Test Results of Over-Stacking Supply Implications

[witpqs]

I have found the supply situation when attacking small atolls to be surprising, to say the least. So, I conducted a test. Please note that there were no enemy forces present, no combat of any kind involved, and the units were at a friendly base. See the attachment.

[witpqs]

For those who want, here is a zip file with the original spreadsheet file and a pdf. Please note that a ".txt" has been added to the end for upload purposes.

[topeverest]

wow

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

wow

Yup, wow.

George Carlin used to do a routine about people that are "more than happy". I'm thinking that the curve in this sub-routine might be a tad "more than happy" and maybe could benefit from an adjustment.

[topeverest]

Certainly makes such efforts extremely costly...and hazerdous. I was thinking about how many AK's I would have to use to supply a divisional attack on an atoll. At 250 points per ship in amphib mode it would take 15 ships just for supply attrition. Combat is probably additive to the effect.

[tigercub]

tip dont over stack! if you are a jap.

Tigercub!

[LoBaron]

Wow! Thats extreme results.

But wasn´t this intended?

Conquering atolls should be brutally costly on supplies if you overstack.

If you don´t want to overstack you have to force success by:

- bombing the hell out of the defenders over an extended period of time to destroy their units and use up their supply
- prevent resupply
- be as patient as you possibly can

Or bypass the atoll if its not contributing to the war effort anyway.

Do I understand it right that you´d prefer to tone this effect down? I am not sure if I agree.

[witpqs]

This result is in the right direction, but the extremity of this result is probably too much.

If you bring in 52% more troops than allowed you pay a penalty - fine. A big penalty - fine. But we are talking about a penalty of 5,599%. In other words, to feed one soldier you have to supply what would normally feed 56 soldiers. That seems too high.

And if you over stack by 122%, the penalty is 9,099%. To feed one soldier you have to supply what would normally feed 91 soldiers.

It's in the right direction, yes, but I think it's too high.

Two reasons I posted this. First, so people can see it and voice their own opinion. The developers can see this and verify if this is the implementation they want. (Please don't tell me they already tested it. Yes they did and they are human and do miss things as seen with a few other glitches.)

Second, so that players can see it and be ready when they are invading small islands in their own PBM's and don't get a nasty surprise that is not easy to figure out. There is no display that you are over-stacked when you invade, only after you capture the base. Before that you are just trying to figure out what happened to all the supplies and querying the forum, for support.

(Edited to fix errors.)

[LoBaron]

Ok you are right that these results are extreme. And on first glance it also looked far off to me.
 
But when trying to take into account what the overstacking penalty really is an abstraction for I started to consider the following:
 
Supplies is not equal to "food".
Its basically an abstraction of everything that keeps a force operational.
The stacking limits are (IIRC) chosen to simulate how many troops are able to populate an atoll considering usual troop density.
 
If troop numbers get beyond this limit it is thought to be neccesary to
- artificially increase landmass to enably rear area troops to operate
- set up additional complex protections/fortifications to limit the exposure of too crowded units
 
Without overstacking the natural landmass of the atoll would suffice, if you overstack it doesn´t.
 
I am not really decided on this but wouldn´t even a 9000% increase in cost, based on the above points, be reasonable?

[LoBaron]

And btw: Your test is REALLY apprechiated! I didn´t expect the penalty to be this brutal and the information is already
trying to store itself to long-time-memory for further use...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok you are right that these results are extreme. And on first glance it also looked far off to me.

But when trying to take into account what the overstacking penalty really is an abstraction for I started to consider the following:

Supplies is not equal to "food".
Its basically an abstraction of everything that keeps a force operational.
The stacking limits are (IIRC) chosen to simulate how many troops are able to populate an atoll considering usual troop density.

If troop numbers get beyond this limit it is thought to be neccesary to
- artificially increase landmass to enably rear area troops to operate
- set up additional complex protections/fortifications to limit the exposure of too crowded units

Without overstacking the natural landmass of the atoll would suffice, if you overstack it doesn´t.

I am not really decided on this but wouldn´t even a 9000% increase in cost, based on the above points, be reasonable?

First off I edited my last post to fix a couple of errors: It's 1 to 56 and 1 to 91 (not 1 to 5,600 and 1 to 9,100)

Your point about supplies not just being food is not relevant. Of course supplies is everything, I used the word 'feed' in the generic sense. Want a bullet? Land 56 bullets and only get 1 bullet (for the 52% over-stack). 55 get lost somehow. But that's not the point. And they are not simulating artificially increasing land mass.

They have set up a very appropriate penalty system for over-stacking so that the overall simulation of stacking on small islands works out reasonably well. I am of the opinion that the penalty is too high, that's all.

BTW, AFAIK they also made allowances for additional casualties when over-stacked troops get attacked (I seem to remember that being mentioned).

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

And btw: Your test is REALLY apprechiated! I didn´t expect the penalty to be this brutal and the information is already
trying to store itself to long-time-memory for further use...

Thanks, that's probably most of the value of publishing it. I was very surprised, I'm sure most people will be.

[CaptBeefheart]

Well, this confirms that my strategy of only invading 30,000 cap islands or higher, and bypassing the rest, is not a bad strategy.

Cheers,
CC

[JeffroK]

I find the problem is more that you have to take a force capable of clearing out 6,000 men on a small atoll. Usually about 20,000ish as you cant always bomb or shell an island for weeks before landing. Even planning for the loss and immediately uplifting the attackers can take time as most atolls are at o or 1 lvl port, about a week to lift a Division.

Maybe there could be modifiers for the status of the LCU;
If in combat mode a major penalty, this would represent the LCU dispersed ready to repel an attack. I think the current penalty is high, even half of the current rate would be better.
If in Rest/Strategic mode, the penalty could be much lower as this would represent the LCU in barracks/tented lines and efficiently housed.

I also find the 6,000 limit a bit low, maybe it should be 10,000. It would be nice to fit a Regiment and a Base Force with space for another unit.

Also odd, and uneditable, are some of the atoll sizes, Eniwetok, Roi-Namur & Kwajalien (16.4 sq km) only fit 6000, Ailinglaplap (14.7 sq km) allows 30,000?
Eniwetok & Roi-Namur are very small, but Kwajalein should be small, as its of similar size to Ailiglaplap

[Czert3]

applies same penaltioes to deployed units (in combat mode) - in normal garrion duty for atols ? Or it is only related to (naval) assaults ?

And how penalties will be for airborne assault ?

[vettim89]

I think these penalties in supply usage are merely an abstraction. The point of the devs was not necessarily to say troops stacked shoulder to shoulder on a small atoll would consume enormous amounts of supply but that it was physically impossible to do so. As such they needed to put into the game a device that would effectively prohibit players from doing the ridiculous. The supply considerations is the device they chose and to me it seems to be working as desired.

In WiTP, it was typical to see 30k troops on say Tarawa or Kwajalein and sometimes up to 50 k troops. Not to be gross but just dealing with the filth created by 50k men in such a small space would ultimately end up in serious disease problems. That many troops would need at least 100 tons of fresh water a day to sustain them and that is just one item.

So I for one am happy to see the changes and think they are working as intended

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I think these penalties in supply usage are merely an abstraction. The point of the devs was not necessarily to say troops stacked shoulder to shoulder on a small atoll would consume enormous amounts of supply but that it was physically impossible to do so. As such they needed to put into the game a device that would effectively prohibit players from doing the ridiculous. The supply considerations is the device they chose and to me it seems to be working as desired.

This is probably the most important post of the thread. They could have hardcoded a max number of troops on an Island as well, but that would have made taking one nearly impossible. (As the defender would just max out his troops and the attack has to go in at 1-1)

[Sardaukar]

One just has to prepare for supply consumption with extra supply TF and removing extra troops as soon as possible when place is taken. Especially Allies are definitely not short of xAKs and supply.
 
As vettim89 said, it's abstraction to limit stationing massive amounts of troops on atolls. It does not prevent for example attacking 6000 limit atoll with 20 000 men, one just has to be prepared with extra supply and withdraw troops as soon as possible.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

(1) I think these penalties in supply usage are merely an abstraction. The point of the devs was not necessarily to say troops stacked shoulder to shoulder on a small atoll would consume enormous amounts of supply but that it was physically impossible to do so. As such they needed to put into the game a device that would effectively prohibit players from doing the ridiculous. The supply considerations is the device they chose and to me it seems to be working as desired.

In WiTP, it was typical to see 30k troops on say Tarawa or Kwajalein and sometimes up to 50 k troops. Not to be gross but just dealing with the filth created by 50k men in such a small space would ultimately end up in serious disease problems. That many troops would need at least 100 tons of fresh water a day to sustain them and that is just one item.

(2) So I for one am happy to see the changes and think they are working as intended

(1) I agree completely.

(2) I partially agree. I just think the curve might be too steep.

[topeverest]

And it is one STEEP curve. Beware! Purely by chance I have not been burned by this.