What exactly does a supply unit?

[alty59]

Sorry for the inconvenience, but having researched "supply unit" in the forum, I couldn't find any answers...(nor in the manual but as I have only a pdf my eyes... well I'm 50 past...)

When You have in a scenario, a supply unit (with supply (radius:X) noted, x being numbers in hexes) does it extend X hexes from the rail or road, just rail, or not at all and another explanation?

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: alty59

Sorry for the inconvenience, but having researched "supply unit" in the forum, I couldn't find any answers...(nor in the manual but as I have only a pdf my eyes... well I'm 50 past...)

When You have in a scenario, a supply unit (with supply (radius:X) noted, x being numbers in hexes) does it extend X hexes from the rail or road, just rail, or not at all and another explanation?

It extend the supply range from its actual position. An example you can find in one of my tutorials - tm.asp?m=4387818

Cordialement,

Klink, Oberst

[alty59]

As always thank's a lot to you Mr Klink, you're always up to date for informations...

[Curtis Lemay]

See 8.3, 9.1.7.3, and 16.1.1 in the manual.

[alty59]

Thank's for the references^^
Will have a look immediately.

[Cabido]

Supply use the following formula:
1.10 / (1.375 ^ (Supply Distance / Supply Radius))

Forget about the constants. All you need to know is that it will decrease with the increase of the ratio
(Supply Distance/Supply Radius)

Supply distance is the MPs a virtual supply unit (a motorized unit) would expend to get from the supply source to the hex for which you are measuring the supply level, considering terrain, unit density (traffic jam).

Now, you can see that the ratio increases with distance and decreases with supply radius.
Let's say we have a distance of 20 MPs and a supply ratio of 5 MPs. We get a ratio of 20/5 = 4. This is used in the formula above, but the important part is that the greater it is, the smaller will be the supply level of the hex, as already said. Now, suppose you have a supply unit in the hex. It is as if the hex was 1 supply radius closer to the supply source (in out case, 5 MPs closer). We had a distance of 20; now we have a distance of 20-5 = 15. (Supply Distance/Supply Radius) is now 15/5 = 3. Smaller, so that the supply level for the hex will be greater. The same will apply to all hexes within a supply radius (i.e. 5) of the supply unit.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, suppose we have a supply net decreasing regularly on a square grid costing one MP to move from one square to the other, for simplicity:
Supply source - *
Supply unit - #
Supply Radius - 2

37__36__35__34__33__32___31__30___29__28__27
38__37__36__35__34__33___34__31__30__29__28
39__38__37__36__35__36__35__34__31__30__29
40*_39__38__37__38__37__36#35__34__31__30
39__38__37__36__35__36__35__34__31__30__29
38__37__36__35__34__33___34__31__30__29__28
37__36__35__34__33__32___31__30___29__28__27

Notice that supply distance and supply radius are measured in MPs and not in hexes. In the example, I used 1MP costs so that the pattern would show up.

That's the way I understand it from the manual. I have made some tests in existing scenarios, but usually supply isn't disposed in such a regular way, so it is difficult to get the pattern.

One thing I have noticed is that it doesn't seem to be cummulative. I have modified a scenario and stacked nine supply units, but didn't see a difference from using just one. Can someone confirm this? Are the effects cummulative? If not, how can we give a real boost to supply on a specific region? If cummulative, they would allow a nice way to insert a logistic dimension to the game.

I must confess I never played a scenario in which supply units had a really important role, sadly, since I very much like the idea of some simple supply management aspect.

[alty59]

Very clear, thank's a lot for taking the time to answer so completely.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Cabido
One thing I have noticed is that it doesn't seem to be cummulative. I have modified a scenario and stacked nine supply units, but didn't see a difference from using just one. Can someone confirm this? Are the effects cumulative? If not, how can we give a real boost to supply on a specific region? If cumulative, they would allow a nice way to insert a logistic dimension to the game.

They are not cumulative.

Klink, Oberst

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Cabido
One thing I have noticed is that it doesn't seem to be cummulative. I have modified a scenario and stacked nine supply units, but didn't see a difference from using just one. Can someone confirm this? Are the effects cumulative? If not, how can we give a real boost to supply on a specific region? If cumulative, they would allow a nice way to insert a logistic dimension to the game.

They are not cumulative.

Klink, Oberst

Thanks Oberst.

This is a pity. I would suggest doing them cumulative. The game does a very good job in tracing the accessibility of each hex to supply distribution, based on the difficulty to reach the particular hex from a supply source. Designers can boost supply in certain regions by placing supply sources and with events, but, it seems to me (I may be wrong, since I never designed a scenario) that there is no way to allow players to influence the focal points of distribution. Cumulative supply units could do the trick. If the boost in supply is significant, defending, hiding, discovering and attacking them could be an interesting part of some scenarios.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Cabido

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Cabido
One thing I have noticed is that it doesn't seem to be cummulative. I have modified a scenario and stacked nine supply units, but didn't see a difference from using just one. Can someone confirm this? Are the effects cumulative? If not, how can we give a real boost to supply on a specific region? If cumulative, they would allow a nice way to insert a logistic dimension to the game.

They are not cumulative.

Klink, Oberst

Thanks Oberst.

This is a pity. I would suggest doing them cumulative. The game does a very good job in tracing the accessibility of each hex to supply distribution, based on the difficulty to reach the particular hex from a supply source. Designers can boost supply in certain regions by placing supply sources and with events, but, it seems to me (I may be wrong, since I never designed a scenario) that there is no way to allow players to influence the focal points of distribution. Cumulative supply units could do the trick. If the boost in supply is significant, defending, hiding, discovering and attacking them could be an interesting part of some scenarios.

Not sure if it is mentioned in Bob's thread, but I am sure about the non-cumulative effect.

tm.asp?m=4282417

Klink, Oberst

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Cabido

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink



They are not cumulative.

Klink, Oberst

Thanks Oberst.

This is a pity. I would suggest doing them cumulative. The game does a very good job in tracing the accessibility of each hex to supply distribution, based on the difficulty to reach the particular hex from a supply source. Designers can boost supply in certain regions by placing supply sources and with events, but, it seems to me (I may be wrong, since I never designed a scenario) that there is no way to allow players to influence the focal points of distribution. Cumulative supply units could do the trick. If the boost in supply is significant, defending, hiding, discovering and attacking them could be an interesting part of some scenarios.

Not sure if it is mentioned in Bob's thread, but I am sure about the non-cumulative effect.

tm.asp?m=4282417

Klink, Oberst

Yep. It seems so. We should have an option to make them cumulative.

[rhinobones]

I would suggest doing them cumulative. The game does a very good job in tracing the accessibility of each hex to supply distribution, based on the difficulty to reach the particular hex from a supply source. Designers can boost supply in certain regions by placing supply sources and with events, but, it seems to me (I may be wrong, since I never designed a scenario) that there is no way to allow players to influence the focal points of distribution. Cumulative supply units could do the trick. If the boost in supply is significant, defending, hiding, discovering and attacking them could be an interesting part of some scenarios.

At first I also thought that cumulative would be the best way to simulate supply, but then it seemed that supply is finite and the supply units only represent a more efficient way of distributing available supply.

X supply is available.


No matter how many supply units are available they only have X to distribute. The supply available is not cumulative, therefore, the amount supplied cannot be cumulative.


The supply unit is specialized in logistical delivery and not in the creation of additional supply.


What I would like to see is that instead of a simple “radius”, supply unit range be subject to map topology and physical considerations. Such as not extending over major rivers, degraded due to forests or enhanced by roads. Should also include consideration of the mode of transport organic to the supply unit and the number of service personnel assinged.


Regards, RhinoBones

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

At first I also thought that cumulative would be the best way to simulate supply, but then it seemed that supply is finite and the supply units only represent a more efficient way of distributing available supply.

X supply is available.


No matter how many supply units are available they only have X to distribute. The supply available is not cumulative, therefore, the amount supplied cannot be cumulative.


The supply unit is specialized in logistical delivery and not in the creation of additional supply.

Even if I do agree that supply units are specialized in logistical delivery and are not creating additional supply, they do create a real boost to supply, in game terms, and 1 supply radius as a boost is as arbitrary as 2 or 3 supply radii. Suppose the designer could set how many supply radii, then the effect would be the same as 2 or three cumulative supply units, with the collateral effect that the geographical radius would increase, also.

If you have 30 supply units and dispose them in a row (with some distance between them), each one boosting the adjacent unit, they will multiply the total supply available overall 29 times more than if the units were piled in a hex, near to a single unit. And no other hex would pay the price for it. So, designers can boost supply, overall, by multiplying the number of supply units. The non-cumulative aspect only doesn't allow concentration of this same overall boost.

Additionaly, if we multiply the number of transport equipment available in the units, we can have a real boost to supply, as if extra supply was available; this is reflected in the hex supply level throughout the map, with an impact much greater than a local cumulative supply units boost would have. And we must admit that shared transport isn't creating extra supply either, but just increasing the distribution efficiency. Nevertheless, the in-game effect is that of extra supply throughout the map.

The designer would control the number of supply units available, so that one can look at them as just the part of total available supply that the player can freely allocate. In that case, it would have the effect of a supply dump.

The only thing that the non-cumulative rule really restricts is the concentration of supply. If one could direct the non-used transport assets to a specific point, instead of distributing them uniformely throughout the map, we would have the same effect as cumulative supply units. I don't think that concentrating the shared transport assets supply bonus would be unreal. No more, at least, then increasing overall supply level throughout the whole map.

Anyway, agreeing with me or not, placing an option to set cumulative supply units on/off wouldn't harm present scenarios and would create the possibility of directing supply to focal points by the players. And the designers would have the power to limit it. In such scenarios, the designers could lower the overall supply level, forcing the players to use them wisely to attain historical levels. Piling them in one point would mean sub-historical level of supply in other points.

What I would like to see is that instead of a simple “radius”, supply unit range be subject to map topology and physical considerations. Such as not extending over major rivers, degraded due to forests or enhanced by roads. Should also include consideration of the mode of transport organic to the supply unit and the number of service personnel assinged.


Regards, RhinoBones

I think it is, in fact. I used a regular grid in my example, but called attention to the fact that it was for simplicity (one MP to move from one point to the other). The radius is calculated with MPs, so that, even an adjacent unit may not receive the bonus, if the movement to the adjacent hex has a greater cost than the supply radius.

[tverse]

Instead of stacking supply units what if you ran them as a supply train. Spacing the units (depending on supply radius) so each successive unit benefits from the previous unit. would this work to bring a higher level of supply into an area?

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: tverse

Instead of stacking supply units what if you ran them as a supply train. Spacing the units (depending on supply radius) so each successive unit benefits from the previous unit. would this work to bring a higher level of supply into an area?

Not at all. One supply unit won't affect the gain in supply the other supply unit is able to provide. It would be nice to represent such things as you describe in a scenario, and the control would be with the designer to set how much of the available supply he wants to put in the hands of the player, allowing for concentration or dispersion, and also for reduction by enemy attack.

[larryfulkerson]

I think you guys are talking past each other in that you may be using a different scale of abstractness for
what you're calling a "supply system". One of you has abstracted the transport of the supply items and the
other has abstracted the supply items. Maybe it would help if we had a defination of the supply "system" and
abstract either the transport of the supplies or the items being supplied or both and say which you're
using. Just a thought.

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

I think you guys are talking past each other in that you may be using a different scale of abstractness for
what you're calling a "supply system". One of you has abstracted the transport of the supply items and the
other has abstracted the supply items. Maybe it would help if we had a defination of the supply "system" and
abstract either the transport of the supplies or the items being supplied or both and say which you're
using. Just a thought.

Larry, it's true that concepts are mixed up, but that is so because in game terms it really doesn't matter. The supply pile doesn't go down with use. If I have one unit on the map on a 30% supply level hex or 100 units on the map on hexes with the same level of supply, the second case won't affect my supply pile more than the first. Supply is distributed uniformly across the map. So, trying to conceptualize transport assets sharing or supply units as just a boost in distribution efficiency or as generating new supply is innocuous, since the effect is the same, in game terms: a boost in supply.

Can you distribute your supplies more rapidly (distribution efficiency)? Ok, but the pile will drop more rapidly, too. The game doesn't simulate this. It is as if you were getting a constant, unlimited, flow of supply to the supply source and all that counts is distribution efficiency. In some scenarios, this can be historically precise, but not in all cases.

So, the concept here is indifferent. We can understand supply units as both equipment to boost distribution (as seem to be pretended by developers) or as extra supply; it doesn't matter, the effect is the same. In both cases, it boosts supply locally and it allows a more interactive aspect to this boost (it can be placed, attacked, defended). Allowing for an on/off cumulative option would allow to simulate both equipments that increase distribution efficiency locally or real supply dumps or supply trains (as suggested by tverse), depending on designers own conceptualization. Would also allow to real concentration of supply efforts by the players, if the designer reduces the level of supply sources, placing in the hand of the players the responsability to attain historical levels by judicious supply distribution. Nothing is lost and a new dimension is available.

[Oberst_Klink]

... and that's the reason I prefer limited campaigns, battles, operational scenarios where a few events can raise/lower supply levels. I am a strong advocate of seeing/playing TOAW what it is - operational, not strategic. So, in my mindset it works fine. Long campaigns, well... a different matter; but most games/simulations are... well, not reality after all.

Klink, Oberst

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

... and that's the reason I prefer limited campaigns, battles, operational scenarios where a few events can raise/lower supply levels. I am a strong advocate of seeing/playing TOAW what it is - operational, not strategic. So, in my mindset it works fine. Long campaigns, well... a different matter; but most games/simulations are... well, not reality after all.

Klink, Oberst

Oh, I'm not complaining about the way it works. I'm just suggesting a simple option that would allow a new dimension without any further change to the game. I like Toaw the way it is.

Allow me just to disagree with you in one point: there is nothing more operational than logistics. Production would be strategic and I think doesn't fit well historical games, since we have "a posteriori" knowledge of equipments performance, but setting supply efforts focus and placing supply dumps is absolutely operational in nature. In fact, some operations can't be carried out without previous careful supply distribution planning.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Cabido

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

... and that's the reason I prefer limited campaigns, battles, operational scenarios where a few events can raise/lower supply levels. I am a strong advocate of seeing/playing TOAW what it is - operational, not strategic. So, in my mindset it works fine. Long campaigns, well... a different matter; but most games/simulations are... well, not reality after all.

Klink, Oberst

Oh, I'm not complaining about the way it works. I'm just suggesting a simple option that would allow a new dimension without any further change to the game. I like Toaw the way it is.

Allow me just to disagree with you in one point: there is nothing more operational than logistics. Production would be strategic and I think doesn't fit well historical games, since we have "a posteriori" knowledge of equipments performance, but setting supply efforts focus and placing supply dumps is absolutely operational in nature. In fact, some operations can't be carried out without previous careful supply distribution planning.

I do understand, and I ain't dispute it. All I am saying is, in my mindset and for my preferred scale/scenario types it is more or less secondary. It would be nice to have a more flexible supply system in place that's not infinite... but, well...

Klink, Oberst