What's wrong with this picture?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: herwin
My Dad could explain a bit of that--he was there. The breakout was counterattacked at Mortain to start with. It was also a surprise to the American planners at Army Group. Supply was handled extemporaneously, mostly by grabbing truck assets from infantry divisions and various logistical units. For better performance, look at the various phases of the campaign for North Africa or Slim's reconquest of Burma.

1st US Army absorbed alone the German counterattack. The Germans never got into sight of Avranches, let alone artillery range. It can be argued that it hardly had any (negative) effect on the initial phase of the breakout, as Third US Army Corps' were running relatively unimpeded in Brittany, and advancing east towards Le Mans and Alençon.

Beter performance in, of all places, Burma? [X(] I've got OCS Burma and read a lot about it, and it isn't precisely what I would call a "lightning campaign". I think I missed the part on the British laying highways and gas stations along the Irawaddy.

And in North Africa... which phase? Rommel's dashes? Which always ended badly when he outrun his supply train. The "lightning" advance of 8th Army, which needed four months to go from El Alamein to Gabes in Tunis? Even worse, the scale of the fighting there is a joke when compared with that of 1944 France campaign or the Eastern Front.

herwin, statements such as "motorized units should move no less than 28 hexes" sound to me like "Let us consider a spherical cow, so X cows fit into W cubic meters"...

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: wosung

However, historically, during movements to contact, pursuit, exploitation, and retrograde operations, infantry with animal transport sustained 15 miles a day, infantry with motor transport sustained 30, and mobile divisions sustained 40. It doesn't matter the unit location displayed, it should displace by that much a day.

"Historically" means "in a very abstract way". This is a meaningless generalization which neglects the specific logistical realities of Barbarossa.

The OCS series seems to be able to cope, but the logistical model is more sophisticated than that in WitE. You have to get the supply to the army dumps somehow, and then throw it to the divisions/brigades/regiments that need it. If the rail network is not available, that means trucking it forward.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: wosung

However, historically, during movements to contact, pursuit, exploitation, and retrograde operations, infantry with animal transport sustained 15 miles a day, infantry with motor transport sustained 30, and mobile divisions sustained 40. It doesn't matter the unit location displayed, it should displace by that much a day.

"Historically" means "in a very abstract way". This is a meaningless generalization which neglects the specific logistical realities of Barbarossa.

The OCS series seems to be able to cope, but the logistical model is more sophisticated than that in WitE. You have to get the supply to the army dumps somehow, and then throw it to the divisions/brigades/regiments that need it. If the rail network is not available, that means trucking it forward.

Thank's for the information, Herwin. Never played OCS series. Learned something.

But: Your main reference is just another game?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: wosung

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: wosung




"Historically" means "in a very abstract way". This is a meaningless generalization which neglects the specific logistical realities of Barbarossa.

The OCS series seems to be able to cope, but the logistical model is more sophisticated than that in WitE. You have to get the supply to the army dumps somehow, and then throw it to the divisions/brigades/regiments that need it. If the rail network is not available, that means trucking it forward.

Thank's for the information, Herwin. Never played OCS series. Learned something.

But: Your main reference is just another game?

The main reference I quoted is van Creveld. There are a lot of other primary references, ranging from staff officer manuals to histories, but most of those I own are in my condo in Virginia. I've read the Soviet and German histories of the campaign, including the logistics aspects. I've also developed logistics management systems professionally. The OCS series is a very nice secondary source that pulls it together and makes it all work in a game context.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: herwin
The OCS series seems to be able to cope, but the logistical model is more sophisticated than that in WitE. You have to get the supply to the army dumps somehow, and then throw it to the divisions/brigades/regiments that need it. If the rail network is not available, that means trucking it forward.

That's a false statement herwin. Check the manual chapter on the supply system (and the in-game supply reports for each of your units). The game does the work one has to do by hand in OCS, though it doesn't allow nearly as much liberty as OCS does w.r.t supply priorization. WitE doesn't either penalize combat abilities of units which are not "prioritized".

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: herwin
The OCS series seems to be able to cope, but the logistical model is more sophisticated than that in WitE. You have to get the supply to the army dumps somehow, and then throw it to the divisions/brigades/regiments that need it. If the rail network is not available, that means trucking it forward.

That's a false statement herwin. Check the manual chapter on the supply system (and the in-game supply reports for each of your units). The game does the work one has to do by hand in OCS, though it doesn't allow nearly as much liberty as OCS does w.r.t supply priorization. WitE doesn't either penalize combat abilities of units which are not "prioritized".

Care to justify your statement with evidence? The models in the two games cover the same areas, but the OCS system is much less abstract. In OCS you actually have to set up and run the supply network and it is critical to garrison your dumps and logistics infrastructure.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
That's a false statement herwin. Check the manual chapter on the supply system (and the in-game supply reports for each of your units). The game does the work one has to do by hand in OCS, though it doesn't allow nearly as much liberty as OCS does w.r.t supply priorization. WitE doesn't either penalize combat abilities of units which are not "prioritized".

Care to justify your statement with evidence? The models in the two games cover the same areas, but the OCS system is much less abstract. In OCS you actually have to set up and run the supply network and it is critical to garrison your dumps and logistics infrastructure.

Excuse me, "evidence"? Don't you have a copy of WitE, herwin?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
That's a false statement herwin. Check the manual chapter on the supply system (and the in-game supply reports for each of your units). The game does the work one has to do by hand in OCS, though it doesn't allow nearly as much liberty as OCS does w.r.t supply priorization. WitE doesn't either penalize combat abilities of units which are not "prioritized".

Care to justify your statement with evidence? The models in the two games cover the same areas, but the OCS system is much less abstract. In OCS you actually have to set up and run the supply network and it is critical to garrison your dumps and logistics infrastructure.

Excuse me, "evidence"? Don't you have a copy of WitE, herwin?

Certainly, and I've read chapter 20 of the manual. I also have copies of all the OCS games, and I've read chapter 12 (etc.) of the OCS manual.

[BletchleyGeek]

Ok, I think I'm wasting my time, if you don't have the game, with each of these general statements you make, you should acknowledge you don't have direct experience of WitE.

I will address separately these unfounded claims you make, in order.

This will be Statement #1

ORIGINAL: herwin
The OCS series seems to be able to cope, but the logistical model is more sophisticated than that in WitE. You have to get the supply to the army dumps somehow, and then throw it to the divisions/brigades/regiments that need it. If the rail network is not available, that means trucking it forward. 

and this Statement #2

ORIGINAL: herwin
Care to justify your statement with evidence? The models in the two games cover the same areas, but the OCS system is much less abstract. In OCS you actually have to set up and run the supply network and it is critical to garrison your dumps and logistics infrastructure. 

Let's speak WitE

ORIGINAL: WiTE manual (ammended), p. 175

"Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics."

All units must have access to an adequate amount of supply to function effectively. There are three types of supply in Gary Grigsby‟s War in the East; general supplies, ammunition and fuel. General supplies, to include ammo and fuel, are generated by each side‟s production system.

In order for units to receive supplies during the supply segment of the logistics phase, they must be within range of the supply grid, the main part which consists of permanent supply sources connected by a rail network of undamaged rail line hexes and including stockpiles of supply
in city and urban hexes. Ports can also be connected to the supply grid, allowing tracing of supply over water. The generic vehicles of the motor pool are used to bridge the gap between the last connected, undamaged rail line hex, called a railhead and considered a supply source,
and the unit requiring supply. Supply is most effectively delivered through the headquarters unit to which the combat units are attached, but can also be delivered directly from the railhead to the combat unit if they cannot trace to their higher headquarters unit. The amount of supply delivered is dependent on many factors, to include the distance from the railhead to the unit, whether the unit moved during the last turn, and vehicle shortages in both the motor pool and the unit. Supply can be stockpiled in supplies and fuel dumps at headquarters units and players can target specific Axis Corps or Soviet Armies for a buildup of supplies. Units can be in one of three supply states; in supply, beachhead supply, and isolated. Isolation can be either due to an inability to trace supply or the distance from the unit to a supply source being too long. Isolated units can only be supplied by air. Town, city and urban hexes that are isolated or lack a nearby supply source will suffer starvation damage to its manpower.

I don't think it's necessary to post the entire chapter here nor, this is as far as “fair use” goes. Well, maybe you will say that's the manual is fake, and WitE engine doesn't simulate what it tries to simulate. Let's see some screenshots from a live game.

First, here you can see the supply report for one of my Rifle Divisions

[center][/center]

You can see that logistics is modeled with much more detail than in OCS, but it's run by the machine, not you. See that supply is broken down into three separate categories which influence, respectively, fatigue recovery, mobility and combat power. Below you can see a detailed report of what has been delivered (from the Army HQ) to this particular unit.

For HQ units, you can get some more info

[center][/center]

26th Army is being supplied from the depots at the nearby city of Novy Oskol. See that since the range is really short, 20 miles (or two hexes), supply delivery is working at full efficiency.

Let's take a look at 28th Army, which is “trapped” in Leningrad between 18. Armee and the Finnish Army

[center][/center]

Here the logistical situation isn't nearly as good. Depots in Leningrad and nearby towns are all depleted by now, and supply only is traced over the Ladoga lake. Note how the supply relay efficiency has been severely degraded.

OCS is a great, if not the greatest, operational hex-and-counter wargame ever. But WitE can model what OCS needs to abstract greatly and simulate stuff that's just beyond the reach of OCS, because, it's a computer program. You seem to have a really weird notion of “abstraction”.

If you have WitE then you have barely played it or read the manual or whatever. If not, well, you could have just said something like, "hey, could anyone explain to me how are logistics modeled in WitE?", rather than making bland generic statements from I don't know precisely what lofty mountain.

[herwin]

OK, I think I see where the confusion is.

Yes, I have WitE.

Ever worked with a real logistics network? Ever try to translate it into a model that includes the important bits and abstracts out the noise? One that makes clear what the important locations in the rear area are? My preference is for a node and edge model. OCS gives me that, and WitE doesn't really.

[mmarquo]

[/quote]

Wrong. The German player can go on the offensive across the entire front, and be topped off in manpower this patch. He will take in the chin in AFVs and planes, but so far as raw manpower goes, not so much.



[/quote]


Is this in part a Hiwi issue??

[Flaviusx]

Nope. Not a hiwi issue. Those guys aren't even in play until 1942, they just accumulate until then.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: herwin

OK, I think I see where the confusion is.

Yes, I have WitE.

Ever worked with a real logistics network? Ever try to translate it into a model that includes the important bits and abstracts out the noise? One that makes clear what the important locations in the rear area are? My preference is for a node and edge model. OCS gives me that, and WitE doesn't really.

I agree with you that WitE user interface could display the network in a much more explicit way. Say, by adding a supply overlay so you could see clearly where and what are the edges and nodes in the supply network at a glance. The node - units, cities - and edge model - railroad network, railhead to unit traces over hexes - is there, but it's just not shown explicitly. You think that the decision to abstract roads is debatable? Yes, it is indeed, but it's not an unreasonable one, and more importantly, its rationale is written in the manual.

What important bits do you see missing in WitE model? Now you'll be saying something concrete. What's that "noise" you think is meaningless? That would be also concrete, and perhaps useful even.

I don't really see the point of your remark trying to supress me claiming your experience with modeling logistic networks. You're just trying to handwave me away. But I refuse to let it go, just like this. I'm very tolerant in general, but I don't tolerate lack of common sense and intellectual honesty. It looks to me you're just trying to escape encirclement with a smoke screen.

I do research on algorithms for planning over representations which can be either as poor - yes, the word is poor - as your graphs where Floyd-Fulkerson is all one needs to get an answer, to much more complex - more expressive, richer - stuff dealing with combinatorial optimization, partial observability and stochastic actions. Your models are for me just an special case, and a very special one indeed, a computationally tractable case that one can hardly pretend to account for quite complex real-world activities carried by people using vehicles who have to negotiate terrain, physical constraints such as distance, time of day and weather, and lest us forget the action of some opposing force.

Sorry herwin, but it seems to me that you lack both imagination and prudence. Not only that, you come to these forums and start making HUGE statements like:

* WitE should allow motorized units to move 28 hexes BIG PERIOD
* Western Allied armies examples, completely separated from their context, generalize over all kind of mobile warfare operation during WW2 BIG PERIOD AGAIN
* When confronted with an example on a map, you try to handwave the question making reference to perhaps the most hopeless and silly offensive operation ever conducted by the German Army BIG PERIOD, YET AGAIN
* OCS supply system own WitE supply system because I've figured out the details of the former but not those of the latter BIG PERIOD ALL THE WAY

I'm just not letting you escape this time just by handwaving, herwin. Now, what are precisely your claims and those things you see inherently wrong? Let us all know.

[Stoat]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

(snip)
I do research on algorithms for planning over representations which can be either as poor - yes, the word is poor - as your graphs where Floyd-Fulkerson is all one needs to get an answer, to much more complex - more expressive, richer - stuff dealing with combinatorial optimization, partial observability and stochastic actions. Your models are for me just an special case... (snip)

Big Floyd himself:
Chip Murphy greets Floyd Fulkerson

[herwin]

Ford-Fulkerson?

Yes, that's the sort of thing I used to play around with. I had to define the requirements on a logistics management system once. It had to incorporate fuel usage, spoilage, maintenance, etc., beyond the simple shuttling of supply through the system. Integrating together all the kinds of 'flows' was interesting. Different edges had different costs and constraints.

Then the army dumps are how the army commanders control their battle--unit reserves are at corps. So the operations of the army dumps have to be modelled correctly and explicitly and be controllable by the player.

The thing I especially like about OCS supply is that you have to lay it out and manage it. And if you opponent gets into your rear area, God help you. Hence the locations of the intermediate nodes (corps headquarters, dumps) are important, and define your garrison locations. Detraining takes place at a station or a 'corps headquarters', so that matters. The road network is also modelled, and you have to decide where to put your truck shuttles and extenders. If you don't keep it simple and organised, it overruns you.

Without that detail, one doesn't understand why the armies operated the way they did. Hence my comments.

[76mm]

Haven't finished reading this thread, but am really confused that someone is accusing Flaviusx of cheating for using one of the most basic parts of the game design...and you're just realizing this now?

As others have pointed out, this rule benefits the Germans as much as anyone, because they can create pockets which consist solely of a band of german-controlled hexes 3-4 hexes wide. And that's realistic?

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Or, we could fix HQ buildups, the Lvov opening, dial back down German morale a bit, and then maybe this kind of strategic retreating wouldn't be necessary.

German operational tempo in this patch is imo quite fast as it is. Too fast. It doesn't need to be any faster.

Could we please not refer to the Lvov opening as any type of 'cheese'. Once again it's ridiculous to make any attempt to force the axis player as to how to use his at start forces. If you want to go down this silly road of making one player do one thing or another, it no longer becomes a game IMO. This is a can of worms and people that are concerned about the Lvov opening better be supporting forced game rule to prevent Soviet units from abandoning front lines across the front in 41. Or else you're just being a hypocrite.

Sorry Flav, but I'm taking out my anger at what I see as a moronic argument by a minority regrading the Lvov opening as something illegal or 'cheesy'. Sure, HQ buildup needs some tweaks because some 'players' lack any sort of honor even when they know they are exploiting some dynamic of a game. Personally I avoid gaming with those sort people. Bill Wheatley and I have an understanding on HQ buildups in our game.

[bwheatley]

I think that some sort of limited reaction rules are needed, to generate "meeting engagements", as janh and myself have been arguing during past week. Which such rules in place, there's no need for "cheesing out" anything: one could put units in the operational depths in "reaction" mode, which would move to intercept enemy units entering a certain radius. That these interceptions occur or not, should necessarily be mediated by suitable morale, experience, leader rating checks and possibly unit type (motorized, cavalry, etc.)

I would love to have some reaction rules in place. It's very frustrating to pop in and your troops all sat around like bone heads for a week.

I don't see the problem though with what this guy is saying is "cheating". I retreat in my games too when i don't have enough units to make a real line. So maybe i'm not understanding the scope of whats up.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

If reserve units could have a reaction radius like WITPAE where they could go to a potential hex instead of just a battle in progress that would make for some rather exciting game situations.

+1

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: Ketza
If reserve units could have a reaction radius like WITPAE where they could go to a potential hex instead of just a battle in progress that would make for some rather exciting game situations.

[:)] Indeed. I was thinking more of spending MP's until getting adjacent. Forcing a hasty attack by the intercepting unit would even spice things more. Plenty of possibilities open up while in the offensive or the defensive for both sides.

Ya and having tweakable settings like Witp:AE. You could have aggressiveness ratings on commanders along with react for X hexes as well as even sat a watch direction to make sure you react SW instead of E or something like that.