptions about what the unit supply numbers mean - not with the actual functioning of those units. Forget those numbers and just concentrate on how the units function. Should they or should they not be trivially reduced to zero combat strength after a turn of combat? I think that would be absurd. Provided that they have valid supply communications, they would never allow themselves to become so helpless.

Now, there are plenty of supply issues on the distribution end. We can't do amphibious supply, we can have infinite length supply lines, there are issues with things like port capacities, etc. Those do need to be addressed, and hopefully will be. But the expenditure end (what we're discussing) is actually kind of elegant. What other game out there accounts for the effects of diminishing returns?

The movement effects may be an issue, though - there is no distinction between foot movement and motorized movement - both drop to about 57% of full supply levels. But it still may not be a simple as you think. These are operational-scale units. How much fuel is consumed just supplying the unit and keeping it combat ready - as opposed to moving its location? The fuel cost to move (even a motorized unit) may be only a fraction of the unit's overall fuel consumption. So a good part of any fuel shortage may be already expressed in the unit's combat strength, rather than in its movement allowance.