SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT

[wodin]

Really I think the supply routine that deals with the route supply takes needs to be enhanced..so that it will re route to find a new way around if enemy is spotted or they are shot at. I'd also add some sort of convoy protection so if there aren't to many forces blocking they could shoot their way through. I'd imagine a jeep could speed off and race around back streets etc to get the supply in. I'd also imagine that once a route comes under heavy fire the next supply run would try to find another way through, they'd send out a scout\recon to see if the routes are clear first aswell I'm sure.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Had to start again, as just realised that orders delay set to nil from some testing I was doing. Doh...

Just a thought, Simovitch. What was your thinking in putting so little airstrikes in for the Allies (in FTMTTR)? I read all the time about the skies being full of jabos etc and units having airstrikes on call. Do you not think the number allowed should be higher?

I recall that the part of allied air command that was not supporting the bombing campaign had their hands full supporting XXX Corps and the 2 airborne lifts on D1 and D2. Then the weather turned bad.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Really I think the supply routine that deals with the route supply takes needs to be enhanced..so that it will re route to find a new way around if enemy is spotted or they are shot at.

Wodin, that would help... and give bases the ability to convert personnel into manpacks when the vehicles are gone, and give the player the option to disband defunct bases.

[Phoenix100]

Just like that, Wodin and Simovitch - that would solve it, those raft of measures. But I guess that kind of change is a long, long way off, no?

Thanks for the answer re the airpower, Simovitch. But I had thought that supporting the lifts on day 1 and 2 did involve not just top cover but a load of CAS too. There are certainly accounts of CAS missions in the Nijmegan theatre. I'm not sure it makes much diff anyway, to be honest.

[Phoenix100]

I'll post my efforts as a brief AAR as I go, Simovitch. In the AAR section.

[Arjuna]

Hi all,

Just to update you on some of the changes we have made re Supply.

First off we now maintain a Resupply History within each unit's data. If a unit has had a resupply run within the last two days and the last one suffered casualties of 25% or lost a vehicle, then its resupply request will be suspended. This mitigates against more and more resupply runs being despatched and getting wiped out. The fact is recorded in the unit log and you get a message to that effect.

[Arjuna]

Next I have modified the code so that Bases have their personal allocation (ie the supplies assigned to the Base unit itself) subject to rationing like all the other units that draw on it. This will prevent the Base hogging all the supplies.

[Arjuna]

Also I have made it more difficult to kill supply trucks by increasing the amount of firepower required to kill them from 6 to 10.

[Arjuna]

Another nice neat feature we have added is that you can now see the route of any outstanding resupply run when you either click on the unit requesting it or click on the Base. Note below that we drop off the supplies some 500m back along the original route calculated. The unit is assumed to collect the supplies from that point. So this minimises casualties against the supply trucks.

[Arjuna]

We have also identified an outstanding issue. When you have enemy units close to the requesting friendly unit the supply route may often trace close to the enemy units. The reason for this is because while we factor in enemy firepower, the grid size we use to store this data on the intel maps is 300m. If the enemy is within 300m of the friendly unit and it has a fair bit of firepower then the area around it becomes uniformely bad and so the route reverts to using whatever is the least cost.

To fix this we need to change the data size down to 100m. But there could be a lot of downstream effects in doing so that may break the game and/or cause a lot of work to fix. I am not going to undertake this change until we start on Command Ops 2. What I have done for this final Cmd Ops 1 patch is to mitigate the problem and to suspend runs where previous ones have been destroyed or taken casualties. It will be a lot better than what it was.

[wodin]

Excellent work Dave. How is it playing? Are you finding units running out of supply fast because of the 25% or vehicle loss restriction? Also when does the base re start sending supply? I just envisage possible issues and lots of tweaking..or is it working well enough to leave alone?

[navwarcol]

I am thinking that it should be realistic enough as it sounds above. If your forward unit is not getting sufficient supply, they can pull back to an area where they can more easily be supplied, or else other units behind them can try to widen the corridor bringing in the supplies to them. This seems like an excellent fix Dave.

[Phoenix100]

Superb, Dave. Many many thanks. I'm very impressed.

Can I ask - if a unit got an interdiction at 6am, say, and a truck was lost, when it comes to the 6pm run there will be no attempt to resupply it, even if it has moved (or the interdicting enemy has moved) since 6am? Or only if the situation as was at 6am remains the case?

[Arjuna]

If a unit moves more than 500m from the location it was in when the last run tried to get through then it can get a new run or if 48hrs pass.

[Phoenix100]

Excellent. What if the enemy moves but the unit stays put? I'm thinking - what if you bring in reinforcements and oust the enemy that was interdicting the unit, but the unit is still where it was?

[Remmes]

Sounds like a pretty good fix. It's good to see this place spring back to life the last couple of weeks...[:)]

[Missouri_Rebel]

It's a good time for me to buy into the system. I'm hooked.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Excellent. What if the enemy moves but the unit stays put? I'm thinking - what if you bring in reinforcements and oust the enemy that was interdicting the unit, but the unit is still where it was?

No I'm not addressing this case at the moment. There are too many what ifs to cater for, like poor visibility, suppression of the unit etc which could falsely lead to a conclusion that it was now safe, when in fact it isn't. All this take more processing and I just don't think its worth it. But look we can monitor this and if we fin it needs something more we can do that within Command Ops 2.

[Phoenix100]

No I'm not addressing this case at the moment. There are too many what ifs to cater for, like poor visibility, suppression of the unit etc which could falsely lead to a conclusion that it was now safe, when in fact it isn't. All this take more processing and I just don't think its worth it. But look we can monitor this and if we fin it needs something more we can do that within Command Ops 2.

I understand. Ok. Great.

[Renato]

It seems very promising.