SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT

[Phoenix100]

It needs, at the very least, an 'off' button - so they stop trying to make the bleedin' runs, so you can plan your tactics around that. Columns do get through at night, for example. The problem is no commander would keep sending those jeeps into the killzones by day, repeatedly. We need to be able to stop that, and ticking 'min' supply does not do that. Then, once all the jeeps are gone, it's absurd that other bases have plenty of jeeps (especially true once XXX Corps get through) and they can't be used by the depleted bases. So you actually have to order the destruction of your now useless base units in order to get the supply chain to switch.

It's tempting to always blame the commander (especially if you have a life-time of real life experience doing this, Jim - [;)]) but it's not always down to the user - sometimes the modelling might benefit from a little tweaking, and this is a case of that, I think.

No one else will presently be able to play this scenario, Daz, as only you and I have it. But you get the same issues playing the original - From the Meuse to the Rhine.

The best I can do as a workaround, Daz, is (i)to designate all the airborne SEPs as ground/highway/wheeled and keep the bases as close as possible to the flot. That way if interdiction happens between the SEP and the base then no jeeps are lost (ground SEPs use their own virtual jeeps to supply the bases, I believe). (ii) up the supply figures and the 'summary/% of estab' figures for all the airborne bases - I put in 200% for all these. That more or less triples the amount of jeeps each base starts off with.

Then you just have to develop tactics to deal with the supply not getting through. The attrit still happens, because most of it just comes - as Jim says (and as all my experiments showed) - from the mass of enemy confronting the flot. But at least the extra jeeps mitigates it a bit.

I have made these small changes to the original FTMTTR scenario and I'm playing that through now, to see how it goes.

It needs a fix though, I think, and the 'no supply' button would be my absolute choice for that, if one had to be chosen.

[Phoenix100]

I think the fast expenditure of ammo was fixed some patches back, Wodin. Haven't noticed that problem myself, though it's true my spotlight hasn't been on it.

I'm not sure they do last 'days' without ammo and 'cut-off' Daz. It seemed to be about 6 hours last time I remarked on it. Those Axis units I surrounded nth of the Nijmegan bridge lasted only about 6 hours before the surrenders started coming thick and fast, provided you kept them more or less constantly engaged.

A slower rate of fire wouldn't address the issues we're raising though, just delay them.

[dazkaz15]

The rate of fire problem was sorted a while back when Dave noticed he had put in a temporary bit of code that he forgot to take out. All is fine with that now. This is a different issue that affects long scenarios especially, and Paratroops in particular because of their small quantity of supply vehicles.

Jim
I Have not shown yet some of the situations where the supply trucks defiantly should not have. been destroyed.
My intension was to list them all as they happened, however, I really got into the challenge of the game and wanted to finnish the game before I went on holiday to France and,it was slowing my progress.
Unfortunately I failed, as I am typing this on my mobile from the Airport hotel. We fly out tomorrow.

[Phoenix100]

Have a great break, Daz. Where in France?

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

The rate of fire problem was sorted a while back when Dave noticed he had put in a temporary bit of code that he forgot to take out. All is fine with that now. This is a different issue that affects long scenarios especially, and Paratroops in particular because of their small quantity of supply vehicles.

Jim
I Have not shown yet some of the situations where the supply trucks defiantly should not have. been destroyed.
My intension was to list them all as they happened, however, I really got into the challenge of the game and wanted to finnish the game before I went on holiday to France and,it was slowing my progress.
Unfortunately I failed, as I am typing this on my mobile from the Airport hotel. We fly out tomorrow.

Have a good trip.

The rate of fire is only one component of the overall calculation for losing a vehicle.

My example is that the fire, even if mediated by Dave's fix to reduce individual unit fire, is more at the target the more enemy units capable of providing fire involved.

Basically the probability of losing vehicles increases with the frequency the vehicles are used, and the longer the duration they're in use at that frequency, whether it's from "real life" mechanical wear (which can be modeled by the reliability calculation in the Estab if evaluated by the engine), or for facing a probability of kill by fire for each round fired at the target.

It's a basic logistics calculation to determine the optimum number of vehicles which should be assigned to a unit for its missions. It gets constrained by how the units reach the site of the mission (air deployable units having fewer vehicle assets that can be transported by air because of size, and weight limitations for the transporting vehicles [aircraft and gliders], and the number of transporting vehicles assigned to the mission for deployment of troops, support equipment, and supplies.

[wodin]

OK thanks for the info..it shows I haven't played for ages. Waiting for the EF game.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Have a great break, Daz. Where in France?

Near Narbonne on the Med coast.
Sun & sea for a week.

Some interesting points Jim but there are still issues that I will go into more when I get back. One of the biggest being to lack of supply transport resupply once a linkup has been made with XXX Corps for both 82nd Airborne and 1st Airborne Div.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: wodin

OK thanks for the info..it shows I haven't played for ages. Waiting for the EF game.

Jason,

I spent 27 years working US Army logistics better than 2/3-rds of the time for integrating new ground vehicle systems or significant modifications to existing systems into existing units.

Those units fought to various combat doctrines ranging from late World War II to "future combat" where new technologies were used to reduce World War II logistics constraints.

The game mimics many of the aspects of simulations that were used to plan logistics integration of those new systems into existing units. Those simulations were validated when "new" systems were eventually sent to test events or later deployed to actual battle (feedback from which was used to improve the simulation and test evaluations).

I choose to argue against changing the game mechanics when the requested changes ignore the logistics implications that were only analogies in the simulation parameters or violate feedback from battle diaries used to develop those simulations.

The "Bridge Too Far" story is the extreme of the Airland Battle doctrine favored in the late 20th century.

It borrowed against experiences in Vietnam (which preceded my service to the US Army) based on helicopter transport being available (essentially the same glider-delivered combat support during World War II without a constrain on the number of gliders used).

Command Ops is an excellent workbench to learn the mechanics of managing battle space and the adverse effects of encountering enemy resistance in that battle space.

[Phoenix100]

So it doesn't seem to make any difference siting the base close to the flot.



They are all out of ammo and I've had many 100% interdict messages. The jeep attrition isn't an issue because I have given them about three times the normal number of jeeps. But the front line units can't get bullets. I say again that I think this is wrong, that these units, on the edge of a built-up urban area, ought to be able to get a minimum supply through from the rear, even if it takes some heroics to achieve that!!!. If they were all sitting out in an exposed field I might accept it quicker.

[dazkaz15]

I agree with you mate.

Not because of this screen shot though, as I can see the depot is under fire, from the orange light in the corner.

From many of my own experiences playing this scenario though, something definitely needs to be done about preserving the supply transports.

If the units go out of supply, on the front line they can always be pulled back, but once the transports are destroyed, the situation becomes un-recoverable, and extremely un realistic.

In my game I have whole regiments of American and British Airborne, with XXX Corps all around them, yet I cant even move them, because they have ran out of basics. Due to no supply vehicles left their fatigue never drops low enough to allow it.

All this is taking place within 500m of the depot full of supplies.

Now tell me that's realistic?

[Phoenix100]

I hadn't noticed the orange light, of course....But I'm thinking Stalingrad city fighting. It went on for months. And whilst the base is 'under fire' I definitely didn't see any 'indirect fire' flashes, so I assume it's being sniped from across the bridge. But how? It's in a city environment.



That's the environment. It's silly to suggest some supply couldn't sneak through. Maybe it's the cover and concealment properties of city map terrain that need changing?

[dazkaz15]

Just been taking another look at your screen shot Phoenix. This is a very bad example of it not working you know?

Look at the size of the footprint of your depot. The supply base encompasses about 5 of the Coy's around it, and is actually overlapping the SS units advancing from the North.
Not a very good situation to be dishing out supplies in!
I guess you could say that the surrounding Coy's should be able to pick up crates of the stuff that has been thrown, or blown about in all the fighting though lol

On the ground they would actually be taking cover behind piles of stacked supplies, as they are fighting within the bounds of the depot itself.

[Phoenix100]

Or from where that SS unit is -



It should all be close fighting in a city environment. The abstraction required to factor in a few views up straight streets etc to determine LOS leeds I think to a really unrealistic LOS in city environments.

[Phoenix100]

And whilst I'm on, the size of the depot footprints is bizarre. Sometimes - for the Corps bases, for example, I get a square that covers ALL of Nijmegan!! The footprint for this unit with it's 36 jeeps is silly, I think, if that's what we're using to determine anything.

I just don't see how supply wouldn't get through. It's a dense city environment, the base is close. they wouldn't be running the supplies in jeeps - they'd be sneaking through houses carrying the stuff, in order to keep going. It needs changing, and I don't think there's much fun in playing these airborne scenarios until it is.

But if the footprint really is to overlap the units that need supply then it's even more bizarre that they can't get that supply - presumably the supply is just sitting there, right beside them....

[dazkaz15]

I think it would work better if you place it in the area of the roundabout.

[dazkaz15]

I'm guessing that when you increased the quantity of vehicles in the depot, you also increased the amount of manpower to load the supplies, to fix the additional vehicles, to feed them, to man them, and rotate the drivers.

I think the depot footprint is always a bit larger not only because of the large number of personnel, and supplies, but also to simulate the distribution of the supplies, and vehicles waiting for delivery, so as to be a bit dispersed. To make it not quite so vulnerable to air, and artillery bombardment, as I'm sure it would be for real.

[dazkaz15]

Thought I would post this as a bit of light relief.
This is a pic of a driver that knew when to turn back [;)]
Note the bullet holes in the front wing!

http://www.pegasusarchive.org/arnhem/Ph ... _Jeep2.htm

[Phoenix100]

Nice cuppa..ahh....

Lol. I could be wrong, of course - I've never been a soldier. Maybe it's realistic that those Nijmegan paras in my pic would get no supply under those circs. Who knows...

[dazkaz15]

I think unless they where pinned down, there would be plenty of ammo lying around, for them to pick up, fighting inside the depots boundaries.

It's not a very good situation to be in mind, with the enemy inside your supply dump!
Although the guys fighting to defend it will have ammo lying around, the rest of the Regiment will have to go without.
Also if your depot is forced to retreat, you will lose a lot of the stored supply, not to mention the equipment and men that are lost in the fight.

The game can't account for every real life scenario, as I'm sure you are aware, especially for a five year old engine.
But like you I think something needs to be done about the supply situation, and I still think the best (easiest) way to go about it is to give the drivers some better situational awareness by reducing the losses to the vehicles, and just accepting that the supply couldn't get though as the route was too dangerous to attempt.

I don't know how you could handle, giving out supply by hand to nearby troops, with the current engine, or being able to stop supply runs until X hour, or change the route?
I think that kind of stuff will have to wait for Command Ops 2, but that's just a guess, and I know very little about the engine, and don't want to put words into Dave's mouth.
Its his baby.

[Deathtreader]

Hi all,

Regarding depot footprint......... try drastically reducing the size of the footprint by manually assigning a defend order to the base......... i think you'll find the results vary considerably from what you are seeing now.


Rob.