supply - esp for mech units

[Veers]

I think the best thing would be SPs with a maximum supply 'range', as has been mentioned before, guys.
SP range=10. If you advance more than 10 clicks away from a railroad connected to this SP, you experience being 'out of supply'.
Small scenarios wouldn't even really need it, and, at the same time, you'd have the panzer having to slow down (or stop) for a bit so the supply situation can be rectified.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Of course you can tear up all the code and start over in some other fashion. But what you would ultimately end up with would be pretty much what we have now

No, I won't have to tear up all the code and no, the situation won't end up the same. Guns won't be able to fire forever.

All that needs to be changed is the function for reducing unit readiness and supply after combat, and the formula for calculating the impact of unit quality on unit strength, which would have to be made more complicated.

units that are very resilient & resourceful and can't be reduced to extremely low combat strength without some sort of break in supply communications - because that's how real units function.

Rommel was still "in supply" in TOAW terms- but he was just unable to attack on a number of occasions. The reason real world units rarely completely run out of supply when they're not cut off is because at a certain point they stop attacking because their commanders know the consequence of actually running out of supplies. This concern just doesn't exist in TOAW; you can keep firing indefinitely.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Veers

SP range=10. If you advance more than 10 clicks away from a railroad connected to this SP, you experience being 'out of supply'.

We were working off supply radius. That would be better as it uses a variable already in the game.

Anyway, this is the quick fix. It doesn't provide a complete solution.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Veers
SP range=10. If you advance more than 10 clicks away from a railroad connected to this SP, you experience being 'out of supply'.

Anyway, this is the quick fix. It doesn't provide a complete solution.

True, but if we want a 'fix' in T3 and not have to wait for T4, we need a quick fix that won't require a total re-write for the supply system.

[Monkeys Brain]

Rommel was still "in supply" in TOAW terms- but he was just unable to attack on a number of occasions. The reason real world units rarely completely run out of supply when they're not cut off is because at a certain point they stop attacking because their commanders know the consequence of actually running out of supplies. This concern just doesn't exist in TOAW; you can keep firing indefinitely.

It's strange thing that you don't defend TOAW here as you always do [;)]
It would need rewrite of the code. BTW, as I already said UNIT fights with less effiecency in red, when readiness and supply is low.

That was abstract thing Norm used to say "conserving ammo"... and there is more losses associated with that even evaporation sometimes.

Game is just suited for more dynmamic play not logistoc play of bringing beans and butter, ammo and fuel up to the front. That's why you should capture Bryansk, Kiev, Sevastopol and other places in FiTE more easily with other reasons as well.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


No effect of being unsupplied? What game are you playing?

but you're telling me that 1% supply is NOT "out of supply" - it's minimal supply required for continuous ops, or somethign like that.... which is it??[&:][&:][&:]

[SMK-at-work]

Game is just suited for more dynmamic play not logistoc play of bringing beans and butter, ammo and fuel up to the front.

correct - at an operational level supplies are actually still, cough, rather important, and perhaps a little underdone in TOAW IMO.

That's why you should capture Bryansk, Kiev, Sevastopol and other places in FiTE more easily with other reasons as well.

when I'm playing Buzz those all fall well before their "due dates" (except Sevastopol - we haven't gotten that far with one of his mods yet!)

It's only Minsk that is slow.

[Monkeys Brain]

correct - at an operational level supplies are actually still, cough, rather important, and perhaps a little underdone in TOAW IMO.

I know what you think... Even at Yelna Germans didn't have much ammo and they lost much men defending the salient from Zhukov... (souce Fugante). I see that you also read a lot books on ww2 hehe.

I meant to say that TOAW is crude - if you complicate one thing then there is 10 more to cover.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
when I'm playing Buzz those all fall well before their "due dates" (except Sevastopol - we haven't gotten that far with one of his mods yet!)

Not sure I'll go into the Crimea; I'm going to be facing a rather large frontage around Moscow, so I may just accept the short front at the isthmus.

[Monkeys Brain]

Not sure I'll go into the Crimea; I'm going to be facing a rather large frontage around Moscow, so I may just accept the short front at the isthmus.

The reason why Axis player capture Sevastopol for example before historical date is TOAW dynamics.

The fortress in TOAW are nearly uselless. Manstein did had trouble breaking Perekop defenses and when he did broke first line - Russians attacked his left flank in Ukraine (Rumanians) and he had to divert forces there and with Kleist managed to encircle Soviet forces there (2 armies) which netted 100000 prisoners (Battle of Asov).

Once you are around Sevastopol although defenses are formidable it's easier than historical. Looking forward to that har har.
In RL Soviets had really big defenses there, it was one of the biggest fortress in the world. Manstein even wanted to parachute British commander of Tobruk to Sevastopol to demoralize defenders [:D]


Mario

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

The fortress in TOAW are nearly uselless.

Well, on the one had, fortresses in the real world are of limited utility; normally armies just go around them or subdue them over a long period of time with artillery.

On the other, in TOAW a fortress hex does confer rather large bonuses in itself, as well as making it easier to dig in. In addition, the Sevastopol fortress had a large number of emplaced guns, which would need to be represented by units in TOAW, as well as a substantial garrison which was kept supplied by sea. If the Russian player just expects two units to hold the fort, he's out of luck. The Russians put much more than that into the defence.

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

The fortress in TOAW are nearly uselless.

Well, on the one had, fortresses in the real world are of limited utility; normally armies just go around them or subdue them over a long period of time with artillery.

On the other, in TOAW a fortress hex does confer rather large bonuses in itself, as well as making it easier to dig in. In addition, the Sevastopol fortress had a large number of emplaced guns, which would need to be represented by units in TOAW, as well as a substantial garrison which was kept supplied by sea. If the Russian player just expects two units to hold the fort, he's out of luck. The Russians put much more than that into the defence.

There is actually three forts in FiTE representing Sevastopol fortress all very heavy with guns some range 5, some 4 etc... and 80 heavy squads etc... but movement of only 0 [:'(]

So you need to place defences much further (oops that is a tip for Soviets hehe)

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
No, I won't have to tear up all the code and no, the situation won't end up the same. Guns won't be able to fire forever.

If you want 1% supply to mean "out of suppy" (= 0 MPs & 0 combat strength) you would definitely have to rip out all the code and start over. You would have to count every bean, bullet, and gallon; you would then have to model how those beans, bullets, and gallons were transported and actually used by real units.

And, for the record, (and the millionth time) guns don't fire forever in TOAW, if their supply communications are disrupted.

All that needs to be changed is the function for reducing unit readiness and supply after combat, and the formula for calculating the impact of unit quality on unit strength, which would have to be made more complicated.

If you intend for 1% supply-level units to be at 0 MP & combat strength, then you will have to make it as difficult to reach that state as it is now to get unsupplied units to full decimation of all their equipment. Because that's how resilient real units are. And that's going to be a massive rewrite (and since it will end up just about how it is now, so unnecessary).

Rommel was still "in supply" in TOAW terms- but he was just unable to attack on a number of occasions. The reason real world units rarely completely run out of supply when they're not cut off is because at a certain point they stop attacking because their commanders know the consequence of actually running out of supplies. This concern just doesn't exist in TOAW; you can keep firing indefinitely.

In CFNA players routinely stop to recover supply. Because it really is disasterous to press on with red-lined attackers against green-lined defenders. There is a problem with infinite supply lines - that needs to be addressed.

On the other hand, there are plenty of cases of both attackers and defenders staying in full-scale continuous combat for months at a time. The system is actually very close to correct. Small adjustments are all that are needed for some extreme cases.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
but you're telling me that 1% supply is NOT "out of supply" - it's minimal supply required for continuous ops, or somethign like that.... which is it??[&:][&:][&:]

That's correct. Even an "unsupplied" unit is not yet "out of supply". It still has a significant supply stockpile. But once it is rated unsupplied it will start to lose more and more equipment each turn. When it gets down to no equipment left, that represents the state of being "out of supply". And, indeed, its combat strength would be down to zero.

So the state is possible in TOAW, but only after significant time spent unsupplied. And that's just how resilient real units are, too.

What the supply percentages refer to can't be actual percentages of the unit's supply stockpile. Rather, I think the best way to think of them is as a measure of the rate at which the unit is expending supply.

At 100% the unit is flush with supply and uses it in the most profligate manner. A fire mission might mean 100 shells per gun are expended - but there is a diminishing return for more and more shells, so it is actually only fractionally stronger. At 1% supply, the unit, while still having a significant stockpile, is using it in the least wasteful manner - making every shell, bullet, and gallon count as much as it can. A fire mission might mean only one shell per gun - but that first shell is the most effective, so it retains a significant fraction of its strength at 100%.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...
What the supply percentages refer to can't be actual percentages of the unit's supply stockpile. Rather, I think the best way to think of them is as a measure of the rate at which the unit is expending supply....

Is that a fact or just an assumption?

[SMK-at-work]

The supply % cannot possibly be the rate the unit is expending supply - heck according to that idea a unit that doesn't move expends more than one that dooes move because it's % has increased!!

Certainly units with 100% (or more) supply can use their resources in a more profligate manner than those at 1% - because they HAVE MORE TO USE!!

[Veers]

This is actually getting rather entertaining, please, go on.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain



Once you are around Sevastopol although defenses are formidable it's easier than historical.


Mario

Hey Mario, I can't get my silly brain past this. Historically Sevastopol held for 3 weeks, not really an impressive defense for such a fortress. So it does appear to me that it fell rather easily (apologies to those that lost lives, especially the civilians). Maybe I'm missing the point. Slap me with a fish??

[Monkeys Brain]

[/quote]
Hey Mario, I can't get my silly brain past this. Historically Sevastopol held for 3 weeks, not really an impressive defense for such a fortress. So it does appear to me that it fell rather easily (apologies to those that lost lives, especially the civilians). Maybe I'm missing the point. Slap me with a fish??
[/quote]

Well, I have a book by Manstein but vaguely from memory - he attacked it first in 1941. and almost captured it then but then bad weather and Russian landings at Feodosia and Kerch have interferred so he had to transfer some units there. So in winter there were some back and forth battles and he had to stabilise situation near Kerch. In the meantime during winter he received some reinforcements including excellent 22nd armored division (I think that 22nd luftlande division was converted to armored) and in January recaptured Feodosia. In may he launched a famous trapenjagd operation on Kerch where he capture 180000 Soviet soldiers etc... then he had a free hands to capture Sevastopol.
In the meantime Soviet have reinforced Sevastopol of course.

So maybe you are right, maybe Sevastopol fell rather easily and Soviet historyography always puts in the first plan that it endured siege so long and now we know that without Kerch distraction it would fell much before. Those big guns that were brought in 1942 were useful but not decisive.
Of course we alsmo must have in mind German tactics of concentration of air force for important places, like Kerch or Sevastopol etc... which also contributed to the swift operation and of course Germans were in a hurry because of Operation Blau.

I am just implying that due to TOAW dynamics you would capture Sevastopol much earlier than historically even if all historical premises were there... due to scale, use of supply drain attacks etc... [;)]

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

Hey Mario, I can't get my silly brain past this. Historically Sevastopol held for 3 weeks, not really an impressive defense for such a fortress. So it does appear to me that it fell rather easily (apologies to those that lost lives, especially the civilians). Maybe I'm missing the point. Slap me with a fish??

I am just implying that due to TOAW dynamics you would capture Sevastopol much earlier than historically even if all historical premises were there... due to scale, use of supply drain attacks etc... [;)]

You're not implying that people actualyl use these, are you?