Matrix Games Forums

[/quote]
You're not implying that people actualyl use these, are you?
[/quote]

Make a poll and ask them? [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

You're not implying that people actualyl use these, are you?
[/quote]
Make a poll and ask them? [:'(]
[/quote]
Well, I guess I'll just have to continue being selective in my opponents then, eh? Damn supply draining attacks.

[/quote]
Well, I guess I'll just have to continue being selective in my opponents then, eh? Damn supply draining attacks.
[/quote]

I hope that you are not new to TOAW eh? [;)]

I don't like supply drain attack like you but how you will take on fortified line or fortress if you don't make few spoiling attacks?
Of course after that you can follow with your infantry etc...
Even Bagration scenario that you played - if you have attacked with your armour and backed it up with lot's of arty is that supply drain attack or not?
In any way how TOAW treats armour you can have less losses. Try that with inf. and see how your divisions melt away.

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
I hope that you are not new to TOAW eh? [;)]

Very cute.

I don't like supply drain attack like you but how you will take on fortified line or fortress if you don't make few spoiling attacks?
Of course after that you can follow with your infantry etc...

Multiple attacks in one round are not supply drain attacks. Supply drain attacks are where you use a broken down unit, or just a very small unit to attack, sor the sole purpose of dropping your opponent's supply level.

Even Bagration scenario that you played - if you have attacked with your armour and backed it up with lot's of arty is that supply drain attack or not?

A) That is not a supply drain attack, as described above.
B) That is also not an ant attack. Ant attacks involve the smallest possible unit attacking an opponent, backed up by massive ammounts of artillery and/or air support.

I dislike both of those metods of 'playing' TOAW and prefer to play against opponents that see things my way as well.

In any way how TOAW treats armour you can have less losses. Try that with inf. and see how your divisions melt away.

Apparently your tactic skill dates back to early WWI, when infatry were still used for 'breakouts'...

Very cute.

I was joking...
Now I must take my precious TOAW playing time to answer you lol


[/quote]
Multiple attacks in one round are not supply drain attacks. Supply drain attacks are where you use a broken down unit, or just a very small unit to attack, sor the sole purpose of dropping your opponent's supply level.

Or you can forbid totally that??? Is that written in Docs?
Read docs of DNO and you will see that it was designed for supply drain attacks or Braunschweig.
Answer to supply drain attacks is to have light forces in your frontline, multiple line... and maybe to talk with your opponent that only one attack is possible by small unit's, initially.
And I am certanly not advocating this way as I have seen many of my regiments EVAPORATES in Brauschweig when my opponent launched supply drain attack against me.
So what is the solution to forbid that?

A) That is not a supply drain attack, as described above.
B) That is also not an ant attack. Ant attacks involve the smallest possible unit attacking an opponent, backed up by massive ammounts of artillery and/or air support.

If you attack with your TANK BRIGADE enemy who have let's say 3 DIVISIONS in the HEX then you are making supply drain attack as well!!!!!!

I dislike both of those metods of 'playing' TOAW and prefer to play against opponents that see things my way as well.

Did I need to salute now?

Apparently your tactic skill dates back to early WWI, when infatry were still used for 'breakouts'...
[/quote]


I hope that you will not meet my tactical skills as you may get bitter defeat LOLZ

No hard feelings and don't be offended it's just talkings. So as not to think I have something against you.
I don't. But I don't like preaching and esp. from the guys that have come to TOAW after me.


Mario

Multiple attacks in one round are not supply drain attacks. Supply drain attacks are where you use a broken down unit, or just a very small unit to attack, sor the sole purpose of dropping your opponent's supply level.

Or you can forbid totally that??? Is that written in Docs?
Read docs of DNO and you will see that it was designed for supply drain attacks or Braunschweig.

I have not played these scenarii.

Answer to supply drain attacks is to have light forces in your frontline, multiple line... and maybe to talk with your opponent that only one attack is possible by small unit's, initially.

From what I have heard (with the essception of what you have just said), there is no answer to supply drain attacks. If two players play a scenario where full supply drain attacks are allowed the player who is better at this tactic, not at the game, not at the strategy, will win.-as said by Shane Sohnle.

And I am certanly not advocating this way as I have seen many of my regiments EVAPORATES in Brauschweig when my opponent launched supply drain attack against me.
So what is the solution to forbid that?

Yes.

A) That is not a supply drain attack, as described above.
B) That is also not an ant attack. Ant attacks involve the smallest possible unit attacking an opponent, backed up by massive ammounts of artillery and/or air support.
If you attack with your TANK BRIGADE enemy who have let's say 3 DIVISIONS in the HEX then you are making supply drain attack as well!!!!!!

Supply drain attacks imply intent to use them as such. If I have a tank brigade come up against Silvain's forces before anything else moves up, of course I will attack him. So, no they are not supply drain attacks.
On the other in hand, in EA, I generally make an agreement with my oppontnents that an attack must have at least 1/3 of the defending players strength involved in the attack (1 Div-->1 Crops, etc).

Apparently your tactic skill dates back to early WWI, when infatry were still used for 'breakouts'...

I hope that you will not meet my tactical skills as you may get bitter defeat LOLZ

How would you know? Anyone who assumes he is better than someone else is setting himself up for a fall.

No hard feelings and don't be offended it's just talkings. So as not to think I have something against you. I don't.

Good.

But I don't like preaching and esp. from the guys that have come to TOAW after me.

However, how can one not take offence to a statement that says, decoded: "If you started playing TOAW after I did, your opinion doesn't matter"?

But I don't like preaching and esp. from the guys that have come to TOAW after me.

However, how can one not take offence to a statement that says, decoded: "If you started playing TOAW after I did, your opinion doesn't matter"?
[/quote]

Good Lord, I didn't say that your opinion doesn't matter but I don't like to be patronized, as I am not patronizing.
The issue of supply drain attacks WAS DEBATED NUMEROUS TIMES. Go check the threads.
There is no CONSENSUS what is good and what is bad.

Certanly I don't have much problem with that. Of course if it is not done too much.

EDIT: Scenario designers then must say that it is not allowed. Or simply players must negotiate the rules.

Reason why is not simple is because in FiTE for example then Kradeshutz or Aufklar battalions would not be allowed to attack lines on enemy in probing attacks and you must first tell me that it really didn't happened on Eastern Front.

The players per se are not guilty because TOAW code IS BROKEN and because defenders raise in defense ALL to attack by single battalion and get slaughtered by arty. Then why you call TOAW 3 at all? Why then come up with solution to this problem then?



Mario

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

But I don't like preaching and esp. from the guys that have come to TOAW after me.

However, how can one not take offence to a statement that says, decoded: "If you started playing TOAW after I did, your opinion doesn't matter"?

Good Lord, I didn't say that your opinion doesn't matter but I don't like to be patronized, as I am not patronizing.
The issue of supply drain attacks WAS DEBATED NUMEROUS TIMES. Go check the threads.
There is no CONSENSUS what is good and what is bad.
Certanly I don't have much problem with that. Of course if it is not done too much.
EDIT: Scenario designers then must say that it is not allowed. Or simply players must negotiate the rules.
Reason why is not simple is because in FiTE for example then Kradeshutz or Aufklar battalions would not be allowed to attack lines on enemy in probing attacks and you must first tell me that it really didn't happened on Eastern Front.
The players per se are not guilty because TOAW code IS BROKEN and because defenders raise in defense ALL to attack by single battalion and get slaughtered by arty. Then why you call TOAW 3 at all? Why then come up with solution to this problem then?

It will be nice when the code is fixed.

yep.

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...
What the supply percentages refer to can't be actual percentages of the unit's supply stockpile. Rather, I think the best way to think of them is as a measure of the rate at which the unit is expending supply....

Is that a fact or just an assumption?

It's a deduction based upon the formulas for movement allowance and combat strength. As I said before, 1% supply means just what the formulas imply it means.

It's also, of course, based upon how real units actually function.

ORIGINAL: Veers

This is actually getting rather entertaining, please, go on.

Glad someone's enjoying it [:'(]

Was reading Glanrz's "Stumbling Colossus" last night and came across another formation that ran out of fuel before getting to combat.

The 7th tank Division's "Achilles Heel" was its supply condition. When it began its march into battle it possessed only one to one and a half combat loads of 76mm ammunition for its tanks, three refills of gasoline, and a single refill of diesel fuel. Confused orders required the division move to three new assembly areas in the first two days of the war. Given these excessive movements, the fuel ran out quickly, and the divisoin was immobilised south of Grodno.

He also notes an occasion where KV tanks ran over a unit without firing a hot, then stoped - they had no ammo to start with, andused up the last of their fuel rammign and running over whatever they could.....then they were polished off by infantry one at a time over hte next 2 days.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

The supply % cannot possibly be the rate the unit is expending supply - heck according to that idea a unit that doesn't move expends more than one that dooes move because it's % has increased!!

Yes, if the unit doesn't expend any supply (doesn't move, doesn't engage in combat) then, of course, its rate of supply expenditure will be 0 (unless it's unsupplied, in which case it will be docked an inter-turn supply drop just for existing). But if it does move or fight, then its unit supply % will determine the rate at which it expends supply. Units at 100% will be very wasteful, while units at 1% will make every bullet count, etc.

Certainly units with 100% (or more) supply can use their resources in a more profligate manner than those at 1% - because they HAVE MORE TO USE!!

Correct. And note that this statement contradicts your first one above.

QED - supply % = stockpile.

[/quote]
It will be nice when the code is fixed.
[/quote]

And that will happen around 2345. AD

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Veers

This is actually getting rather entertaining, please, go on.

Glad someone's enjoying it [:'(]

Was reading Glanrz's "Stumbling Colossus" last night and came across another formation that ran out of fuel before getting to combat.

The 7th tank Division's "Achilles Heel" was its supply condition. When it began its march into battle it possessed only one to one and a half combat loads of 76mm ammunition for its tanks, three refills of gasoline, and a single refill of diesel fuel. Confused orders required the division move to three new assembly areas in the first two days of the war. Given these excessive movements, the fuel ran out quickly, and the divisoin was immobilised south of Grodno.

He also notes an occasion where KV tanks ran over a unit without firing a hot, then stoped - they had no ammo to start with, andused up the last of their fuel rammign and running over whatever they could.....then they were polished off by infantry one at a time over hte next 2 days.

..known cases of 0 supply must run into the thousands, especially if bayonet charges cos the bullets have run out is allowed but i wonder if we're looking at this wrongly..

..there is a point where, at the toaw scale, a unit has no further real offensive capacity, 0 attack, altho it may have a greater or lesser defensive ability. and will continue to have some defensive ability until it disintegrates. 2 shells per gun/last 5 litres of petrol/last 10 rounds can work in defence but not in offense..

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...
What the supply percentages refer to can't be actual percentages of the unit's supply stockpile. Rather, I think the best way to think of them is as a measure of the rate at which the unit is expending supply....

Is that a fact or just an assumption?

It's a deduction based upon the formulas for movement allowance and combat strength. As I said before, 1% supply means just what the formulas imply it means.

It's also, of course, based upon how real units actually function.

Let's go over that deductive process a bit.

We have the formulas for combat strength and movement allowance. In those formulas, unit supply % is one of the variables. As that variable decreases, combat strength and movement allowance decrease according to the formulas (and according to everyone's experience with TOAW).

How can that be if the unit is firing off the same amount of ammo each round, and expending the same amount of fuel each turn? If that were the case, the unit would maintain the same combat strength and movement allowance up until the point that its supply % reached bottom. Then it would have 0 movement allowance and 0 combat strength.

Since combat strength drops with unit supply % we have to deduce that the unit is firing less ammo per round. That's the only way to account for its drop in combat strength. And it also accounts for the unit's retention of significant combat strength upon reaching the lowest supply % level: it still has ammo, but from that point on, expends no more than it is continuously receiving, if it has a valid supply connection.

Movement allowance drops with supply % too. A unit at 1% supply has only 41.67% the movement allowance of a unit with 100% supply. That means that in a 30 day period, a unit at 1% supply would spend only 12.5 days moving and 17.5 days sitting (waiting for fuel). And this effect is applied gradually from 99% down to 1%. In contrast, if the unit were just blithely moving along without any consideration of how much it has remaining, its movement allowance would remain full all the way until it reached the bottom supply level, at which point it would have 0 movement points.

Based upon these facts, if the unit supply % is to represent anything at all, it has to be some sort of rate of expenditure. What it absolutely cannot be is a direct measure of how much of its stockpile remains. Certainly, it's related to the stockpile amount, but only in an indirect fashion.

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..known cases of 0 supply must run into the thousands, especially if bayonet charges cos the bullets have run out is allowed but i wonder if we're looking at this wrongly..

Known cases of panzer divisions being reduced to zero combat strength while they have valid supply communications must run into the ... uh ... zeros.

This is an operational, not tactical, subject.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..known cases of 0 supply must run into the thousands, especially if bayonet charges cos the bullets have run out is allowed but i wonder if we're looking at this wrongly..

Known cases of panzer divisions being reduced to zero combat strength while they have valid supply communications must run into the ... uh ... zeros.

This is an operational, not tactical, subject.

..thanks for clarifying..

..cases of divisions reaching 0 effective offensive ability, panzer or other, probably hundreds..you have 2 cited here, i can add 1 DCR at Dinant..

..of course if you choose to lump everything together as a one figure "combat strength", as you appear to be doing, then you are correct..

..

This is an operational, not tactical, subject

..irelevant how big the unit, you may not have noticed but toaw goes from army sized down to platoon sized units, or are you asking for a special case for divisions only ?..

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Known cases of panzer divisions being reduced to zero combat strength while they have valid supply communications must run into the ... uh ... zeros.

Since when were Panzer divisions the sole criteria for determining this?

Kamfgruppe Pieper ran out of gas and abandoned it's vehicles in the Ardennes........does it not count because it was not a panzer division?

Good supply means it should never happen - unfortunately for troops in teh open good supply doesn't alays help.

This is an operational, not tactical, subject.

Just as well the game is The Tactical Art of War then......

Movement allowance drops with supply % too. A unit at 1% supply has only 41.67% the movement allowance of a unit with 100% supply. That means that in a 30 day period, a unit at 1% supply would spend only 12.5 days moving and 17.5 days sitting (waiting for fuel). And this effect is applied gradually from 99% down to 1%.

 
Yep - when turns are 30 days long that's perfectly valid reasoning.
 
How about for 6 hour turns with 20km hexes like in "Red Thunder" (NATO/Warpac 1988)?
 

In contrast, if the unit were just blithely moving along without any consideration of how much it has remaining, its movement allowance would remain full all the way until it reached the bottom supply level, at which point it would have 0 movement points.

 
Yep.  and that sort of thing did happen - several examples have been mentioned.  So why can it not possibly ever happen in TOAW, regardless of scale?

Based upon these facts, if the unit supply % is to represent anything at all, it has to be some sort of rate of expenditure. What it absolutely cannot be is a direct measure of how much of its stockpile remains. Certainly, it's related to the stockpile amount, but only in an indirect fashion.

 
What facts support this?????  the facts that units did sometimes run entirely out of fuel and ammo and have no combat value left, but that this never happens in TOAW regardless of circumstances?