supply questions (with a focus on trace markers, colors and numbers)

[berto]

I am attempting to play Sam Mudd's Burma Campaign 1942-1945 scenario. Tight supply constraints are killing the Japanese!

(I am playing the latest official TOAW 3.4 patched version, High Supply Off, New Supply Rules On, Advanced Rules On, generally other 3.4 defaults, except for graphics.)

Up until now, I've had a general understanding of TOAW supply, but it's time to get specific.

First questions: In supply trace view, what exactly do the colors mean? The numbers in those supply trace markers?

For instance, would somebody please interpret me this (opening situation)



compared to this (after some single, first-turn test moves)



In the first image, before any movement, what do the red 1s signify? For the armoured regiment, why 1s on road but also one hex to the northwest, off-road, but numberless red supply trace markers everywhere else?

Why does the mountain cavalry regiment have no supply trace markers to the south and east? Due to escarpments, probably, but spell it out please.

After (single, first-turn) movement, in the second image, why does the armoured regiment leave a trail of red markers, then orange-1 markers, then orange-numberless markers?

The cavalry artillery regiment to the north--why the one orange-numberless marker, then orange-1 markers? And why do the markers follow the movement trail only, and not extend outward to adjoining hexes (as in the first, before-movement image)?

The infantry regiment to the northwest--why an orange-1, followed by an orange-2?

(The supply regiment in the center moved there from the east edge of the map. It did not begin the scenario in that central position. If it matters.)

In this image (down south)



why no numbered trace markers at all (in contrast to the earlier examples, where the supply trace markers are numbered)?

Note that Nong Lu to the southeast is a supply source. In the first two examples, there is no rail or road path leading to a supply source (the other for this scenario being Chiang Mai, to the north).

Contrast the above with the Allied situation (after some single, first-turn test moves)



Why all dark blue supply trace markers (no light blue, akin to Japanese orange after red)? Why no numbers at all?

(The Allied units to the north are connected to a supply source by rail. The units to the south have no rail or road path to the Allied supply sources for this scenario.)

Or consider this example, from the Inkangahtawng scenario (before movement)



versus this (after test movement)



Why are the numbers so much higher in this scenario? What exactly do they tell me?

There's no point in my attempting this 166 turn Burma Campaign scenario (the first depicted above) if I don't understand supply near fully and perfectly.

Before now, I've played the game with just a general, seat-of-the-pants understanding of supply. I've never paid detailed attention to supply traces before, especially the numbers, but now I'm very much confused! [&:]

Help!

[Telumar]

First, the extremely low supply levels in your screenshot are due to the new supply rules. Here's what i get with old supply:



This would not be the first scenario that falls victim to the new supply rules (Anzio i.e.). I'm not familiar with the scenario, but from what i can see it might be due to one (the single?) supply source being located in an exclusion zone hex.

For your other questions:

It might be more complicated than that, but basically the red supply tracers show locations where only your units can receive supply in the current turn. If you were the Allies your locations would be blue.
The orange ones indicate locations where both forces can receive supply. As you see, if you push into enemy territory the supply markers are orange.

The numbers in the markers show the maximum supply points a unit can get in such a location at the start of the next turn.

No numbers in the circles mean probably that the unit can't receive supply points (or 1?) but is supplied. Meaning the unit is NOT unsupplied technically spoken (no attrition effects etc).

[sPzAbt653]

No numbers in the circles mean probably that the unit can't receive supply points (or 1?) ...

For what its worth, I'm currently testing a scenario with units in that situation and I am finding that they are getting '1' per turn (if they sit still and remain quite).

... it might be due to one (the single?) supply source being located in an exclusion zone hex.

I found that under the new supply rules, supply points in exclusion zones provide no supply to the rest of the map. I stumbled on this because testing the new rules on the Koblenz scenario, I found that the German side had no supply anywhere, as their supply points were all on excluded hexes (to prevent the crafty human dropping paratroops on them). Not a problem, just don't use the new rules on this one.

So I think it bears repeating that to use the new supply rules on older scenarios is a mistake. That Burma scenario is from 3.0, there is no reason to try the new supply rules on it. If a scenario was designed with 3.4, you still can't be sure it was designed with the new supply rules on. Only use new supply rules if the scenario briefing says it is ok.

[berto]

Thanks for the responses, guys.

Most of what I'm reading here makes sense. To prove it, I will test supply in this scenario in two different computers, side by side. Fortunately, I have 3.4 and 3.2 (the earlier official version) installed on both systems. Or, as you suggest, I can just try using 3.4 but reverting to the old supply rules on one, and play 3.4 with the new rules on the other.

I will have to check, but the scenario briefing for the Burma Campaign scenario does explicitly state, or at least implies in the scenario header IIRC, that it has been vetted for 3.4. I don't recall any recommendation/requirement of which supply rules to use, however. Another thing to doublecheck.

You would think that a scenario advertised as "<such and such> Scenario for 3.4" would work with the default 3.4 supply rules, the new rules, but apparently not necessarily so. One has to read the fine print, also the Forum.

(Another question I'll have to ponder: Should I use the High Supply optional rule or not?)

I think you can all see my concern here. Would I want to commit to playing the massive 166-turn Burma Campaign scenario, only to find out half way in, weeks or months in, that I'm playing it all wrong, that I've selected the wrong combinations of optional rules and/or I've been playing with grave misunderstandings of the game rules and mechanics?

Yes, patches and game improvements are great, but what about those legacy scenarios, maybe not fully vetted or updated? Or even recent scenarios, like Telumar's Anzio 1944, that run afoul of the new supply rules (or some other inappropriate combination of player selected optional rules and settings)?

So much confusion! This kind of sucks. [:(]

By now, I accept that no game is perfect. And that as dynamic game systems are patched closer to perfection over time, I have to take responsibility myself to mod and test and fix the games and their scenarios up to the latest patches and my own personal needs and standards. Also to read the game fora closely, to learn all the game play quirks and foibles.

Too bad we can't just take the games and scenarios at face value and simply play them as is. But such is life. There's no stopping progress. Two steps forward and one step back, and not a few stumbles along the way. That's just the way it goes.

[berto]

Nope. The Burma Campaign 1942-1945 scenario is specified for "3.0.0.0". (I just checked.)

I should have known the full implications of that. My bad. [:-]

[pcoud]

Hi Berto,

As I am myself currently scratching my head on around half a dozen thousands questions, and as I found yours very interesting, I spent quite some time in trying to figure out the answers. So here is my humble contribution on top of what was already said by Telumar and sPzAbt653.

First questions: In supply trace view, what exactly do the colors mean? The numbers in those supply trace markers?

I really don't understand yet the meaning of the orange colour. The supply level of the hexes that you disvover by moving your units during a given turn (+ adjacent hexes) will be in orange, but I don't understand what's the use of it (it can actually have another use which has nothing to do with supply: it roughly gives you an image of "pending friendly" hexes, ie hexes that you just converted during this turn and for which you still have to pay entrance costs as long as your current turn is not over). By the way I don't really understand the meaning of Telumar's comment about the orange ("The orange ones indicate locations where both forces can receive supply").

The numbers in the markers are the supply level in the location: under "normal" circumstances, if the supply level is X, if your unit has not moved during the previous turn, if you are not in a mountain or marsh, if there is no HQ besides, if the formation supply level is 100%, and if you play with High Supply Off, then your unit will receive X-33% supply at the beginning of next turn. The supply level itself is in percent. So if you see 18 in the marker, that means that your unit will get (18-0.33*18)%, ie 12% more supply next turn. If your unit had moved in the previous turn, then it would get another 33% penalty on supply, and would only receive 8% (see manual p51/52/53).

Nothing in the marker means a supply level of 0%.

For instance, would somebody please interpret me this (opening situation)

The biggest problem here, as it was already mentionned, is that your supply sources, in this scenario, are in exclusion zones. That does not work with the new supply rules, since the new rules calculate a distance from the supply source. With exclusion zones, this distance is "infinite", and actually no supply can leave your supply source (this is true for both Chiang Mi and Nong Lu). So you basically cannot play this scenario with the new supply rules, unless you edit the scenario and just displace these 2 supply sources just one hex outside Chiang Mi and Nong Lu (this could work, I think).

BUT: there was however something I could not explain in your first picture. WHY are there some hexes with a supply of 1? According to what I just said, it should be 0 everywhere. I'll come back on this just here below.

The infantry regiment to the northwest--why an orange-1, followed by an orange-2?

This one took me really quite a while to understand. As I just said I did not understand why there were hexes with a supply of 1, and now there is one hex with a supply of 2 while we are moving deeper into ennemi territory ??? I actually loaded the scenario, with fog of war off, playing both sides, and pushed further west with the Japanese. The more I pushed west the bigger the supply !!! I was totally stunned and puzzled, but I finally got it: Rangoon is a Japanese territory from the beginning of turn 1, and has a Japanese supply point with a level of 70% !!!!!!!! So the supply of 1 that you see in the markers in your first picture is supply that is coming from Rangoon, travelling into ennemi territory ! And the closer you move to Rangoon the better the supply. That looks quite unrealistic to me. I did not know that supply could possibly travel in ennemi territory, that is a big surprise for me.

why no numbered trace markers at all (in contrast to the earlier examples, where the supply trace markers are numbered)?

Just because the supply is actually zero everywhere in this zone: it cannot flow out of Nong Lu, and here, you are too far away from Rangoon, so nothing arrives.

Why all dark blue supply trace markers (no light blue, akin to Japanese orange after red)? Why no numbers at all?

I think (but to be checked) that all markers are blue on first turn only. On turn 2 you will also see orange markers. Why, I don't know (I just suspect a small "bug"). And again, no numbers = 0% supply.

(The Allied units to the north are connected to a supply source by rail.

I don't think so. They are connected to a rail, but this rail does not connect to a supply source (the only continental supply source for the Allies is quite North, in Dimapur).

Why are the numbers so much higher in this scenario? What exactly do they tell me?

Well, here the supply sources are just working, they are not in exclusion zones.

[sPzAbt653]

Should I use the High Supply optional rule or not?

As you said the scenario was designed under 3.0, and the briefing mentions extensive playtesting, so I wouldn't think that high supply would be necessary. If you are into the 166 turns and feel that the supply is too restrictive, then you can always flip high supply on and see how it goes. Note that the 50% high supply boost is not seen on map or in the situation briefing, and the maximum resupply per unit per turn is 50.

So much confusion!

Maybe this will help - scenarios are designed and playtested under whatever version is listing in the scenario briefing. It certainly isn't possible for a scenario designed under 3.0 to have taken into consideration new rules from 3.4. If a designer updates a scenario, the briefing will be updated also, so there shouldn't be any confusion.

We do have to remember to check all those options when starting a new scenario, because the settings carry over from the last one played. On one hand arghh, but on the other hand its not much to do for the trade of continued progress.

[berto]

I guess I also figured that scenarios designed and vetted pre-3.4 might just work with the new 3.4 supply rules; it all depends.

Now, the safer assumption seems to be: for all pre-3.4 scenarios (not specifically vetted for 3.4), use the old supply rules!

It is somewhat shocking to see how drastically different the old supply rules differ from the new supply rules, at least in this one scenario.

I was not far into my Burma game before I grew alarmed at the supply situation. I will now test and test, using 3.4 but with the old supply rules, until I am confident I understand everything about supply. If need be, I will even revert to playing this scenario with my 3.2 TOAW install.

I'll report back if I have any more questions, or findings.

Thanks again, guys.

[berto]

I restarted the game on the one computer, TOAW 3.4, old supply rules. I also started the game on a second computer, TOAW 3.2. Two computers, side by side. Different TOAW versions. Burma scenario, both computers. Same Burma scenario in each case (confirmed by their identical date stamps and file sizes in Windows Explorer).

At first glance, already I am seeing differences! A surprising development, as I expected that the "old supply rules" in 3.4 would give me the same results as in 3.2 (prior-to-3.4, the previous latest official version).

I will compare between the two, and document my findings here.

Oh my, this could be interesting.

[berto]

Already I'm seeing significant and widespread supply discrepancies between the Burma Campaign scenarios in 3.2 versus 3.4 (the latter with the "old supply rules"). Many points of similarity, but way too many points of difference. It doesn't inspire confidence ...

... On further inspection, it gets worse.

In 3.2, the 17th Indian Division, 48th Brigade begins turn 1 at Rangoon.

In 3.4, the 17th Indian Division, 48th Brigade shows up as reinforcements on turn 2. On turn 1, Rangoon is unoccupied, and (as pcoud observed) is Japanese-controlled in fact! Makes no sense.

Refer also to pcoud's observations above about how Japanese supply appears to source from Rangoon, and through enemy-controlled territory eastward. As he says, "looks quite unrealistic." That's an understatement!

[&:]

What other ugly surprises await?

To repeat, I am using the same scenario files in both of my 3.2 & 3.4 tests. (I verified this by comparing file dates, file sizes, and even checksums. Identical in all respects. The Scenario Briefing describes both as "Version 1/3/2006" for "TOAW-3 ver. 3.0.0.0". Moreover, I doublechecked to make sure I am using the appropriate Default scenario directory in each instance. I've even reloaded the scenarios to make triply sure.)

So not just supply, but in other aspects as well, it looks like 3.2 processes scenarios differently from ("old supply rules") 3.4! [X(]

For this pre-3.4 scenario (described as being for "3.0.0.0"), with its "countless hours" of playtesting (under 3.0 presumably), I'm tempted to just give up on 3.4 and play it using 3.2.

Now, I'm leaning toward the policy: With TOAW 3.4, play 3.4-approved and vetted scenarios only (explicitly stated as such in the Scenario Briefing). For all other scenarios, including pre-3.4 scenarios packaged in the TOAW 3.4 default scenario set, do not use 3.4 at all, regardless of the optional rule mix. For pre-3.4 scenarios, use 3.2 (or even earlier game versions) instead.

Thank Heavens I retained my old 3.2 installs. (Maybe I should even re-install a 3.0 version, too?)

<sigh> [:(]

[sPzAbt653]

In 3.2, the 17th Indian Division, 48th Brigade begins turn 1 at Rangoon.

In 3.4, the 17th Indian Division, 48th Brigade shows up as reinforcements on turn 2.

This is interestingly odd, so I am looking at the scenario, at start and in the editor (in 3.4). When you start the scenario in 3.2, is Rangoon Japanese controlled ? But when you start in 3.4, Rangoon is Japanese controlled (which is what I am seeing). ?!?

[Telumar]

Can confirm that. And it's not related with new supply rules or new turn order. Started the game both in 3.2 and in 3.4 with new rules on/off. Only in 3.2 Rangoon is Allied controlled on turn 1 and a Bde of 17th Indian Division is there. Must be related to the Japanese supply point there which somehow converts the hex at scenario start. Weird.

[sPzAbt653]

Weird. Echo...echo...

[pcoud]

I just did a very quick test with my very basic home made scenario (just for testing purposes), and I can confirm that in the latest 3.4.0.202, supply can flow through ennemy territory. In my test, I put the only blue army supply source right in the middle of red territory. At scenario start, the hex where the blue supply source was, was not converted, it remained normally red owned, and there was 0 supply for the blue's everywhere. Then I captured the hex with the blue supply source with a blue unit, and, after that, completly encircled the blue supply source with the reds. The situation becomes: I now have a single hex, blue owned, with a blue supply source, right in the middle of red territory (like the Rangoon situation in the Burma scenario), and the supply now flows through red territory to the blue's as hopefully shown below (I am not sure how to embed a screenshot):

Edit: yes, it worked [:)]

[sPzAbt653]

...in the latest 3.4.0.202, supply can flow through ennemy territory.

Its always been that way. There needs to be a line of enemy units or enemy zones of control in order to cut supply. Converted hexes don't do it on their own.

[pcoud]

OK, I didn't know, and I can live with that (I'm always mentioning "in the latest 3.4.0.202", because it is the only version that I (am starting to) know, never played TOAW before).
After all, it makes some sense that the ennemy has to do some efforts to cut the lines. If there had been a rail line from the isolated blue supply source into blue territory (in my above post), I would have found it a bit too easy for the blue's to get supply though...
Supply has always been quite difficult to model in these kind of games, and always subject to very looooong forum discussions (I'm basically coming from the Hearts Of Iron series, and I can tell), but I can say that I find the new supply rules in TOAW quite good (quite similar to WitE by the way: free supply through non damaged rail, then a function of movement points expended by a virtual supply truck).

[desert]

If I remember&nbsp;correctly, supply in HoI is dependent on adjacent friendly provinces. Right?&nbsp; &nbsp;

[pcoud]

Well, it has changed over time. In HOI3, supply moves from supply sources (initially only the capital city was a supply source, then industrial centers also became able to deliver supply) through friendly provinces (it is not a hex based game). The quantity moved depends on several parameters like the overall distance to cover, province infrastructure level, province throughput, weather (muddy), technology developments, etc. The algorithm seems complicated since supply can take several different paths to finally reach the same destination, and sometimes the results were a bit weird or difficult to really explain. I remember that when the new system was introduced, it was highly debated in the forums.