New supply system...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

New supply system...

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 >> New supply system...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

New supply system... - 2/22/2011 7:17:05 PM

Iron Stringbean

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/3/2006
Status: offline

I decided to play around with the Tunisia 42-43 campaign as the Allies after reading Jeff Shaara's "The Rising Tide" (first of series and if you like Toaw, I have a funny feeling you'd love these books).

Anyway, after trouncing the German's out of Tunisia early on (I'm going to give "Last Stand if Africa 42-43" a try next...) I moved my forces South to meet Rommel's forces that just arrived. I was starting to form a defensive position around Sfax, and decided to wait until my units resupplied before making a final push South.

That's when I realized all my units had %1 supply. I traced my supply lines back, and although the railroads to the North near the Tunisian supply point were damaged, I still had a rail line to the NW that connected to two other supply points. The problem apparently was the distance from where this rail-line ended, and where my forces were starting to dig in.

That's when I started reading up on the New Supply rules. I now understand that supply runs as if a mech unit (with %50 density) was using its MP from the nearest supply point or connected rail-line, towards your units to determine the supply level. It all makes sense and seems much more realistic, but I'm having a hard time justifying the fact the supply levels can now actually reach zero if you're far enough away from a rail-line. When I turned on the classic supply system, my units had %7 supply vs %1, which I felt was a reasonable number to simulate a stretched supply line.

The way I started thinking about it, if a mech unit didn't have enough MP to reach my units in one turn, then I'd have close to %0 supply rate, but in a realistic sense, if a supply truck took longer than 1 week (or whatever turn length it is) to reach a unit, did it just cut the engines and give up? Rommel's supply trains coming out of Tunis were stretched all the way to Egypt, not just down to Sfax...

To me, the exponential decrease in supply to a potential %0 under the new system is too low and unrealistic. I feel a value that bottomed out slightly under the hard cap of %25 the total supply value from the classic supply system would work better, especially with some of the older and classic scenarios.

I understand redoing the calculus functions is probably too much to ask; so for now I'll just be using the classic supply system unless the scenario specifically states it's for 3.4. It's just a shame, because I really like the rational behind the new system. However, I feel the point at which the values start to exponentially decrease towards infinity is too low; specifically the value of 0.

Post #: 1

RE: New supply system... - 2/22/2011 7:42:38 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

Hi there,

you still have the option to switch to the old supply rules (see picture). Yes, the issue with some of the old scenarios is, that they might not be compatible with the implimented changes, but... the supply situation for Pz Armee Afrika should actually be better with the new supply rules. Drop me a line if you're interested in a PBEM test; house rules apply and additional ones can be arranged.

kLiNk, Oberst

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Iron Stringbean)

Post #: 2

RE: New supply system... - 2/24/2011 6:24:33 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Stringbean

I decided to play around with the Tunisia 42-43 campaign as the Allies after reading Jeff Shaara's "The Rising Tide" (first of series and if you like Toaw, I have a funny feeling you'd love these books).

Anyway, after trouncing the German's out of Tunisia early on (I'm going to give "Last Stand if Africa 42-43" a try next...) I moved my forces South to meet Rommel's forces that just arrived. I was starting to form a defensive position around Sfax, and decided to wait until my units resupplied before making a final push South.

That's when I realized all my units had %1 supply. I traced my supply lines back, and although the railroads to the North near the Tunisian supply point were damaged, I still had a rail line to the NW that connected to two other supply points. The problem apparently was the distance from where this rail-line ended, and where my forces were starting to dig in.

The problem is with the Supply Radius. That's set by event, and if there is no event, then the scenario uses the default value => 4. This scenario has no such event, so 4 is just what it uses.

The scenario may be so old that it was designed before it became possible to vary the Supply Radius. Or the designer may just not have known about it. Regardless, 4 is a very short radius for a 5km/hex scenario. And it will indeed cause supply to exponentially decrease very quickly. Just for comparison, my CFNA scenarios are also 5km/hex and on a very similar topic. I use a Supply Radius of 25 in them - and augment them with Supply Units as well.

This would be one of the scenarios that, sans editing, needs to be played with Old Supply Rules.

quote:

That's when I started reading up on the New Supply rules. I now understand that supply runs as if a mech unit (with %50 density) was using its MP from the nearest supply point or connected rail-line, towards your units to determine the supply level. It all makes sense and seems much more realistic, but I'm having a hard time justifying the fact the supply levels can now actually reach zero if you're far enough away from a rail-line. When I turned on the classic supply system, my units had %7 supply vs %1, which I felt was a reasonable number to simulate a stretched supply line.

The way I started thinking about it, if a mech unit didn't have enough MP to reach my units in one turn, then I'd have close to %0 supply rate, but in a realistic sense, if a supply truck took longer than 1 week (or whatever turn length it is) to reach a unit, did it just cut the engines and give up? Rommel's supply trains coming out of Tunis were stretched all the way to Egypt, not just down to Sfax...

To me, the exponential decrease in supply to a potential %0 under the new system is too low and unrealistic. I feel a value that bottomed out slightly under the hard cap of %25 the total supply value from the classic supply system would work better, especially with some of the older and classic scenarios.

I understand redoing the calculus functions is probably too much to ask; so for now I'll just be using the classic supply system unless the scenario specifically states it's for 3.4. It's just a shame, because I really like the rational behind the new system. However, I feel the point at which the values start to exponentially decrease towards infinity is too low; specifically the value of 0.

Let's say you have 100 trucks lifting 4 tons each. They travel 100 miles/day. So, if the target is 50 miles away, they can deliver 400 tons a day. If he is 500 miles away, they can deliver 40 tons a day. If he is 5000 miles away, they can deliver 4 tons a day, etc. (Actually, that's an oversimplification, because the trucks - and their crews - consume fuel and supplies during the trip - so they would actually deliver well less than that).

Clearly, it doesn't level out at all, but keeps on decreasing with distance.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 2/24/2011 6:34:57 PM >

(in reply to Iron Stringbean)

Post #: 3

RE: New supply system... - 2/24/2011 6:59:26 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

I (well, at the moment MarGol) learned it the hard at your CFNA! It makes the FITE map look like a tutorial. Personally I am used to 'front' lines but that approach, i.e. trying to establish one at the desert is a sheer folly (My AUS/IND Bde found that out). I know it's off-topic here, but at the moment, the Axis already seem to suffer more from lack of supplies than my attempts to stop them.

WHILE you are 'here' - what about the Tobruk mine field effects (simulated as artillery) in CFNA? I used (one piece for bombardment missions). Later I realized that might have been prohibited (or missed it while reading the house rules).

Tunis 42-43 is the next PBEM on the list and glad you mentioned the supply radius. I can't find John Schettler's email in the docs; wanna' ask him if I can tweak it (at least the supply radius).

Bob, maybe you can answer the trivia question I posted (under the 'General' tab, see screenshots)on my blog. Most kids don't recall 80s wargames :)

kLiNk, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 4

RE: New supply system... - 2/25/2011 2:01:47 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

WHILE you are 'here' - what about the Tobruk mine field effects (simulated as artillery) in CFNA? I used (one piece for bombardment missions). Later I realized that might have been prohibited (or missed it while reading the house rules).

No prohibitions on their use. The Axis will still be able to take Tobruk first time he tries no matter how tough I make it. Problem is the CW don't have enough sea cap to get any armor reinforcements into it. But, you can make it costly.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 5

RE: New supply system... - 2/25/2011 2:08:56 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Bob, maybe you can answer the trivia question I posted (under the 'General' tab, see screenshots)on my blog. Most kids don't recall 80s wargames :)

I'm afraid that's a bit too recent for me. Now, if you had something from the '70's...

Looks like some sort of Battle of Britain title.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 6

RE: New supply system... - 2/25/2011 5:00:38 PM

Iron Stringbean

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Tunis 42-43 is the next PBEM on the list and glad you mentioned the supply radius. I can't find John Schettler's email in the docs; wanna' ask him if I can tweak it (at least the supply radius).

kLiNk, Oberst

I'm playing Last Stand in Africa 1942-1943, and IMO it's a much better scenario of the Tunis campaign than Tunis 42-43. In particular, I like how there's events that really simulate how much of an effect the rain and mud had on the Allied advance. Also the French forces are actually represented, and I'm not having as much of a problem with a crippling lack of supply as I did in Tunis 42-43.

Of course, no offense intended for the author of Tunis 42-43

As for the supply radius, how do you go about editing that in the editor?

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)

Post #: 7

RE: New supply system... - 2/25/2011 5:11:22 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

You can define thesupply radius as an event. No big deal (even for me, see attached) to change or add an event. Atm I am testing Tunis 42-43 with a PBEM buddy. And yes, I know about LsiA and contacted Martin if I can tweak it for 3.4. *edit* Naturally the value for 'Turn range' will be set for the duration of the whole scenario, unless another event might trigger a reduction or an increase of the supply range:)

quote:

Hello Oberst Klink,

I have been out of the TOAW loop for several years now, but I am pleased some people are still interested in my scenarios. I have not made any updates since publishing Last Stand in Africa, so whatever the version you have, is the latest one.

Cheers,

Martin

I am still trying to contact John Schettler about his version, too. He also created the origonal Sicily '43.

kLiNk, Oberst

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 2/25/2011 5:25:30 PM >

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Iron Stringbean)

Post #: 8

RE: New supply system... - 2/25/2011 5:13:33 PM

Oberst_Klink

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Bob, maybe you can answer the trivia question I posted (under the 'General' tab, see screenshots)on my blog. Most kids don't recall 80s wargames :)

I'm afraid that's a bit too recent for me. Now, if you had something from the '70's...

Looks like some sort of Battle of Britain title.

Well, 'Computer Ambush' you might have recognized then, uh? ;)

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 9

RE: New supply system... - 2/26/2011 4:21:58 PM

Curtis Lemay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Let's say you have 100 trucks lifting 4 tons each. They travel 100 miles/day. So, if the target is 50 miles away, they can deliver 400 tons a day. If he is 500 miles away, they can deliver 40 tons a day. If he is 5000 miles away, they can deliver 4 tons a day, etc. (Actually, that's an oversimplification, because the trucks - and their crews - consume fuel and supplies during the trip - so they would actually deliver well less than that).

Clearly, it doesn't level out at all, but keeps on decreasing with distance.

And let's add that consumption by the trucks: Suppose they make 5miles/gallon. That works out to 20 gallons/100miles/truck = 2000 gallons for 100 trucks per 100 miles. I'm guessing that's about 6 tons. In jerry cans, let�s say 10 tons, to make it simple.

So, for the 50 mile example, they would actually deliver 390 tons instead of 400. At 500 miles the trucks consume 100 tons so they could only deliver 30 tons per day instead of 40. Forget about 5000 miles - it can't be done. At 2000 miles, the trucks consume 400 tons of fuel on the round trip. That means they can't deliver any supplies at all. All they can do is carry enough fuel for themselves to get there and back. Beyond 2000 miles, they can't even get back. They end up stranded somewhere along the way.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 10