Comprehensive Wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Curtis, sticking to the East Front/Murmansk example, how would you choke the supply in the Great White North without affecting the supply farther south where it was relatively better? In FitE the Axis is limited to how many German divisions go to Finland but the Soviets are not restricted. You can have several armies operating in the Murmansk area. Not possible in the real world but doable in the sceanrio.

BTW, I know what the stock answer is, but what could be done to enable the game engine to restrict excisive supply in one area of a scenario and not another?

My point was that if all you were doing was just a Murmansk scenario, you would have full control of the forces and supply levels available via the event system.

However, you can do it for FITE if you control access to the Murmansk area via Theater Options. Not too hard to do for FITE, since Murmansk is a separate map area. Version 3.4 allows Variable Supply Points. And the values of individual supply points are settable by event. In other words, historical forces would arrive in the Murmansk area automatically, with the variable supply levels in that area set accordingly. If the player wanted extra forces there, he would have to exercise a TO to get them, and the supply levels could be adjusted accordingly again.

Nevertheless, a tempest in a teapot if you ask me. Is modeling that important enough to add quartermaster duties to all of FITE?

Regardless, understand that FITE is definitely not a typical scenario. I'm not saying there would be no benefit to any scenarios. Just not to most - not enough to warrant the huge costs to designers and players.

Colin will continue to rant. But in every case his examples are either scenarios with huge scopes, the benefits are trivial, or could be effected via the current system. Most of the scenarios made for TOAW have been small and tightly focused on a single ground operation.

I want to see this effected. But it's importance ranks about at the level of naval improvements. Important, but not the same as things that have universal impact.

[Panama]

I'm thinking TOAW was never meant to cover campaigns lasting months or years by how it's designed. But then the tutorial is the Korean war. Not exactly a short engagement. As you say, it works okay for focused scenarios. Leave it to wargamers to stretch things to the point that they don't work quite right. [;)]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Another thing that could be done would be to allow the player to decide which units get full supply at the expense of others getting only partial supply regardless of who moves and who doesn't. This could also be carried over to replacements.

At a minimum, one would want this ability to be controlled by the designer.

To return to Murmansk, I shouldn't be able to pump four divisions up to that front and give them full supply -- even if I am willing to take a hit on the supply available to the divisions down around Leningrad.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

I'm thinking TOAW was never meant to cover campaigns lasting months or years by how it's designed. But then the tutorial is the Korean war. Not exactly a short engagement. As you say, it works okay for focused scenarios. Leave it to wargamers to stretch things to the point that they don't work quite right. [;)]

Well, very limited. Like maybe up to a month, and covering areas of up to a hundred kilometers square.

Some fine little scenarios in that range. About a third of the total. How about if we work on making the engine able to handle the rest?

Anyway, we do stretch things. But in cases like the supply mechanism, or AA, or air/naval warfare, things are just so far off that 'stretching' isn't going to cut it.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

Curtis, sticking to the East Front/Murmansk example, how would you choke the supply in the Great White North without affecting the supply farther south where it was relatively better? In FitE the Axis is limited to how many German divisions go to Finland but the Soviets are not restricted. You can have several armies operating in the Murmansk area. Not possible in the real world but doable in the sceanrio.

BTW, I know what the stock answer is, but what could be done to enable the game engine to restrict excisive supply in one area of a scenario and not another?

My point was that if all you were doing was just a Murmansk scenario, you would have full control of the forces and supply levels available via the event system.

However, you can do it for FITE if you control access to the Murmansk area via Theater Options. Not too hard to do for FITE, since Murmansk is a separate map area. Version 3.4 allows Variable Supply Points. And the values of individual supply points are settable by event. In other words, historical forces would arrive in the Murmansk area automatically, with the variable supply levels in that area set accordingly. If the player wanted extra forces there, he would have to exercise a TO to get them, and the supply levels could be adjusted accordingly again.

Nevertheless, a tempest in a teapot if you ask me. Is modeling that important enough to add quartermaster duties to all of FITE?

'A tempest in a teapot' simply ignores all the examples I cited from other theaters.

If it was one case, your suggestion would be entirely satisfactory. But it's not. It's a very common case. And it's a common case because logistics is fundamental to military operations, and TOAW handles them in a completely unsatisfactory way.

We really do need a mechanism that reflects the reality of the situation. It doesn't have to be detailed -- God forbid -- but it does need to work something like supply does in reality. More troops have to consume more supply. That's just the way it is.

I want to see this effected. But it's importance ranks about at the level of naval improvements. Important, but not the same as things that have universal impact.

Ho! Did that boulder just budge? I can't believe it...

Anyway, I'll note that your invective notwithstanding, if one went through the list of scenarios on the disc, one would find that the issue would affect a good half of them. It's one of the more universal issues, actually.

Almost never do armies have unlimited logistical resources and ample means to move those resources wherever they are needed to support troop bodies of any size regardless of the limitations of the transport system. Really, we could probably skip the concern if the game is to be 'TOAW: America's Bush Wars 1960-2010.' Otherwise, we should model it.

'If one division can be supported across that pass, ten can,' is not a reasonable paradigm. We might as well not model logistics at all.

[ColinWright]

Another thought on the supply thing is that 'supply' could simply be modeled like weapons.

You get so many, and they are lost -- in the case of these 'weapons' simply through movement, or even passing the turn as well as combat. The lower the unit's stock, the weaker it is.

Note that these 'weapons' don't need to be displayed, or enter into the combat value of the unit. The game just needs to account for their distribution and the consequent effects.

Obviously, we need a mechanism to control their flow, but I think this approach has promise. For one, designers should be able to control the vulnerability of units to loss of supply this way. If there was, say, a type 'a' and a type 'b' and the ease with which they were lost varied, one could have infantry that could retain a good deal of its combat power under circumstances of straightened supply, but artillery and armor that would more or less follow a straight line to complete impotence.

[ColinWright]

We actually have supply squads. For a number of reasons, these won't serve as is -- but they do suggest that some of the necessary mechanisms and routines are already in place.

Foremost among the flaws are three factors.

First, the supply squads only affect things if they are in the HQ unit. The obvious solution for the player is just to leave the HQ in the rear with the gear -- this can be overcome, but it'd be a chronic problem.

Second, an absence of supply squads can at most halve a unit's ability to replenish supply. As has been noted, in TOAW, orange- and even red-light units retain plenty of offensive punch. So we can't stop the panzers. Unlike as in reality, they run on empty.

Third, there's no mechanism to control their distribution according to where the receiving unit is and how much company it has. You can bring that POL across the arctic tundra just as easily as you can order it up if you're sitting in garrison at home. One division can get five down a road -- or ten can get a total of fifty.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

My point was that if all you were doing was just a Murmansk scenario, you would have full control of the forces and supply levels available via the event system.

However, you can do it for FITE if you control access to the Murmansk area via Theater Options. Not too hard to do for FITE, since Murmansk is a separate map area. Version 3.4 allows Variable Supply Points. And the values of individual supply points are settable by event. In other words, historical forces would arrive in the Murmansk area automatically, with the variable supply levels in that area set accordingly. If the player wanted extra forces there, he would have to exercise a TO to get them, and the supply levels could be adjusted accordingly again.

Nevertheless, a tempest in a teapot if you ask me. Is modeling that important enough to add quartermaster duties to all of FITE?

Regardless, understand that FITE is definitely not a typical scenario. I'm not saying there would be no benefit to any scenarios. Just not to most - not enough to warrant the huge costs to designers and players.

Colin will continue to rant. But in every case his examples are either scenarios with huge scopes, the benefits are trivial, or could be effected via the current system. Most of the scenarios made for TOAW have been small and tightly focused on a single ground operation.

I want to see this effected. But it's importance ranks about at the level of naval improvements. Important, but not the same as things that have universal impact.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say this so correct me if I've misunderstood your statement. Supply has as much impact as naval improvements, that is to say, their impact is limited and not universal. I take this to mean you feel there are bigger fish to fry? If so, what would they be? I'm sure you've posted them someplace but this is a very huge and confused 'thread'. More like a hopelessly tangled fishing line. [;)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

I'm not being sarcastic when I say this so correct me if I've misunderstood your statement. Supply has as much impact as naval improvements, that is to say, their impact is limited and not universal.

I'm referring to Colin's volume supply thing, not supply in general. It's really critical for naval operations. If you want to model contested sea lanes, you've got to move supplies around. That's why it's about as important as naval improvements.

For pure ground campaigns, though, it's just not worth the effort to the coders, designers, or players. We already have a very good supply distribution system for over-land supply routes. And, even if volume supply were to make any difference at all, it would only be that some unit gets 15 supply per turn instead of 10, etc. Is that really worth players having to push hundreds of supply counters all over the map? It's a trivial benefit, if any.

Note that it doesn't even solve the Murmansk issue Colin is raving about - any number of divisions could still operate up there regardless of how much supply they were receiving.

Other than sea-supply, the real supply issues left concern other factors than unit supply levels.

I take this to mean you feel there are bigger fish to fry? If so, what would they be? I'm sure you've posted them someplace but this is a very huge and confused 'thread'. More like a hopelessly tangled fishing line. [;)]

It's bang-for-buck that matters. So effective and cheap is what we're looking for. And volume supply will be very expensive, regardless of how effective it is.

See my post #909 on this thread for my supply priorities. (It's on page 31 as I've got the thread paged).

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


For pure ground campaigns, though, it's just not worth the effort to the coders, designers, or players. We already have a very good supply distribution system for over-land supply routes. And, even if volume supply were to make any difference at all, it would only be that some unit gets 15 supply per turn instead of 10, etc. Is that really worth players having to push hundreds of supply counters all over the map? It's a trivial benefit, if any.

There we go. I didn't think that boulder had really moved.

You're amazing, you know. I have methodically debunked each and every of the claims you just made in the last page -- and you just repeat them. It's like I claim Ariete was the premier tank division of World War 2, you carefully list all the reasons why it most certainly was not -- and I just repeat the claim.

Where -- for example -- have I ever advocated 'hundreds of supply counters'? Why would such a thing be necessary?

[ColinWright]

Thinking about this, I don't see any particular reason a supply-based system has to be hopelessly cumbersome -- or even markedly more cumbersome than the current system, with its various attempts at bandages, such as supply units, supply squads, HQ's, and the rest of it.

At the moment, the system knows what the percentage 'supply stockpile' is, and what the maximum percentage is that can be delivered to any particular hex. This system is nonsensical, since it assumes that a battalion requires exactly the same volume of supplies as a corps, but that's not really my point.

My point is that the system could know with equal ease how many tons of supplies can be delivered to the theater as a whole and how many can be delivered to any particular point. On turn 32 of a North Africa scenario, eight hundred tons of supplies will be delivered to the Axis forces. Up to all eight hundred could flow to forces along the road, but only up to ten could flow to forces stationed at Giarabub Oasis.

The system can also easily define the needs of each unit in terms of volume rather than percent. A full combat load for PanzerAufklarungs 3 comes to nine tons, say. A full combat load for all of 21st Panzer comes to seventy tons (all numbers are random guesses).

The difference is that the system can recognize that while those ten tons will suffice to replenish the supplies of PanzerAufklarungs 3 should it feel inclined to wander down to the oasis, they wouldn't do much to fill up all of 21st Panzer if it was down there.

Obviously, there are further points to be discussed, and no doubt some limitations in how close we can get to perfection, but what's the problem? At least so far, I only see an upside.

[Panama]

If you fight you use ammo. If you move you use pol. If you do neither you still use some supply. People have to eat. If you have mobile combat units you use both at the same time when you fight. You need so much to stay in full supply. Your supply net can move so much forward. So everyone gets what the supply net can send them with the amounts received depending on how many units are being supplied. That's about the sum total of it.

Now, if someone can make a combat system where each and every individual gun, rifle, machine gun, etc., shoots at every other individual whatever and armor slope, penetration, individual shell and gun attributes and side and rear shots and flanking are all taken into account and that's not too complex, then a volume based supply system should be a walk in the park.

The only thing that makes a better supply system impossible are the people who don't want it. Period. No ifs ands or buts. If you can model the combat system and it's not too complex then anything else should be relatively easy.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you fight you use ammo. If you move you use pol. If you do neither you still use some supply. People have to eat. If you have mobile combat units you use both at the same time when you fight. You need so much to stay in full supply. Your supply net can move so much forward. So everyone gets what the supply net can send them with the amounts received depending on how many units are being supplied. That's about the sum total of it.

Now, if someone can make a combat system where each and every individual gun, rifle, machine gun, etc., shoots at every other individual whatever and armor slope, penetration, individual shell and gun attributes and side and rear shots and flanking are all taken into account and that's not too complex, then a volume based supply system should be a walk in the park.

The only thing that makes a better supply system impossible are the people who don't want it. Period. No ifs ands or buts. If you can model the combat system and it's not too complex then anything else should be relatively easy.

Yeah. The more I think about it, the more I see a volume-based system solving rather than creating problems.

I'm not averse to a distinction between POL and ammunition, but I'd rather at least see the basics of the system ironed out first. The essential issues can be addressed by treating supply as a general category. For example, all types of units have minimum but modest supply needs if they're just peacefully sitting. That Tiger II may need a gallon of fuel to go a mile, but if it's not moving, then all you gotta do is keep the five man crew in dog food and fresh socks.

If a unit moves, it doesn't use much more than it does standing still if it's leg infantry or horsedrawn artillery -- the horses eat a bit more, but they gotta eat no matter what. Same for the men. If anything, moving through fresh country creates opportunities for foraging that offset the 'ahm hongrey' effect.

The unit uses a lot more supply when it moves, if it's mechanized. If it fights, all types of units use supply -- but as already checked, infantry arms have minimal tonnage requirements.

Volume-based supply makes it easier to simulate all of that. The program can just calculate how much the unit drew down its load and how much more it therefore needs, and how large that load is. Then it can see what's available in general and decide how much to assign based on what priority the unit has been assigned -- subject to the maximum that can be delivered to that particular hex. The whole mechanism would bear a strong resemblance to how the program distributes replacements. In fact, that's what the supplies are. Replacements that are subject to delivery constraints.

As a further added bonus, one could literally stockpile supplies for that big push -- just like real armies do. The designer could set some ceiling stockpile for the scenario that would reflect just how much that particular force would be allowed to squirrel away. After all, if the German forces in Italy are awash in supplies, OKH is liable to just say, 'well, you're fine -- we're diverting more to the Eastern Front. Call us when you get below _____.'

Of course, the system still wouldn't be perfect in its simpler version -- but it starts out as already a vast improvement over the system we have now.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

At the moment, the system knows what the percentage 'supply stockpile' is, and what the maximum percentage is that can be delivered to any particular hex. This system is nonsensical, since it assumes that a battalion requires exactly the same volume of supplies as a corps, but that's not really my point.

It's not nonsensical at all. It correctly models that the further you are from the source, the more spread out your supply vehicles are, thereby exponentially attenuating the amount of the Force Supply Level that can be delivered to that point per unit time interval. And it doesn't assume that a battalion requires exactly the same volume of supplies as a corps. Rather it assumes that the battalion will have a proportionate fraction of those supply vehicles assigned to it relative to that corps.

My point is that the system could know with equal ease how many tons of supplies can be delivered to the theater as a whole ...

It would know nothing of the sort. That would have to be figured out by the designer. And it's non-trivial.

...and how many can be delivered to any particular point. On turn 32 of a North Africa scenario, eight hundred tons of supplies will be delivered to the Axis forces. Up to all eight hundred could flow to forces along the road, but only up to ten could flow to forces stationed at Giarabub Oasis.

Again, that depends upon how many supply vehicles are involved, how fast they can move, how many are interdicted in transit, and how they are distributed. How many of those supplies could be delivered anywhere might be completely unrelated to how many were arriving in theater. And don't forget that the vehicles themselves consume supply, especially fuel. You can assume that each unit has a proportionate fraction of the total vehicles - but that would basically produce the same results as the current system achieves.

If you're not going to physically move the supplies around, thereby allowing players to manipulate their distribution, I really don't see the point. And, in the end, all you'll have achieved, if anything, is that some unit will get 15 supply per turn instead of 10. It's trivial, except for sea supply.

Let me make that last point clear: Currently, all units with a line of communications will be in supply and enjoy the exhorbitant benefits of being in supply regardless of how much supply they are receiving. We won't get anywhere if we don't address that. That's why I want a third (intermediate) supply state. A state that's halfway between supplied and unsupplied. That's item 5.9: The Over-Extended Supply State. Without that, the unit supply level is only marginally impactful.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

If you fight you use ammo. If you move you use pol. If you do neither you still use some supply.

Component supply. It would allow units to move without expending all their ammo - you could actually add manuvering as a TOAW tactic. It would allow units to fight without expending all their fuel. It would allow for more finely crafted combat strength and movement allowance formulas.

Wouldn't be too hard to do, either. Just add one or two additional parameters per unit. Then tweak the formulas.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

At the moment, the system knows what the percentage 'supply stockpile' is, and what the maximum percentage is that can be delivered to any particular hex. This system is nonsensical, since it assumes that a battalion requires exactly the same volume of supplies as a corps, but that's not really my point.

It's not nonsensical at all. It correctly models that the further you are from the source, the more spread out your supply vehicles are, thereby exponentially attenuating the amount of the Force Supply Level that can be delivered to that point per unit time interval. And it doesn't assume that a battalion requires exactly the same volume of supplies as a corps. Rather it assumes that the battalion will have a proportionate fraction of those supply vehicles assigned to it relative to that corps.

My point is that the system could know with equal ease how many tons of supplies can be delivered to the theater as a whole ...

It would know nothing of the sort. That would have to be figured out by the designer. And it's non-trivial.

...and how many can be delivered to any particular point. On turn 32 of a North Africa scenario, eight hundred tons of supplies will be delivered to the Axis forces. Up to all eight hundred could flow to forces along the road, but only up to ten could flow to forces stationed at Giarabub Oasis.

Again, that depends upon how many supply vehicles are involved, how fast they can move, how many are interdicted in transit, and how they are distributed. How many of those supplies could be delivered anywhere might be completely unrelated to how many were arriving in theater. And don't forget that the vehicles themselves consume supply, especially fuel. You can assume that each unit has a proportionate fraction of the total vehicles - but that would basically produce the same results as the current system achieves.

If you're not going to physically move the supplies around, thereby allowing players to manipulate their distribution, I really don't see the point. And, in the end, all you'll have achieved, if anything, is that some unit will get 15 supply per turn instead of 10. It's trivial, except for sea supply.

Let me make that last point clear: Currently, all units with a line of communications will be in supply and enjoy the exhorbitant benefits of being in supply regardless of how much supply they are receiving. We won't get anywhere if we don't address that. That's why I want a third (intermediate) supply state. A state that's halfway between supplied and unsupplied. That's item 5.9: The Over-Extended Supply State. Without that, the unit supply level is only marginally impactful.

You should try reading my posts. It would be illuminating. 'How a volume based supply system would work.' Basically, the point is that if the program can calculate how much supply could potentially reach a particular hex as a percentage, it can calculate it as a tonnage.

Now, being a reasonably bright boy, once you do read the posts, some flaws will come to your mind, and then you can point those out, and then we can discuss how serious the flaws are, whether they could be remedied, and how best to remedy them.

Or...you can keep stonewalling. Your choice.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

...and how many can be delivered to any particular point. On turn 32 of a North Africa scenario, eight hundred tons of supplies will be delivered to the Axis forces. Up to all eight hundred could flow to forces along the road, but only up to ten could flow to forces stationed at Giarabub Oasis.

Again, that depends upon how many supply vehicles are involved, how fast they can move, how many are interdicted in transit, and how they are distributed. How many of those supplies could be delivered anywhere might be completely unrelated to how many were arriving in theater. And don't forget that the vehicles themselves consume supply, especially fuel. You can assume that each unit has a proportionate fraction of the total vehicles - but that would basically produce the same results as the current system achieves.

All of these objections apply equally to a percent-based supply system.

If you're not going to physically move the supplies around, thereby allowing players to manipulate their distribution, I really don't see the point. And, in the end, all you'll have achieved, if anything, is that some unit will get 15 supply per turn instead of 10. It's trivial, except for sea supply.

Now that's silly. Twenty tons can be delivered to hex x. If the units there need four tons of supplies, they've filled up. If they need two hundred, they're going to go short.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

All of these objections apply equally to a percent-based supply system.

But they've already been sorted out for the current system. That would have to be done again, in more detail, for a volume supply system - if the supplies were going to be moved around by the players. If they weren't, then it would produce more or less the same results as the current system - except for sea supply.

Cost vs. benefit.

Now that's silly. Twenty tons can be delivered to hex x. If the units there need four tons of supplies, they've filled up. If they need two hundred, they're going to go short.

That's just not how it works in the real world. How much can be delivered to any one hex is dependent upon how much transport is assigned to deliver it. And the amount assigned is going to be proportionate to the size of the force receiving it. In fact, for most ground operations, it's transport abilities that determine frontline supply levels, not the quantity of supplies available back at in the homeland.

Note that this discounts most of the issue about adding forces to a theater, since they arrive with their own transport. Conversely, if they withdraw or are destroyed, their transport will also withdraw or be mostly destroyed with them.

Finally, my main point was about the need for an intermediate supply state. That was not silly. Without that, any unit with a line of communications is Supplied regardless of unit supply level - with all the benefits that entails.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That's just not how it works in the real world. How much can be delivered to any one hex is dependent upon how much transport is assigned to deliver it. And the amount assigned is going to be proportionate to the size of the force receiving it. In fact, for most ground operations, it's transport abilities that determine frontline supply levels, not the quantity of supplies available back at in the homeland.

Note that this discounts most of the issue about adding forces to a theater, since they arrive with their own transport. Conversely, if they withdraw or are destroyed, their transport will also withdraw or be mostly destroyed with them.

Finally, my main point was about the need for an intermediate supply state. That was not silly. Without that, any unit with a line of communications is Supplied regardless of unit supply level - with all the benefits that entails.

You are not allowed to consider transport. As you've said, it's abstracted. In fact, into oblivion so that it really doesn't become a factor in the game. This means that unless transport becomes directly represented, truch by truck, it doesn't matter. [:D]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

All of these objections apply equally to a percent-based supply system.

But they've already been sorted out for the current system. That would have to be done again, in more detail, for a volume supply system - if the supplies were going to be moved around by the players. If they weren't, then it would produce more or less the same results as the current system - except for sea supply.

Cost vs. benefit.

Now that's silly. Twenty tons can be delivered to hex x. If the units there need four tons of supplies, they've filled up. If they need two hundred, they're going to go short.

That's just not how it works in the real world...

! The current system is definitely not how it works in the real world.

That's the thing. A simple volume-based system could have all kinds of flaws: it would still represent a quantum leap over what we have now.

It is as if we have two theories. One holds that the world is flat. The other holds that the world is round. Even if -- like Columbus -- we are off on our size calculations by about two-thirds, realizing that the world is round offers an immediate improvement in performance over thinking it is flat.

In fact, for most ground operations, it's transport abilities that determine frontline supply levels, not the quantity of supplies available back at in the homeland.

Yeah...and the system I am proposing would indicate just how much volume could be delivered. The current system says that it doesn't matter whether one division or thirty have advanced across the Caucasus: they will all get exactly the same 10% of their supply requirements delivered across that pass.

The program just needs to treat the little number in the hex as if it represents a unit of volume rather than some kind of signal strength. And that's what supplies are: volume.

Transport abilities do in fact determine a volume, not a percent. So at the end of the day, eighty trucks a week can struggle up that track, dump whatever's on board, and go back for more. Great: those 160 tons of goodies per week will keep one division going full blast, allow three to restock fairly quickly but not really keep up if they're under heavy pressure, or keep six divisions alive if they keep real still and no one bothers 'em.

That's not what the current system does. One division or six: the supply recovery rate will be the same for all. It is what a volume-based system would permit.