Supply Base Movement

[loyalcitizen]

Left on their own, supply bases will tend to sit far away and out of the way, even when their Brigade heads off for an Attack.

My question: Will supply flow better to my troops if I take manual control and move the Supply Base closer to the front?
Do I then need to reattach the Supply Base to the parent to get the supply to flow to the correct troops?

I've read the manual, so I know that Bases don't dispense supplies while on the move, so I don't want to move them willy-nilly.

Please help.

[Phoenix100]

If you uncheck the 'basing' box when you give the HQ an order then the base will stay closer to the HQ, though still a little back. It's a good compromise from placing it yourself and I usually find it works very well if I want the base closer to the HQ - if you don't like where the HQ places it with 'basing' unchecked then you can site it yourself, though as you say, there's no supply going on during all this moving around, and the orders delay seems always very long. You don't need to reattach it - as far as I know - for it to function normally. Might be desirable in the airborne scenarios at least to uncheck 'basing' as you might otherwise end up with your base a long way from your perimeter and very vulnerable. Supply doesn't seem hampered by the length of supply line from base to HQ, in my experience (limited as it is) - though a longer chain theoretically gives more opportunity for the enemy to cut the routes. BUT - and it's a big but - if you site your base so close to the front that it's within enemy LOS then in my experience it is likely nothing will get out of it - at the moment - without it being shot up. I've found, therefore, that if possible you need to have the bases at least 2 to 3 km from the flot for them to be able to shift supply reliably. At any rate, they should not be obviously in the line of fire. In the airborne scenarios this becomes very problematic - compounded by the present modelling for supply, about which much has recently been written in other threads, and for which Dave has a quick fix planned, I believe. Because when you're stuck in a pocket, or bridgehead, it's often impossible to site bases where they're not in the line of fire, if you want them inside your perimeter. But this is no doubt a real life issue too! In the normal, non airborne scenarios I have always found it's best to keep basing checked and let the HQ leave the base well to the rear, out of harms way.

[vandorenp]

Good advise. There is a complication though. Basing applies to fire support units as well. I believe these should be separated. Furthermore non-organic fire support location should have separate protocol from organic fire support. Non-organic fire support should be looking only to locate:
1. be within 1/3rd of gun range of supported units/front lines adjusting for supported units mission
2. be safe from enemy observation
3. be in good communications with supply source and fire support coordinator(s)

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen

Left on their own, supply bases will tend to sit far away and out of the way, even when their Brigade heads off for an Attack.

My question: Will supply flow better to my troops if I take manual control and move the Supply Base closer to the front?
Do I then need to reattach the Supply Base to the parent to get the supply to flow to the correct troops?

I've read the manual, so I know that Bases don't dispense supplies while on the move, so I don't want to move them willy-nilly.

Please help.

My experience is that order ship time for supply delivery (that time between the supplies are required and when they reach the unit requiring them) is reduced somewhat if the base element is closer to the Forward Line Own Troops (FLOT). Basic consideration is that the delivery delay (time required for a "convoy" to "load up," travel from a supply base to a unit in need of supplies, and unload) and, the waiting for transport delay (time required for the empty "convoy" to return to the base for another load) are reduced if the distance between the base and a majority of supported units is reduced.

To evaluate whether moving the base would be more effective than allowing the on-map boss to make the decision, I consider:

1. The quality of the road network between base and the FLOT. A highway and bridge network that supports 100 percent motorized transport speeds for a majority of the route can be more effective for the convoy delay times than a shorter network over unpaved roads and paths that support 10 percent motorized transport speeds. Since a base carries several days supplies, in longer scenarios, a similar consideration applies to moving the base to a major road that is separated from its Supply Entry Point (SEP) by unpaved roads and paths.

2. Security. I don't move a base closer to troops without first considering how secure it would be from enemy infiltration attacks. If I'm reasonably sure the rear area is secure, I'll move the base closer to FLOT in that secure area. If I'm not reasonably certain, I'll attach the base with a unit(s) possessing some degree of organic defensive strength in the same location to improve security for the supplies. Further back in the rear, I'll use long range artillery located with the base (if the artillery is organic to the base's command unit, it facilitates resupply for long range artillery operations). Closer to the front I'll consider additional line and support units which may not have as much utility at the front as they would in protecting the base.

3. The communications grid. In general, I'll move a base to a road crossing or just beyond a secured river crossing point closer to FLOT instead of further forward along a single road. My favorite is to put a base on a victory location that addresses these criteria, because it supports accumulation of victory points at the same time it may facilitate more efficient supply flow.

Hope this helps.

[dazkaz15]

In my experience you will get a better supply if you leave it as far back as possible.
The reason for this is that the AI avoidance route, will almost always calculate a route that is between the base, and the unit that is trying to supply, in as direct a line as possible.
By leaving it further back you give it more choice in its selection of the safest route.
If it is too close it will try to send supplies on routes that are parallel to the FLOT, where it may be destroyed. I have never seen it manage to supply a unit by first sending supplies away from the unit requesting them, on a longer, but safer route.

The drawbacks of this are as Jim says the turn around time for the convoys in increased, and if you have infiltrating enemy in your rear areas they may ambush the route.
I have still found that the best way, at least until the 100% supply loss bug is fixed, is to keep the base as far back as possible, to increase the number of possible alternate routes that the AI will try.
I think this method also gives the AI more time to turn back the supply if there is enemy fire on the route.
I could be wrong though. Its very hard to tell with abstracted supply routes, and convoys.

[Phoenix100]

Vandorenp - you raise something I didn't know about! I really should carefully read the manual! What exactly do you mean by 'Basing applies to fire support units as well'. Does that mean that if I leave basing checked then the Bn mortar, for example, will get into a better position, supporting the line units? Or vice versa?

I have NEVER noticed any support units hanging back with the base, either with base checked or unchecked. Eg, in From the Meuse to the Rhine nearly all XXX Corps bases will hang around the grave bridge area if you leave basing checked, even when the line units are as far ahead as Arnhem - but not the support units. They go with the Bn HQs and line units. If I uncheck bases then ditto, except now the base gets closer to the HQ too. What have I missed?

[Phoenix100]

Daz, I haven't noticed any increased turn around time for convoys if the bases stay back. Are we sure of that? In RL that would be true, of course, but is that modelled, definitely? (Of course, I might just think turn around is so long anyway that I haven't noticed a few mins difference....._but seriously - do we know that that is modelled?)

[dazkaz15]

Yes it is modelled mate.
If you are wondering what the blue squares are on my test map, they are to stop me having to chase units I am testing for game balance issues from retreating, and then having to chase them all over the map.

I am currently testing the Tiger MkII for accuracy against the US recon M8's as I have been finding this quite unrealistic.
The accuracy of the Panzers was also brought up by someone else a while back if I remember right.
They seem fine against other armoured units, but for some reason those Recon units are almost indestructible by Tigers. Maybe because they also have an infantry component in the same unit?

My tests have shown there is a problem with this, but I can't really be bothered to write it up, so if anyone else wants to take up the issue feel free

[Phoenix100]

Ah! Great. Thanks Daz. Very thorough.

The indestructible M8 rings bells from a long way back, I think. Would have to check old threads, but it was meant to be fixed, if that's what I'm thinking of.

[dazkaz15]

This is another scenario I set up for testing it.
It is set up to represent perfect conditions for tanks. Flat terrain, perfect weather conditions, and long hours of daylight.
To the left of the map is a Very powerful Kampfgruppe, assaulting 3 of the Recon units, both sides are set up to receive supply.

The firing Ranges are set up to receive no supply to make it easy to see how many rounds are fired by each side, and thus calculate the hit %.
For the Tigers against these Recon units it is ridiculously low.
I guess I will get round to writing it up, and sending it to Dave eventually, but as he is out of action at the moment, there is no rush.

[Phoenix100]

Lol. Love the names.

[vandorenp]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

I have NEVER noticed any support units hanging back with the base, either with base checked or unchecked. Eg, in From the Meuse to the Rhine nearly all XXX Corps bases will hang around the grave bridge area if you leave basing checked, even when the line units are as far ahead as Arnhem - but not the support units. They go with the Bn HQs and line units. If I uncheck bases then ditto, except now the base gets closer to the HQ too. What have I missed?

Do this test. Move a Dvision HQ or Corps HQ that has supporting artillery from one location to another. Once with basing check and once without. Note the difference. Also notice how the mission box changes when you turn off basing.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

The indestructible M8 rings bells from a long way back, I think. Would have to check old threads, but it was meant to be fixed, if that's what I'm thinking of.

That particular issue was indeed fixed. It was to do with the last one if it was in a certain formation not being able to be seen...or something like that.

This is different.
This is to do with the accuracy of the Tigers. I agree that in some terrain, and while moving the M8's with their superior speed, and manoeuvrability would be hard to hit, but this is at point blank range, in perfect conditions.
It should almost be a one round per kill scenario, but as you will see when I write it up it takes several hundred rounds of AP ammunition to take out this unit.
Some of the tests I ran the Tigers completely ran out of ammo so never managed to destroy the unit at all.
This is not one V one, this is 3 units, = 21 King Tigers starting with full ammo racks all running out of ammo against one Recon unit at point blank range, in perfect conditions.
Clearly something is wrong.

[dazkaz15]

This is what the WIKI has to say about the accuracy of the Tiger II:

The turrets were designed to mount the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 gun. Combined with the Turmzielfernrohr 9d (German "turret telescopic sight") monocular sight by Leitz, which all but a few early Tiger IIs used, it was a very accurate and deadly weapon. During practice, the estimated probability of a first round hit on a 2 m (6 ft 7 in) high, 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) wide target only dropped below 100 percent at ranges beyond 1,000 m (0.62 mi), to 95–97 percent at 1,500 metres (0.93 mi) and 85–87 percent at 2,000 m (1.2 mi), depending on ammunition type. Recorded combat performance was lower, but still over 80 percent at 1,000 m, in the 60s at 1,500 m and the 40s at 2,000 m. Penetration of armored plate inclined at 30 degrees was 202 and 132 mm (8.0 and 5.2 in) at 100 and 2,000 m (0.062 and 1.2 mi) respectively for the Panzergranate 39/43 projectile (PzGr—armor-piercing shell), and 238 and 153 mm (9.4 and 6.0 in) for the PzGr. 40/43 projectile between the same ranges. The Sprenggranate 43 (SpGr) high-explosive round was available for soft targets, or the Hohlgranate or Hohlgeschoss 39 (HlGr—HEAT or High explosive anti-tank warhead) round, which had 90 mm (3.5 in) penetration at any range, could be used as a dual-purpose munition against soft or armored targets.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen

Do I then need to reattach the Supply Base to the parent to get the supply to flow to the correct troops?


Please help.

Sorry for hijacking your thread loyalcitizen.

No you don't need to reattach the supply base to its parent unit. Supplies will still flow, once it is deployed, to all its organic dependents.

[Phoenix100]

Ah. I have noticed it with Divisional support assets, vandorenp. Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant the Bn support assets too. Bn's have no base (usually) but they still have that basing button. I wondered if you meant that messing with that would affect where the Bn sited it's mortar, for example?

I don't think I've ever been worried about the Div or Corps arty being misplaced because I always group and site them manually. As the game stands they are, I think, without doubt the most important assets you have - they make or break almost anything. So I always manually make sure they are in range of where I want, and grouped so I can give them direct orders easily enough. If I was playing 'properly' then, you're right, the effects of moving a Div or Corps HQ on the arty assets is quite irritating, and would always result in me having to reposition manually.

[Phoenix100]

Well Daz, I did my own little test, but with Panther Gs and M3 halftracks. Daylight, close range. 12 panthers attacking 2 jeeps and 13 halftracks. Open terrain, no cover. After 20 minutes and 34 AP shells fired at a distance of maybe 200 metres they destroyed 1 jeep!!!!

There is certainly something wrong


Update: just ran it again, checking the position via surrenders. This time the Panthers shot off 33 shells in 12 mins and killed nothing. Same ideal conditions.

Update 2! Ran it again. Let it run for 30 mins. 12 Panther Gs fired off 43 AP shells from a distance of perhaps 200 metres and destroyed 4 M3 halftracks, out of 13.

[loyalcitizen]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen

Do I then need to reattach the Supply Base to the parent to get the supply to flow to the correct troops?


Please help.

Sorry for hijacking your thread loyalcitizen.

No you don't need to reattach the supply base to its parent unit. Supplies will still flow, once it is deployed, to all its organic dependents.

Excellent. Thanks for the help to you and all above.