Resupply of armoured units?

[Rock64]

It was my understanding that even though the supply unit is not represented on the map, the blocking unit causing the damage is an actual enemy unit. Also, units that are cut off show the supply line as red, so there must be some programming determining this.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Rock64

It was my understanding that even though the supply unit is not represented on the map, the blocking unit causing the damage is an actual enemy unit. Also, units that are cut off show the supply line as red, so there must be some programming determining this.

Considering avoidance routes vary based on known (or seen) opponent formation locations, there is not a single route available to facilitate supply or a single unseen unit along that route capable of blocking supply when a unit is cut off.

[wodin]

Personally I'd like to see the supply mechanic simplified and more abstract than it is at the moment..When I keep seeing so and so 100% supply loss I think to myself surely they'd have tried to find another way around or sent out a jeep first to make sure the way was clear..rather than just running into the Germans time and time again..

I'd rather it be simplified and more abstract..rather than plotting routes etc the game just checks if any enemy is in the way and then do a die roll to see if any supplies are lost if so another die roll to say how much..but make it hard for it to be 100%.

At the moment the game is in the middle of tactical and operational and I think that is causing some gameplay issues..The game dips it's toe into tactical aspects but then backs out to more operational with other aspects...sometimes it's neither one or the other and then ends up being abit confusing or be to complicated for it's own good.

I'd rather see supply be modeled in a more simplified\abstract way. At the moment really if you kept this sort of detail then you need to add more and give the player more control over supply, it's routes and maybe even give it some combat power if enemy are in the way to show some armed protection for the supply column, or even the player could detach a unit from reserve to protect the convoy. However for me this is adding to much management and like I said I'd rather it be KISS (keep it simple stupid)as it's not an aspect that need lots of attention from the player as long as it appears to be doing the job realistically i.e the end result seems right then I for one am happy.

I notice posts sometimes that show that some players can get confused about the scale of the game..usually they are seeing the game as tactical when really it's grand tactical\operational so they question aspects and want certain features etc. It's a tricky line as I said that Command Ops finds itself..to tacticla for operational and to operational for tactical. Thats not a bad thing at all aslong as the mechanics fit.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Personally I'd like to see the supply mechanic simplified and more abstract than it is at the moment..When I keep seeing so and so 100% supply loss I think to myself surely they'd have tried to find another way around or sent out a jeep first to make sure the way was clear..rather than just running into the Germans time and time again..

I'd rather it be simplified and more abstract..rather than plotting routes etc the game just checks if any enemy is in the way and then do a die roll to see if any supplies are lost if so another die roll to say how much..but make it hard for it to be 100%.

At the moment the game is in the middle of tactical and operational and I think that is causing some gameplay issues..The game dips it's toe into tactical aspects but then backs out to more operational with other aspects...sometimes it's neither one or the other and then ends up being abit confusing or be to complicated for it's own good.

I'd rather see supply be modeled in a more simplified\abstract way. At the moment really if you kept this sort of detail then you need to add more and give the player more control over supply, it's routes and maybe even give it some combat power if enemy are in the way to show some armed protection for the supply column, or even the player could detach a unit from reserve to protect the convoy. However for me this is adding to much management and like I said I'd rather it be KISS (keep it simple stupid)as it's not an aspect that need lots of attention from the player as long as it appears to be doing the job realistically i.e the end result seems right then I for one am happy.

I notice posts sometimes that show that some players can get confused about the scale of the game..usually they are seeing the game as tactical when really it's grand tactical\operational so they question aspects and want certain features etc. It's a tricky line as I said that Command Ops finds itself..to tacticla for operational and to operational for tactical. Thats not a bad thing at all aslong as the mechanics fit.

The solution at an operational level is to maintain a route between an advanced unit and a supply base, or scout a new route in the event a forward unit is isolated and the operational commander orders the forward unit to stay in place.

Von Paulus' operation became isolated at Stalingrad because his supply routes were not protected efficiently to pursue the orders he was issued and the reaction to his isolation was a pipedream.

McAuliffe's position at Bastogne was saved because the allied commander for the operation decided to fight for a supply route to the isolated unit rather then let it die on the vine while waiting for a pipedream.

The game is designed to be commanded at an operational level, but can be managed at the tactical level when appropriate.

Once a player starts worrying about individual units not getting their supplies, he's already watching at a tactical level, and ought to take the plunge and manage at that level as well.

[wodin]

The supply mechanic though on the whole is out of the players hands as they have no control of the convoys..yet they have to keep the lines open so in one hand it's tactical and the other more operational..again I'd rather it be more abstract and not plot routes and count trucks etc..or make it fully tactical where you get to control the supply convoys (though to me that wouldn't add anything to the game and just add to much micromanagement).

I don't want to get rid of supplies as that would be stupid but just abstract the mechanic of how they get to the units.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: wodin

The supply mechanic though on the whole is out of the players hands as they have no control of the convoys..yet they have to keep the lines open so in one hand it's tactical and the other more operational..again I'd rather it be more abstract and not plot routes and count trucks etc..or make it fully tactical where you get to control the supply convoys (though to me that wouldn't add anything to the game and just add to much micromanagement).

I don't want to get rid of supplies as that would be stupid but just abstract the mechanic of how they get to the units.

It is abstracted.

An effective operational commander pays attention to his supply lines, and delegates the delivery of supplies to the subordinate organizations and command staff responsible for that part of the operation.

When there are problems with supplies getting through, he adjusts his plans to assure that no units are isolated, unless ordered to ignore the situation, as McAuliff and Von Paulus were.

Command Ops forces the human operational commander to either react to the messages and adjust plans, or suppress them and press on regardless of his subordinates' problems.

[Deathtreader]

Hi,

Maybe a new order such as "patrol" might help when it comes to clearing out supply lines. The player could (for example) click 2 locations on the map and the unit in question could keep routinely patrolling between them. If all the traditional unit formations, pathing options, and task options etc.associated with a "move" order were available with the new "patrol" order this might go a long way to faciliting resupply efforts as well as rear area security in general.

What do others think?

Rob.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader


Hi,

Maybe a new order such as "patrol" might help when it comes to clearing out supply lines. The player could (for example) click 2 locations on the map and the unit in question could keep routinely patrolling between them. If all the traditional unit formations, pathing options, and task options etc.associated with a "move" order were available with the new "patrol" order this might go a long way to faciliting resupply efforts as well as rear area security in general.

You can get something like that by issuing a Move order with high Aggro settings and allowing it to launch attacks. Choose mobile units with leaders with high Determination, Aggro and Judgement levels. You'll need to plot it back and forth...

Regarding wodin's observations. The supply system in Command Ops runs itself - you just need to provide the environment for it to function properly. Simple as that.

And yes, one has to adjust his mindset in this regard. In Tiller's Panzer Campaigns you have ZOC's and other yes-no rules that dictate what the enemy side can do to you. Not in Command Ops. This - and other traits - make Command Ops to stand apart, and make it interesting to work on and play it [:)]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Rock64

I'll admit is it a bit frustrating to see column after column get wiped out from using a blocked supply route. The first column, ok, but the second one? I think eventually there would be a sign "Huns past this point" or something like that.

Historically, a unit out of ammo would either surrender or withdraw. No doubt someone can find an example of a Hungarian cook unit that fought with ladels and forks to the last man, but for the most part they surrendered or withdrew.

Rock, could you show us an screenshot of this particular situation or a similar one?

[wodin]

Think people misunderstand what I'm trying to say...personally I find the 100% loss rate one after the other annoying..surely the base would organise something to re route or send you the info of where they are being attacked..we can't get any of that..we can't re route supply convoy ourselves..I suppose what I'm saying is the AI for the supply convoys is lacking to non existent..it will keep sending the convoys along a dangerous path no matter what. Yes we can send a Coy to go hunt the problem...however as I said we have NO control over the convoys themselves and they don't think for themselves at all either..Lots of things could happen in real life that can't be done in game to get supplies forward and rerouting..or sending back a small selection of men of to contact the convoy to go a different way. Again these are all tactical level mechanics..but we have half tactical i.e we can detach a coy to open the route if we can find where it is being attacked..and half operational with regards to the convoys themselves being abstract and not actually controllable nor can you issue orders to them...give them weapons and a small guard etc it's all done abstract. SO I think the supply system could have been made alot simpler and still got the job done with results more realistic than we currently get due to the complexity of the system.

What I'm trying to say is I reckon there is a much simpler system to get supplies out to the troops and give more realistic losses during the process without the current complexity we have at the moment. It's part of the game thats half in and half out of our hands..where it probably is best even more abstract with how it gets to your troops and out of your hands altogether or go the whole hog and give us control of the supply system and conoys. Just a thought.

It's what Rock has just said I suppose I'm talking about..it really highlights the lack of any AI with regards to supply convoys and the supply system allround.

Bletchly I understand but currently we are handicapped in creating the environment to run properly as I said due to have no control of the convoys and routes.

[jimcarravall]

The convoy loss messages are a symptom of a problem that was discovered during World War II's highly mobile battlefield operations.

At an operational level it's akin to why the allies spent significant resources to secure bases for scouting the ocean and established a system of communications between the North American continent and forward supply locations in Europe and the Pacific.

Here's a discussion of what has been learned from World War II and beyond.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA424118

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

The convoy loss messages are a symptom of a problem that was discovered during World War II's highly mobile battlefield operations.

At an operational level it's akin to why the allies spent significant resources to secure bases for scouting the ocean and established a system of communications between the North American continent and forward supply locations in Europe and the Pacific.

Here's a discussion of what has been learned from World War II and beyond.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA424118

Some US Doctrine.


From Security during Offensive Operations:

Success or failure of an offensive is dependent in a large measure upon the action taken to protect the command from hostile reaction. Open flanks are highly vulnerable. The best security is to keep the enemy so heavily involved that he has no time or means available to endanger the success of the attack. Security of attack forces is assured by a timely search for information in all directions from which a hostile threat may come, by the proper disposition of security forces of ample mobility and combat power, and by prompt dispatch of accurate information and orders to security forces. This is particularly true in security against hostile forces of great mobility such as air, tank, motorized, and cavalry units. In offensive operations, the service of security is performed in accordance with the general doctrines discussed in chapter 6.

Chapter 6 - Security: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref ... 0-5-6.html

[Perturabo]

I'd like to remind that besides supply being blocked, supply columns also get lost when supplies are ordered to the units that are currently fighting.
That is - units can be cut-off from supplies by being in enemy field of fire without any enemy units being between the supplied unit and the base.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

I'd like to remind that besides supply being blocked, supply columns also get lost when supplies are ordered to the units that are currently fighting.
That is - units can be cut-off from supplies by being in enemy field of fire without any enemy units being between the supplied unit and the base.

In a real battle, supply columns are vulnerable to any enemy field of fire along their route where they can be spotted by the enemy, and thus, targeted.

Would make sense that the same occurs in the BftB engine as well.

[wodin]

I think what he is saying is in real life would they send out supplies to a unit that they know is currently in action in the first place..or would they hold off until they have a quite time for resupply or at least dump the supplies abit further back away from any direct fire. AT the moment it comes no matter what..and that probably isn't realistic.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I think what he is saying is in real life would they send out supplies to a unit that they know is currently in action in the first place..or would they hold off until they have a quite time for resupply or at least dump the supplies abit further back away from any direct fire. AT the moment it comes no matter what..and that probably isn't realistic.

No. In real life supplies didn't always get to units requiring them because sometimes enemy forces were capable of conducting an attack behind the front lines on the supply routes.

Today the US Army terms such an operation "deep attack" in the US Army and consists of using air, indirect fire, and infiltration of ground behind enemy lines to interdict supply routes and thus strangle units at the front from being effective defense forces or force attacking forces which stretch their lines of communication to the extreme during an attack to flip over to the defense.

It was demonstrated quite effectively with the 1939 - 1941 Blitzkrieg tactics of the Nazi forces and found its theoretical capabilities for US forces during Patton's and Eisenhower's experiments with maneuver tactics between World War I and the US entry into World War II, with a bulk of the experiments taking place after US officers observed the devastation that the Blitzkrieg had on the traditional standing armies of 1939.