Matrix Games Forums

Just as an attempt to get this back on track as the thread quickly got derailed first into general questions of balance and also into the intricacies of the logistics model.

The very first post states that at the start of his T3 the OP has his armoured units out of fuel and on 2MP. I think it might be helpful if he posts some screenshots of the turn as it sounds to me like something may have gone wrong either with his supply lines getting cut off by the Russians or by him misplacing his HQs out of supply range.

I've just checked the last T3 I played and I had 4PA approaching Pskov with an average of 30MP; 3PA approaching the land bridge with a couple of forward units on 15MP and the rest a little behind on 20-30MP; 2PA at the Berezina with units ranging from 6MP (a PD well across the river having made an encirclement) to an average of 20-30MP, with one PD in reserve back in Minsk on 49MP and 1PA at Rovno/Tarnopol about to breakout with all units 40+MP.

A big thing to remember in terms of fuel/MP conservation in the very early turns - every armoured/motorized unit will use at least twice the MPs to enter an enemy hex (including the dark green ones that are pending friendly control). Any unit below 86 morale will use three times the MPs. If you push all those units forward at the same time into enemy hexes you will burn large amounts of fuel/MPs (although even in this case ending up with 2MPs on T3 seems extreme). Much more efficient is to keep some of the units back so that next turn they are travelling through friendly hexes. As a rough example I'd be splitting each PA into a 'pathfinder' group A (moving forward into enemy hexes) a 'security' group B (ensuring group A do not get cut off) and a 'reserve' group C (sticking to friendly hexes and conserving fuel). The next turn the groups will swap roles - typically group B will push forward, group A will provide security and group C will move to a position where they can take on the 'pathfinding' role on the next turn.

Also in terms of the other point the OP makes about artillery SUs. Firstly I think it's important to remember that the divisional TOEs include 'organic' artillery elements. So even if no art SU commits you will still have artillery in play. But secondly I've never had any problem with artillery SUs committing. One problem could arise if OP is trying to use lots of artillery in his Pz Corps. Most Pz units in the early turns are (or should be) carrying out hasty attacks. Remember that with these the Corps SUs will not commit if the HQ has already moved. So if you want to use the artillery then make sure that you are doing it early in the turn before your units have moved more than 5 hexes away from their HQ's starting position.

The other thing to do to try and ensure you get the artillery SUs involved is to make sure you aren't 'diluting' the SU pool of important Corps with weak units like the bicycle infantry, the SP Flak companies and those infantry gun SUs that can't replace their losses.

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Just as an attempt to get this back on track as the thread quickly got derailed first into general questions of balance and also into the intricacies of the logistics model.

The very first post states that at the start of his T3 the OP has his armoured units out of fuel and on 2MP. I think it might be helpful if he posts some screenshots of the turn as it sounds to me like something may have gone wrong either with his supply lines getting cut off by the Russians or by him misplacing his HQs out of supply range.

I've just checked the last T3 I played and I had 4PA approaching Pskov with an average of 30MP; 3PA approaching the land bridge with a couple of forward units on 15MP and the rest a little behind on 20-30MP; 2PA at the Berezina with units ranging from 6MP (a PD well across the river having made an encirclement) to an average of 20-30MP, with one PD in reserve back in Minsk on 49MP and 1PA at Rovno/Tarnopol about to breakout with all units 40+MP.

A big thing to remember in terms of fuel/MP conservation in the very early turns - every armoured/motorized unit will use at least twice the MPs to enter an enemy hex (including the dark green ones that are pending friendly control). Any unit below 86 morale will use three times the MPs. If you push all those units forward at the same time into enemy hexes you will burn large amounts of fuel/MPs (although even in this case ending up with 2MPs on T3 seems extreme). Much more efficient is to keep some of the units back so that next turn they are travelling through friendly hexes. As a rough example I'd be splitting each PA into a 'pathfinder' group A (moving forward into enemy hexes) a 'security' group B (ensuring group A do not get cut off) and a 'reserve' group C (sticking to friendly hexes and conserving fuel). The next turn the groups will swap roles - typically group B will push forward, group A will provide security and group C will move to a position where they can take on the 'pathfinding' role on the next turn.

My 2nd last opponent had Pz units North of Pskov when I opened T2!!!! and had taken Moscow by T12. I know call me AI.

Isn't there a special T1 rule for Axis movement, 1 mp?

I had promised myself I wouldn't say a word on this thread again... but this is a free world and there are a few things I'd like to say and it has nothing to do with the supply situation in game vs historical.

->>First, this is a game, not a simulation of reality. Everything is averaged out. So a bad supply situation at the beginning of the game, which is maybe worst - I said maybe, and I don't want to get into that debate again because it doesn't really matter that much to my arguments - so supplies that maybe worst than it was in reality in turn 3, is easily compensated by a very good supply situation in front of Moscow by turn 14-15, much better than it was historically.

->>Second, and following the trend of thought of my first point, MattFL said this: "...and obviously doesn't really play the game past turn 3 despite what he says. If he did, he wouldn't be bitching about anything." I may be wrong, but my guess is that he is the one being put under flak for "mob lynching".

I have to say that as offensive as this remark may sound to sensible souls, there is a big truth in it, that any experienced player of the game knows: There is no way the Soviets can stop a German player that knows his business if he want to get somewhere in 1941, even with the very limited supplies situation on turn 3-4-5.

->>Third, the poster of this thread proposed his solution as a way to make the Soviets fight forward. But following the 2 previous arguments, the kind of supplies the poster (rightfully or not) asks for would mean that a Soviet fighting forward would be wiped out the board really fast by any good Axis player, and Moscow would be in direct reach of the panzer spearheads by turn 7 or 8 max. And that would also happen to a runner even faster. So, bottom line, far from making the Soviets fight forward, it would mean that no one would want to play the Soviets anymore. Simple as that.

ORIGINAL: 56ajax

My 2nd last opponent had Pz units North of Pskov when I opened T2!!!! and had taken Moscow by T12. I know call me AI.

lol! Funny guy! We need more like you!

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

Here are two quotes from "Handbook of German military forces" talking about German supply roads.

Thats the US ww2 era Handbook, in short it is not accurate so any assumptions based on it will be flawed. It for instance when used by the US Intel service advised the Germans will conquer the SU by 42. It gives the Heer abilities it did not have, 4 times the PLOL delivery rate, 8 times the munitions rate, full replacemnt for losses in MTV and so on.

There are two ways to answer this question of fuel supply, the theoritical supply situation by looking at QM planning allocation ( how crevald looked at it) and the actual consumption rates.

Foreign Military Studies P-190 Consumption and Attrition Rates Attendant to the Operations of German Group Center in Russia (22 Jun.-31 Dec. 1941 avalialbe free online. Gives us some different numbers.

Divisional diarys gives us the turnaround time for an ID obtaining theroritical dayly supply to actual.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SDf ... sk&f=false


July 1941 298.Inf.Div.
Armeelager - - distance - - loading - - unloading - - Days from departure to return
Mogilew - - - - - 100 - - - 1/4 day - - - 1/4 day - - - 2 days
Orscha - - - - - - 120 - - - 1/4 day - - - 1/4 day - - - 2 1/2 days
Borriosow - - - - 250 - - - 1/4 day - - - 1/4 day - - - 4 days
Minsk - - - - - - 300 - - - 1/4 day - - - -1/4 day - - - 4 1/2 days
Bobruisk - - - - - 200 - - 1/4 day - - - -1/4 day - - - 3 days


As we can see, supplies/times taken was dependent on where the depots where.

Mogoliew 3 July, Orscha went live 31 July, for the entire period, 28 days, the formation required 31 units of supplies, and had recieved 17.

In a month the formation received half what it consumed, and requested to be resupplied, between twice and 4 times the time span it expected it to arrive in.

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

How many trucks they lost has nothing to do with the range of the Kraftwagenkolonnen.

Oh but your assuming 125 was the average mileage achieved , it was not. You assuming that x number reduced by 25% 38% 75% has no effect on quantity of supplies delivered.

Also that a QM asks each day what has been consumed and requests that amount to be replaced, by next day, he assigns enough on hand trucks to collect it, he started with with truck coys, each of 30 trucks, 1 being serviced, 1 distributting supplies around the DIv and one to collect supplies from GTR depots, so had 30*3=90 tons a day capacity. As the capacity drops due to reduced numbers of in service vehicles drops so does the daily resupply amount become reduced.

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth


Are you telling me the Russians didn't have petrol stations? The petrol stations were ALREADY there. Russian truck range, German truck range, close enough, so the stations would also be where they needed to be. In 1941 did a Russian driving from Moscow to Smolensk have to carry all the petrol he needed with him? Its a matter of common sense not map reading. In 1935 the Russians produced about 110,000 tractors, in 1937 Soviets produced 44,000 combine harvesters to America's 29,000 they all used fuel. 1941 Russia is heavily industrialised. It had roads, Glantz says there is 64.375 klms of asphalted roads in European Russia where do your maps put these?

German MTV and Russian MTV used different grades of fuel, they were not interchangable, each destroys the others engines. Unlike in France where the Heer simply topped up from French petrol stations, who used the same form of fuel, and went on, in russia you cant use captured fuel stocks untill its been converted to the same fuel grade.

Its also common sense that the average German Div did not have an refinary in its TOE to convert soviet fuel for use.

Your confusing the Handbooks on good roads fuel consumption rate, with its off road fuel consumption rate. Glants is refering to all weather roads, which would yield the handbooks fuel consumption rate. thats all of that form of road there was. The move traffic you put on a road, the slower the traffic transfer rate becomes. Inf cannot march as fast if its full of MTV etc. A 1941 Pzr Div requires 98 klm of road space to hold all its manouver elements, if it travails at 40 klm a hour, a block of road space 200klm long cannot be used by anyone else as this formation moves on the road. German ID requires 40 klm of road space. The poorer the quality of road, the greater the movement in fuel consumption to off road as specified by the handbook becomes.

ORIGINAL: joelmar

ORIGINAL: 56ajax

My 2nd last opponent had Pz units North of Pskov when I opened T2!!!! and had taken Moscow by T12. I know call me AI.

lol! Funny guy! We need more like you!

why thankyou, I try to have a light hearted comment in my postings, coz playing the Soviets thats all I have...but the point I am trying to make is that if you know how the game works very well, you will win. It is not broken.

And sometime ago an opponent played historical Axis and gave up on T14...so you have to play outside the box

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

John I don't want the Logistics to be any easier I would like them to be realistic.
Loki100 I have studied queuing theory. Rather than trying to frighten us with big words perhaps you could explain how it pertains to the points I have raised?

ok, lets have a go then. I'll skip the detailed statistical/mathematical model as its the concepts that matter. As you know, queueing theory works from two dimensions. One is to answer the question how much capacity do we need to process x amount with y arrivals. The other is more useful here, if I have x capacity how much can I process?

So keeping to round numbers, lets believe your sources (I don't but thats a secondary issue). Lets say that to reach the given numbers, you need to be able to send 100 trucks over a given 100m of road per hour.

So most minor issue, a truck breaks down. Lets say the combination of that needing repair and the minor disruption to other vehicles takes out 1.5 units of capacity (change the numbers to suit). We now only have capacity to move 98.5 (so we've already lost 1.5%). 500m down the road another one breaks down, so our 98.5 becomes nearer to 97 (its non linear but lets keep the numbers clear).

Next obstacle is worse. Truck stopped, driver dead. So there will be a local search to see if the partisans are hanging around. Lets say this takes out 5 units of capacity. so our 97 trucks become a throughput of 91 - possibly worse if we are setting up a convoy system (check out the British WW2 naval data for how badly this limits capacity).

If this pattern of minor annoyances carries on over 10 km, our throughput is down around 80. It doesn't matter if those 80 can move a notional 300km, 20% of your trucks are never going to get anywhere near that theoretical number due to the blockages.

And of course, if the Soviets mine the road or blow a bridge well throughput drops to 0 till its sorted. All this comes off the notional road distance. At best something like 50% of your trucks may move to their limit, in reality almost none will.

ORIGINAL: 56ajax

why thankyou, I try to have a light hearted comment in my postings, coz playing the Soviets thats all I have...but the point I am trying to make is that if you know how the game works very well, you will win. It is not broken.

Indeed, even your avatar speaks for itself [:)]

I second your point 100%. It was also mine. The fact that the Germans is able to go where he wishes even with a tight supply leash, exactly has it should be by all serious historians accounts including the "new" trends of Glantz and Stahel, is quite scientific when you have played the game enough to understand the synergies.

Funny the guy gets so much attention from us all, even the dev team, when we should simply ignore him. Yes, I know, mea culpa! Chuck must be laughing his heart out reading us! Good for him! lol!

ORIGINAL: joelmar

I had promised myself I wouldn't say a word on this thread again... but this is a free world and there are a few things I'd like to say and it has nothing to do with the supply situation in game vs historical.

->>First, this is a game, not a simulation of reality. Everything is averaged out. So a bad supply situation at the beginning of the game, which is maybe worst - I said maybe, and I don't want to get into that debate again because it doesn't really matter that much to my arguments - so supplies that maybe worst than it was in reality in turn 3, is easily compensated by a very good supply situation in front of Moscow by turn 14-15, much better than it was historically.

Therin lies a problem, from production only**, the Ostfront in 41 had a problem that demand vastly greater than production could deliver, and the RR deliver could deliver.

The General Staff had drawn up its operational plans on the assumption that the attacking forces would receive 6,710 tons of motor fuel and diesel per day on from twenty-two supply trains. WiRüAmt pointed out in May that this was impossible – the Reich could only provide sixteen trains per day, and that only for the first six weeks.

We* have the German consumption of fuel supplies for all of 41, AGC 519000 tons for 53 Divs for 180 days. Average 11 fuel trains a day. If we go by averages, 54 tons of fuel a formation a day. We know how VS a formation was expected to have on hand so we can get the relationship between ID and AD in balance rather than an average.

( problem with using averages, Only five fuel trains reached the Ninth Army between 23 October and 23 November, but this dwarfed the number arriving at the Second Army, which received only one fuel train.)

*https://www.fold3.com/image/1/160233368

**Take a look here https://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index ... 63.15.html

From there you can see how much finished fuel the military consumed (4,567,000 tons), how much the economy produced/imported oil, (10,0000 tons oil, makes around half that in petrol) how much the civilian economy consumed,(7,305,000) from what was imported and produced domesticly, and how fuel demand was met from stocks. see the drain on stock levels in the data sets.

ORIGINAL: Hanny

Therin lies a problem, from production only**, the Ostfront in 41 had a problem that demand vastly greater than production could deliver, and the RR deliver could deliver.

Indeed, the Quartermaster general of the Wehrmacht was quite clear on this all along, the capacity to sustain such an operation weren't there. Barbarossa was at most a big gamble based on the hope that the Soviet regime would crumble fast. It did not and so everything failed, and by the time of the battle of Smolensk, ominious omens were already there. On this I entirely agree with Stahel who brings very convincing arguments.

It does not stop with Wagner in 41, being told by Halder that logistical constraints cannot be allowed to interfere with operational matters when he objected to the plan, ( cue live of the land so save 000s of tons of food which is replaced with POL/munitions and its still not enough) it extended to 42 and Blau, "With the available amounts of fuel,it is mathematically impossible to execute Blau successfully".Colonel Pollex OKW logistics planer for Blau argueing to Hitler, only to be told to get on and do it.

Quite how anyone can model reality into the game and not distort playability is beyond me. But the purpose is to produce a game, not a replay. In that regard making it possible while extremely difficult, is a design choice/problem of how best to accomplish that.

ORIGINAL: Hanny
Quite how anyone can model reality into the game and not distort playability is beyond me.

It's also beyond me, the political aspect is probably the most challenging. Even if you manage to model logistics, tactics and strategies perfectly, by example, how do you model a dictator that gives order that are against military wisdom?

A discussion about the thread subject supply in the German army.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBAoW0PWNUw

(been having trouble trying to post this. Let's see if I figured out what the forum filter doesn't like)

I've been looking through all the posts of this thread and doing some off-the-cuff checking and analysis in my spare time (I'm both a wargamer and a history buff, so hey - this is fun!) That has included looking at many posts - data, extrapolations from that data, and background sources cited. Then reading or at least skimming the sources cited. Good, useful stuff.

It looks like things are so off-kilter between the very disparate viewpoints presented because some of the extrapolations made from certain data points are arguably off-kilter.

> Game manual is cited - 10 hexes is full supply, 20 hexes is 10/20 or 50% supply, 30 hexes is 10/30 or 33% supply.

OK. Supply model has many additional complexities, but this is fine as a first-order approximation of what is in the game.

> Original poster cites US guide to German forces, cites "motorized columns....on good roads...can cover up to 125 miles per day"

Again, OK - though with caveats. Most roads in Russia were rutted dusty (or muddy) tracks, not good roads. So 125 mi/day (12 hexes) is reasonably accurate for the more improved areas, but otherwise those columns probably only made 60 to 90 miles/day (6 to 9 hexes) on the bad ones. Army and Army Group logistics in that era was designed around 150 to 300km (100 to 200 miles) distances between combat area and supply depots/railheads.

> Extrapolation is then made that a column can cover 7x125 or 875 miles/week, halved for round trip, so max range is 437 miles (44 hexes) from railhead.

This extrapolation is problematic. I cannot find any confirming data in any source cited in this thread or my other sources that a Kraftwagenkolonnen or a Grosstransportraum was built around a one-week delivery round trip. They were sized and equipped to deliver X tons/day. If you want X tons per day, and it is a one week round trip, then you need 7X times the numbers of trucks to deliver that X tons/day to the end-user.
On that basis (along with more detailed research I won't add unless needed), I disagree with the extrapolation that there should be no supply penalty for 44 hexes (or even for half that distance).

> About half of the posts in this thread are more about game balance than anything else.

I'm not going to try to analyze that, because it's not something suitable for analysis.
[Two words....In my opinion, since either side can potentially win, and there are methods built into the game to balance between different players, we arguably have 'game balance'. I'm content. Sure, things could be improved or added. Come on, WitE2! ]

> Discussion then refocuses on supply with issue of a panzer unit reaching Riga on turn 3 with only 2 MP left. Changing game settings only improved things slightly, panzer unit had 10 MP left when it got there.

Probably not a problem? I haven't gamed out first three turns in 'Road to Leningrad' scenario to double-check this, but startline-Riga is around 340km, and Riga-Talinn is another 310km. 650km=401mi. Taking most of three weeks to get that far, with a couple battles and a lot of skirmishes on the way (so only a few MP left like the game might leave you) seems fine. Results backed up by historical capture dates (Riga July 1st, Tallinn July 10th). I would certainly not expect to have full fuel tanks, or even a full supply convoy on hand, to immediately get to 100% supply and fuel levels.

> Reviewing rail repair dates shows limited rail availability on dates that were historically much earlier than rail lines are repaired in game.

Reading through several sources (especially the hgwdavie(dot)com article about German railway usage on the East Front) clarifies this pretty well. They got the first train into Riga on 9 July - but bridge fixes took til 12 July, and even then hgwdavie article explains that they still were not in full operation. Stations still needed to be manned and repaired, coal and repair items had to be delivered, etc. In addition, they had to bring in and schedule the trains and rolling stock needed to run those new routes. Rail capacity just leaving Prussia was a hindrance - they could not even manage the 24 pairs of trains each day they needed to move across the German/Lithuanian border by the end of July.

In addition, rail conversion numbers seem to match up fairly well between historical totals and game modeling. Historical dates cited and counting hexes gives around 69 on main lines, 13 on cross branch, unknown - call it 20 - on trunk lines. Say 102 hexes in total. In game, most Axis players will have two FBDs working in these areas - one heading towards Pskov, the other to Veli-Luki. Each FBD can fix about 5 hex/turn on average since most are in Baltic Rail zone. So that's about 50 hexes. [The forums have a nice optimization guide, using three FBDs, to really push lines east quicker. See that if interested] In addition, the AG construction battalions are busy fixing branch lines every turn, call it 6/turn. Since the rail lines are actually 'fully stocked' the next logistics phase after an FBD gets it 99% repaired, that conversion actually covers not only the repair, but the next week or two of real-life work to stock the railyard, bunker coal, fix bridges all the way, etc. etc. Game gives you 80 hexes fully functional, compared to 102 limited functional. Pretty good modeling in my book.

> in post 64, references are made to supply commitments for AGC in July.

These cite historical data, and plans to give full supply for mobile offensive attacks to 4 panzer, 3 motorized, and 10 infantry divisions. That's confirmed in multiple sources - but it is less than half the supply that all of AGC needed. Historically, AGC had limited supply, and this is exactly what played out in the giant July-September attacks and near-constant Soviet counterattacks. AGC does not have 100% supply in July - parts have 100%, the others get 50% or less (enough for defense or limited attacks). Overall average 65-70% of what they needed.

In WitE, in mid-July, HQ units are usually 15-20 hexes from railhead, and getting around 60-65% of what they need. Plus player can use HQBU on one or perhaps two corps each turn for near-full resupply, so that bumps overall results to that 65-70% area.

In conclusion, going back to the perceived errors in the supply system and the desired goal of rewarding an active, forward Soviet defense, my opinions are as follows:

1. The supply modeling is not horribly broken - analysis and multiple historical sources show it is pretty good when compared to historical data.

2. Supply restrictions in-game do have the potential effect of rewarding the Soviet for a run-away strategy; however if those restrictions are eased, then the Axis forces will be able to move faster and attack harder than they already can. Which gets into balance issues...that eternal quagmire. Outlines have already been given of new, better supply modeling being made for WitE2, so I think it would be best to wait for that. It is completely unrealistic to expect Matrix to completely revise supply, and everything else that would have to be touched, to 'fix' WitE when the successor is already well along the development path.

3. In WitE2 (and perhaps in a future WitE patch) it might be possible to lessen the benefits of a 'Brave, brave Sir Robin' run-away Soviet strategy by rewarding the Soviets for aggressive play on their part. Perhaps by increasing the supplies and fuel consumed by defending Axis units. This would correspond to historical events - the Soviets hardly ever won any battles or made any advances stick - but their attacks were in game-terms 'soak-offs', which caused attrition and massive supply usage in the Wehrmacht defenders, which led to constant delays and reroutings of scarce resources and reserve formations. [personally, I would *love* to see something like this! I like to play reasonably aggressively as the Soviet - even if not to Stalin's standards - even though army after army gets creamed.]

note: the above three points are not facts or statements, merely my opinions. They are for your rumination, and possible further discussion.

Good recap Shalkai

ORIGINAL: Shalkai



> Game manual is cited - 10 hexes is full supply, 20 hexes is 10/20 or 50% supply, 30 hexes is 10/30 or 33% supply.

OK. Supply model has many additional complexities, but this is fine as a first-order approximation of what is in the game.

> Original poster cites US guide to German forces, cites "motorized columns....on good roads...can cover up to 125 miles per day"

Russia was not a road based economy, it was a RR economy. US Guide was using fuel consumption on a US all weather road, it notes off road fuel consumption went up by 300%. OP has Germans in Russia moving supplies over russian dirt roads as quick as USA Redball convoys in western Europe on all weather roads.

German Divs request resupply and expect in to be delivered inside 24 hours from the depot, they have a 90 tons integral lift for this per day. If it takes longer, the Div, depending on what type of Div has on hand supplies to cover shortfall, but there was no Div that can supply itself from stocks on hand for a week and perform its expected daily tasks. Nor can it send out trucks on day 2 to get what it consumed on day 1 and not had deivered because its 3 days away without ramifications.

The depot is daisy chained by the GTR from the nearest RR, this 60k ton GTR is what moves the supplies from a RR away from the RR to allow armies to operate away from rail heads.

I'm going to create a thread in the coming (4) months to "put the last nail in the coffin" about German logistics. Which considers all aspects from the timing down to the Reich's shoelace.

Sammy5IsAlive
you said
"If you push all those units forward at the same time into enemy hexes you will burn large amounts of fuel/MPs"
That is how the game is structured but shouldn't be.
If a hex isn't contested it should be friendly, German recon was well equipped, fast and aggressive, they had full control of the air. -If- the Russians had actually pulled back Wholus Bolus as they do in the game the German would have been following right on their heels.
joelmar
you said
"Everything is averaged out."
A poor excuse, it clearly doesn't have to be averaged out, better if it was historically accurate.
Hanny
Its very simple. While the vehicle pool is Full, it's the first week (or even the third) of the game, and the Russians are running away, it is very clear the Germans should get the maximum possible supply RANGE according to the capabilities of the various vehicles or convoys, they dont. far from it Ive prooved this already.
You and most other posters are conflating supply range and amount. If half the truck fleet is missing the remaining trucks will deliver half as much but to the same RANGE, the same distance as the full complement of trucks would.
You said
"German MTV and Russian MTV used different grades of fuel, they were not interchangeable"
I think you made that up. Show me a reference please.
Shalkai you said
"Taking most of three weeks to get that far, with a couple battles and a lot of skirmishes on the way (so only a few MP left like the game might leave you) seems fine. I would certainly not expect to have full fuel tanks, or even a full supply convoy on hand, to immediately get to 100% supply and fuel levels."
OK so my point is this. The Russian has withdrawn so there are NO battles and NO skirmishes. So no need for ammunition resupply whatsoever. Please don't misquote me, I am not asking for 100% supply, or fuel, just something a bit more realistic than nearly nothing after not having had to fight any battles, just driving down the roads. "Immediately" is a poor choice of word, the turns are one week each so I am not expecting convoys to be at hand 'immediately' I am expecting them to be on hand, within the WEEK.
Lets not forget that the Baltic states were not Russia, they have always fallen into the German sphere of influence. Gen. Lt. a.D, Max Bork a Branch Chief in the Transportation Division of the German Army General Staff says in the Baltic, NO supply problems. In the Baltic states many paved and good quality roads already existed this is completely ignored in the game
Your game rail repair rates are inflated for example,
"Each FBD can fix about 5 hex/turn on average since most are in Baltic Rail zone" No 1 is in the Baltic zone and No 2 only for a short time, and given terrain, the average is 4 hexes or less.
Also you said "the AG construction battalions are busy fixing branch lines every turn, call it 6/turn" I've had turns when there is exactly nothing repaired by the AG construction. Also they are repairing stuff that is useless to the supply starved spearheads. So whatever they do is irrelevant. everybody in reality is pushing that main trunk line forward, not mucking around in backwaters.
I wont bother with the rest of your comparisons as you conveniently neglected to provide any dates.
I've already clearly shown that in the first few weeks of the campaign the game rail repair rate is easily less than half historical, FACT. This needs to fixed. To me halving the German rail repair rate and saying this is balanced by the rail giving full supply is a cheat because once supply goes on the road it is severly limited by the rail head distance modifiers. So the Germans dont get full supply. The lines need to be repaired out to the correct historical distance and the SUPPLY along them restricted to what was available, conflating range/distance with supply quantitiy instead of having the real distance/range and the real amounts of supply has led to this very boring situation where the Russian can just run away. That was never an option.
You say
"They were sized and equipped to deliver X tons/day. If you want X tons per day, and it is a one week round trip, then you need 7X times the numbers of trucks to deliver that X tons/day to the end-user. "
Correct. Good point, lets look at it.
So it all depends on how many trucks they have, so what 1 gross truppen can deliver in a day 7 gross truppen can deliver in a week did they have enough trucks for this probably in the first few weeks of the campaign, yes, especially as no ammo needed to be brought forward because dont forget this is all in the context of the Russian running away. So how much tonnage do we save if no Ammo expended?
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 7&start=15 see post 26
"seven divisions ... quartermaster put his army's supply requirement at 1350 tons a day, of which from 940 to 980 tons were for the divisions - or 140 tons per division ... 360 tons of provisions, 350 tons of munitions and 270 tons of fuel "
So if you are advancing without opposition, your supply requirement drops by about a third because NO ammunition is expended.
So lets look at some ball park figures,
Ok so how much does a German division need? look at post 65 here.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 7&start=60
This is a long thoroughly informed thread, this poster had a good look at the numbers and summarizes with this,
"But if I were to guesstimate, 200 tons daily supply requirement for a fighting full strength infantry division of the 1. Welle does not strike me as unreasonable, and almost certainly at the lower end of things. 110 tons appears to be the minimum on the march. If the division is resting and can live off the land, the figure can drop drastically, since horse fodder, water, and food can be procured locally. If even water has to supplied, the tonnage requirement easily doubles."
How far can they deliver supply from the Railhead? in a day about 125 miles is the consensus but look at this quote about GTR range from post three at
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=214721
"A days marching... averaged 300km, but at times individual performances achieved almost twice as much."
So that's 186 miles so 18 hexes a day, NOT 10. With the possibility of 36 hexes under duress, IN A DAY. So if there is a desperate need to get the supplies forward it can be done.
Now look at post number 12 where it is revealed GTR has a lift capacity of about 67055 tons at the beginning of Barbarossa,
Lets do some simple math,
150 infantry divisions marching forward, each needs a minimum of 110 tons because no Russian opposition like in the game.
67055/150 well they have 440 tons each to play with, so easy enough to account for some extra rations for the Armored divisions, and they can deliver it out to 18 hexes maybe even 36 because it is week three, the roads are still in good nick and if they arn't there are BATTALIONS of construction troops the sole purpose of which is to fix the roads.
Now don't forget that 110 figure includes everything. But of course every time they capture a town or city its FULL of petrol, diesel, water, food and fodder all of wich no longer needs to come from the raihead.
If they have to fight forward we get a figure of 200 tons/division a day. Still easily done out of 440 available a day.

Ok here's something else wrong in the game supply setup, look at the same site, last post, post 21. The number of trucks in the army inventory during Barbarossa went UP over the campaign not down like in the game.
By 1943 the tonnage GTR carried had got to 80000 tons, see post 3.
Post 20 tells us in 1939 they had 442036 LKW, 82077 trailers and produced a further 64900.
A German division contains its own 30 ton transport column and a 25 cubic mtr POL column so there is another 125 miles a day for 30t of supply from the divisions end. So, if a static German infantry Division can live on 30 tons a day it should be fully supplied at 36 or maybe 72 hexes from the rail head. Given good roads and weather. Also if it is fightind using 200 tonnes a day then that still gives a range of 200/30 = 7 so range becomes 125/7 = 18 so whatever the GTR range is we need to add the Division own supply range of minimum 2 hexes.

For gods sake whoever is fixing the broken German supply please read these links I've provided, and give each unit a resupply button same as refit so the supply can be sent (with distance modifiers) to the units it needs to go to not wasted where it isn't needed. Same with rail let the player use his resources to push the rail head forward instead of wasting time on a useless network of side branches.
Thank you for your support Aufklaerungs.
MattFL calling me a Lying Bitch says a lot more about you than it does about me. If you are that frightened of fighting the Germans just play a different game.
A little respect for the Russians here please, yes the Germans were short of supplies before Moscow, but the Russians fought them to a standstill not ran away to a standstill.

Ok so I have the played version1.12.00, 191-45 Campaign, Logistics set to 400 transport set to 400. At the start of turn three Army Group North's two Panzer Corps are up near Tallin, Army Group Centres five panzer Corps are at the gates of Vitebsk and their movement factors are all in the low teens i.e. they are out of supply. So in two turns the game has turned the Blitzkrieg into the Sitzkrieg. 7 panzer corps are going to sit around for a WEEK after just two weeks of moving forward with little if any fighting. Here's an excerpt from my previous post 64 in this same thread.

"https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 55&t=51767
Have a look at the 9th post on this forum. For army group Centre, Rail to Baranovichi by 1st July that's 16 hexes hexes fixed in two weeks twice what the game allows. Minsk by 5th July that's 24 hexes by week 2 that's 5 times what the game allows. by mid July guaranteed 14 trains a day to Minsk, that's 4 weeks for 24 hexes, the game allows less than 16 hexes in the same time. So historically they had 98 trains a week arriving in Minsk by week 4, that's 441000 tons of supply a week. In week 4 in the game your still two weeks away from even fixing the rail as far as Minsk. Smolensk by the end of July, that's 45 hexes in 6 weeks. Overall then army group Centre historically fixed 7 rail hexes per week. The game allows, considering terrain less than 4 per week."

None of the hacks in this forum have disputed the truth of this comments.

So Morvel, can you please answer my question. Why in this new patch are the Rail Repair Rates still roughly half what the Germans historically achieved?