supply - esp for mech units

[golden delicious]

Deleted. I think I summed up my point neatly below and don't really want to expand the argument.

[golden delicious]

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..

..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..

Yeah. As I recall the Germans had four standards of unit readiness. Fit for any operations, fit for limited offensive operations, fit for any defensive operations and fit for limited defensive operations. The implication being that a unit might be unable to attack in even a limited fashion but still be in good shape for the defensive.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Since combat strength drops with unit supply % we have to deduce that the unit is firing less ammo per round.

I don't dispute this. But in order to get 50% of full effect, an artillery unit would have to still be firing a significant portion of the number of shells it would fire at full supply. Each round firing at full supply uses 10% supply, so 100% supply for ten rounds. Yet an artillery unit at the end of its supply lines (say, ten hexes of road from the nearest rail line) will receive perhaps 2% supply per turn (this % of supply is absolute, since the unit receives the same 2% whether it is on 1% or 100% supply). It would have to be firing at one fiftieth the rate of a fully-supplied battery in order to avoid depleting its supply and inevitably running out. Yet it achieves half the effect.

This is ridiculous.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
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)?

The net effect is the same on average.

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?

TOAW does model units forced to wait for fuel all the time, via the lowered movement allowances of all units not at 100% supply. Also, units that are unsupplied lose vehicles due to lack of fuel.

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 unit combat strength and unit movement allowance drop with unit supply level. That proves that less supply must be expended with each subsequent combat round. Otherwise, those factors would remain the same until plumeting to zero once the bottom level is reached.

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?

This was about how the unit supply % functions in the game, so even if the above was true, it would be irrelevant. Nevertheless, it is a false statement, as I've pointed out repeatedly. In TOAW a unit can reach the "out of supply" state. It's just much more difficult that what you are proposing (thank God!) When all of its equipment has been deducted due to being in an unsupplied state, the unit will have reached the "out of supply" state.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..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..

I can imagine commanders making the operational decision that attacking would be suicide or such, but that's not the same as being at ammo = 0. Just didn't happen if they had supply communications.

..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..

TOAW is doing that. All factors are affected by supply the same.

..

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 ?..

But it is an operational game.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..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..

I can imagine commanders making the operational decision that attacking would be suicide or such, but that's not the same as being at ammo = 0. Just didn't happen if they had supply communications.

But it did - the Soviet examples I mentioned above happened due to low supply in peacetime, Pieper happened when he had no problems with his supply lines (except they had no fuel for him!).

I think the reference to 1 DCR above may actualy mean 2 DCR - on 15 May 1940 2 DCR arrived by rail between St Quenton and the Hirson to find the Germans had already captured their fuel and ammo stocks - but they had "supply communications" in TOAW terms because they would ahve been in a hex that had supply.

And in TOAW it doesn't happen even if they don't have "supply communications" - even completely cut off units retain 1% supply.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Since combat strength drops with unit supply % we have to deduce that the unit is firing less ammo per round.

I don't dispute this. But in order to get 50% of full effect, an artillery unit would have to still be firing a significant portion of the number of shells it would fire at full supply. Each round firing at full supply uses 10% supply, so 100% supply for ten rounds. Yet an artillery unit at the end of its supply lines (say, ten hexes of road from the nearest rail line) will receive perhaps 2% supply per turn (this % of supply is absolute, since the unit receives the same 2% whether it is on 1% or 100% supply). It would have to be firing at one fiftieth the rate of a fully-supplied battery in order to avoid depleting its supply and inevitably running out. Yet it achieves half the effect.

This is ridiculous.

Not so ridiculus. There are clearly diminishing returns for ammo expenditures. The first rounds (that catch the targets least prepared and the firers most prepared) are the most deadly. Subsequent rounds find the targets more and more covered, dispersed, and responding with counterfire. And the 2% figure is an abstraction related to raising the unit supply %. Exactly what physical supply is being delivered is not clear.

I thought running through an example would be helpful. I've attached a spreadsheet showing a possible way ammo expenditures could work (the deductions I used are just guesses, other ones would give somewhat different results).

In the spreadsheet, each item of equipment is assumed to have 1000 rounds of ammo at full supply. I assumed that each combat round deducted rounds equal to the unit supply state. So after 10 rounds, the unit is down to 1% supply, but still has 450 rounds left in its stockpile. From then, it expends something less than 10 rounds per combat round, and, even with several rounds fought per turn, this is a small enough amount that it will usualy be possible to be replaced over the interturn period. Since the unit can, therefore, never deplete its remaining stockpile while it retains supply communications, it can continue in the 1% state indefinitely.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
But it did - the Soviet examples I mentioned above happened due to low supply in peacetime, Pieper happened when he had no problems with his supply lines (except they had no fuel for him!).

I think the reference to 1 DCR above may actualy mean 2 DCR - on 15 May 1940 2 DCR arrived by rail between St Quenton and the Hirson to find the Germans had already captured their fuel and ammo stocks - but they had "supply communications" in TOAW terms because they would ahve been in a hex that had supply.

All those cases would have been modeled as either "unsupplied" or covered by the drop in Movement Allowance (representing stopping to wait for fuel).

And in TOAW it doesn't happen even if they don't have "supply communications" - even completely cut off units retain 1% supply.

But they lose equipment, modeling vehicles being abandoned for lack of fuel! Why can't you get that?

[SMK-at-work]

Yep - nice math, with little relation to reality.
 
Units could run out of ammo, and more especialy fuel, even while they had "supply commuications".  You've been shown examples - are you tellign us they aren't actually real?
 
6th atmy - ran out of fuel twice on teh road to Stalingrad - August 7, and again August 18.
 
He didnt' have to wait for weeks for his status to "go from red to green" as one might in TOAW - he waited a day in each case for the supply trucks to catch up...however the problem had been caused by Hitler diverting Hoth's 4th PzArmee from the drive to Stalingrad to head south -  fuel is a finite resource which cannot be supplied all the time.
 

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
But it did - the Soviet examples I mentioned above happened due to low supply in peacetime, Pieper happened when he had no problems with his supply lines (except they had no fuel for him!).

I think the reference to 1 DCR above may actualy mean 2 DCR - on 15 May 1940 2 DCR arrived by rail between St Quenton and the Hirson to find the Germans had already captured their fuel and ammo stocks - but they had "supply communications" in TOAW terms because they would ahve been in a hex that had supply.

All those cases would have been modeled as either "unsupplied" or covered by the drop in Movement Allowance (representing stopping to wait for fuel).

2 DCR weren't stopped awaiting fuel - they trained in...they were not out of supply! And according to you "unsupplied" does not mean out of fuel - how can you use it as a justification?? Sure it's teh closest TOAW comes, but it isn't accurate.

And in TOAW it doesn't happen even if they don't have "supply communications" - even completely cut off units retain 1% supply.

But they lose equipment, modeling vehicles being abandoned for lack of fuel! Why can't you get that?

They didn't "lose equipment" in the TOAW model - they had NO EQUIPMENT AT ALL because they lacked fuel. Why can't you get THAT?????[8|]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
I think the reference to 1 DCR above may actualy mean 2 DCR - on 15 May 1940 2 DCR arrived by rail between St Quenton and the Hirson to find the Germans had already captured their fuel and ammo stocks - but they had "supply communications" in TOAW terms because they would ahve been in a hex that had supply.

All those cases would have been modeled as either "unsupplied" or covered by the drop in Movement Allowance (representing stopping to wait for fuel).

Actually, in this case, in TOAW game terms, the 2 DCR was left embarked by some bone-headed player who forgot to check on the conditions of all his units before pressing the "resolve all attacks / end your turn" button...[;)]

Irrecoverable losses to equipment through stragglers, pestilence and combat when a unit is tagged "unsupplied" is what represents the abandonment equipment due to being unfueled, or without shells. Like I said before, and like Bob shows in his spreadsheet, the 1% supply level is a BASELINE level at which units that have a minimal line of supply communication can maintain indefinitely. The 1% - 150% levels represent a SCALING FACTOR to adjust the unit's combat effectiveness above and beyond this minimal level. It does NOT represent a literal percentage of supply.

The simple fact that such historical cases (of units finding themselves on their own side of the front lines, and without the petrol or shells to carry on any reasonable offensive or defensive operations) are indeed notable end up being the "exceptions which prove the rule". That is, for every situation where 4th Pz stalls for a couple of days waiting for fuel, or vehicles are abandoned in a retreat due to no gas to drive toward their own rear lines, there are 10000 cases where some average Joe, Fritz, or Jean is dutifully making sure that the supply that needs to get to the unit is in fact getting to the unit.

Now, that said, I don't deny that there could be some work done to the basic system in terms of tweaking it, but as a whole, the engine does a good job of abstractly handling what might otherwise turn into a logistical nightmare that would be no fun to play.

[SMK-at-work]

Yep - the system generally works well......it's just those few cases......and I wouldn't expect any "out of supply" rule to come into effect very often at all for units operating "normally".

so for your tweak (if ever ) you might like to consider that a lack of supply of fuel or ammo would generally be something that might get fixed very quickly - rather than taking several turns as is often the case for units in the red in TOAW.

Edit:

Some notes from 2 DCR are at http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2213 towards teh bottom of the page - the division was able to do some fighting, but fuel-less tanks had to be abandoned - however it was apparently not as cut and dried as my earlier post made out - by 20th May the commander records that he had lost only 50% of his tanks.

[jmlima]

So, apparenlty, supply stays as it is.
 
Are there any plans to revise supply lines?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Not so ridiculus. There are clearly diminishing returns for ammo expenditures.

Sure. Maybe you feel that firing one fifth the maximum volume of rounds gives you half the effect.

But this isn't what we're seeing in TOAW. Guns would have to be firing one tenth of that one fifth in order to avoid diminishing their supply stockpile. If they are diminishing their supply stockpile they will- at some point- have no shells left to fire.

So which is wrong? That artillery units on 1% supply are able to deliver around half the effect of those on 100% supply, or that they never run out of shells? Logically, it has to be one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

And the 2% figure is an abstraction related to raising the unit supply %. Exactly what physical supply is being delivered is not clear.

2%. Next to our exhausted battery is one which has just arrived. It's on 98% supply one turn and 100% supply the next.

In the spreadsheet, each item of equipment is assumed to have 1000 rounds of ammo at full supply. I assumed that each combat round deducted rounds equal to the unit supply state. So after 10 rounds, the unit is down to 1% supply, but still has 450 rounds left in its stockpile. From then, it expends something less than 10 rounds per combat round,

Let's presume it's receiving 2% supply, and fires 8 shells per round. In eight turns, it receives 16% supply- 160 shells (since the adjacent unit, too, is only receiving 20 shells per turn according to your formula). Meanwhile, it fires every round for those eight turns. 80x8= 640 shells. But our poor unit only has 610 shells to fire! On the last few rounds of turn eight desparation strikes- but Quartermaster Bob is able to keep on producing more shells out of thin air, and the day is saved.

You'll say this is an extreme example. It's not. Picture an artillery unit at the front in a scenario like Braunschweig or even your own CFNA, often remaining and very low supply levels for twenty turns or more. This sort of situation will arise all the time. And this is taking your own interpretation- which I find far from acceptable.

It strikes me that the solution is that 1% as it stands does represent the unit in the condition you describe- with 450 shells. The problem, then, is that TOAW will always leave this unit with 450 shells. It will never get down to 449- let alone zero.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Yep - the system generally works well......it's just those few cases......and I wouldn't expect any "out of supply" rule to come into effect very often at all for units operating "normally".

Yeah. However "Agreeing isn't as interesting as disagreeing", as Colin would say.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Sure. Maybe you feel that firing one fifth the maximum volume of rounds gives you half the effect.

Sorry, but I could go quite a bit higher than 5:1. Contrast providing a "volume of fire" that one might do if flush with ammo vs. "making every shot count" as one would do if really short. That's unaimed vs. aimed fire. Think of a bombardment mission. The first shells catch the targets concentrated in the messhall. The next ones catch them scattering for their bunkers, the next ones find them diving into their bunkers. From then on, the shells just pound the earth, with the odd one hitting pay dirt. Think if it was just you against one enemy. He has one pistol with 6 rounds. You have ten pistols with 6 rounds each. Now, you are better off than him, but not that much. Etc., etc.

But this isn't what we're seeing in TOAW. Guns would have to be firing one tenth of that one fifth in order to avoid diminishing their supply stockpile. If they are diminishing their supply stockpile they will- at some point- have no shells left to fire.

So which is wrong? That artillery units on 1% supply are able to deliver around half the effect of those on 100% supply, or that they never run out of shells? Logically, it has to be one or the other. You can't have it both ways.

And the 2% figure is an abstraction related to raising the unit supply %. Exactly what physical supply is being delivered is not clear.

2%. Next to our exhausted battery is one which has just arrived. It's on 98% supply one turn and 100% supply the next.

You're taking it too literally. It's an abstraction. Just note that, in my chart, it takes a different # of shells to raise that 98% unit to 100% than to raise the 1% unit to 3%. There are other abstract issues, like whether the unit fired or moved, or whether it is next to a supply unit or HQ. What are those factors modeling? Supply is not just ammo. It also includes fuel and "other". In some circumstances ammo could be prioritized over the others, if, for example, the unit wasn't moving.

You've also taken an extreme case, in which the force supply is very low, the unit is always at the max distance from its supply point, never gets HQ or SU support, and it always provides full support to every single combat round. I think you could expect higher than 2% on average - perhaps 4-5%. And the remaining stockpile constitutes a buffer that could be dipped into if there is a temporary shortfall.

5 vs. 100 is only 20:1. And this might be for the 30 prof unit, so the combat strength has dropped to 38% not 50%.

And the example I gave last time could be revised any number of ways. I've attached a different version in which the unit has greater "fire disipline" at the 100% state - perhaps as a higher prof unit would function).

5 vs. 75 is only 15:1. Etc., etc.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Sorry, but I could go quite a bit higher than 5:1. Contrast providing a "volume of fire" that one might do if flush with ammo vs. "making every shot count" as one would do if really short.

Contrast the impact of a constant barrage with a steady drizzle. As far as suppressing fire goes, firing one shell will not have much effect. Firing five will do wonders.

You're portraying it as firing all the guns rapidly for a short period, but that's not what'll happen in TOAW. The artillery will typically fire in every combat round to squeeze every bit of damage out of them. So it's a more or less constant, low rate of fire throughout the turn.

If you want to see a realistical opening barrage, make it possible for artillery to run out of shells, then players might save them for disentrenching targets rather than just firing all their guns as a default action.

Just note that, in my chart, it takes a different # of shells to raise that 98% unit to 100% than to raise the 1% unit to 3%.

So why is our amply supplied unit receiving more shells than the one which is running short? Quartermaster Bob obviously needs to go back to training college.

You've also taken an extreme case, in which the force supply is very low,

A common case- if not exactly the norm. 25% force supply. 5% at the front. 2% when modified for formation supply levels and the absence of an adjacent HQ.

5 vs. 100 is only 20:1. And this might be for the 30 prof unit, so the combat strength has dropped to 38% not 50%.

The typical proficiency in TOAW is around 60 or 65%. What's more, it tends not to be artillery which is assigned low proficiency- only irregular and ad-hoc units.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
I think the reference to 1 DCR above may actualy mean 2 DCR - on 15 May 1940 2 DCR arrived by rail between St Quenton and the Hirson to find the Germans had already captured their fuel and ammo stocks - but they had "supply communications" in TOAW terms because they would ahve been in a hex that had supply.

All those cases would have been modeled as either "unsupplied" or covered by the drop in Movement Allowance (representing stopping to wait for fuel).

Actually, in this case, in TOAW game terms, the 2 DCR was left embarked by some bone-headed player who forgot to check on the conditions of all his units before pressing the "resolve all attacks / end your turn" button...[;)]

Irrecoverable losses to equipment through stragglers, pestilence and combat when a unit is tagged "unsupplied" is what represents the abandonment equipment due to being unfueled, or without shells. Like I said before, and like Bob shows in his spreadsheet, the 1% supply level is a BASELINE level at which units that have a minimal line of supply communication can maintain indefinitely. The 1% - 150% levels represent a SCALING FACTOR to adjust the unit's combat effectiveness above and beyond this minimal level. It does NOT represent a literal percentage of supply.

The simple fact that such historical cases (of units finding themselves on their own side of the front lines, and without the petrol or shells to carry on any reasonable offensive or defensive operations) are indeed notable end up being the "exceptions which prove the rule". That is, for every situation where 4th Pz stalls for a couple of days waiting for fuel, or vehicles are abandoned in a retreat due to no gas to drive toward their own rear lines, there are 10000 cases where some average Joe, Fritz, or Jean is dutifully making sure that the supply that needs to get to the unit is in fact getting to the unit.

Now, that said, I don't deny that there could be some work done to the basic system in terms of tweaking it, but as a whole, the engine does a good job of abstractly handling what might otherwise turn into a logistical nightmare that would be no fun to play.

..errr, yeah but..

..ok toaw works ok, buuutttt communication does not equal supply, my gallopers can get thru to you, but on one horse just how much do you think they can carry ?..

..it does need reworking to something on the attack-capable/defence-only scale..

[a white rabbit]

..oh and errr, 1 DCR at Dinant rolled in on their tracks, unfortunately their petrol-bowsers were delayed by the Luftwaffe, this created a series of pill-boxes that German's went round..
 
..plenty of shells, no bloody fuel..

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Contrast the impact of a constant barrage with a steady drizzle. As far as suppressing fire goes, firing one shell will not have much effect. Firing five will do wonders.

Only the flush units would provide a steady drizzle. Short units are going to make every shot count.

You're portraying it as firing all the guns rapidly for a short period, but that's not what'll happen in TOAW.

Yes it is.

The artillery will typically fire in every combat round to squeeze every bit of damage out of them. So it's a more or less constant, low rate of fire throughout the turn.

Combat rounds are signficant intervals in TOAW. They more or less stand alone.

If you want to see a realistical opening barrage, make it possible for artillery to run out of shells, then players might save them for disentrenching targets rather than just firing all their guns as a default action.

But they wouldn't run out. They would husband them more and more as they get shorter - unless they've lost supply communications.

So why is our amply supplied unit receiving more shells than the one which is running short? Quartermaster Bob obviously needs to go back to training college.

It isn't. It illustrates the abstract nature of the supply % values. In fact the short unit might be getting more shells, but perhaps much of it goes to fill any dip into the buffer stockpile, rather than raising its supply % state.

A common case- if not exactly the norm. 25% force supply. 5% at the front. 2% when modified for formation supply levels and the absence of an adjacent HQ.

It becomes extreme when you add that it will always be at the end of the supply line, always lack a HQ or SU support, always have below average force supply, always fire full support, always fire every round, and always do that continuously for multiple turns. That's possible, but it's an extreme case, and the game can't be expected to handle the extreme, 1-in-a-million, cases.

The typical proficiency in TOAW is around 60 or 65%. What's more, it tends not to be artillery which is assigned low proficiency- only irregular and ad-hoc units.

So? I was illustrating a valid shell deduction scheme for all profs. (Ok, some more fiddling with the amounts might be called for, but the principle was clear.)