SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT

[dazkaz15]

The forum seems to have been rolled back, and a load of the posts have been lost, so I'm going to re-post this:

This is from a save, to show what I did in my game, that I am getting close to finishing, to get XXX Corps over the Waal as quickly as possible.

It was a classic Command Ops moment of, do I, or don't I taken at Corps Commanders level by me.

I had a Coy already over the bridge tentatively holding on to a small bridgehead, where I could see, before it got dark, a large enemy force including armour massing to the North, East, and West.
I had to decide on the spot (well to be honest I slept on it over night lol) whether to pull back the Bn or to reinforce it.

If I pulled it back, I might not get to Arnhem in time to save the Brit Paras, by the time XXX Corps have managed to get over the bridge.
If I reinforced it, I knew that I would be sending the reinforcements into a whole world of pain, and death.
Also it would leave the South flank of the City short of a whole Regiment for its defence.

With a pained look I turned to my signaller and said, " Contact Colonel Ekman of the 505, tell him to proceed as planned, and.....good luck over there"

This is Command Ops at its best!
Well apart from the supply issue that is [;)]

[Phoenix100]

Very brave! It's looking good though. Only day 2, so plenty of time (except for those jeeps.....) Is this still the 'testbed' scenario I sent you? If so, how are they doing up in Arnhem? Supply gone yet?

[Phoenix100]

I'm playing another variation now, with interesting results. I should call it - 'XXX Corps are persuaded to get up at dawn....' It's the original historical From the Meuse to the Rhine scenario, with all the original drops (spread over 3 days etc), original drop locations miles away from the objectives, original re-supply DZs miles away (original SEP locations), nothing changed there. All I've changed to force arrival times is the XXX Corps ETA. Some elements now get to the map 12 hours earlier. To mitigate the supply problems I've changed all air SEPs to ground SEPs and given them the max supply of jeeps (about three times the number in the stock scenario). Plus I've greatly increased overall supply. And added a few more air strikes. And beefed up the stats for 1 and 2 para. These, I think, do not represent very dramatic changes compared to things like landing everyone on day 1, setting up CDM drops, moving re-supply SEPs etc. So this one, I think, is relatively realistic. It assumes that XXX Corps were infused with a sense of urgency they appear to have lacked historically, and fought through the preceding night, instead of bedding down.

I'm surprised to be doing ok at it. One interesting (and obvious, though overlooked by me) point is that if you leave in all the various little objectives that were in the original FTMTTR, then the Axis effort against the bridgeheads is, of course, greatly diluted. So having the DZs far away and many smaller strung out battles to try to keep them and keep the supply chain, also stretches the Axis. In my converted scenarios - where I got rid of all the less important objectives and gave both sides VLs concentrating just on the main bridges, the weight of the Axis attack on the bridges was much worse.

This (below) is where I'm at in Nijmegan:

[Phoenix100]

And Arnhem;

[Phoenix100]

Without the extra jeeps in the bases, by the way, one of the Brit bases would already have been out of jeeps...

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Very brave! It's looking good though. Only day 2, so plenty of time (except for those jeeps.....) Is this still the 'testbed' scenario I sent you? If so, how are they doing up in Arnhem? Supply gone yet?

Yes it is your Original version that you sent me. I'm still playing the same game. These are from saves, I am currently on day 7. The Jeeps have been a huge problem but by moving quick between the bridges I think I may have pulled of a victory.

As you can see I have only just moved into the bridgehead on my old save, so no supply issues yet. There will be very soon though.

I would like to know how close the supply vehicles have to get to the units, before man handling takes over, like Dave has mentioned before it does?

If I had more control over the supply, like any good commander should, I would specify that the trucks only venture across the bridge at night to bring supplies from the SEP to the Bases.
They would go out on mass accompanied by an artillery barrage along the banks of the river if held by the enemy, to mask any noise, and to suppress any that dare take a shot, if they were to use Illume rounds to light the bridge.
It would also be accompanied by suppressing fire from the units on the South bank dug into the factory there.
I also keep an Armoured Bn on that bend for just this reason once the Guards arrive.
I would even co-ordinate it with a counter attack along the North bank, such is the importance of maintaining the supplies.

Oh well.....one day, maybe [;)]

[dazkaz15]

This is going to be the last post I make on the supply Jeep issue.
Dave has already said he is going to look into the problem in one of his posts, and has even mentioned the adjustment's he might make, so I'm going to get on with enjoying the challenge of beating the scenario, even with the supply problem [;)]

[Phoenix100]

Good post, Daz, if that's your last one on the jeeps. Highlights a separate issue in the problem, I think - the naff avoidance route.

[wodin]

Have you checked that when it says 12 in the ES it doesn't mean 12 including those out on deliveries? 4 jeeps lost in 43 mins on four deliveries seems low..1 jeep to each coy...as it seems 5 have been sent out on two deliveries at the moment. If it was only 12 left that would mean 9 jeeps destroyed on 4 deliveries which seems right if lost 100%.

[dazkaz15]

I think the deliveries to Mortar platoons requires more Jeeps because of the heavier ammo.
Also runs to the SEP require more Jeeps.
1 Jeep per PIR Coy has been about the average.

The Jeeps where actually destroyed within 12 min of each other, it was 43 min since they where sent out when the base deployed after its move.
By morning all the Jeeps had been destroyed for this depot.
It was a good move sending the base over the river though, because the ammo it fires never runs out, so it was the strongest unit in the bridgehead for the following day.

[dazkaz15]

I know I wasn't going to do another post on this but I have just had an unexpected result in a test I was doing that was not to do with the supply problem, so here it is.
Dave has mentioned several times now that supplies are delivered to the rear of the units then man handled the rest of the way.
I would love to know what this distance is because the area of visibility for the enemy in this test was very low indeed, not to mention the fact that it was heavily suppressed.

[dazkaz15]

Have sent the save from before the jeeps were destroyed its called
JeepLOL-D1-2302

[Phoenix100]

Is it a surrender pic, Daz? So we know for sure there's no enemy hanging around the route?

Goes to my point about it not just being the crap jeep drivers at issue. I personally think - and I did a long post on this already, I realise - that it shouldn't be happening very much (or at all) that units that are NOT surrounded, with a clear supply route in, but are engaged, end up being cut off and suffering 100% interdiction. By which I mean the supply should get through. It's absurd to think of those hard-pressed Axis troops - in your example above - managing to get their heads above the parapet just to target the jeeps which are beyond their encircling enemy.

But, as I've also remarked, this effect also seems very capricious - it doesn't always happen like this, and it's hard to predict when it will happen. I think it shouldn't happen at all, for starters, when the units needing supply are fighting in a city and not surrounded. Supply would get through, through the buildings and back streets, somehow. So, in the Nijmegan sector it happens continually that the front line troops fighting at the bridge (usually the 508th, when I play it)are 100% interdicted of supplies, when there are only enemy in front of them, when there are an abundance of safe avoidance routes from base to them and when they are in terrain (city) that is excellent for cover and concealment. And when they're providing return fire too.

And I'm noticing it isn't just a problem on airborne scenarios. It happens in all scenarios - it's just that in the shorter ones it isn't so crucial.

[dazkaz15]

Yes its a surrender pic mate.

I would also like to add that the inability to turn of supply, and the bad supply route finding, makes it very hard to conduct deep penetrations, and sweeping encirclements, without destroying your supply vehicle assets, which means that for longer scenarios, where this can be a problem, you are faced with a broad front approach to your tactics, thus severely limiting a more creative approach [;)]

[simovitch]

I'm starting to take a look into this. I'm playing RDOA and experimenting with utilizing the "minimum" supply request tabs for most if not all Para units, especially those that are 'out on a limb'. Also setting MIN ROF for units that are in danger of becoming isolated.

I'm on D2 in the afternoon and although I get some 100% interdictions, the capacity for the bases to deliver supply is still robust. Do you guys micromanage the ROF and request toggles? have you seen an improvement if/when you do?

Perhaps another fix would be adding a 'none' toggle to the supply request tabs. That way isolated units would not call for the suicide supply runs.

[Phoenix100]

Have tried that, Simovitch, yes. It does affect things. For some reason I have the feeling that you will see more of what we are talking about if you play your big scenario - From the Meuse to the Rhine. I don't have the feeling of desperation I get with all the supply interdicted 100% messages when I play RDOA. If you get the 82nd up to the Nijmegan Bridges then you will start to see units 'irrationally' cut-off, no matter what your settings, by early hours day 2 usually. then it just gets worse. A no supply button would be great. But it would only address half the issue - because though you would keep your jeeps, supply would still not get through to key units. The second half of the issue is where the interdiction comes from. And mostly - and see all the posts about this from various people - it seems to hit front line units not over a weak extended supply chain but from simply being engaged. We have posted examples where - checking via surrenders - the supply chain is clear, but still front line units cannot get supply, even in built up areas, either because the 'avoidance route' used (we assume) is very poor and avoids really obvious small diversions that would take the chain out of los near the front, or because the weight of enemy opposing the flot seems in itself to be enough to 100% interdict. And that's when we are losing all the jeeps, and not getting supply. There have even been examples of almost surrounded single enemy units interdicting supply to firing/suppressing opposing troops!! And if you're talking about built up urban areas (usually) then that seems particularly wrong - because (i) in RL, it seems, the supply attempts over hopeless routes would not just continue, and (ii) in RL we suggest, the routes through urban cover wouldn't be so hopeless, and it would have been possible to infiltrate (by foot, if necessary)supplies through such great cover and concealment. The paras in RL in the Oosterbeek pocket had to give up because no supply was dropped on them (very little, anyway), because it was all being dropped elsewhere. What supply was dropped they could, by hook or by crook, distribute amongst themselves and hold on, thus, as long as they did. But in the game you can have a pocket like that and guarantee supply into it (if necessary by modding it to place a SEP there, as we have done) and still the front line troops in the pocket will be repeatedly 100% interdicted and get no supply. I hope this clarifies a bit. I'm sure Daz - and maybe others - will add their share, and hopefully you've read the threads. It's great you're looking at it. Many, many thanks. It wrecks the para scenarios for me, at the moment. And others, I know, from what has been said.

[Phoenix100]

OK. I'm playing through FTMTTR now, using the frugal supply and ammo settings wherever I can. I'll post and save and send you examples as (and if) they arise, Simovitch.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

OK. I'm playing through FTMTTR now, using the frugal supply and ammo settings wherever I can. I'll post and save and send you examples as (and if) they arise, Simovitch.

I'm doing the same. I recall during playtesting that except for a handful of units, the 82nd became burnt out and unsupplied by D4-D5 which I felt was a fair situation. The fact that XXX Corps didn't resupply them caused some indignation, but in a way it added to the realism for me - the airborne were not intended to be used in an offensive role after XXX Corps arrived.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: simovitch
I'm doing the same. I recall during playtesting that except for a handful of units, the 82nd became burnt out and unsupplied by D4-D5 which I felt was a fair situation.

The problem with that is they became un-supplied because their DZ's got overrun not because they ran out of supply transport.
We have no way at the moment to get an alternate outcome for this supply situation, because even if you manage to maintain an open supply route, and drop zone, the attrition to the vehicles causes the whole thing to break down.

If there was supply that is in friendly hands, and there was an open route to it, I'm damn sure that they would make every effort to get it, and that's what's missing from the supply situation at the moment. The ability to collect supply in various ways from the bases, once the Jeeps are gone, as well as a bit of common sense from those trying to deliver it.
Someone needs to tell the Jeep drivers that the price of those Jeeps will be taken out of their pay if they survive to draw it [:D]

This "burnt out" is meant to be handled by the fatigue stats in game though.
Once properly rested, they should become a credible fighting unit again. Especially with the arrival of XXX Corps, and the morale boost, and extra supplies that must have come with its arrival.

ORIGINAL: simovitch
The fact that XXX Corps didn't resupply them caused some indignation, but in a way it added to the realism for me - the airborne were not intended to be used in an offensive role after XXX Corps arrived.

The problem with this is that once the basics run out, you can't even use them in a defensive role. In fact you can't move them at all!

I don't have time to play at the moment so can't help you out much with play testing sorry [:(]

[Phoenix100]

Had to start again, as just realised that orders delay set to nil from some testing I was doing. Doh...

Just a thought, Simovitch. What was your thinking in putting so little airstrikes in for the Allies (in FTMTTR)? I read all the time about the skies being full of jabos etc and units having airstrikes on call. Do you not think the number allowed should be higher?