Page 2 of 2
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:39 pm
by Telumar
Hm, you used the version where the Para units start unsupplied, didn't you? Then they were really unsupplied until a later turn when suddenly airsupply kicked in?! This puzzles me.
The Para units receive air supply from the beginning when they start supplied (or are normally supplied the turn before they become isolated). In a test i had a supply point in the isolated area on turn 1 which was removed on turn 2. Then the Para units received air supply. No desertion et al..
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:44 pm
by shunwick
Stefan,
Well if you are going to do really strange things with supply points...
Actually, I don't know what was going on with that.
The point is that you always were getting air supplied.
Your supply demand was 28 and your supply stockpile was only 20. On clear days you went down 8 supply points. If you were truly unsupplied you would have been going down by 28 points per turn.
Best wishes,
Steve (no, the other one...)
PS: Can't stay logged in. Librarians ganging up on me...
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:40 pm
by sPzAbt653
Non-Isolated (supplied) units do not lose supply each turn (if not moving and participating in combat) based on demand, but units that are Isolated (unsupplied) do lose supply each turn (even if not moving or participating in combat) based on demand. So in some of our tests, Isolated units may have been gaining supply through Airborne Resupply, but that gained was not enough to offset the demand, therefore the unit/s in question did not appear to gain supply. Is that it ?
Desertion effects seem a bit more random.
But when Telumar raised the supply level to 100 in his test, that should have been able to overcome the demand and show a supply gain each turn?
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:09 pm
by Telumar
Seems to be an obscure matter. Attached a new test scenario which emulates the "classic situation" - airborne units start on an airfield (supplied) and will be dropped into a non supplied area. 300 aircap per turn for the duration of the scenario. Works like a charm.
Feel free to fiddle around with it, i got no time for this...
Don't mistake equipment loss due to the airdrop for desertion effects of unsupplied state.
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:46 pm
by shunwick
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Non-Isolated (supplied) units do not lose supply each turn (if not moving and participating in combat) based on demand, but units that are Isolated (unsupplied) do lose supply each turn (even if not moving or participating in combat) based on demand. So in some of our tests, Isolated units may have been gaining supply through Airborne Resupply, but that gained was not enough to offset the demand, therefore the unit/s in question did not appear to gain supply. Is that it ?
Desertion effects seem a bit more random.
But when Telumar raised the supply level to 100 in his test, that should have been able to overcome the demand and show a supply gain each turn?
Steve,
By Jove, you are beginning to get it. There is a limit to how much airborne resupply you can get. The max is 33 supply. You know, I have uploaded a PDF that shows all this twice and I shall do it again now.
Download the PDF and have a look. It should explain much of how airborne resupply works.
Korsun 44, shown in the PDF, only has a supply demand of 2 because it is at half-day turns. There being 14 half-days in a week. The other questions in the PDF are related to insufficient airlift.
Best wishes,
Steve
PDF !
V
V
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:07 am
by ColinWright
If a couple of semi-tested assumptions here are correct, the following somewhat bizarre situation could arise under the new supply rules.
In a scenario with lavish airlift, a unit runs out to where it is only notionally supplied -- it's only getting 1% a turn but burning considerably more than that. Since it is still technically 'in supply' it gets no airlifted supply.
Exasperated, the opponent cuts it off -- or even just cuts it off inadvertently. Perhaps he decides to box it in with a couple of units and starve it out.
It is now recognized as 'unsupplied' -- and starts receiving lavish airlifted supply.
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:21 am
by ColinWright
What's mildly tantalizing is the thought that this isn't a matter of a little man in there who just decides to go fishing one day and work in the yard the next.
There is some inflexible, completely comprehensible set of equations determining whatever effects appear.
I just wish we knew what they were.
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:53 am
by sPzAbt653
So, for arguements sake, if we were to clarify the manual a little, might this be an adequate 'clarification'?
Airborne Resupply
If a unit cannot trace a Line of Communication back to a friendly Supply Source, it may still be able to receive resupply. The level of resupply available to any particular hex is based on the amount of Air Transport Capacity left unused at the end of the previous Turn and the total size of the units in it requiring Airborne Resupply. Local Airborne Resupply levels are reduced by 33% if visibility in the location is Hazy, or 50% if the visibility in the location is Overcast. Note that units that are Isolated (unsupplied) lose supply each turn (even if not moving or participating in combat) based on demand. In some cases, Isolated units may gain supply through Airborne Resupply, but the amount gained is not enough to offset the demand, therefore the unit/s in question may not appear to gain supply. Desertion effects on Isolated units that are receiving Airborne Resupply may not occur every turn, but will usually increase as the length of time spent Isolated increases. Airborne Resupply is not reflected in any of the on-map displays.
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 4:14 pm
by ColinWright
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
So, for arguements sake, if we were to clarify the manual a little, might this be an adequate 'clarification'?
Airborne Resupply
...The level of resupply available to any particular hex is based on the amount of Air Transport Capacity left unused at the end of the previous Turn and the total size of the units in it requiring Airborne Resupply...
This passage I find tantalizing -- not for the sake of airborne resupply itself so much, but on account of the implications.
It implies that TOAW has some mechanism permitting distribution of supply by volume. Is it in fact true that if the number of units receiving airborne resupply in one of these test scenarios is reduced, the amount of supply received each turn by the remaining units goes up?
Sort of like discovering that earthworms have an organ that permits them to detect light. You know, with work, this could become an eye...
Or maybe it's just not true. Maybe altering the number of units has no effect on how much supply each receives.
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:50 am
by shunwick
Deleted. I am in a rush and forgot to select the quote. Bear with me.
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:53 am
by shunwick
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
What's mildly tantalizing is the thought that this isn't a matter of a little man in there who just decides to go fishing one day and work in the yard the next.
There is some inflexible, completely comprehensible set of equations determining whatever effects appear.
I just wish we knew what they were.
Colin,
Only Ralph will be able to give you chapter and verse on the definitive way to calculate air supply but even if he was willing to share I suspect that the answer would do little to help designers.
The formulas I gave in the PDF apply only to the simplest examples such as Stefan’s test scenarios. As you move from simple test scenarios to the world of real (non-trivial) TOAW scenarios, the complexity of the problem increases. This is because TOAW calculates the supply requests from all the units requiring supply.
In Stefan’s test scenarios there are just 4 units requiring air supply but in the Korsun 44 scenario there are 44(!) units in the pocket and despite a supply demand of only 2 it is clear that 15 supply and 150 air transport is not enough to supply them all. They are so much off the ballpark that TOAW regards it as less than the minimum required and applies the standard “well, you are not getting as much as 1 supply so we will call it 1 supply” failsafe.
The mechanism for the full calculation is unclear but let us assume that TOAW counts the number of units requiring air supply, then adds up all their respective weights (to get a figure for the total amount of equipment requiring air supply), and then applies a formula based on all this information. This would be a trivial procedure for a computer. It might take 5 or 6 microseconds. For a designer it would take considerably longer and be fairly tedious to boot.
It appears that trial and error (the standard design methodology for scenario creation) is the only practical way to come up with figures for supply stockpile and air transport in such circumstances.
My own airborne resupply test scenario is similar to Stefan’s. I use it to work out the logistics for any scenario that will have units likely to begin or end up in a pocket. It has a large island surrounded by non-playable hexes rather than sea. On the island I place all the units that I know or suspect will be pocketed (taken from the real scenario) and I place outside the island a formation that will receive supply from the normal logistics system. The enemy force is just a single rifle platoon in garrison. I set up the test scenario to match the “real” scenario in terms of scales and weather.
I work out (by trial and error) the supply stockpile and air transport required for the trapped units. Then, because air transport increases transport asset sharing, I inspect the formation outside the pocket and use FSDE to throttle down the supply they are receiving - if I have to - since FSDE plays no part in airborne resupply.
This use of FSDE is one of the few legitimate uses for it as far as I can tell. I see it as precision tool though many designers tend to use it (I believe unthinkingly) as a blunt instrument.
But that’s an argument for another day and anyway I have gone on for longer than originally intended.
My only problem now is that someone needs to point out to Stefan that air supplied units WILL suffer from desertion effects if their unit supply levels drop low enough.
He is not seeing desertion effects in his latest test scenario because his units are not losing supply to the point where they will desert. If I point it out to him, though, I would run the risk of upsetting him more than I have already. So I am looking for volunteers!
It’s a hard life.
Best wishes,
Steve
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:13 am
by Telumar
ORIGINAL: shunwick
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
What's mildly tantalizing is the thought that this isn't a matter of a little man in there who just decides to go fishing one day and work in the yard the next.
There is some inflexible, completely comprehensible set of equations determining whatever effects appear.
I just wish we knew what they were.
Colin,
Only Ralph will be able to give you chapter and verse on the definitive way to calculate air supply but even if he was willing to share I suspect that the answer would do little to help designers.
The formulas I gave in the PDF apply only to the simplest examples such as Stefan’s test scenarios. As you move from simple test scenarios to the world of real (non-trivial) TOAW scenarios, the complexity of the problem increases. This is because TOAW calculates the supply requests from all the units requiring supply.
In Stefan’s test scenarios there are just 4 units requiring air supply but in the Korsun 44 scenario there are 44(!) units in the pocket and despite a supply demand of only 2 it is clear that 15 supply and 150 air transport is not enough to supply them all. They are so much off the ballpark that TOAW regards it as less than the minimum required and applies the standard “well, you are not getting as much as 1 supply so we will call it 1 supply” failsafe.
The mechanism for the full calculation is unclear but let us assume that TOAW counts the number of units requiring air supply, then adds up all their respective weights (to get a figure for the total amount of equipment requiring air supply), and then applies a formula based on all this information. This would be a trivial procedure for a computer. It might take 5 or 6 microseconds. For a designer it would take considerably longer and be fairly tedious to boot.
It appears that trial and error (the standard design methodology for scenario creation) is the only practical way to come up with figures for supply stockpile and air transport in such circumstances.
My own airborne resupply test scenario is similar to Stefan’s. I use it to work out the logistics for any scenario that will have units likely to begin or end up in a pocket. It has a large island surrounded by non-playable hexes rather than sea. On the island I place all the units that I know or suspect will be pocketed (taken from the real scenario) and I place outside the island a formation that will receive supply from the normal logistics system. The enemy force is just a single rifle platoon in garrison. I set up the test scenario to match the “real” scenario in terms of scales and weather.
I work out (by trial and error) the supply stockpile and air transport required for the trapped units. Then, because air transport increases transport asset sharing, I inspect the formation outside the pocket and use FSDE to throttle down the supply they are receiving - if I have to - since FSDE plays no part in airborne resupply.
This use of FSDE is one of the few legitimate uses for it as far as I can tell. I see it as precision tool though many designers tend to use it (I believe unthinkingly) as a blunt instrument.
But that’s an argument for another day and anyway I have gone on for longer than originally intended.
My only problem now is that someone needs to point out to Stefan that air supplied units WILL suffer from desertion effects if their unit supply levels drop low enough.
He is not seeing desertion effects in his latest test scenario because his units are not losing supply to the point where they will desert. If I point it out to him, though, I would run the risk of upsetting him more than I have already. So I am looking for volunteers!
It’s a hard life.
Best wishes,
Steve
Steve, i'm not upset. Desertion effects could be related to weather conditions. Bad weather seems to reduce or to make air supply temporarily unavailable. I don't know. That i haven't observed them in the few quick test trials i've run doesn't mean they don't exist. Sorry, but i have not the time (and the passion) to fully test this issue.
As for FSDE.. I'm using it in Anzio for German artillery to reflect ammunition shortages. [:'(]
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:29 pm
by ColinWright
What's 'FSDE' (and how do I know if I've caught it)?
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:03 pm
by Telumar
Formation Supply Distribution Efficiency [:'(]
RE: Airborne Resupply
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:18 pm
by ColinWright
ORIGINAL: Telumar
Formation Supply Distribution Efficiency [:'(]
Ah. Formation supply. That accounted for the F and the S, but I couldn't come up with anything for the D and the E.