Matrix Games Forums

Randomizer,

I agree with you. I am sure much of it was "local". This is perhaps why I like the COTD solution which would allow players to produce supplies anywhere they like (much like they might textiles) and then ship them anywhere they were needed. And I don't think an army needs to be 100% dependent on this supply source. It can "diversify" by gaining portions of it "off the land" by foraging. I would certainly agree that it was never be the case that 100% of Napoleon's 1812 army supply came from Paris. But perhaps 20% (a super massive jump into the blue number).

Perhaps he even had foundries in Poland making is cannon balls. Who knows. Damn. I wish I had a book on this. What a fascinating subject.

-B

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

I am sure much of it was "local".

But I assumed that local supply was modeled through foraging, not through depots.
I've no idea about napoleonic logistics, but I try to think in general terms, and in general terms there's something that bothers me.
After all:
1) historically Napoleon reached Moscow;
2) the conquer of Moscow didn't solve his logistical problems, and probably made them worse;
3) Napoleon was forced to leave Moscow due to logistical reasons, not due to a military defeat.
I've the impression that such a situation cannot be replied in COG-game terms: because the conquer of Moscow allows Napoleon to build a depot and solves the logistical problem. Maybe building of chains of depots is too cheap, maybe not. In any case the problem of maintaining the French Army supplied shouldn't be only a problem of money, it should be (and in the case of Moscow I think it should be mainly) a problem of logistics.

have you taken Moscow ?

have you built and maintained a supply line to Moscow ?

have you lived though a winter in Russia ?

But I assumed that local supply was modeled through foraging, not through depots.
I've no idea about napoleonic logistics, but I try to think in general terms, and in general terms there's something that bothers me.
After all:
1) historically Napoleon reached Moscow;
2) the conquer of Moscow didn't solve his logistical problems, and probably made them worse;
3) Napoleon was forced to leave Moscow due to logistical reasons, not due to a military defeat.
I've the impression that such a situation cannot be replied in COG-game terms: because the conquer of Moscow allows Napoleon to build a depot and solves the logistical problem. Maybe building of chains of depots is too cheap, maybe not. In any case the problem of maintaining the French Army supplied shouldn't be only a problem of money, it should be (and in the case of Moscow I think it should be mainly) a problem of logistics.

This chain of thought, while logical on the surface, leaves out much of importance.

In the first place the Moscow fire and partisans in the countryside had destroyed much of the infrastucture around the city so by late September systematic foraging was starting to conform to the laws of diminishing returns.

Napoleon was not only the Commander in Chief, he was also Head of State and as such spending the winter at the end of a tenuous 1000 mile line of communications was not an option. Only the Imperial Guard had not suffered heavy combat losses and he could neither allow it to winter in Moscow while he returned to France nor could he remove it from what remained of the Army and divide his force. Everybody had to stay for the winter or everybody had to leave, there was no strategic compromise available.

What was left of the Grand Army constitued his principle foriegn policy instrument and he would need it to return to the Europe's political centre. The withdrawl started late in the year because they captured the city late.

And lastly, Alexander did not act as expected, up until now when Napoleon captured or even threatened capture of it's main city his opponents would see the light and offer terms. He badly underestimated the Czar's will to continue the fight after Moscow was captured.

Lack of supply might have helped kill the Grand Army on the march home but logistics was only one of many factors that caused the campaign to play out the way it did.

I am not yet sure what, if any of these effects can be replicated in CoG-EE.

Best Regards

Great post Randomizer

I havent read the whole thread... But my take on this is that once the protectorate will be fixed it's gona be a much better system.

The current problem is that protectorate are ONWED to easily and the bug that let's you supply your whole army from conquered province (WICH IS A BUG). So in PBEM you should try to get around those 2 bugs. Unfortunetely, there is no way to force someone to take casaulties for lake of supplies tough

ORIGINAL: Gresbeck

I've the impression that such a situation cannot be replied in COG-game terms: because the conquer of Moscow allows Napoleon to build a depot and solves the logistical problem. Maybe building of chains of depots is too cheap, maybe not. In any case the problem of maintaining the French Army supplied shouldn't be only a problem of money, it should be (and in the case of Moscow I think it should be mainly) a problem of logistics.

My understanding was that conquered provinces were going to be made so that they could no longer be the source of a supply depot. This would mean if the Russian was intelligently using cossacks to interdict the supply chain somewhere along the line, the French depots in conquered provinces would wither away and the Grand Armee would suffer attrition (unless you are super spread out it would be massive) and out of supply performance hits.

I think that if depots can't originated in occupied provinces that would force the player to defend his LOC more carefully.

Right now I've got a situation with a large "Armee du Sud" occupying Devon, England. It is 1796. I've got Depots in Brittany, in the intervening sea box "Celtic Sea," and the thing is telling me I'm still going to suffer 9093 casualties. I flip it from supply to forage and it switches to 10891 casualties !?! So being "in supply" is only going to prevent about 1800 casualties!?
 
I had played enough to feel like I understood the basics of the game, so I turned it up from Normal to Difficult on both Strategic and Combat, and I have to admit, the game is giving me some challenges (including the Prussians launching waves of 155K and 225K troops in offensive at Northeast France!).
 
I was under the impression that a supply depot was adequate for supplying any and all troops in a province adjacent to a depot, isn't it?

check your map, you may have another container that is out of supply

do you still have any troops at sea ?

if you have a good supply link, all of the troops should be good to go, so it may be trying to tell you that someplace needs supply

Thanks Sarge. Good to get it confirmed that the Depots are supposed to provide 100% supply.
 
I _think_ that I must have had some subordinate corps inside some armies that were set to forage

In the first place the Moscow fire and partisans in the countryside had destroyed much of the infrastucture around the city so by late September systematic foraging was starting to conform to the laws of diminishing returns.

Remember that you can in fact plunder your own territory.

Napoleon was not only the Commander in Chief, he was also Head of State and as such spending the winter at the end of a tenuous 1000 mile line of communications was not an option.

There could be a fun rule that said if Napoleon were absent from either Paris or the Imperial Guard for a length of time, France took a National Morale hit. Feel free to suggest this in the Wish List thread if you'd like to see it [:)]

Once we implement the modifications to the supply rules, it should be much harder to supply armies deep within enemy territory.

Curious as to how much logistical support would actually be drawn from the home country to a Napoleonic era army on campaign....Were there actual long-distance supply lines as they came to exist when armies became more sophisticated?

Depends on what you mean by "long-distance" [:)]

Any Army would consume vast quantities of food and fodder but most of that could be acquired within the occupied and adjacent provinces.

 
We do allow armies to forage, but only for so many troops.

Remember that supplies are more than gunpowder and food, as Napoleon's army learned the hard way--there are also other munitions for cannon, things need to be repaired and replaced (rifles, saddles, bedrolls, jackets, and especially shoes!), changing seasons and terrain can mean new demands for different equipment, etc.

You could perhaps think of depots as not just a supply chain or an actual depot, but also a way of organizing and drawing upon the resouces of adjacent provinces--letting you "forage" from provinces other than your own.

In fact that could've been an interesting way to do it--there would be no depots; instead you would just have the forage values, and normally you could only draw upon the one you're in. If you spend money, you can draw from other provinces. Or you would have to build the depot, then try to gather more forage values as they were available (and you couldn't double-dip).

This would require a code rewrite that probably won't happen, but it's an interesting idea. So we kind of do have the parts in place to do it a different way, a la CotD; we just chose to do it our way [:)]

Indeed it is difficult to see what supply requirements (as opposed to manpower and money) that the French Army in say, Poland, could only get from France itself.

 
That's not what we're talking about--in any revisions we make to supply rules, you'll be able to draw from sources outside your homeland. But I do think you shouldn't be able to supply entire armies outside territory you actually control, for any length of time, besides using foraging.

Barbarossa, checkout the Ageod games for a well working yet subtle supply system. (AACW would be the best example because of it's grand scope)

In the Ageod games Supply is generalized into 2 types; General Supply Points(food, etc) and Ammo Points.
Each large city may or may not create a certain amout of each type per turn.

The Player creates Supply Depots which act as "magnets" to pull supply from large cities and harbors.
Players construct Supply Depots by converting 2 Wagons or 2 Transports.
Supply moving to Depots is traced along railroads and rivers and uses any "leftover" rail/river transport capacity that turn (capacity that was not used to move ground units).
The player must have 25% Military Control of the region to move supply. (MC is based on type and number of friendly/enemy units)

Supply Wagons also act as magnets, but Supply moving to Wagons "across country" follows ground movement rules.
Wagons also carry a fair amount of supply, usually enough to last about 4 turns (2 months).
Units usually only carry about 2 turns of supply (1 month).

The Supply engine is broken into 2 Phases (with sub-phases)
-Distribution Phase: Supply moves between cities and depots. Cities or depots with an overstock will attempt to send supply to cities or depots with shortages. Wagons also receive (only) supply in this phase.
There are 3 sub-phases here in which supply moves 5 Regions per phase, based on rail/transport capacity.

-Consumption Phase: Units use and restock on supply in this phase. (IIRC a unit must be within 2 regions of the city/depot/wagon to receive supply)

All this may sound complicated and I probably left somethings out so please look at the AACW Wiki Supply Page.

The basic rule to keeping units in Supply is that you need to create Depots or capture cities with intact Depots and you need a continous line of back to your major cities.

Lord Stanley,
 
Cool.  Thanks for the tip on AGEOD supplies.  I will use that.  As I have their very, very good Birth of America game.
 
-B

ORIGINAL: Lord_Stanley
. . . All this may sound complicated and I probably left somethings out so please look at the AACW Wiki Supply Page.

The basic rule to keeping units in Supply is that you need to create Depots or capture cities with intact Depots and you need a continous line of back to your major cities.

That does sound like a pretty good supply system. So do you mean to tell me that, all Ageod Games are not as screwed up as World War I: La Grande Geurre?

Antropoid,
 
I have AGEOD's BOAII.  It is a great, stable game.  I have enjoyed it thoroughly.
 
-B

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
That does sound like a pretty good supply system. So do you mean to tell me that, all Ageod Games are not as screwed up as World War I: La Grande Geurre?

I don't have WW1, can only say that WW1 was "outsourced" to another team.
Will say that WW1 is not based on the AGE engine.
BOA, AACW, NCP, WIA are based on AGE and all have won awards (except for WIA, too soon).

Do not judge Ageod or the AGE games on the basis of WW1, that would be like judging all of Matrix off one disappointing game.

I have BOA and it's one of the nicest game I ever played. It is extremely satisfying to play and one of the only game (apart from this one) I have played for more then 2 weeks in like the 4 last years.

BOA 1 was a killer. I expect BOA II to be even better. But I feel I have seen everything I had to see with BOA 1. Stil NCP AACW are interesting me. What is WiA tough? I never heard of that. (I guess it's BOA II right?)

Ah, well . . . . Thanks Franck and Lord Stanley!
 
The really poignant thing about WWI is it is an innovative design, but just runs poorly. If they can get it to run well, it will be a great game.