Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Effect of supply level in battles

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support >> Effect of supply level in battles Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Effect of supply level in battles - 4/18/2009 12:32:50 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline 		Hi, I've been playing TOAW III for years and this has been puzzling me for quite a while.
In some scenarios, supply level of units can drop to 1% easily only after a couple of turns. And due to the low re-supply level of those scenarios, most of the units actually never get back to more than 1% accross the whole scenario, e.g. Katherine 43 and Babarossa etc.
What amazed me was these units can still continue fighting under such a supply level, although at a relatively discounted efficiency (definitely not as proportionate as their supply levels). In particular, artillery units can be almost as effective as when they are at high supply levels in surpressing the enemy and killing them. This doesn't seem to matter whether you fire them once a turn or eight to nine times a turn.
Some of my opponents then discovered a technique, that regardless the supply level of his artillery units (1% or 100%), he can still launch 7-8 times of attack to my defending troops every turn, if luck doesn't stop him in the middle. This works particularly well when there're ground troops of the attacker involved. By this way, with the assistance of such very small number of ground troops (actually the smaller the attacker's ground troop is relative to the defender, the better in terms of the relative casualty ratio), he can easily knock my defending units out of their positions, with heavy (disproportionate) casualties. This technique, we sometimes call it the "air gun", makes this game very unfair for the defender or the party who has fewer artillery units because supply level is not reflected in the ability to fire.
Not sure if this is one of the inherent issues we always have with the supply level in this game. I have always found the supply to be too easily consumed and too difficult to be recovered. Let me make my questions simple here:
1. what does 1% supply level really mean in the game? Does it mean each soilder has only got 1 out of 100% his normal battle carry, including ammos, food, medicine etc? Or we should consider some other %, say 30%, being the normal level of battle carry and anything beyond that is just additonal backup?
2. assuming an artillery unit is fully surrounded with no air supply or whatsoever. The enemy does not want to attack this unit, and the unit keeps firing at some other enemy units 2 or 3 cells away. By when this artillery unit will be forced to stop firing due to depletion of its ammo? To me it seems this unit can fire forever as long as nobody gives it a hit under current game settings.
Does any experience similar situations?

< Message edited by X.ray -- 4/18/2009 12:43:43 PM >

_____________________________

X-ray sees it through.
Post #: 1
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/18/2009 2:17:47 PM   
alexzhz


Posts: 84
Joined: 11/25/2007
Status: offline 		Hey guy,I've met the same problem here but it seems few players had disputed about it.There's a very big chance that a whole division can be bombarded into evaporation,I can't believe it can happened in a real battlefield.I hope it should be corrected in the next patch.

_____________________________


(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 2
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/19/2009 12:28:09 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline 		Well, here's something relevant for you.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1604814&mpage=1&key=ant&#1605320

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to alexzhz)
Post #: 3
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/19/2009 7:02:11 AM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: desert

Well, here's something relevant for you.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1604814&mpage=1&key=ant�

Thanks desert. This post is very helpful. I agree with Curtis Lemay that this is a programming problem and should be fixed. However Curtis Lemay's proposal doesn't seem to be taken in the latest patch v3.4, although it did adjust the number of shots which may somehow helpful to this? Is Ralph Trick aware of this?

_____________________________

X-ray sees it through.

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 4
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/19/2009 3:07:37 PM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Is Ralph Trick aware of this?


We're kicking through possible solutions now.

Right now, bombardment combined with an assault component is much more powerful that just bombardment. In general, I can see why, but there are some edge cases where someone throws in a vary small AA unit or something like that which serves as an inappropriate force muliplier for the artillery. We're working on methods to determine when that's happening and do something about it, either based on the recon values or relative strengths or something.

Ralph


_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 5
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/19/2009 5:58:54 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray

Is Ralph Trick aware of this?


We're kicking through possible solutions now.

Right now, bombardment combined with an assault component is much more powerful that just bombardment. In general, I can see why, but there are some edge cases where someone throws in a vary small AA unit or something like that which serves as an inappropriate force muliplier for the artillery. We're working on methods to determine when that's happening and do something about it, either based on the recon values or relative strengths or something.

Ralph



Recon values -- Curtis LeMay notwithstanding -- would be silly. I can see it now. 1st Spahi and Heavy Assault Regiment. Gives the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' a whole new meaning.

But leg infantry? Quite inappropriate for going over the top. Low recon value, you see.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/19/2009 5:59:51 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 6
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/19/2009 9:38:25 PM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray
Is Ralph Trick aware of this?


We're kicking through possible solutions now.

Right now, bombardment combined with an assault component is much more powerful that just bombardment. In general, I can see why, but there are some edge cases where someone throws in a vary small AA unit or something like that which serves as an inappropriate force muliplier for the artillery. We're working on methods to determine when that's happening and do something about it, either based on the recon values or relative strengths or something.

Ralph



Recon values -- Curtis LeMay notwithstanding -- would be silly. I can see it now. 1st Spahi and Heavy Assault Regiment. Gives the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' a whole new meaning.

But leg infantry? Quite inappropriate for going over the top. Low recon value, you see.


Actually, Curtis agrees with you, the current recon values aren't really right for this. I'm the one that feel thats there should be a recon component, even if I have a small group, but it's a recon group, it should impact the affects of artillery.


_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 7
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/20/2009 8:55:16 AM   
Erik2

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline 		Most of the time I wish artillery would only support its own formation, unless the formation was on free support.
This would prevent artillery supporting all battles within range, but let the designer have corps/divisional artillery formations that could support everyone.
Not a perfect solution, but better than the current one IMO.

_____________________________


(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 8
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/20/2009 4:29:41 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray
Is Ralph Trick aware of this?


We're kicking through possible solutions now.

Right now, bombardment combined with an assault component is much more powerful that just bombardment. In general, I can see why, but there are some edge cases where someone throws in a vary small AA unit or something like that which serves as an inappropriate force muliplier for the artillery. We're working on methods to determine when that's happening and do something about it, either based on the recon values or relative strengths or something.

Ralph



Recon values -- Curtis LeMay notwithstanding -- would be silly. I can see it now. 1st Spahi and Heavy Assault Regiment. Gives the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' a whole new meaning.

But leg infantry? Quite inappropriate for going over the top. Low recon value, you see.


Actually, Curtis agrees with you, the current recon values aren't really right for this. I'm the one that feel thats there should be a recon component, even if I have a small group, but it's a recon group, it should impact the affects of artillery.



Agreed with Ralph. I've read through Curtis's post and actually believed a combination of his own (original) proposal and the new proposal probably works the best. While relative size of the attacking units vs. the defending units would definitely have some significant impact on direct casualties caused (with the support of artillery), relative recon value of the attacking units vs. the defending units (regardless size of either side) would also have impact on how accurate the artillery fire power can be. Therefore, an ant unit with significantly higher recon value may not be able to cause many direct hits, but it will still cause more casualties for the defenders because it can better "guide" the artillery to hit the enemy.

_____________________________

X-ray sees it through.

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 9
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/20/2009 5:27:59 PM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray
Is Ralph Trick aware of this?


We're kicking through possible solutions now.

Right now, bombardment combined with an assault component is much more powerful that just bombardment. In general, I can see why, but there are some edge cases where someone throws in a vary small AA unit or something like that which serves as an inappropriate force muliplier for the artillery. We're working on methods to determine when that's happening and do something about it, either based on the recon values or relative strengths or something.

Ralph



Recon values -- Curtis LeMay notwithstanding -- would be silly. I can see it now. 1st Spahi and Heavy Assault Regiment. Gives the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' a whole new meaning.

But leg infantry? Quite inappropriate for going over the top. Low recon value, you see.


Actually, Curtis agrees with you, the current recon values aren't really right for this. I'm the one that feel thats there should be a recon component, even if I have a small group, but it's a recon group, it should impact the affects of artillery.



Agreed with Ralph. I've read through Curtis's post and actually believed a combination of his own (original) proposal and the new proposal probably works the best. While relative size of the attacking units vs. the defending units would definitely have some significant impact on direct casualties caused (with the support of artillery), relative recon value of the attacking units vs. the defending units (regardless size of either side) would also have impact on how accurate the artillery fire power can be. Therefore, an ant unit with significantly higher recon value may not be able to cause many direct hits, but it will still cause more casualties for the defenders because it can better "guide" the artillery to hit the enemy.

And, this is only one side of my problem. The other side of my problem, is the relationship between attacking power (capability) and supply levels. As I said in post #1 above, I still can't really get it - why a unit (esp. an artillery unit) can keep firing even when its supply level is constantly at 1% every turn, without reducing its fire power proportionally?

_____________________________

X-ray sees it through.

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 10
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/21/2009 4:06:44 AM   
alexzhz


Posts: 84
Joined: 11/25/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray


quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
quote:

ORIGINAL: X.ray
Is Ralph Trick aware of this?


We're kicking through possible solutions now.

Right now, bombardment combined with an assault component is much more powerful that just bombardment. In general, I can see why, but there are some edge cases where someone throws in a vary small AA unit or something like that which serves as an inappropriate force muliplier for the artillery. We're working on methods to determine when that's happening and do something about it, either based on the recon values or relative strengths or something.

Ralph



Recon values -- Curtis LeMay notwithstanding -- would be silly. I can see it now. 1st Spahi and Heavy Assault Regiment. Gives the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' a whole new meaning.

But leg infantry? Quite inappropriate for going over the top. Low recon value, you see.


Actually, Curtis agrees with you, the current recon values aren't really right for this. I'm the one that feel thats there should be a recon component, even if I have a small group, but it's a recon group, it should impact the affects of artillery.



Agreed with Ralph. I've read through Curtis's post and actually believed a combination of his own (original) proposal and the new proposal probably works the best. While relative size of the attacking units vs. the defending units would definitely have some significant impact on direct casualties caused (with the support of artillery), relative recon value of the attacking units vs. the defending units (regardless size of either side) would also have impact on how accurate the artillery fire power can be. Therefore, an ant unit with significantly higher recon value may not be able to cause many direct hits, but it will still cause more casualties for the defenders because it can better "guide" the artillery to hit the enemy.

And, this is only one side of my problem. The other side of my problem, is the relationship between attacking power (capability) and supply levels. As I said in post #1 above, I still can't really get it - why a unit (esp. an artillery unit) can keep firing even when its supply level is constantly at 1% every turn, without reducing its fire power proportionally?

Agree with Xray.The ant unit is not the only one problem here.On the other side,supply effect comes to be a big problem in artillery unit.Sometimes the artillery units with 1% supply can also give the ememy a great blow,and it seems there's no relationship between attack power and supply levels,we call it "Air Cannon-shot".That doesn't make sense,but hard to be forbidden in PBEM.
Therefore,one who uses the ant unit combined with Air Cannon-shot must be invincible.
I'm not mean to criticize the combat system ,but hope it would be great and evergreen .Only after having solved all of these problems,TOAW would be truly the best of all.So,let's see if there is any solution before 3.4 patch's releasing.

_____________________________


(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 11
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/21/2009 4:28:12 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline 		Well, the combat strength of a unit with 1 supply and 33 readiness is a lot lower than that of the same unit at full strength.

So that's a 50% drop there...so while it isn't right, artillery won't be nearly as effective if it's constantly being used in bombardments.




Excuse the typo.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by desert -- 4/21/2009 4:30:01 AM >

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to alexzhz)
Post #: 12
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/21/2009 4:45:31 AM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline 		It is lower, but the point is: whether it is even supposed to be firing at a 1% supply level, or even has been in that status for turns?  Also, 1% supply + 33% readiness only reduces the strength to half vs. a fully supplied and fully rested unit, isn't that a bit too unproportionate?

_____________________________

X-ray sees it through.

(in reply to desert)
Post #: 13
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/21/2009 4:54:44 AM   
alexzhz


Posts: 84
Joined: 11/25/2007
Status: offline 		Thanks, desert.
But Can you imagine a 1% supplied artillery with 33% readiness could own as high as half of the combat strength of full strength artillery? Don't you think 1% supply level means reaching the bottom of the barrel? If so, how can a artillery unit fire at this situation?

< Message edited by Spider -- 4/21/2009 4:55:55 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to desert)
Post #: 14
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/21/2009 10:15:00 PM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline 		Well, like I said, while it's not right, there IS an incentive to keep your artillery well-supplied.



_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to alexzhz)
Post #: 15
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/21/2009 11:03:20 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spider

Thanks, desert.
But Can you imagine a 1% supplied artillery with 33% readiness could own as high as half of the combat strength of full strength artillery? Don't you think 1% supply level means reaching the bottom of the barrel? If so, how can a artillery unit fire at this situation?


You might want to check out this old discussion:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1515321

(in reply to alexzhz)
Post #: 16
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/22/2009 6:17:22 AM   
X.ray

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/18/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spider

Thanks, desert.
But Can you imagine a 1% supplied artillery with 33% readiness could own as high as half of the combat strength of full strength artillery? Don't you think 1% supply level means reaching the bottom of the barrel? If so, how can a artillery unit fire at this situation?


You might want to check out this old discussion:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1515321

Thanks Curtis. Long and indeed very helpful discussion. Agree this may have to be finally solved in TOAW IV but it doesn't prevent me from adding it to my wishlist for patch v3.4 or even 3.5
IMO the game is quite significantly distorted in the supply/consumption system. Units are too easy and too fast to drop to a 1% supply status. If you move it at full speed and make 10 combact rounds in a turn, it could happen right at the end of first a couple of turns. In many scenarios, including the ones I mentioned above (Katherine 43 is even a turtorial scenario!), unless you seriously spread your units out of the map and keep them away from any enemy or combat, you probably will never see a day when their supply level is above 1%. Yet they can still fight with a disproportionately reduced combat strength. Isn't this a bit difficult to understand?
If you really believe 1% supply level is the baseline of the supply level of a unit rather than what it appears on the surface, the way it is probably is just not linear enough to illustrate the decline from 100% to 1%...
Solutions, unfortunately I don't have - or at least don't without breaking down 99% of the existing scenarios. Maybe reducing supply consumption per MP/tactical round by 10 times, or boost the re-supply level by 10 times, would make it seem to be more reasonable, at least on the surface. But again, there has to be some point, when unit moves too fast or fights too much, that it is forced to stop action and wait for its supply to catch up - maybe to add a new unit status as "waiting for supply" under which a unit loses its MP and attack strength but still has defence strength? Where is that point is still a question.
Just my random thoughts.

_____________________________

X-ray sees it through.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 17
RE: Effect of supply level in battles - 4/26/2009 11:51:11 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		Generally, my take on all this is that supply effects should vary depending on the equipment type and the mission being performed.

As to equipment type, at one extreme, a battalion of infantry can retain some effectiveness for a very long time. At the other, artillery loses all usefulness in its assigned role once the shells run out -- and they will run out quickly.

As to mission, most units will retain defensive capability long after they have lost all significant offensive capability. Movement ability will vary depending on unit type. Tanks without fuel simply will not go. Infantry without food can still march (and in the right circumstances, find food as they go.)

Finally, the supply draining effect of attacks needs to vary according to the ratio of attacker to defender strength. It's simply ridiculous that one company from a subdivided battalion can drain 10% of the supply from the best part of a division with an experimental poke; the Russians could have reduced the Stalingrad pocket with a tenth of the casualties they suffered and in half the time if only this marvellous OPART tactic had worked in real life. Indeed, what German units surrounded in Stalingrad were and weren't able to keep doing illustrates all of my points. The infantry could fight defensively; the tanks couldn't have accompanied a breakout, etc.



< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/26/2009 11:52:00 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to X.ray)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support >> Effect of supply level in battles Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.125