Page 2 of 3
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:58 am
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Lobster
Really? Have you tested this? If 100 tanks are out of supply and they reach the end of their single fill range will there have been enough tanks drop by the wayside to keep them moving as far as their movement allowance will allow turn after turn until all of the tanks have expired due to being out of supply? Their range is not infinite.
Clearly, if you abandon vehicles, the unit's remaining fuel goes further because it is parceled out to fewer remaining vehicles. And this could be continued for quite a while. Eventually, the unit withers away - nothing infinite about it. Whether it works out mathematically depends on a host of assumptions. Remember that the unit's operational range is far different from the vehicle's tactical range, and the unit carries some fuel stocks separate from the vehicles themselves.
Additionally, line of communications stretches the imagination. If I have a unit behind enemy lines it's always in supply if there is a line of communications of any length. And as long as it has a line of communications and is considered in supply of some sort then any equipment lost during transit somehow very quickly makes it's way back to the replacement pool, even if it's hundreds of kilometers. Won't that unit, with a line of communications of any length, also be eligible to receive replacements, no matter how far they have to go? There needs to be some realistic limits set. That's all anyone is saying. Ralph has improved the supply side of the game immensely. But it still has a way to go to eliminate the stretches of imagination necessary.
That is a completely and totally different issue. If only I could discuss 3.5 changes. [;)]
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 6:39 am
by SMK-at-work
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
AS per #9 - "regular" units rather than guerrillas. And in larger scale games these can represent quite large groupings. Certainly they can be overwhelmed fairly easily.....but they are still a bit dodgy IMO.
How so? Suppose you have 100 tanks. Each has its gas tank half full. You abandon 50 of them and siphon their gas into the 50 you're keeping. Now you have 50 tanks with full gas tanks. That's more or less what TOAW is effecting for unsupplied units. Abandoning equipment lets what's left keep going - as they wither away.
Yes but equipment does not get abandoned in the game unless there is combat - so in the game you do not lose 50% of your tanks when supply gets down to "X" in order to keep the others going. You tan take your 100 tanks, swan around at 1% supply forever, and if you ever get back into supply you will still have the same 100 tanks.
If you did lose 50% at some predefined interval (and at every such interval) then that would probably be fine.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:50 am
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
AS per #9 - "regular" units rather than guerrillas. And in larger scale games these can represent quite large groupings. Certainly they can be overwhelmed fairly easily.....but they are still a bit dodgy IMO.
How so? Suppose you have 100 tanks. Each has its gas tank half full. You abandon 50 of them and siphon their gas into the 50 you're keeping. Now you have 50 tanks with full gas tanks. That's more or less what TOAW is effecting for unsupplied units. Abandoning equipment lets what's left keep going - as they wither away.
Yes but equipment does not get abandoned in the game unless there is combat - so in the game you do not lose 50% of your tanks when supply gets down to "X" in order to keep the others going. You tan take your 100 tanks, swan around at 1% supply forever, and if you ever get back into supply you will still have the same 100 tanks.
If you did lose 50% at some predefined interval (and at every such interval) then that would probably be fine.
?? Unsupplied units lose equipment in the inter-turn calculations phase. They wither away before your eyes - combat or no combat. See section 9.1.7, paragraph six of the manual.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:25 pm
by SMK-at-work
Thanks - I'll check that - I haven't noticed it before.
Edit: I see that unis suffer "Desertion effects" that do cost squads and equipment - without checking examples this doesn't sound quite like the same thing as a mass loss of equipment due to abandonment.
Unsupplied units with very low Supply and Readiness Levels are subject to Desertion effects.
Deserting troops and equipment are lost permanently and are not placed in the Replacement
Pool. The number of deserters increases as Supply and Readiness levels decrease, and decreases
with higher unit Proficiencies. Desertions tend to start slowly (particularly in high Proficiency
units) but will accelerate over time.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:45 pm
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Thanks - I'll check that - I haven't noticed it before.
Edit: I see that unis suffer "Desertion effects" that do cost squads and equipment - without checking examples this doesn't sound quite like the same thing as a mass loss of equipment due to abandonment.
Unsupplied units with very low Supply and Readiness Levels are subject to Desertion effects.
Deserting troops and equipment are lost permanently and are not placed in the Replacement
Pool. The number of deserters increases as Supply and Readiness levels decrease, and decreases
with higher unit Proficiencies. Desertions tend to start slowly (particularly in high Proficiency
units) but will accelerate over time.
And the difference is???
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:46 pm
by governato
(this is probably for Bob...)
Are there any plans to model units breakdowns in future versions of TOAW? I know that currently units lose squads as they move,
but they are never really lost forever as they go back into the replacements pool. Even 'pestilence' events kill people, but ...tanks never seem to rust. If I remember soviet tanks were meant to last less than 1000 miles, if an 88mm shell 'd not get them first, that is.
Equipment wear and tear was a (if not 'the' ) major cause of equipment losses, having it modeled more carefully in TOAW'd be a great step forward.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:51 am
by SMK-at-work
Rate seems to be an obvious one - once you have no POL you either stay still or you IMMEDIATELY abandon ALL your equipment that requires POL to operate - there's no grey area, you don't have a rate of loss each turn that starts low and increases.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:14 am
by r6kunz
Equipment wear and tear was a (if not 'the' ) major cause of equipment losses, having it modeled more carefully in TOAW'd be a great step forward.
I concur.
In
Ardennes 1944 and
The Road to Moscow Series, both of which have available fairly accurate historic data on tank losses, I used essentially zero replacement AFVs. This gives a reasonably historic number of AFVs remaining at the end of the day. Of course, using an attrition value in the game would achieve the same result...
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:45 am
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Rate seems to be an obvious one - once you have no POL you either stay still or you IMMEDIATELY abandon ALL your equipment that requires POL to operate - there's no grey area, you don't have a rate of loss each turn that starts low and increases.
...
IF the Unit Supply value was a linear measure of the unit's supply stockpile. But it isn't.
(See: I told you it doesn't stick - even for the length of a single thread.)
The issue is, in the real world, can a unit behind enemy lines continue movement by abandoning vehicles and consolidating fuel stocks? The answer, of course, is that it can. TOAW models that in a fashion via its desertion rules.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:22 am
by SMK-at-work
Yes it stuck - but I do not think the desertion rules come close to modelling what should be happening nor that "supply usage" is the issue.
I guess we just disagree.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:02 pm
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
Yes it stuck...
Yet you still seem to be under the delusion that a Unit Supply value of 1% means the unit has no supply left! It can't mean that.
... - but I do not think the desertion rules come close to modelling what should be happening...
I can only hope that you now understand those rules. You clearly were clueless back on post #22. That wasn't too long ago. A very debilitating condition to be under, TOAW-wise, I might add.
Let's take an example, for illustration: An unsupplied 70 prof unit at 1% supply will lose 29% of its equipment per turn - a very good reason for your units to maintain lines-of-communications. Units will quickly melt away if left out of communications. Of course it's an abstraction, but a very good abstraction.
...nor that "supply usage" is the issue.
Then I'm stumped. What could the issue be, then?
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:22 pm
by governato
Curtis,
I do not think that suggesting that a forum member is 'clueless'
makes for a constructive discussion.
A lot of people playing TOAW think that the current way
Supply is described is not that clear or intuitive. It would be useful to acknowledge that,
together with the fact that forum members can disagree with each other without being called clueless!
We are all here trying to have fun, understand things and improve the game.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:37 pm
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: governato
Curtis,
I do not think that suggesting that a forum member is 'clueless'
makes for a constructive discussion.
A lot of people playing TOAW think that the current way
Supply is described is not that clear or intuitive. It would be useful to acknowledge that,
together with the fact that forum members can disagree with each other without being called clueless!
We are all here trying to have fun, understand things and improve the game.
How would you describe post #22, then?
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:12 am
by SMK-at-work
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
How would you describe post #22, then?
Plain, and in light of my previous posts patently obvious.
I'm sorry you don't understand plain English. My apologies for failing to get my message across.
Yours is loud and clear and unpleasant.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:23 am
by SMK-at-work
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
...nor that "supply usage" is the issue.
Then I'm stumped. What could the issue be, then?
The issue is actual absolute supply - when you have ZERO fuel you cannot actually move a vehicles that requires fuel!!
Zeno's paradox is not real - you cannot keep using smaller percentages of no supply to avoid having no supply.
TOAW's supply system does not seem to cover that - and IMO it should.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 10:15 am
by Lobster
From: Department of the Army Pamphlet No.20-261A Historical Study, The German Campaign in Russia -- Planning and Operations (1940 - 1942) Page 155
Gasoline
The First Panzer Army's shortage of gasoline was so great that all motorized elements of the XLIV Infantry Corps were immobilized and the infantry units were unable to move because of the breakdown of the supply system.
By 25 July the gasoline situation had grown more critical than ever. When General Halder inquired at Army Group A headquarters why gasoline supplies were so unsatisfactory, he was told that the shortage was caused by bad weather, the long distances covered during the offensive, and the priority given to the Sixth Army for its assault on Stalingrad. Airlifted supplies had temporarily alleviated shortages, but the bulk of the essential POL requirements could not be moved by this mode of transportation. Since the available truck transportation had proved insufficient, an improvement could be expected only after the Stalino-Shakhty railroad had been repaired. Both panzer armies were temporarily immobilized by lack of gasoline.
It would be possible to come up with many more examples but it would be beating a dead horse.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 10:39 am
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
How would you describe post #22, then?
Plain, and in light of my previous posts patently obvious.
I'm sorry you don't understand plain English. My apologies for failing to get my message across.
Yours is loud and clear and unpleasant.
Look, I wasn't saying that you were clueless about every aspect of TOAW, but just that specific point about desertions. And I was right. You were clearly unaware that unsupplied units lose equipment to desertions. What was wrong with pointing that out? Would you rather have remained ignorant of that facet of TOAW?
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 10:46 am
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
The issue is actual absolute supply - when you have ZERO fuel you cannot actually move a vehicles that requires fuel!!
Zeno's paradox is not real - you cannot keep using smaller percentages of no supply to avoid having no supply.
TOAW's supply system does not seem to cover that - and IMO it should.
For sure the Unit Supply value in TOAW is
not absolute supply. And as long as you continue to assume that it is, you will continue to misunderstand its supply model.
Can individual vehicles run out of fuel and stop moving in TOAW? Of course - via two methods: Either by reduced MPs (modeling less than 100% duty cycles), or by equipment losses to unsupplied units. In each case, there is a movement stoppage, either temporary or permanent.
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 10:59 am
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Lobster
From: Department of the Army Pamphlet No.20-261A Historical Study, The German Campaign in Russia -- Planning and Operations (1940 - 1942) Page 155
Gasoline
The First Panzer Army's shortage of gasoline was so great that all motorized elements of the XLIV Infantry Corps were immobilized and the infantry units were unable to move because of the breakdown of the supply system.
By 25 July the gasoline situation had grown more critical than ever. When General Halder inquired at Army Group A headquarters why gasoline supplies were so unsatisfactory, he was told that the shortage was caused by bad weather, the long distances covered during the offensive, and the priority given to the Sixth Army for its assault on Stalingrad. Airlifted supplies had temporarily alleviated shortages, but the bulk of the essential POL requirements could not be moved by this mode of transportation. Since the available truck transportation had proved insufficient, an improvement could be expected only after the Stalino-Shakhty railroad had been repaired. Both panzer armies were temporarily immobilized by lack of gasoline.
It would be possible to come up with many more examples but it would be beating a dead horse.
Those units would have had lines-of-communications, albeit overextended ones. To some extent this would be handled via reduced MPs, but I'll just repeat what I said to you in post #21:
That is a completely and totally different issue. If only I could discuss 3.5 changes. [;)]
RE: Suggested change to the Combat Strength Calculation
Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 11:34 am
by Lobster
As long as a unit has a line of communications, whether it's one hex or one thousand hexes, the unit is considered supplied and never runs out of fuel. That is the problem. Unfortunately, after thinking about this a bit more, the only way around that as I can see would be explicit supply. That could be an entire game by itself. Call it Logistics Tycoon. Hopefully your mention of a new way of looking at lines of communication means that aspect of the game will be more reasonable.