I know that it is not possible to capture supplies but I am interested to know why that design decision was taken.
In real WW2 capturing supplies had both strategic and tactical impacts. On the strategic front it was French oil stockpiles and materiel captured in 1940 that helped resource the German invasion of Russia in 1941, more clearly it was British stockpiles captured in Tobruk that enabled Rommel to advance to El Alamein, on the Allied side it was George Patton capturing German petrol (which he concealed from Ike) that enabled him to maintain his offensive towards Metz and destabilise the Allied strategy whilst the German Bulge offensive could have been much more successful if the Allied fuel dumps at Spa had been captured.
Thus capturing supplies was a big factor in WW2 so why is it not in GGWAW? Is it because of implementation difficulties or a design decision? I can see it might cause more difference between advanced and ordinary supply in play balance terms but I would have thought a random chance of capturing up to 50% of the supplies in a location would give players the same incentives and exciting opportunities that the Germans had in the Bulge.
Mike
Capturing Supplies
Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen
-
Oleg Mastruko
- Posts: 4534
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
RE: Capturing Supplies
You must always keep in mind level and scope of this game. Bulge is operatonal level... umm, operation. WaW is global strategic level game.
In WaW terms Bulge would last less than one sixth of the single turn, and would be represented by, say, 2-3 corps sized INF units shooting at couple enemy units, within larger battle comprising 10 or so corps sized units at each side. That's it. Whole area captured and recaptured during Bulge is less than one fourth of single area in WaW (and one of smallest areas at that). All supplies Germans could have captured at Bulge (note: could have, but didn't) would be less than one truck-icon in WaW terms. So we're talking about real miniscule effects on the "big picture".
Capturing ready-made enemy supplies was never a consideration on strategic level. You can't base your strategy for global domination on that. It was maybe (and not very often) a consideration on operational, and certainly on tactical level. But this game does not deal with operational level problems.
One could argue that, for what it's worth, capturing enemy operational level supplies is abstracted in other factors (factories, resources, production capability, supply spent on combat actions etc.).
Ability to capture supplies would lead to all sorts of unwelcome gameyness in my opinion, too.
Oleg
In WaW terms Bulge would last less than one sixth of the single turn, and would be represented by, say, 2-3 corps sized INF units shooting at couple enemy units, within larger battle comprising 10 or so corps sized units at each side. That's it. Whole area captured and recaptured during Bulge is less than one fourth of single area in WaW (and one of smallest areas at that). All supplies Germans could have captured at Bulge (note: could have, but didn't) would be less than one truck-icon in WaW terms. So we're talking about real miniscule effects on the "big picture".
Capturing ready-made enemy supplies was never a consideration on strategic level. You can't base your strategy for global domination on that. It was maybe (and not very often) a consideration on operational, and certainly on tactical level. But this game does not deal with operational level problems.
One could argue that, for what it's worth, capturing enemy operational level supplies is abstracted in other factors (factories, resources, production capability, supply spent on combat actions etc.).
Ability to capture supplies would lead to all sorts of unwelcome gameyness in my opinion, too.
Oleg
RE: Capturing Supplies
Hi Oleg
Thank you for your comments. I think it is, however, a little unfair to Rommel to describe his tactics of using Britain's own supplies to drive them back to the Nile Delta as being "gamey". Although I am sure the British would have regarded it as cheating!
I may not have entirely got my head round the equivalence of a truck in GGWAW as it seems to be the difference in supplies consumed by a division that moves or fights rather than just stays still. This means it is probably around two to three hundred tons per day. In any event I think you are rather underestimating the volume of US supplies stored in the area of the Bulge battle. For example just one dump at Spa contained over 2.5 million gallons of gasoline. This would have been enough to keep two Panzer Divisions running for 3 months - I have tended to beleive from the starting forces allocated to Germany that 1 x GGWAW tank unit is roughly equivalent to two Panzer Divisions. So this single supply dump contained the equivalent of 1 GGWAW truck. Despite Gen Bradley's subsequent pretence that he had not put many supplies into the area of the Bulge, I am afraid this was just not true there were masses of Allied supplies there in addition to Spa.
I do not know where you got the idea that the Germans were only after the raw materials of their adversaries, it was frequently a key part of their strategy to capture the supplies and weapons of their enemies, for example whole German Panzer Divisions were equipped with captured Czech 38t's. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there were substantial French oil stocks that were used to fuel the advance into Russia. Certainly the Japanese hoped to and did profit from the British oil stocks in Singapore and this is why significant parts of the Combined Fleet had to be located there although that was not really consistent with their Southern expansion policy.
Mike
Thank you for your comments. I think it is, however, a little unfair to Rommel to describe his tactics of using Britain's own supplies to drive them back to the Nile Delta as being "gamey". Although I am sure the British would have regarded it as cheating!
I may not have entirely got my head round the equivalence of a truck in GGWAW as it seems to be the difference in supplies consumed by a division that moves or fights rather than just stays still. This means it is probably around two to three hundred tons per day. In any event I think you are rather underestimating the volume of US supplies stored in the area of the Bulge battle. For example just one dump at Spa contained over 2.5 million gallons of gasoline. This would have been enough to keep two Panzer Divisions running for 3 months - I have tended to beleive from the starting forces allocated to Germany that 1 x GGWAW tank unit is roughly equivalent to two Panzer Divisions. So this single supply dump contained the equivalent of 1 GGWAW truck. Despite Gen Bradley's subsequent pretence that he had not put many supplies into the area of the Bulge, I am afraid this was just not true there were masses of Allied supplies there in addition to Spa.
I do not know where you got the idea that the Germans were only after the raw materials of their adversaries, it was frequently a key part of their strategy to capture the supplies and weapons of their enemies, for example whole German Panzer Divisions were equipped with captured Czech 38t's. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there were substantial French oil stocks that were used to fuel the advance into Russia. Certainly the Japanese hoped to and did profit from the British oil stocks in Singapore and this is why significant parts of the Combined Fleet had to be located there although that was not really consistent with their Southern expansion policy.
Mike
RE: Capturing Supplies
I agree with oleg that the scope of the game preculdes any capture of supplies. each turn represents 3 months and each province represents hundreds of miles.
so if I capture in one lucky move the equivalent of say 20 trucks icons, that would in essence equate to capturing the ENTIRE supplies required for the 1940 german invasion of france. consider for a moment the amount of supplies required for the entire german army during that invasion, which in game terms is represent by about 20 trucks. it was achore for the germans to move it, let alone for someone capturing them to have to move their own plus the enemies. I think its more likely that supplies of this scale would be destroyed either by the retreating or the advancing armies.
looked at another way, there has to be a limit on what is and is not included in a game. there is only so many hours in a day to code things in.
so if I capture in one lucky move the equivalent of say 20 trucks icons, that would in essence equate to capturing the ENTIRE supplies required for the 1940 german invasion of france. consider for a moment the amount of supplies required for the entire german army during that invasion, which in game terms is represent by about 20 trucks. it was achore for the germans to move it, let alone for someone capturing them to have to move their own plus the enemies. I think its more likely that supplies of this scale would be destroyed either by the retreating or the advancing armies.
looked at another way, there has to be a limit on what is and is not included in a game. there is only so many hours in a day to code things in.
RE: Capturing Supplies
Funnily enough the two threads I am participating in at the moment (this and the phasing game TCP/IP discussion) have now a degree of overlap.
I do accept that the capturing of supplies in a non-phased game implementation would cause anomalies. The game currently requires players to assemble supplies in their previous production turn ready for their next movement turn. This could result in an intervening player having the opportunity to sweep up those supplies in an attack that fortuitously happens earlier in the turn sequence.
I do accept that this is a good reason why supplies should not be captured (although it is also a little harsh that they should be potentially destroyable), so I have answered my own question, however, I maintain my position that the ability to capture "strategic" quantities of supplies was a real factor in WW2. I suppose I could continue to argue that it might be an interesting concept to give players a "supply reward truck" when they captured whole countries rather than just resources e.g. on the formation of Vichy but I accept that the game is balanced well enough and probably does not need its concepts tinkered with.
Mike
I do accept that the capturing of supplies in a non-phased game implementation would cause anomalies. The game currently requires players to assemble supplies in their previous production turn ready for their next movement turn. This could result in an intervening player having the opportunity to sweep up those supplies in an attack that fortuitously happens earlier in the turn sequence.
I do accept that this is a good reason why supplies should not be captured (although it is also a little harsh that they should be potentially destroyable), so I have answered my own question, however, I maintain my position that the ability to capture "strategic" quantities of supplies was a real factor in WW2. I suppose I could continue to argue that it might be an interesting concept to give players a "supply reward truck" when they captured whole countries rather than just resources e.g. on the formation of Vichy but I accept that the game is balanced well enough and probably does not need its concepts tinkered with.
Mike
-
Oleg Mastruko
- Posts: 4534
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am
RE: Capturing Supplies
ORIGINAL: mcaryf
Hi Oleg
Thank you for your comments. I think it is, however, a little unfair to Rommel to describe his tactics of using Britain's own supplies to drive them back to the Nile Delta as being "gamey". Although I am sure the British would have regarded it as cheating!
It would be gamey in this game, considering it's scope.
Rommel wasn't too happy that he had to capture supplies to begin with. He would have been happier that Axis (primarily Italians) had excellent supply line to European mainland, but they didn't have. Italian transports were constantly interdicted by Malta air and surface forces and UK submarines, so that very little supplies actually reached Rommel. Still, Italians tried their best, and many died in the attempt. Why Italians risked their merchant navy, lost tons of ships and men, if all Rommel had to do is capture British supply truck icons? [:D]
So even in this extreme example, Rommel could not have based his offensives on the premise "screw the Italian transports, we'll capture something from Brits to keep us going".
In WAW players would be doing exactly that - basing their offensive plans on the possibility of capturing 4-5 enemy supply trucks to keep them going. Completely unrealistic.
Also, again, bear in mind the scope of the game. I'd speculatively say that all supplies Rommel *EVER* captured from the enemy, durting the whole see-saw NA campaign, would amount to say 1 or 2 "truck icons" in WAW.
O.
RE: Capturing Supplies
Hi Oleg
Actually the impact of the British interdiction on Rommel's supplyline is usually overstated, particularly by British historians! The fundamental point for the Axis was lack of port capacity rather than interdiction, except in the last stages when the Allied air operating out of North Africa was able to dominate the approaches to the final Axis enclaves.
Paulus had it right when he advised the German High Command that the North African stance should be largely defensive. The only case for Rommel going on the offensive, as he did, was the possibility of capturing enough supplies to maintain his momentum. Once the prospect of the Axis capturing more supplies was shut off at the El Alamein position Rommel was doomed.
Thus the Axis strategy (or more accurately Rommel's strategy) in North Africa was almost entirely based on the intention of capturing supplies.
It was of course a relatively small theatre of operations with only 2 German Panzer Divisions as the cutting edge of the DAK so we really are talking about the difference that could be made by one or two "GGWAW supply trucks".
I am not criticising GGWAW in my next comment because it is plainly intended as a relatively simple simulation (albeit with pleasing strategic dilemmas), but it does make no attempt to factor in concepts such as port capacity. Thus if you build enough transports in the Med you are allowed to ship as many supplies into Africa as you have available!
Mike
Actually the impact of the British interdiction on Rommel's supplyline is usually overstated, particularly by British historians! The fundamental point for the Axis was lack of port capacity rather than interdiction, except in the last stages when the Allied air operating out of North Africa was able to dominate the approaches to the final Axis enclaves.
Paulus had it right when he advised the German High Command that the North African stance should be largely defensive. The only case for Rommel going on the offensive, as he did, was the possibility of capturing enough supplies to maintain his momentum. Once the prospect of the Axis capturing more supplies was shut off at the El Alamein position Rommel was doomed.
Thus the Axis strategy (or more accurately Rommel's strategy) in North Africa was almost entirely based on the intention of capturing supplies.
It was of course a relatively small theatre of operations with only 2 German Panzer Divisions as the cutting edge of the DAK so we really are talking about the difference that could be made by one or two "GGWAW supply trucks".
I am not criticising GGWAW in my next comment because it is plainly intended as a relatively simple simulation (albeit with pleasing strategic dilemmas), but it does make no attempt to factor in concepts such as port capacity. Thus if you build enough transports in the Med you are allowed to ship as many supplies into Africa as you have available!
Mike
RE: Capturing Supplies
I think by saying gamey-ness, oleg means that tactics of capturing supplies might become a sole purpose for attacking operations. Conceivably, the game could turn into one where one side was continually producing supply(and expending its production) while the other was continually 'stealing' that supply (keeping its production focued on materiel).
Supplying a battalion or a division for a short period of time was possible with captured supplies, but modern war cannot be waged with such a strategy.
.
Supplying a battalion or a division for a short period of time was possible with captured supplies, but modern war cannot be waged with such a strategy.
.
RE: Capturing Supplies
Hi Pyrhic
I have already conceded that the sequential turn structure of GGWAW probably makes the ability to capture supply too much of an additional advantage for the player going first i.e.the Axis. Now if your phasing idea was accepted.......
However, your description of one player investing in units whilst another invested more in supply does rather neatly summarize Hitler's actual strategy. By spending a greater proportion of his GNP on weaponry than his potential victims he hoped to be able to steal resources, supplies, weapons, wealth, manpower etc from other countries. For a while he was successful, fortunately the English Channel caused him to have to look elsewhere for plunder. Once the Allies started to gear up properly for war the Axis had no chance - their's was a smash and grab strategy that failed.
You are correct in commenting that current day armies with more complex and hence differentiated weapon systems could not be sustained on plunder, however, to a considerable extent in WW2 land warfare each side could make use of each other's weapons and supplies. The Atlantic Wall was heavily populated with Russian as well as French artillery pieces although this variety did give German supply officers, responsible for ammunition, considerable headaches! The British in the Western Desert were initially taken by surprise at the sight of the Germans recovering not only their own damaged tanks from the battlefield but the British ones also! Eventually both sides in the desert were fielding a fair assortment of each others weapons, trucks etc, however, it was generally agreed that the German cans for carrying water were superior. The expression gerrycan has actually entered the English language, meaning a good quality metal receptacle for water, petrol and the like. This is a nice linguistic demonstration that each side did use the other's supplies.
Mike
I have already conceded that the sequential turn structure of GGWAW probably makes the ability to capture supply too much of an additional advantage for the player going first i.e.the Axis. Now if your phasing idea was accepted.......
However, your description of one player investing in units whilst another invested more in supply does rather neatly summarize Hitler's actual strategy. By spending a greater proportion of his GNP on weaponry than his potential victims he hoped to be able to steal resources, supplies, weapons, wealth, manpower etc from other countries. For a while he was successful, fortunately the English Channel caused him to have to look elsewhere for plunder. Once the Allies started to gear up properly for war the Axis had no chance - their's was a smash and grab strategy that failed.
You are correct in commenting that current day armies with more complex and hence differentiated weapon systems could not be sustained on plunder, however, to a considerable extent in WW2 land warfare each side could make use of each other's weapons and supplies. The Atlantic Wall was heavily populated with Russian as well as French artillery pieces although this variety did give German supply officers, responsible for ammunition, considerable headaches! The British in the Western Desert were initially taken by surprise at the sight of the Germans recovering not only their own damaged tanks from the battlefield but the British ones also! Eventually both sides in the desert were fielding a fair assortment of each others weapons, trucks etc, however, it was generally agreed that the German cans for carrying water were superior. The expression gerrycan has actually entered the English language, meaning a good quality metal receptacle for water, petrol and the like. This is a nice linguistic demonstration that each side did use the other's supplies.
Mike
-
Fallshirmjager
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 12:13 am
RE: Capturing Supplies
hey id like to see capturing of supplies also. but i agree that the scope of the game is too big and the capturing of supplies is a minute discrepency. but it'd be cool if the destroying of supplies could be included in infrastructure bombing. the supply icon could be on the battle screen as a possible target say with the same attributes as rail or less. allied bombing didnt only consist of lancasters and b-17s/29's but fighters of the raf and 8th air force equipped with 500 pound bombs destroyed trains and supply routes constantly. it could be a viable option to capturing the supplies, a defense factor would have to be given to supply units. it wouldnt be logical to say to be able to bomb 55 supply say in a region. so the icon on the screen would have to represent a number you could destroy ie. figure the die roll for a bomber was higher but not double the supplies defense roll, 1 supply would be eliminated from the total. if it was double 2 would be. this could be tactically favourable. another option not related to supply but similar would be employing the scorched earth policy that stalin employed in the early stages of barbarossa. being able to destroy your own factories if you cant withdraw due to rail capacities and destoying the resources, eliminating them altogether from that region. you could rebuild them in the urals say if your russia and if you beat back the germans you could dismantle it and send it via rail to the region that originally held it. as for the resource i guess it would be totally lost but thats the downfall of that one.