Why won't re-supply in full ?

[nukkxx5058]

Hi, I was making a test with these 3 german units. I parked them on tiles with high supply (18-19) and just pressed end turn 3 times but they are still red (right top corner) and the supply refill is very slow (from 2%-5% to 11% in 3 turns).
Can someone explain ?
Thxs.

[nukkxx5058]

zoom out

[Cabido]

What is the formation supply distribution efficiency?

[nukkxx5058]

Is it 60% ?

[Cabido]

I could come close to your best values, which must refer to units on railways if considering two resupply phases; but you said three, so I would also like to know why.
For two resupply phases the gross value would be 38 x 0.6 considering formation proficiency, i.e. 22.8. This is arracourt, so half-day turns. Night turns reduce supply by 33%, so 22.8 - (11.4 x 0.33) = 22.8 - 3,8 = 19. I don't know if calculations are done exactly this way, so this is just an approximation.
Manual says this:
There is a “global
handicap” or reduction of 33% for the net resupply
available to units after all modifications take effect
during the automatic bookkeeping phase. This
can be offset, by using the High Supply option [..]
so we could subtract 6.3, getting 12.7 for the units on the railway.

[Cabido]

I did the same test in Arracourt scenario, but with a single turn. Ended my first turn on railway with 58% supply and 16 as supply value for the hex. 60% formation distribution efficiency and going from AM to PM turn.
16 x 0.67 = 10.72 (no High Supply)
10.72 x 0,67 = 7.18 (night turn)
7.18 x 0,6 = 4.3

Units supply raised to 60, i.e. an increase of 2, only.

Now, if we change the method of calculation:
33% of 16 = 5.28
and subtract it twice (for no High Supply and night turn)- that would be mathematically unsound, of course, but would bear a lower supply value.
we get 5.44 x 0,6 = 3.264
Still a greater value than the unit actually received. So, there must be another factor that reduces supply, which I sincerely couldn't figure out.

[mccartyg]

Resupply is probably a daily dividend so for this scenario (depending on 12 or 6 hour turns) the nominal value is being divided 2 or 4 times before randomization.

[nukkxx5058]

So maybe was it just two turns then ??? Bizarre ... In any case I find it very slow because I sent my units to fight and soon they became totally out of supply (2%-5%). And by parking (ie. no further move/combat) them away in a supply zone, they won't even resupply fast enough to return to combat. So what if I didn't park them ? So resupply was very slow. This is what I find strange.

Here we are talking in terms of % but I guess that each unit will have different needs, e.g. depending on its size. How can I know the nominal value of supply needed (to compare it with the 18 supply ? Maybe "18" (tons or whatever) wasn't enough to fully resupply the unit ? The half-day turn with night penalty might be an explanation, kinda.

I did two more turns (from t7 to t9) and here's the result. They are barely starting to turn orange...
HQ 35%
Pz (center) 16%
Pz (south) 29%
In any case it's very slow.

[Bayes2]

Did you remember do multiply with 2/3 for non-adjacent HQ?

[nukkxx5058]

But both units are adjacent to the HQ ... see first pic. In the last pic an auto move has been triggered by the enemy.

[nukkxx5058]

oops

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: nukkxx
So maybe was it just two turns then ??? Bizarre ...

I think it was really three turns, because in my own tests, using the same factors, I got a lower supply than calculated, too.

ORIGINAL: mccartyg
Resupply is probably a daily dividend so for this scenario (depending on 12 or 6 hour turns) the nominal value is being divided 2 or 4 times before randomization.

I don't think so. First of all, use of supply (with exception to unsupplied units) is depend on MPs used and number of rounds participating in combat, which doesn't change with time scale. Making resupply a daily dividend would be inconsistent, since the use of supply isn't dependent on time. A combat round in a full week scenario represents a greater period of combat than a round in a half day scenario, but both cost 10 points of supply.

I ran some tests with the Korea scenario (full week) and the calculation is on spot. 33 of hex supply level, multiplied by 0.67 (33% less for "no high supply") multiplied by 0.75 (distribution proficiency), I get 16 and that is exactly what the units that didn't move got when on railways. The problem must be the night turn thing.
Quoting the test I did above:
I did the same test in Arracourt scenario, but with a single turn. Ended my first turn on railway with 58% supply and 16 as supply value for the hex. 60% formation distribution efficiency and going from AM to PM turn.
16 x 0.67 = 10.72 (no High Supply)
10.72 x 0.67 = 7.18 (night turn)
7.18 x 0.6 = 4.3 (proficiency distribution)

If, instead of multiplying by 0.67 (to reduce supply by 33% for night turn), I multiply by 0.33 (to set supply to 33% of what I would get in night turns), I get:
10.72 x 0.33 = 3.54
3.54 x 0.6 = 2.1 (proficiency distribution)

This is exactly what the unit got.

In fact, nukkxx three round tests would bear 7.6 for day turns and 2.5 for night turns, if calculated this way. If he got 2 night turns and 1 day turn, we get 12.6. But, if decimals are discarded before adding to the supply of units, we get 7+2+2, which is exactly the 11% he is getting for the best placed units. Ok, this was some exercise in fitting numbers, but since we don't have access to the inner workings.

Resupply levels are reduced by 33% during night
Turns.(from the manual)
Maybe they are being reduced to 33%. Obviously, this is just speculation.

In fact, I think that factors independent of units or units interactions like night turn penalty and the "no high supply" penalty could be reflected in the hex supply level number; that would make things easier for player to calculate how much resupply the unit will get next turn.

ORIGINAL: Bayes2

Did you remember do multiply with 2/3 for non-adjacent HQ?

Adjacent HQ give a boost of 50%, if cooperative. As far as I know, there is no penalty for not being adjacent to HQ.

The level of resupply possible for a unit increases by
50% if a cooperative Headquarters unit is located
with or adjacent to a unit. (from the manual)

[Oberst_Klink]

Steve once did a nice excel for the supply calculation, but it's for TOAW III.
Remember, the re-supplying algorithm was boosted. Still the .XLS gives a good idea how it works.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l828smennf4tx ... r.xls?dl=0

Klink, Oberst

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Steve once did a nice excel for the supply calculation, but it's for TOAW III.
Remember, the re-supplying algorithm was boosted. Still the .XLS gives a good idea how it works.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l828smennf4tx ... r.xls?dl=0

Klink, Oberst

Nice one. But he is doing basically the same thing I did, initially, but without the "no High Supply" reduction, which I considered. In fact, the way I'm doing goes right on spot without the night turn.
I noticed he rounded down the figures, dropping down the decimals. This way, if we consider night turns to reduce supply TO 33% instead of BY 33% the figure I got was exactly the 11% nukkxx stated. I'm not saying this is a bug, but it's not impossible, since when setting the variable for night supply penalty, one can easily exchange, by distraction, a 0.33 multiplier by its complementary value (1 - 0.33) in some expression, while refactoring the supply system, since it's not unusual to use both values when working with percentages; one will set to 33%, the other will reduce by 33%. Still, (1 + 0.33) would add 33%. Not impossible to swap them by error, or the static variables set to these values.

[nukkxx5058]

Nice one. But he is doing basically the same thing I did, initially, but without the "no High Supply" reduction, which I considered. In fact, the way I'm doing goes right on spot without the night turn.
I noticed he rounded down the figures, dropping down the decimals. This way, if we consider night turns to reduce supply TO 33% instead of BY 33% the figure I got was exactly the 11% nukkxx stated. I'm not saying this is a bug, but it's not impossible, since when setting the variable for night supply penalty, one can easily exchange, by distraction, a 0.33 multiplier by its complementary value (1 - 0.33) in some expression, while refactoring the supply system, since it's not unusual to use both values when working with percentages; one will set to 33%, the other will reduce by 33%. Still, (1 + 0.33) would add 33%. Not impossible to swap them by error, or the static variables set to these values.

Nice one Cabido !

[Oberst_Klink]

I am not sure if Steve is going to update it to IV; e.g. you know, that in UV more than 50 supply points can be added per turn (there was a restriction in III about the max. supply reaching a unit per turn).

Klink, Oberst

[nukkxx5058]

ORIGINAL: Cabido


I'm not saying this is a bug, but it's not impossible, since when setting the variable for night supply penalty, one can easily exchange, by distraction, a 0.33 multiplier by its complementary value (1 - 0.33) in some expression, while refactoring the supply system, since it's not unusual to use both values when working with percentages; one will set to 33%, the other will reduce by 33%. Still, (1 + 0.33) would add 33%. Not impossible to swap them by error, or the static variables set to these values.

I think the dev should maybe have a look and double check the formula ...

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

I am not sure if Steve is going to update it to IV; e.g. you know, that in UV more than 50 supply points can be added per turn (there was a restriction in III about the max. supply reaching a unit per turn).

Klink, Oberst

Yep. But the problem here is that units are receiving very little supply when night turns are involved. Without night turns, the calculations go on spot, which means that the other variables are working just as they should.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Cabido

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

I am not sure if Steve is going to update it to IV; e.g. you know, that in UV more than 50 supply points can be added per turn (there was a restriction in III about the max. supply reaching a unit per turn).

Klink, Oberst

Yep. But the problem here is that units are receiving very little supply when night turns are involved. Without night turns, the calculations go on spot, which means that the other variables are working just as they should.

Well, the easiest way to check it out is to run some tests with one of my tutorials... because they have AM/PM turns and there you can make tests aplenty.

Klink, Oberst

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Well, the easiest way to check it out is to run some tests with one of my tutorials... because they have AM/PM turns and there you can make tests aplenty.

Klink, Oberst

There is no bug. At least not with night turns. You're right, your tutorial is excelent to do this kind of tests, since it is clean and, the one I used, had no enemy move during the first turns, giving us time to play around with units.
Using your tutorial, I've got the following figures form a 38 supply level railways hex:
From PM to AM - 11% increase in supply
AM to PM - 17%
I repeated it multiple times and it was consistent. 17 x 0.67 = 11.39. That is, the night turn is reducing the effective resupply BY 33%.

The strange thing is that I used exactly the same calculations I used with Arracourt, but here they were on spot.
Hex supply level -> 38%
Formation Distribution Proficiency -> 70%
38 x 0.67 = 25.46 (To reduce 33% due to "High Supply Off")
25.46 x 0.7 = 17.822 (To take distribution effiency into account) - see that we've got exactly the AM turn resupply level observed above, after dropping the decimals.
17.822 x 0.67 = 11.94 (To reduce 33% due to night turn) - we've got the observed 11% for PM turns.

The calculation works for the tutorial Korea scenario too, but not for Arracourt. There must be some factor reducing Arracourt units resupply, but I don't know what. Yet, it seems clear that there is no problem with the supply system, but some scenario specific factor is the cause.