Andrew: Solution for overland map movement limitations?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm pretty sure the supply restrictions in Australia are not limited to the monsoon season.

No I don't think they are either. But how easily can such restrictions be applied to other parts of the map, and how can the supply costs of the transport links be taken into consideration also (they are not currently, at least that is my understanding).

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The immediate problem I see with your current thinking solution is that it doesn't really apply to a short distance route march.

Again to look at the specific Kokoda Track example which has kick started this thread, the 140k expeditionary force will have started its march with all units in full supply. Those LCUs could subsist on their intrinsic organic supply carried with them. Hence the amount of supply flow from the Buna depot is not a real issue for the purposes of the march. Your thinking would only really have an impact should the expeditionary force be held up at its destination (Port Moresby) and thus be forced to top up its intrinsic supply stores from the Buna depot.

True enough, it does not take into consideration intrinsic supply already held by LCUs. To take that into account you would have to look at restrictions on how many units can move through hexes of various terrain types, or changes to how intrinsic supply works, which is a whole new dimension which I have not considered as part of this thought exercise.

Nevertheless, I do believe that there should be general restrictions on how much supply can be funnelled through single points on the map (such as bases).

Another possibility is to apply the island hex stacking limits to hexes with difficult terrain, to limit the size of the force that can be placed in a single hex, even in non-island hexes. Such limits might have to take into consideration the presence of roads/railways, however.

Andrew

[Alfred]

LoBaron,

I certainly didn't mean to imply you were motivated to assist weaker players although that would be a consequence of your idea.

I think you have dismissed too quickly the issue of fortifications.

Again taking the Kokoda Track as our example. The two hexes adjacent to buna which you would modify are both jungle hexes. That already represents a 2x defense modifier. If the Port Moresby garrison sent out some engineers to those hexes and built up the fort levels to between 3 and 5, you would have a further defence benefit of approximately 50-100%. As this would be a "quasi" base, the fortification levels would remain in place if the engineers withdrew back to Port Moresby and immediately bestow their defence bonus to any future arriving Allied infantry. That is quite a defensive advantage when you consider that out in the field, individual infantry units build their own fortifications and do not bequeath them to their relieving units.

So the bottom line is that a rush from part of the Port Moresby garrison could move into a pre-prepared position which enhances the LCUs baseline defence AV by 4x. The defender therefore could look with equanimity his prospects even if he is outnumbered 8:1 in AV. All this occurring under circumstances where you are artificially weakening the strength of the expeditionary force.

I can easily foresee an impenetrable wall being created against any invasion accross the Owen Stanleys. Furthermore this would be much worse than the situation which can occur in atoll invasions.

1. In an atoll invasion, the attacker at least has the option of using naval bombardments to thin out the defence line.

2. With command of the sea, an atoll can be isolated from receiving supply, thereby starving the garrison and reducing substantially the defensive AV prior to the invasion. The same does not necessarily apply to land bases who have multiple LOCs from other nearby land bases who can push out supply to the "quasi" base.

3. An atoll invasion has a quick outcome. The auto shock assault either succeeds or it fails. For the purposes of the actual battle, there really is no reliance upon external supply flow; the invading LCUs basically win or lose on the basis of their intrinsic organic supply carried into battle.

4. With these "quasi" bases on the Kokoda Track the expeditionary force will probably take some time to capture the "quasi" base and then still faces the prospect of marching on to Port Moresby, all this necessitating drawing on supply from its Buna depot, a problem not really confronted by the invaders of an atoll.

Regarding HR #1, we will just have to agree to disagree. Yes, in classical WITP the not invading a non base hex was pretty universal, although even then there were some players, Nemo immediately springs to mind, who would never agree to such a HR. In AE I don't believe the rationale for this HR is as strong as it was in classical WITP and I certainly detect a much higher percentage of players who play without it.

As a general principle, I strongly support Andrew Brown's view that any solution must be universally applicable and not just apply to a part of the map. Could you not anticipate the squeals of protest which inevitably would follow if a "solution" was not applied universally.

Alfred

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The immediate problem I see with your current thinking solution is that it doesn't really apply to a short distance route march.

Again to look at the specific Kokoda Track example which has kick started this thread, the 140k expeditionary force will have started its march with all units in full supply. Those LCUs could subsist on their intrinsic organic supply carried with them. Hence the amount of supply flow from the Buna depot is not a real issue for the purposes of the march. Your thinking would only really have an impact should the expeditionary force be held up at its destination (Port Moresby) and thus be forced to top up its intrinsic supply stores from the Buna depot.

True enough, it does not take into consideration intrinsic supply already held by LCUs. To take that into account you would have to look at restrictions on how many units can move through hexes of various terrain types, or changes to how intrinsic supply works, which is a whole new dimension which I have not considered as part of this thought exercise.

Nevertheless, I do believe that there should be general restrictions on how much supply can be funnelled through single points on the map (such as bases).

Another possibility is to apply the island hex stacking limits to hexes with difficult terrain, to limit the size of the force that can be placed in a single hex, even in non-island hexes. Such limits might have to take into consideration the presence of roads/railways, however.

Andrew

If you are talking about a code change effecting the flow of supply, some consideration should also be given in adjusting the supply spoilage rate as discussed elsewhere in this forum as to being unrealistically low.

Buck

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The immediate problem I see with your current thinking solution is that it doesn't really apply to a short distance route march.

Again to look at the specific Kokoda Track example which has kick started this thread, the 140k expeditionary force will have started its march with all units in full supply. Those LCUs could subsist on their intrinsic organic supply carried with them. Hence the amount of supply flow from the Buna depot is not a real issue for the purposes of the march. Your thinking would only really have an impact should the expeditionary force be held up at its destination (Port Moresby) and thus be forced to top up its intrinsic supply stores from the Buna depot.

True enough, it does not take into consideration intrinsic supply already held by LCUs. To take that into account you would have to look at restrictions on how many units can move through hexes of various terrain types, or changes to how intrinsic supply works, which is a whole new dimension which I have not considered as part of this thought exercise.

Nevertheless, I do believe that there should be general restrictions on how much supply can be funnelled through single points on the map (such as bases).

Another possibility is to apply the island hex stacking limits to hexes with difficult terrain, to limit the size of the force that can be placed in a single hex, even in non-island hexes. Such limits might have to take into consideration the presence of roads/railways, however.

Andrew

Stacking limits in reality were a function of the presence of roads/railways. The capacity of the MSR mattered a lot--I spent some time investigating it for an Italian campaign game.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Another possibility is to apply the island hex stacking limits to hexes with difficult terrain, to limit the size of the force that can be placed in a single hex, even in non-island hexes. Such limits might have to take into consideration the presence of roads/railways, however.

Andrew

Given the limitations of the game engine, I think the stacking limit approach is more practical than trying to adjust the supply trace.

Fx, consider an atoll-like limit for stacks in jungle, jungle rough or mountain hexes:

1. A maximum of 6,000 men in Jungle, Jungle Rough, or Mountain hexes
2. All devices above this limit are disabled
3. All non-infantry / non-engineer devices with a load cost >9 are disabled (mortars and pack howitzers can make the trek, but not vehicles and heavier artillery)
4. These restrictions apply unless the LCU stack controls a rail/road hexside leading out of the Ju,JR or Mtn hex

Notes:
#1: The atoll limit (6,000) is plugged in here as an example. Some other # may be a more appropriate limit
#2: The increased supply penalty for atolls may not work in these cases, where the attacking player may well be able to 'game' the system by burning extravagant amounts of supply for a few turns to get a large force through the jungle/mountains. I think disablements work better to model the situation on continental terrain.
#3: Without device restrictions, a manpower limit would make armor and artillery attractive choices to send into roadless jungle/mountain terrain.
#4: So if a LCU enters a contested jungle hex across a road hexside, there is no stacking limit. But if a stack crosses a roadless hexside, into a contested hex, all the large devices are disabled, as are any other devices above the manpower cap.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

....Given the limitations of the game engine, I think the stacking limit approach is more practical than trying to adjust the supply trace.

Fx, consider an atoll-like limit for stacks in jungle, jungle rough or mountain hexes:

1. A maximum of 6,000 men in Jungle, Jungle Rough, or Mountain hexes
2. All devices above this limit are disabled
3. All non-infantry / non-engineer devices with a load cost >9 are disabled (mortars and pack howitzers can make the trek, but not vehicles and heavier artillery)
4. These restrictions apply unless the LCU stack controls a rail/road hexside leading out of the Ju,JR or Mtn hex

Notes:
#1: The atoll limit (6,000) is plugged in here as an example. Some other # may be a more appropriate limit
#2: The increased supply penalty for atolls may not work in these cases, where the attacking player may well be able to 'game' the system by burning extravagant amounts of supply for a few turns to get a large force through the jungle/mountains. I think disablements work better to model the situation on continental terrain.
#3: Without device restrictions, a manpower limit would make armor and artillery attractive choices to send into roadless jungle/mountain terrain.
#4: So if a LCU enters a contested jungle hex across a road hexside, there is no stacking limit. But if a stack crosses a roadless hexside, into a contested hex, all the large devices are disabled, as are any other devices above the manpower cap.

I can see merit in the idea of disabling the non infantry/engineer devices but I don't see this promising idea directly addressing the core issue raised by LoBaron. There would be no slowdown in the rate of marching across the Owen Stanleys. Only if the expeditionary force were forced into combat whilst burdened with disabled devices would the invader have any reason to pause and consider the wisdom of the advance. Even then he could bring sufficient infantry to not be concerned about not having armour/artillery participating in the combat.

If we were to go down this path I would suggest the following additional tweaks.

1. Above the stacking limits, all devices (includes infantry/engineers, <load 9 devices) should be disabled. Thus you would have available for combat on the march (and immediately available for operations once the stack arrives at its destination) only infantry/engineers below the stacking limit. Bring too large a stack, you start to suffer the consequences of having more disabled than support squads, viz they start to die off.

2. Incorporate the operations mode into the mix. For example travel through a jungle, jungle + rough, or mountain hex (as suggested) which does not have a road or railway line, could only be accompliosh in "combat" mode. "Move" mode would not be available. This would actually help to slow down the march.

3. Also increase the fatigue and disruption rates suffered. The more the expeditionary force is above the stacking limit, the greater the fatigue and disruption. This could also be combined with the length of time spent above the stacking limits so that really long marches adversely affect the combat effectiveness of the expeditionary force.

4. I also think desert and desert + rough terrain should be incorporated. These might need to have a different stacking limit and perhaps the disabled devices should be reversed. That is in desert terrain, above the stacking limit it would be infantry which would be disabled leaving only armour/motorised devices ready for combat. That change would be consistent with the different travel times for the different terrain types given on page 189 of the manual.

Alfred

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm pretty sure the supply restrictions in Australia are not limited to the monsoon season.

No I don't think they are either. But how easily can such restrictions be applied to other parts of the map, and how can the supply costs of the transport links be taken into consideration also (they are not currently, at least that is my understanding).

Andrew

I'm not looking at it right now, but I believe it's in the editor. Just set the daily supply cap. Might even be a switch to include it for monsoon months, but obviously you don't check that unless it's in Burma or on the Burma/India border. Treespider put supply caps on some additional bases that way (mostly in India and China).

[LoBaron]

This discussion is really interesting.

Alfred, I still think we are talking a bit past each other (this time). An 8:1 AV advantage to successfully cross the kokoda trail sounds desireable
to me, garrisoning can be limited by setting the troop stacking limit way below atoll limitations. Shock attack only applies to atolls, no need to implement it here.
The impenetratable wall could be created. But to achieve this the supply cost is so high you cannot keep it up for an ammount of time or only with the kind of
local superiority the should make it impossible for an opponent to cross the OSMs anyway.

Do we have a different POV concerning the difficulties the player should face when crossing the OS mountains?


The preferrence of a global solution drops the original idea anyway. Blackhorses proposal looks promising I think.
The difference between a global and a local solution is that with the complexity of the WitP AE map we have a dangerousely high chance to
create problems in one area by eliminating them somewhere else. I was aiming for a local "quick and easy" fix that does not require a complete
overhaul - to adress local problems -, but for sure this is much less elegant.

Just a question: is there a codewise limitation for number of different terrain types?

[Blackhorse]

Alfred,

My point #2 ("all devices above this limit are disabled") was meant to accomplish your point #1 [:)]

To your point #4, I agree that it would be attractive to tailor stacking restrictions and penalties to different terrain types. Restrictions on roadless Swamp and Wooded Rough could slow down the Japanese blitzkrieg (and any Allied counter-offensive) in China, as Roger Neilson discussed.

Since my approach is fairly draconian, immediately disabling all devices above the size limit, I do not think it is necessary to also have additional fatigue and disablements based on unit size, as you propose. I think your concept could be an alternative to mine; instead of immediately disabling all devices above the limit, disable a set % per turn, until the LCU stack is within the limit.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

....Given the limitations of the game engine, I think the stacking limit approach is more practical than trying to adjust the supply trace.

Fx, consider an atoll-like limit for stacks in jungle, jungle rough or mountain hexes:

1. A maximum of 6,000 men in Jungle, Jungle Rough, or Mountain hexes
2. All devices above this limit are disabled
3. All non-infantry / non-engineer devices with a load cost >9 are disabled (mortars and pack howitzers can make the trek, but not vehicles and heavier artillery)
4. These restrictions apply unless the LCU stack controls a rail/road hexside leading out of the Ju,JR or Mtn hex

Notes:
#1: The atoll limit (6,000) is plugged in here as an example. Some other # may be a more appropriate limit
#2: The increased supply penalty for atolls may not work in these cases, where the attacking player may well be able to 'game' the system by burning extravagant amounts of supply for a few turns to get a large force through the jungle/mountains. I think disablements work better to model the situation on continental terrain.
#3: Without device restrictions, a manpower limit would make armor and artillery attractive choices to send into roadless jungle/mountain terrain.
#4: So if a LCU enters a contested jungle hex across a road hexside, there is no stacking limit. But if a stack crosses a roadless hexside, into a contested hex, all the large devices are disabled, as are any other devices above the manpower cap.

I can see merit in the idea of disabling the non infantry/engineer devices but I don't see this promising idea directly addressing the core issue raised by LoBaron. There would be no slowdown in the rate of marching across the Owen Stanleys. Only if the expeditionary force were forced into combat whilst burdened with disabled devices would the invader have any reason to pause and consider the wisdom of the advance. Even then he could bring sufficient infantry to not be concerned about not having armour/artillery participating in the combat.

If we were to go down this path I would suggest the following additional tweaks.

1. Above the stacking limits, all devices (includes infantry/engineers, <load 9 devices) should be disabled. Thus you would have available for combat on the march (and immediately available for operations once the stack arrives at its destination) only infantry/engineers below the stacking limit. Bring too large a stack, you start to suffer the consequences of having more disabled than support squads, viz they start to die off.

2. Incorporate the operations mode into the mix. For example travel through a jungle, jungle + rough, or mountain hex (as suggested) which does not have a road or railway line, could only be accompliosh in "combat" mode. "Move" mode would not be available. This would actually help to slow down the march.

3. Also increase the fatigue and disruption rates suffered. The more the expeditionary force is above the stacking limit, the greater the fatigue and disruption. This could also be combined with the length of time spent above the stacking limits so that really long marches adversely affect the combat effectiveness of the expeditionary force.

4. I also think desert and desert + rough terrain should be incorporated. These might need to have a different stacking limit and perhaps the disabled devices should be reversed. That is in desert terrain, above the stacking limit it would be infantry which would be disabled leaving only armour/motorised devices ready for combat. That change would be consistent with the different travel times for the different terrain types given on page 189 of the manual.

Alfred

[Andy Mac]

There are two seperate tabs in the band aid fix.

1. A supply CAP basically its th eamount of supplies a base can send or recieve in a single day and its a formula of Supply Cap Number as defined in editor x (Fort+Port+AF - a proxy for infrastructure)

2. Monsoon check box that defines if a bases supply cap should be reduced by 50% during the monsoon.

This is and was a band aid applied to Burma and North Australia but it works.

The suply cap numbers were defined by me and I cannot fully remember how I did it (at work now)

I think it was 50 minimum
50 for every secondary road
100 for a major road
100 for a minor railway
100 for a major railway (200 if only railway in hex)
and 50 minor navigatable river
100 major river.

It was something like that cannnot fully recall but it bas basically used to control the amount of supply sent to some areas specifically Burma and Northern Australia

It could be aplied to NG, China etc but we ran out of time on the data patch to test it so had to narrow it down to the two specific problem areas that needed soe kind of fix

Andy

[Andy Mac]

So a base on a river with a major road would be (50+100+100) = 250 tons per day x (each infrastructure level +1)

So forts 3 would enable 1000 per day, forts 3 and AF 3 1750 etc etc.

I would have preferred a seperate buildable/bombable infrastructure but that was beyond the scope

[witpqs]

Andy, the supply cap stuff works extremely well. Simple and elegant.

One thing they are really needing to address the issues under discussion is an outgoing supply cap. That would limit the number of troops/amount-of-combat/whatever that takes place in bad terrain outside a base. Still takes a bunch of programming, testing and tuning.

Closer to ideal I suppose would be limiting the total number of supply that could pass through a given hex. I presume that would be a pretty big programming, testing, & tuning deal.

[LargeSlowTarget]

On a sideline, I have used the supply cap to "simulate" the Burma-Siam Death Railway.

I have put in a string of dot bases (Kwai Bridge, Wampo, Hellfire Pass, Three Pagoda Pass etc.) along the Bangkok - Moulmein secondary road with port SPS (landlocked ports - useless for anything but simulating infrastructure) and added a supply cap.

Expanding the port will increase the ammount of supplies that can be received and passed-along to the next hex.

Some House rules apply - port expansion must be one hex at a time from both ends working towards the meeting point, and fort construction is allowed only after the ports are maxed-out.

Of course this influences only supply movement, not troop movements, but better than nothing.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Andy, the supply cap stuff works extremely well. Simple and elegant.

The supply cap is better than nothing for sure. And if it is applied using the editor only (without hard coding which I thought was present - apparently mistakenly), then that is all the better.

However there is one thing I would like to see improved with these supply limits: Does the amount of supply able to be pulled to a base with a supply limit dependent on the cost of the supply path? My understanding is that it isn't. If not, then a base in, say, Burma that has a supply cap specified, can only draw that amount whether it is from an Indian base via roadless jungle, or from Rangoon via a railway.

I would prefer the supply cap figure be modified by the supply cost of the supply path to the remote base from which the supply is being transferred. This could be done using a simple formula applied to the supply cap figure to get a modified supply cap value. For example, a formula could be:

Actual supply cap = Supply cap x 100 / (supply path cost + 50)

So a supply path cost of 100 would result in the supply cap being reduced by one third. A low supply cost would result in the cap being almost doubled. This would allow more supplies to be drawn over a low cost path, like a good road or railway, than via a roadless jungle route, which makes sense to me. I do not think that this would be a major modification to make.

Regarding stacking limits for non-island hexes, I think this could be applied by doing the following:

- Add several new "island size" values (currently they range from 0 to 4). The values above 4 could would be used for various terrain types, and differing stacking limit values could be used, apart from the ones used for islands already (6000 and so on). In addition, the effects of the new values could be disablement of excess devices, rather than a supply penalty, as Blackhorse suggests. The new values could then be added to the map data as desired. This would also mean that existing games and official scenarios would be unaffected by the changes (unless the official map data file is updated at some point).

Alternatively, the penalties for exceeding the stacking limits could be changed from the current system to one that combines a gradual disablement of excess devices, plus a supply penalty, and the new system be applied universally, including to islands.

Andrew

[Blackhorse]

Regarding stacking limits for non-island hexes, I think this could be applied by doing the following:

- Add several new "island size" values (currently they range from 0 to 4). The values above 4 could would be used for various terrain types, and differing stacking limit values could be used, apart from the ones used for islands already (6000 and so on). In addition, the effects of the new values could be disablement of excess devices, rather than a supply penalty, as Blackhorse suggests. The new values could then be added to the map data as desired. This would also mean that existing games and official scenarios would be unaffected by the changes (unless the official map data file is updated at some point).

Alternatively, the penalties for exceeding the stacking limits could be changed from the current system to one that combines a gradual disablement of excess devices, plus a supply penalty, and the new system be applied universally, including to islands.

Andrew

Andrew,

I prefer a universal approach, where practical, and there is a lot to like about the approach you outline above.

For example, for the sake of discussion assume a universal rule that every turn, 20% of devices above the manpower limit are disabled (and perhaps a similar +20% supply penalty). On an atoll, an overstrength attacking force could assault with 80% of its overage on D+1, 64% on D+2, and 51% on D+3. That's enough time to try to overwhelm a maximum-sized defending force on an atoll or a very small island.

Apply the same penalty to land stacks marching through a roadless jungle, swamp, or mountain hex, and after ten days moving through the hex, the overage is reduced to barely 10%. If it takes 15 days to get across the hex, then 96.5% of the overage would be disabled by the time the unit emerges. In any kind of rugged terrain, off-road, "land death stars" would waste away before they could reach the next hex. A rule like this could protect Port Moresby from a corps-sized overland invasion from Buna. It also means that it would not be practical for a defender to overstack atoll defenses for anything more than a few days at a time.

In addition to the daily 20% disablements, for certain types of terrain it would still make sense that all non-infantry or engineer devices with a load cost >9 be disabled when a stack enters the hex, regardless of the stacking limit, if there is no road/rail through the hexside crossed by stack. Easy for me to say -- I have no idea how easy that would be to code.

[Andy Mac]

The only hardcoding is the dates and % of the monsoon check box

[Shark7]

I have to wonder, would there be a way to modify the game in such a way that all hexes that have no large roads or rails could have a default stacking limit?

[oldman45]

Playing a bit of devils advocate here, what about the commando style units that were designed to work in "hexes" with out roads. Won't this cause an adverse effect on them?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I have to wonder, would there be a way to modify the game in such a way that all hexes that have no large roads or rails could have a default stacking limit?

Limit the resupply rate. That's what imposes a stacking limit in reality.