Supply Question

Supply Question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room

Message

wwiiguy -> Supply Question (2/19/2007 7:07:47 PM)
When conducting an amphibious invasion do you need to keep a portion of your Sea Transport capacity unused on each turn to ensure supply of your existing forces that you have already landed vs. using it all to bring in follow on forces? I've included the quote below from the manual that indicates that might be true. If not how do you make sure your units are getting enough supply? What other things should you factor in when conducting an amphibious assault? I'm talking WWII era specifically, but also interested in this from an overall perspective as well. Section 9.1.7 TOAW 3 Manual Transport Asset Sharing Units that do not move and are not assigned a Local or Tactical Reserve status will temporarily lend a portion of their transport assets (equipment with a transport capability, such as trucks, horse teams, etc.) to their parent Formation (and possibly to others depending upon the Formation Support Level) to aid in distributing Supply to other units. Any unused Rail, Air, or Sea Transport Capacity also contributes to resupply efforts. This results in a boost to the Formation’s capacity to distribute supplies. Transport asset sharing has no negative effects.

JAMiAM -> RE: Supply Question (2/19/2007 8:00:55 PM)
You want to make sure that the location that you are landing at will have a friendly supply source. Transportation asset sharing merely boosts the effective stockpile (resupply) amount by applying a multiplier to the hex's resupply rate. Therefore, if zero supply is available to the location, then the multiplier is acting on zero - resulting in zero supply.

wwiiguy -> RE: Supply Question (2/19/2007 8:19:49 PM)
OK. That makes sense. Wouldn't you expect that in a properly designed scenario that captured ports would act as a supply source for your units?

Telumar -> RE: Supply Question (2/19/2007 8:36:35 PM)
Depends. If you land at Bremerhaven instead of Normandy in an Overlord scenario then you might probably be not very happy with your supply situation... Seriously, 90% of the scenarios have this info for players in the scenario briefing or in an 'external' scenario document.

JAMiAM -> RE: Supply Question (2/19/2007 8:50:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Telumar Seriously, 90% of the scenarios have this info for players in the scenario briefing or in an 'external' scenario document. I disagree a bit here. I'd say that a well-documented scenario, irregardless of how well it plays, should have this information. However, the quality of documentation varies widely among scenarios. You can always do a scenario dump though, and check the file for where the supply points are for both sides. In a scenario that features amphibious operations, and is lacking in documentation, this is always a good idea. I still remember the surprise (anger) I felt in one of my first games when I had my first UN landing in Korea 50-51 be supplied, but the next one wasn't. Didn't have a clue back then as to why that was happening...[:D]

wwiiguy -> RE: Supply Question (2/19/2007 8:57:18 PM)
Makes perfect sense. I agree there are good beachhead locations and there are bad ones and you should expect to see an effect for making a poor choice. To me it would make sense though that if you are able to land forces and maintain a covering force at sea then you should be able to land supplies. It would be nice if this was something that was a bit more dynamic that the invading force could impose onto a location. In my particular case, I believe the scenario briefing stated that I could choose any landing location that I wanted. The one I chose was an alternative location that was considered historically. I may not have chosen wisely. Before I go into this too deeply, I will need to look at this further tonight when I get home. I have an active game going and don't want to give it all away (if I haven't already) without examining things further.

wwiiguy -> RE: Supply Question (2/19/2007 9:02:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM You can always do a scenario dump though, and check the file for where the supply points are for both sides. In a scenario that features amphibious operations, and is lacking in documentation, this is always a good idea. I still remember the surprise (anger) I felt in one of my first games when I had my first UN landing in Korea 50-51 be supplied, but the next one wasn't. Didn't have a clue back then as to why that was happening... Great tip. I definitely was not aware that this existed. I just assumed that if you could land the forces that you could expect a certain minimal level of sea lifted supply across the beaches until you started capturing ports.

wwiiguy -> RE: Supply Question (2/20/2007 6:37:05 PM)
OK. I cracked open the scenario last night and found that supply is tied to capture of the ports. That triggers an event that is variable in when it will happen. Depending on the port it may take anywhere from 1 - 15 turns for it to become a supply point. In my case I expect that the ports I have captured should start supplying my forces in the next turn or two. I read through the scenario briefing and did not see anything mentioned here, but I have to re-read it again in the next day or so more carefully. If is pretty lengthy and I read through it pretty quick. Anyway, I think I've figured things out a bit more and understand what is happening.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.765625