Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 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.

There are a whole host of supply issues with TOAW. I haven't said otherwise. But how it treats unsupplied units is not one of them. That's one of its strong points. I hope that if I've accomplished anything that I've cleared that up.

As I've hinted, the "infinite" length supply line issue will be addressed in 3.5. But other issues will still remain - such as lack of component supply and lack of sea supply.

However, it is not correct that supplied units never run out of fuel in TOAW. As Unit Supply drops, Movement Allowance also drops. As I said, that models a drop in "duty cycle". In other words, the unit spends some fraction of the turn sitting on its thumbs for lack of fuel.

This thread went off topic long ago so I will bump up it's original content. I am urging the developers of TOAW to add a few parameters to the strength calculation formula to make it more realistic and flexible. Compatibility with existing scenarios 'd be easily maintained.

9.1 Current Unit Combat strength Calculation (CSC)

Strength = equipment strength x (2 x proficiency + readiness + supply) / 4

which places a large emphasis on a unit 'proficiency' rather than on the availability of fuel and ammos.

Proposal 1: add three variables that allow the designer to change the Combat Strength Calculation:

Strength = equipment strength x (C1 x proficiency + C2 x readiness + C3 x supply) / (C1+C2+C3)

The default values 'd be C1=2,C2=1 and C3=1.

Proposal 2: Limit the ability of a unit to attack if its supply is below a certain threshold,with a value to be set in the scenario parameters (this is similar to the 'overstretched' supply option. Again the default would be '0', with good values in the say 2-10 range.


Spending time and energy on the details of OOBs and equipment capabilities is great, but it is overshadowed by the sheer importance of the strength calculation formula. I find it rather simplistic that it should hold in its present form for all scenarios and time periods, and it'd be great if designers could change it.

FWIW, I support Governato's recommendation. I think Proposal 1 will be easier to implement (code) and less likely to generate huge side effects. Proposal 2 strikes me as needing more research (more likely to break longer, more complex scenarios).

For some designers, this ability to adjust one or both sides' supply-dependence, (and perhaps, even, adjustable by events ???) would greatly help efforts to make scenarios conform more to the conditions and constraints of the historical situation. For other designers, the default setting leaves prof/sup/read as-is.

As to whether or when this recommendation ever gets done...

#2 Makes a lot of sense. Units would act historically and conserve their ammo to defend themselves. Well, unless they were Soviet.

#1 I will always support anything that will allow a scenario designer flexibility in scenario design.

I feel the same as ogar, good luck with any of this.

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.

Its a nice post-rationalization but fact is, as others pointed out, if this happens 1000km from your front line, on the wrong side of the line, you abandoned vehicles still miraculously find their way to the replacement pool.

ORIGINAL: jmlima

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.

Its a nice post-rationalization but fact is, as others pointed out, if this happens 1000km from your front line, on the wrong side of the line, you abandoned vehicles still miraculously find their way to the replacement pool.

The subject was unsupplied units. And they don't go back to the pool.