How to limit attacks all over the front - attack supply, the golden bullet

[Mehring]

How would it work if the generation of existing fuel, supplies and ammo were cut back to realistic levels and the player given a way to allocate his resources (in the manner of the TOE %) as he sees fit? 100% then becomes sufficient to defend without penalty, over that gives an attack advantage?

[Thomas_B]

I'm not a big fan of introducing "attack supply points", whether tied to APs or not, into the game. This would just be another level of abstraction or even gimmick.

The game already models key logistics factors that are relevant for that: ammunition, fuel and general supply.

What needs to be done is get the balance right between the respective costs of these resources for hasty or prepared attacks delivered by units and their ability to replenish stock spent every turn.

Off the top of my head my expectation would be that the supplies carried by a unit should allow it to engage in not more than 2 turns of attacks (multiple hasty/prepared attacks) before significant replenishment was required.
Rate of replenishment should be driven by the state of the unit's supply network (distance to corps HQ and to nearest railhead, availability of trucks,etc.) - I assume that is already the case?

What might make sense to consider is to enable Front / Army level HQs to stockpile supplies in large quantities in preparation for offensives (condition to the HQ not moving, being on a rail hex or at least within x hexes of an operational rail hex, etc.)

My 2 cents

Cheers

Thomas

[Lieste]

Perhaps have the attacker's supply commitment and usage based partially on the defender's strength and resilience - so the defender doesn't get the best of both worlds - an attacking force fighting for 'days' and expending every round of ammunition it can, and a defending force taking few casualties "as it would run straight away".

If the lead regiment brushes aside the strongpoints, then the entire Corps doesn't need to join in the attack...

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Thomas_B

I'm not a big fan of introducing "attack supply points", whether tied to APs or not, into the game. This would just be another level of abstraction or even gimmick.

The game already models key logistics factors that are relevant for that: ammunition, fuel and general supply.

What needs to be done is get the balance right between the respective costs of these resources for hasty or prepared attacks delivered by units and their ability to replenish stock spent every turn.

Off the top of my head my expectation would be that the supplies carried by a unit should allow it to engage in not more than 2 turns of attacks (multiple hasty/prepared attacks) before significant replenishment was required.
Rate of replenishment should be driven by the state of the unit's supply network (distance to corps HQ and to nearest railhead, availability of trucks,etc.) - I assume that is already the case?

What might make sense to consider is to enable Front / Army level HQs to stockpile supplies in large quantities in preparation for offensives (condition to the HQ not moving, being on a rail hex or at least within x hexes of an operational rail hex, etc.)

My 2 cents

Cheers

Thomas

Agree with this post. If we're needing layers on top of what exists already, then the problem is being masked rather than dealt with at source. There are issues with the logistics in the game. Wish I could put my finger on it more precisely after accounting for the problems caused by the abstractions.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Thomas_B

I'm not a big fan of introducing "attack supply points", whether tied to APs or not, into the game. This would just be another level of abstraction or even gimmick.

The game already models key logistics factors that are relevant for that: ammunition, fuel and general supply.

What needs to be done is get the balance right between the respective costs of these resources for hasty or prepared attacks delivered by units and their ability to replenish stock spent every turn.

Off the top of my head my expectation would be that the supplies carried by a unit should allow it to engage in not more than 2 turns of attacks (multiple hasty/prepared attacks) before significant replenishment was required.
Rate of replenishment should be driven by the state of the unit's supply network (distance to corps HQ and to nearest railhead, availability of trucks,etc.) - I assume that is already the case?

What might make sense to consider is to enable Front / Army level HQs to stockpile supplies in large quantities in preparation for offensives (condition to the HQ not moving, being on a rail hex or at least within x hexes of an operational rail hex, etc.)

Very good point!

Edit: But it would still be desirable to have some kind of priority system, where the player could prioritize which armies get the most supplies.

[randallw]

I have often wondered if the permanent supply points have some value assigned to them; if there is then wouldn't giving the Soviet points a lower value do the job of simulating problems?

[amatteucci]

ORIGINAL: Thomas_B

I'm not a big fan of introducing "attack supply points", whether tied to APs or not, into the game. This would just be another level of abstraction or even gimmick.

The game already models key logistics factors that are relevant for that: ammunition, fuel and general supply.

What needs to be done is get the balance right between the respective costs of these resources for hasty or prepared attacks delivered by units and their ability to replenish stock spent every turn.

Off the top of my head my expectation would be that the supplies carried by a unit should allow it to engage in not more than 2 turns of attacks (multiple hasty/prepared attacks) before significant replenishment was required.
Rate of replenishment should be driven by the state of the unit's supply network (distance to corps HQ and to nearest railhead, availability of trucks,etc.) - I assume that is already the case?

What might make sense to consider is to enable Front / Army level HQs to stockpile supplies in large quantities in preparation for offensives (condition to the HQ not moving, being on a rail hex or at least within x hexes of an operational rail hex, etc.)

I completely agree with this post.
I already wrote elsewhere that the Gamer's OCS (boardgames) became one of the most realistic operational wargame series because it allowed (well... required) the players to stockpile supply.

[Mynok]

I like the idea as well as long as there is as Tarhunnas mentioned a prioritization method, ala the current 'HQ Buildup'. Heck, call it HQ Buildup but make it work a bit differently.

This would also provide a simple means of slowing the Russian ability to maintain offensives by limiting the stockpile capacity of their HQs. This could be expanded through TOE upgrades in future years (assuming that HQs could have TOE upgrade paths).

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

This would also provide a simple means of slowing the Russian ability to maintain offensives by limiting the stockpile capacity of their HQs. This could be expanded through TOE upgrades in future years (assuming that HQs could have TOE upgrade paths).

Thats brilliant!

[kvolk]

ORIGINAL: Thomas_B

I'm not a big fan of introducing "attack supply points", whether tied to APs or not, into the game. This would just be another level of abstraction or even gimmick.

The game already models key logistics factors that are relevant for that: ammunition, fuel and general supply.

What needs to be done is get the balance right between the respective costs of these resources for hasty or prepared attacks delivered by units and their ability to replenish stock spent every turn.

Off the top of my head my expectation would be that the supplies carried by a unit should allow it to engage in not more than 2 turns of attacks (multiple hasty/prepared attacks) before significant replenishment was required.
Rate of replenishment should be driven by the state of the unit's supply network (distance to corps HQ and to nearest railhead, availability of trucks,etc.) - I assume that is already the case?

What might make sense to consider is to enable Front / Army level HQs to stockpile supplies in large quantities in preparation for offensives (condition to the HQ not moving, being on a rail hex or at least within x hexes of an operational rail hex, etc.)

My 2 cents

Cheers

Thomas

I think to some extent the fuel does this especially with the panzer units by limiting their mobility. Some refiniment of this as it relates to the other two supply items and looking at tighter useage models. Then add in the ability that others are talking about to direct that flow where you want. It would be a whole new sub game to play.

[neuromancer]

+1 on OP!!!!
 
Supply was a huge factor for Germany and the Soviet Union.  Both sides offensive ability was limited as much by available supply as any other factor (on many occasions offensives stalled out because they ran out of supplies - such as ammunition - to keep the offensive going).
 
Also, the rail lines in the Soviet Union sucked (not enough of them for the massive size of the territory), this resulted in serious supply bottle necks for both sides, although the Germans would feel it the worst as they were only able to repair damaged lines at a relatively modest rate.  They couldn't move enough supplies fast enough to adequately supply the entire front.  Not to mention that it would be very rare to have enough supply to run an offensive along the entire front (the Germans did in June because they had planned for it, but only for about 1 month, they never had adequate supply after that point - the Russians  could probably manage it once a year starting in the summer of '42).
 
It is also worth noting that the supply situation was one of the biggest limiters to Soviet counter-attacks in June and early July.  The Luftwaffe had destroyed a lot of supply dumps, and damaged many rail lines, thus destroying what supplies the forward fronts had, and severely limiting their ability to get new supplies.
 
 
 
I seem to have this feeling I've said all this before...
 

[neuromancer]

As a note, and a credit to the Developers, what we are asking for here is a fairly dramatic overhaul of the Supply system - although one that I feel is necessary for this game (IMnsHO).  This would not be an easy implimentation for the devs, would be a bear to debug, and tough to balance.  But it can be done, and I think should be done.
 

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mehring


How would it work if the generation of existing fuel, supplies and ammo were cut back to realistic levels and the player given a way to allocate his resources (in the manner of the TOE %) as he sees fit? 100% then becomes sufficient to defend without penalty, over that gives an attack advantage?

Look at the supply model in OCS. It has been tuned to work.

[RocketMan]

With the number of factors available to tweak in the game, it should be possible to achieve almost any combat outcome desired. Supply, experience, fatigue, disruption, moral, etc. should be able to be modified to give the desired outcome. For instance, instead of having the 1v1 to 2v1 rule, have the German units suffer moral, fatigue and disruption each winter turn and then make retreat chances dependent on those parameters. To control attack tempo, have each attacking unit suffer some penalty that will rapidly deplete it of its combat power unless it receives copious amounts of supplies, and then limit the amount of supplies available.

The underlying game is just a bunch of mathematical equations at their lowest levels. But without knowing what those equations are, it is hard to say exactly how they need to be modified to give the desired outcomes.

[neuromancer]

True enough.
 

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: kvolk

I think to some extent the fuel does this especially with the panzer units by limiting their mobility. Some refiniment of this as it relates to the other two supply items and looking at tighter useage models. Then add in the ability that others are talking about to direct that flow where you want. It would be a whole new sub game to play.

Yeah but directing the flow of supply where you ( the player ) wants it to go is the hard part. The developers might want to have a say in this,.....they know what's possible in the code and what's not possible given the functional framework of the existing game code. Some of these ideas might be easily coded and some of it might just not be possible unless major changes are made. The most dangerous thing you can do to a computer program is change it.

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: kvolk
Yeah but directing the flow of supply where you ( the player ) wants it to go is the hard part.

There are numerous ways to implement this idea. You could just give the players a certain number of HQ units/turn that could be designated as having attack supply or you could actually make the HQs accumulate and use supply for attacks, with full attack values requiring 2 or three times normal supply. You could even implement a simpler solution first to see how it works and then add complexity later.

[Thomas_B]

In response, and reflecting rather unfavourably on the designers/developers, there are 20 year old boardgames out there (MMP's OCS game series has been mentioned before), that manage to portray the real-world shortage of relevant supplies to sustain (large scale) offensive operations rather well.

Why and how this factor escaped the necessary attention during the design and development phase is not really clear to me.

Cheers

Thomas

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Thomas_B

In response, and reflecting rather unfavourably on the designers/developers, there are 20 year old boardgames out there (MMP's OCS game series has been mentioned before), that manage to portray the real-world shortage of relevant supplies to sustain (large scale) offensive operations rather well.

Why and how this factor escaped the necessary attention during the design and development phase is not really clear to me.

Cheers

Thomas

It complicates a game a whole lot.

[Thomas_B]

It can complicate a boardgame, where the player has to be the quartermaster who deploys the logistics network and moves supply tokens around.

Within the context of a computer game it should be comparatively easy to implement though.

Cheers

Thomas