Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics - Am I Wrong?

[sveint]

If the invasion of Norway hadn't happened historically, and anyone did that invasion in a game, everyone would call it "extremely unrealistic".

[redrum68]

ORIGINAL: sveint
If the invasion of Norway hadn't happened historically, and anyone did that invasion in a game, everyone would call it "extremely unrealistic".

Fair point. Though I think the big difference between the historical Norway invasion and the example here is the distance the troops traveled and the sheer numbers. Norway was a pretty small invasion force and was successful due to surprise and lack of defenders. It essentially lasted just a few days.

[Nikel]

Is a good thing to have options available, even those that did not happen historically, but that could have happen.

Lets call it "room to manoeuvre".


But they have to be credible in context. So you may invade Siria to pincer Egypt. But not without adequate preparations and supplies, in this case you should hold Cyprus before.


Van Creveld is no fan of Rommel when he writes:


"Although brought to a stop at Alamein, Rommel had by no means given up. He still intended to resume the attack after a few days’ recuperation. However, the full impact of his long communications line now made itself felt. Of the 100,000 tons needed each month, Tobruk — itself hundreds of miles behind the front - could handle barely 20,000. Lorries were in as short a supply as always, and attempts to use the British railway from Sollum resulted in only 300 tons per day being transported instead of 1,500 as planned. What was worse, the port and the sea-routes leading to it were hopelessly exposed to the attacks of the Egypt-based RAF. Sending supply ships straight to Tobruk (or to the even smaller and more vulnerable ports of Bardia and Mersa Matruh) was difficult. On the other hand, unloading them at Benghazi or Tripoli, 800 and 1,300 miles behind the front respectively, involved impossible wastage and delay. Faced with this dilemma, Commando Supremo hesitated. In July, disregarding a storm of protest from Panzerarmee, the Italians opted to unload at Benghazi and Tripoli, with the result that although only 5 per cent of the shipping was lost and 91,000 tons put across, it took weeks for the supplies to reach the front. Rommel himself saw the dilemma clearly enough, but, he insisted that the Italians send their ships directly into Tobruk, with the result that in August losses rose fourfold and the quantity of supplies put across dropped to 51,000 tons."

[stjeand]

It would not be difficult to put in place that for the Axis to supply Syria they either had to have Turkey as an ally or control Cyprus.

BUT that is not how the game currently sits.

I believe in the next version there will be more "supply" based restrictions.

Something like MM and Transports are required to supply ports. Without them you can't...and when you are low supplies become scarce.

[AlvaroSousa]

Remember this is a game. If I made things 100% historical it would be very boring. If you knew the Germans would never succeed at Sealion as current data shows and I simply didn't allow it then that would make for a very boring game. Or invading Syria, or Gibraltar.

As examples.

[AstroBlues]

[:)]

[Edorf]

ORIGINAL: redrum68

ORIGINAL: sveint
If the invasion of Norway hadn't happened historically, and anyone did that invasion in a game, everyone would call it "extremely unrealistic".

Fair point. Though I think the big difference between the historical Norway invasion and the example here is the distance the troops traveled and the sheer numbers. Norway was a pretty small invasion force and was successful due to surprise and lack of defenders. It essentially lasted just a few days.

Not just a «few days”. The invasion of Norway started on April 9 1940 and the armed resistance ended on June 10 1940. That’s two months.
Similarly the Soviet-Finnish war in 1939 lasted for three months but has never been referenced to as lasting just a “few says”.

From Edorf aka “The Norwegian Viking”

[redrum68]

Not just a «few days”. The invasion of Norway started on April 9 1940 and the armed resistance ended on June 10 1940. That’s two months.
Similarly the Soviet-Finnish war in 1939 lasted for three months but has never been referenced to as lasting just a “few says”.

From Edorf aka “The Norwegian Viking”

Well they didn't surrender til 2 months later but much of the damage was done in just the first few days. Landing a force equal to an entire army group in Syria and marching on the try to conquer Egypt is a completely different type of invasion.

The Soviet-Finnish war was completely different as it was primarily a land war not a naval invasion.

[Edorf]

ORIGINAL: redrum68

Not just a «few days”. The invasion of Norway started on April 9 1940 and the armed resistance ended on June 10 1940. That’s two months.
Similarly the Soviet-Finnish war in 1939 lasted for three months but has never been referenced to as lasting just a “few says”.

From Edorf aka “The Norwegian Viking”

Well they didn't surrender til 2 months later but much of the damage was done in just the first few days. Landing a force equal to an entire army group in Syria and marching on the try to conquer Egypt is a completely different type of invasion.

The Soviet-Finnish war was completely different as it was primarily a land war not a naval invasion.

Of course I see your point. Norway was essentially completely doomed the day Germany decided to invaded and they were large effect in control very early on. But nevertheless the resistance lasted for quite some time, considering the small number of defenders.

[redrum68]

Yeah you had some inland resistance and then the Allies landing to try to counter the Germans especially in northern/western Norway. But most of the ports and major cities fell very quickly.

I think invading Syria in a similar manner could have happened (quickly capture all ports and major cities), its the quantity of troops and then trying to supply that army as it marched on Egypt that I find to be unrealistic in this example.

[akashamon]

This!

ORIGINAL: generalfdog

Good responses here I would only add that it may not be as unrealistic as you think keep in mind German landings in Norway, and Crete were all done with British naval presence and superiority and north Africa was supplied. Taking Syria is almost the only way the Axis can hope to take egypt because without those ports they run in to to many supply issues, just like they did historically, it's all based on port size and distance from them, and interdiction of supplies by naval and air forces does work. In the screen shot I can see neither of you have occupied Cyprus which is a mistake, and your Axis opponent is having more issues then you think there is no way all that air force he has over there is worth anything, I bet they all have little red triangles and are almost useless , a few may be doing something if he is pumping supply trucks in to them every turn. Either way give it a chance for it's scale it is the most realistic best playing game out there

It is my first game with Blacklancer. He does not realize how bad this is for my troops if I am not able to take Egypt quickly. I should have taken Cyprus, it crossed my mind but I went all in to take Egypt as fast as possible. I was thinking from there the rest of NA, England might be an option along with Persia and then two front Russia. I dunno. I am new to these games (SC, Warplan), full disclosure.

Like ANY game the supply/rail/transport mechanics are crude when compared to reality. They hurt or benefit players for their choices and warplane has a good balance based on my units effectiveness in Syria. It was a good strategy because it was open (pincer Egypt) but I poured way to many troops than I can support, which Blacklancer did not realize.

Overall I like the supply and stockpile mechanics they make sense to me. Sometimes rail and transports are too OP. But I think the player needs that flexibility as well.

On the Med and allies control. I think navies often were close by but never saw each other? So, I like how Warplan does the battle mechanics and the allies player can completely block Beirut and garrison Cyprus to prevent any invasion. If the allied player leaves room there needs to be an option for the axis to make the med their lake, that is part of the fun imho. Even if that means my transports could sail through the enemy unit to land in Beirut. The enemy naval units were 3-5 hexes away. So I had room. I think if they block it out completely then the axis should not be able to move in.

[AstroBlues]

[:)]

[heliodorus04]

I cannot believe no one has addressed the number one problem with the axis offensives in the Med:
Supply/shipping from the home country's ports (completely without escort!) to the destination ports flows freely, flows fully, cannot be intercepted at sea and with no production consequence for its interception by air.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE THINK ABOUT THAT!

Italy can send 40 supply to this port, that port, and ALL ports.
Germany can send supply to Iceland or the Azores with no chance of it costing him ANYthing.

All supplies need to move across the sea so that they can be intercepted by warships and so that they need to be escorted. It should function exactly like trade routes, but for over-seas supply.
Axis should not be able to repair railroads in Africa unless Turkey is friendly/conquered!
Cairo needs to be a supply source for the Allies so that they can, in essence, have infinite supply as long as it's in Allied hands.
Every intercepted point of supply must subtract from production points (add it to the accrual of Upkeep for the forces not being supplied on a 1:1 ratio).

The cost supply is not free. But because in this game it has no economic cost, there's no risk of interdicting said supplies. If you make supply travel by sea so that it can be intercepted, you will go a LONG way to adding realism to this game where it's grotesquely lacking.

Supply should have to be produced and this game just lets it flow like blood produced from a body. In the tiny place where supply does have to be factored down into individual points, the loss of it is meaningless. The impact on land units of the absence of supply in this case is grossly inadequate to the importance of supply on overseas operations.

Has War Plan Pacific not t done something different with supply? Can the Japanese just supply all their islands without ships, escorts, or consequence? What happy soldiers they would have had in 1944.

[AlvaroSousa]

The supply system is how it is for a variety of game play factors based on real life situations.

There is a lot more to supply than most players realized. Look at these examples, Rhodes before 1941, Malta, Rabaul. It is very complex and I put into place certain mechanics that encourage certain actions by players.

For example the UK had a garrison in Iceland. If in WPE the Allies could just cut it off why bother having a garrison? Axis take it just park a naval group outside and they eventually die.

Sometimes mechanics fit the scale and model of the game.

Only thing I can say is that WP2 will have a better supply system now that I am learning all the variables involved. Very likely it will involve sending ships to the location to resupply it and even building up supply. I have to see how this works for the player experience and how it can be done in an automatic way.

As for now you should be garrisoning Azores and Iceland. If the Axis want to put forth huge efforts into attacking these locations they will pay a heavy price.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Very likely it will involve sending ships to the location to resupply it and even building up supply.

A welcome addition if there is a possibility for your opponent to intercept and sink these ships all their way home.