RE: The Truck Unit Icon

RE: The Truck Unit Icon (Full Version)

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

Message

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/18/2007 2:54:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit quote: Actually the locomotives and the rolling stock are completely independent of the line. ..actually they're not, Russian 4'8 1/2" can't use Russian broad-gauge, Sure. However, the trains on the Southampton-Waterloo line can quite happily hop over and run to Exeter instead. ..but the third rail pick-up stuff on the London to Brighton line, and then along the South coast can only go where there's a third rail.. ..the big units running Ldn-Sthampton can get thru to Truro, evn to the tip of Cornwall at Penzance, but can't do the tiny side lines to the myriad of small ports on the coast, and have to come out of Penzance backwards, no turntable and nowhere to put one..they turn round in Truro, and normally change engines for something that can better handle the tighter curves.. ..and this is 1940, go back to WW1 and they couldn't because GWR are on broad gauge.. ..then there's the load limits for a given piece of track, you could probably get a main line engine and cariages unit to Windermere, you'd have to winch the stuff over from the main line buttt it could be done, once there your only problem is that the bridges won't take the weight.. ..shall we do canals next ?

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/18/2007 3:03:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright When it comes to the 'carrying capacity' of particular routes, you can make a guess -- and that guess has a very good chance of being better than the totally unrealistic paradigm currently used to supply units. Let's suppose we've got our road and rail net all mapped out with our arbitrary figures. Now it comes to working out the best way to get the maximum supply to every unit you have on the map by manipulation of the routes your supply is taking through the net. Complicated- very complicated. So you end up having the computer do it for you: and replicating the abilities of the Air Staff Assistant won't be enough. ..we've already got major and minor roads, tracks would be nice sigh, so why not major/minor rail ?.. ..it's a designer problem to allot carrying capacity, not a player one, and at it's simplest it's the computers job to work with those figures, even tho i quite like the idea of rail-engine icons that ensure supply at x-tons per icon, over a given length of rail, rather than this one size doesn't quite fit all we have now..

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/18/2007 7:01:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..but the third rail pick-up stuff on the London to Brighton line, and then along the South coast can only go where there's a third rail.. ... There were one or two peculiar railways in the UK in 1940, but the vast majority- I would say 99%- were on the same gauge. The only problem you would have would be the electrified trains from the London Underground wouldn't run on non-electrified lines. quote: and have to come out of Penzance backwards, That's why you have an engine at both ends. It's not terribly complicated.

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/18/2007 7:02:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..it's a designer problem to allot carrying capacity, not a player one, So you don't want any control of where your supplies go, then?

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/19/2007 4:56:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..but the third rail pick-up stuff on the London to Brighton line, and then along the South coast can only go where there's a third rail.. ... There were one or two peculiar railways in the UK in 1940, but the vast majority- I would say 99%- were on the same gauge. The only problem you would have would be the electrified trains from the London Underground wouldn't run on non-electrified lines. quote: and have to come out of Penzance backwards, That's why you have an engine at both ends. It's not terribly complicated. ..err no, Southern was fully electrified in the late 20s/early 30s, with the first lines electrified on a third rail pick-up as early as 1901.. ..and err no, unless the lead unit controls directly the power output of the tail unit, you can have some terrible complicated stress problems in the middle, rolling stock leaping in the air and leaving the track, that sort of thing.. ..do visit Penzance sometime, the loop to let the engine back out and join on at the front, albeit backwards was still in use in the 80's, i assume it still is..

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/19/2007 4:58:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..it's a designer problem to allot carrying capacity, not a player one, So you don't want any control of where your supplies go, then? ..and i also said quote: even tho i quite like the idea of rail-engine icons that ensure supply at x-tons per icon, over a given length of rail, ..[:)]

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/19/2007 6:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..and err no, unless the lead unit controls directly the power output of the tail unit, you can have some terrible complicated stress problems in the middle, Trust me: one at the front and one at the end isn't complicated. It's been happening for a very long time.

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/19/2007 6:43:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit even tho i quite like the idea of rail-engine icons that ensure supply at x-tons per icon, over a given length of rail, Sure. You've got a week to take off work to figure out your turn 1 move, right?

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/20/2007 6:56:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright When it comes to the 'carrying capacity' of particular routes, you can make a guess -- and that guess has a very good chance of being better than the totally unrealistic paradigm currently used to supply units. Let's suppose we've got our road and rail net all mapped out with our arbitrary figures. Now it comes to working out the best way to get the maximum supply to every unit you have on the map by manipulation of the routes your supply is taking through the net. Complicated- very complicated. So you end up having the computer do it for you: and replicating the abilities of the Air Staff Assistant won't be enough. Mm. Well, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and it sounds like you've got a point, so I'll assume you do. Nevertheless. The current supply model is outrageously bad. It needs to be improved -- and to me, the improvement has to be in some volume-based direction. It has to reflect the fact that three divisions consume more supply than three battalions.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/20/2007 7:00:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit even tho i quite like the idea of rail-engine icons that ensure supply at x-tons per icon, over a given length of rail, Sure. You've got a week to take off work to figure out your turn 1 move, right? There's usually some sort of 'clean' solution out there -- something better than the current model. It's like we're sitting here with a paradigm that is something like throwing virgins into the volcano will improve the harvest -- and it obviously doesn't work. You can object to our attempts to come up with a better approach to agronomy -- but it doesn't alter the fact that chucking in the virgins just isn't satisfactory. Okay -- not one of my better analogies. Still, we need to come up with something. We really have nowhere to go but up.

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/20/2007 1:58:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Nevertheless. The current supply model is outrageously bad. It needs to be improved -- and to me, the improvement has to be in some volume-based direction. It has to reflect the fact that three divisions consume more supply than three battalions. Yeah. Basically, my point is that if we're going to produce a system which has supply points, supply movement and supply consumption all quantified, then we are going to also have to produce a system which can do 90% of the work automatically and effectively- otherwise the game will become unplayable.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/20/2007 9:05:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Nevertheless. The current supply model is outrageously bad. It needs to be improved -- and to me, the improvement has to be in some volume-based direction. It has to reflect the fact that three divisions consume more supply than three battalions. Yeah. Basically, my point is that if we're going to produce a system which has supply points, supply movement and supply consumption all quantified, then we are going to also have to produce a system which can do 90% of the work automatically and effectively- otherwise the game will become unplayable. Yeah. I think we need something like an algorithm where the supply 'flows' along routes and towards masses of units. The computer manages the basic structure of this -- and it's largely invisible in the normal view. Left to its own devices, the computer will behave largely like Eisenhower in the summer of 1944 -- distribute supply equitably without regard to military opportunities. Switch to a different view and you can see what it's doing. Demand that various units/formations be given more supply and see the effects if you like. Then go back to the normal view. Obviously, the ideal -- including such details as the waste, difficulty, and delay incumbent upon a change of emphasis -- might prove to be more than the programming time available. However, even a partial, flawed realization of such a scheme would be an improvement over the current situation.

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/21/2007 2:17:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit even tho i quite like the idea of rail-engine icons that ensure supply at x-tons per icon, over a given length of rail, Sure. You've got a week to take off work to figure out your turn 1 move, right? ..use the crop-circle technlogy.. ..its not as if it'll be an evry turn action and will mostly be set up by the designer on T1, the player may have to move a few units if he doesn't like the at-start..

sPzAbt653 -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/21/2007 2:32:18 AM)
The old 'V4Victory' series had a nice system. A force would start with a supply stockpile in tons, at the beginning of a turn the computer would give it all to the highest HQ, and then distribute it down the line to subordinate HQ's. The computer would figure what the highest level would be for equal distribution (minimal, defense, general or attack) and give that level to each HQ. Then the player could go back and adjust it manually if desired. It was quite easy, and fun. I don't know what effect implementing it would have on TOAW, other than ruining every existing scenario.

Veers -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/21/2007 3:57:24 AM)
quote: I don't know what effect implementing it would have on TOAW, other than ruining every existing scenario. Yeah, but it sounds great. :D

golden delicious -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/21/2007 11:30:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 The old 'V4Victory' series had a nice system. A force would start with a supply stockpile in tons, at the beginning of a turn the computer would give it all to the highest HQ, and then distribute it down the line to subordinate HQ's. The computer would figure what the highest level would be for equal distribution (minimal, defense, general or attack) and give that level to each HQ. Then the player could go back and adjust it manually if desired. It was quite easy, and fun. I don't know what effect implementing it would have on TOAW, other than ruining every existing scenario. Well for existing scenarios, you'd just uncheck the box next to "Advance supply rules?" Anyway, this is a reasonably good system, as it also forces the player to use his HQs and formations properly. Of course, a more structured and flexible chain of command system is an essential prerequisite.

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/21/2007 11:57:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 The old 'V4Victory' series had a nice system. A force would start with a supply stockpile in tons, at the beginning of a turn the computer would give it all to the highest HQ, and then distribute it down the line to subordinate HQ's. The computer would figure what the highest level would be for equal distribution (minimal, defense, general or attack) and give that level to each HQ. Then the player could go back and adjust it manually if desired. It was quite easy, and fun. I don't know what effect implementing it would have on TOAW, other than ruining every existing scenario. Well for existing scenarios, you'd just uncheck the box next to "Advance supply rules?" Anyway, this is a reasonably good system, as it also forces the player to use his HQs and formations properly. Of course, a more structured and flexible chain of command system is an essential prerequisite. ..why a new chain of command ? we can already make them go from co-operative to totally non-co-operative, we have 2 HQ Icons with supply functions, a supply unit icon which does take into account local supply conditions, supply-miracle airfields and ships and a functioning supply sub-program.. ..they just need glueing together in a more realistic form..

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/21/2007 8:48:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 The old 'V4Victory' series had a nice system. A force would start with a supply stockpile in tons, at the beginning of a turn the computer would give it all to the highest HQ, and then distribute it down the line to subordinate HQ's. The computer would figure what the highest level would be for equal distribution (minimal, defense, general or attack) and give that level to each HQ. Then the player could go back and adjust it manually if desired. It was quite easy, and fun. I don't know what effect implementing it would have on TOAW, other than ruining every existing scenario. Well for existing scenarios, you'd just uncheck the box next to "Advance supply rules?" Anyway, this is a reasonably good system, as it also forces the player to use his HQs and formations properly. Of course, a more structured and flexible chain of command system is an essential prerequisite. I don't see any evidence that this system takes the limitations imposed by geography into account. It doesn't matter if the Axis decides to emphasize North Africa above all other theaters. They still can't support one hundred divisions in North Africa. No doubt the Germans were doing their all to support Operation Typhoon. I doubt if they were getting an adequate level of supply to the divisions struggling to advance outside Moscow, though. Few roads, broken down rails, inadequate transportation resources, and the abominable weather must have simply made it impossible to suppport that many troops that far away from a good logistical network. In that connection and as I recall (ITCAAIR), while German troops were freezing outside Moscow, there were vast stockpiles of clothing in Poland. Just no way of getting them from here to there. There would have been if there hadn't been much combat, or if only six divisions had been fighting, but as it was...the minimal ammunition and food needs of the troops were absorbing all the transport capacity there was. In other words, the system needs to account for the fact that there are many points to which only so many tons of supplies can be sent -- no matter how badly they are needed. You can't support a twenty division attack on Murmansk unless you spend five years building infrastructure first. That it might be an excellent idea doesn't alter that fact.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/22/2007 3:54:21 AM)
I didn't mean to imply that the V4V system was a cure for any concerns here, I was just being nostalgic. The past few posts bring up great points. The distribution system should take into account for terrain and distance. So the chain of command from HQ to HQ must be set up properly. OKH - AGN - 18th Army - 1st Korps. The supply level will vary based on distance/terrain/other variables the brilliant programmers write in. So if OKH (in Prussia) sends 290 tons of supply to 1st Korps (near Leningrad), by the time it gets there it may be 125 tons. With this system, a mouse click would allow the player to change the numbers to 360 sent, 155 received, but then all other Army Groups will receive less. A supply line of OKW - Panzer Armee Afrika would look something like 290 sent, 35 received. Making it quite expensive to maintain any force in Afrika (unless you grab Malta!). For TOAW, using tons would change everything existing, I think. But it might not be necessary. The existing 'force supply stockpile levels' may be sufficient.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/22/2007 4:07:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 I didn't mean to imply that the V4V system was a cure for any concerns here, I was just being nostalgic. The past few posts bring up great points. The distribution system should take into account for terrain and distance. So the chain of command from HQ to HQ must be set up properly. OKH - AGN - 18th Army - 1st Korps. The supply level will vary based on distance/terrain/other variables the brilliant programmers write in. So if OKH (in Prussia) sends 290 tons of supply to 1st Korps (near Leningrad), by the time it gets there it may be 125 tons. With this system, a mouse click would allow the player to change the numbers to 360 sent, 155 received, but then all other Army Groups will receive less. A supply line of OKW - Panzer Armee Afrika would look something like 290 sent, 35 received. Making it quite expensive to maintain any force in Afrika (unless you grab Malta!). For TOAW, using tons would change everything existing, I think. But it might not be necessary. The existing 'force supply stockpile levels' may be sufficient. That's a concept -- but there were absolute constraints. Perhaps with an all-out effort the Axis could have doubled the tonnage sent to North Africa or to the Murmansk front or to the troops driving on Moscow -- but they couldn't have increased such figures ten-fold.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/22/2007 5:34:32 AM)
Agreed. The increase in tonnage to one area does directly decrease that to all others. Scenario design should be able to make it silly to do silly things. When I played the Stalingrad game, I would have to put the 6th Army on defensive or minimal (arggh!) in order to get 4th Pz Army into general supply so that 57th Pz Corps would have enough supply to make an effective attack. That seemed reasonable. In a large scale scenario North Afrika does always present unique problems. I think with the proper initial setup it would prevent a player from putting DAK into attack supply, as it would require the east front to go totally minimal in order to meet the requirements. The more I talk about it, the more interested I become.

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/22/2007 7:16:27 AM)
..the more you describe it, the less it charms..it seems front end only, no transport units to destroy, no fragile supply lines to protect It would be as bad as what we have, any "notional/ abstract" method without a physical presence will be. Supply is a physical thing with actual units that move the stuff and actual units, usually slow moving , that distribute it.. ..i still go for something like that used in the SPI Great battles series, actual tons of supply checkable in show unit, a supply unit NOT an HQ, that has x supply points and can distribute SPs over a given area, that gets either default, virtually as now, or can receive extra SPs if within range of a transport unit, be that truck/plane/ship/train/horsedrawn (each has a designer setable range), with at least one on a supply center to start the chain.. ..any such multiplier chain reduces supply across the board elsewhere, but can never transport to an end user more than its weekest link, eg 1 unit 1 SP , 6 units 6 SPs but only within their range.. ..any transport unit needs switching on, maybe setting in Strategic Reserve ? to work, has designer settable squads/boats/planes so defends as normal but with a 0 or fixed low attack value and can move as per it's squad type . A moving transport can't supply, neither can a moving supply icon. Non cooperative means no supply function .. ..the SPs in a supply icon are used something like move 1SP, cmbat min level 1 SP / normal 2 SPs/ ignore 3 SPs.. ..its simple and reasonably accurate, and the Axis can go mad giving NA incredible supply, by using all the transport units road/rail/air/sea, and supply units, and the Allies can go mad sinking, and otherwise destroying them..

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/22/2007 7:43:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit ..the more you describe it, the less it charms..it seems front end only, no transport units to destroy, no fragile supply lines to protect It would be as bad as what we have, any "notional/ abstract" method without a physical presence will be. Supply is a physical thing with actual units that move the stuff and actual units, usually slow moving , that distribute it.. ..i still go for something like that used in the SPI Great battles series, actual tons of supply checkable in show unit, a supply unit NOT an HQ, that has x supply points and can distribute SPs over a given area, that gets either default, virtually as now, or can receive extra SPs if within range of a transport unit, be that truck/plane/ship/train/horsedrawn (each has a designer setable range), with at least one on a supply center to start the chain.. ..any such multiplier chain reduces supply across the board elsewhere, but can never transport to an end user more than its weekest link, eg 1 unit 1 SP , 6 units 6 SPs but only within their range.. ..any transport unit needs switching on, maybe setting in Strategic Reserve ? to work, has designer settable squads/boats/planes so defends as normal but with a 0 or fixed low attack value and can move as per it's squad type . A moving transport can't supply, neither can a moving supply icon. Non cooperative means no supply function .. ..the SPs in a supply icon are used something like move 1SP, cmbat min level 1 SP / normal 2 SPs/ ignore 3 SPs.. ..its simple and reasonably accurate, and the Axis can go mad giving NA incredible supply, by using all the transport units road/rail/air/sea, and supply units, and the Allies can go mad sinking, and otherwise destroying them.. ...first off, I have no problems with an abstracted supply model -- I just want one that vaguely resembles reality. Two divisions use more supply than two battalions, and while one may be able to get a hundred tons of supplies a day up to divisions fighting outside Murmansk, one cannot get ten thousand tons a day there, no matter how badly one wants to. Secondly, 'supply units' aren't really more accurate in any meaningful sense. Presumably, we don't want five hundred of the suckers to move each turn, and in fact, supply doesn't normally move in great ten thousand truck convoys. So your 'supply unit' would represent something that is never actually there, in one hex. It would be about as realistic as the 'priest' units in Age of Empires. I could see a system with physical units turning out to be the way to go. If nothing else, that might be the element the player would have control over, and designers could manipulate how much of the supply came through some abstracted network versus how much was physically distributed by the player. For example, a North Africa scenario might rely heavily on them, with only a trickle of supply coming via the abstracted net, while a Ukraine 1943 scenario might not have any physical supply units at all, the abstracted net being the sole source of supply. In any case, and all other things being equal, I don't see concrete units as being inherently more desirable than an abstracted distribution program. Certainly such units would need to be designed with an eye to possible abuses as combat units. Shouldn't be able to conduct recon or close pockets with them, for example. That's what often happens with HQ's now.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/22/2007 7:58:43 AM)
I don't know that system, so I'm not sure I understand it. I get your point that it is simple, as you know it, but do we want to go mad moving and sinking? The more I talk about it, the more I have to describe it. Wouldn't transport units/supply line destruction be handled by enemy interdiction rates? And TOAW already has a formation specific supply level to help with those distant areas of operation. Can't we just go mad losing combat results?

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/22/2007 8:03:46 AM)
..i went for a very basic system, that could be described without too many subclauses.. ..yup a division uses more than a btn, so actual SPs consumed should be based on a computer analysis of the number of squads and type, 10 squads 1 SP, 1 artillery 1 SP, 1 tank 1SP, something like that anyway.. ..as to the units being like priests, mmm, yes but, transport aircraft are in squadrons and based at one point, trains tend to go home to bed at night so are based at one point, and so on, but how many you get to play with is a designer thing, he sets the usable range.. ..i'd like something that uses as much of what we have as possible, hence leaving the already extant available too, but that is also designer set so that the player has minumum headache.. ..i also want to make the player use things more realistically, just what percentage of air-power was used in chasing choo-choos, or finding and sinking shipping, that currently is used in ground support or what-ever. Physical, on map icons, means we can find and destroy a supply chain..

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/22/2007 8:11:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 I don't know that system, so I'm not sure I understand it. I get your point that it is simple, as you know it, but do we want to go mad moving and sinking? The more I talk about it, the more I have to describe it. Wouldn't transport units/supply line destruction be handled by enemy interdiction rates? And TOAW already has a formation specific supply level to help with those distant areas of operation. Can't we just go mad losing combat results? ..interdiction is one thing, but the reality is more that a convoy is spotted then everything goes in to kill it, these planes are now not available for land combat, these decisons as to use of any unit were common, do we support the attcak or go hunting trains and stop the supply flow.. ..as to simple, yup, it's simple, having icons on the map help, gotta transport unit, supply is flowing, got a supply unit, you got supply, got none of these you got a min trickle. Don't roget, supply lines don't change quickly, once you've set up to attack using a given rail line for supply, you're unlikely to change it next move, tho you may have to replace destroyed choo-choos to keep it working..

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/22/2007 5:52:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 And TOAW already has a formation specific supply level to help with those distant areas of operation... That's more or less the problem. Supply isn't formation-specific so much as area specific. Units of the 1st Guards division can be supplied just fine -- if they're in Kent. Considerably harder keeping them supplied if they move to some bridgehead in Norway. Sure, it's possible the two will coincide. The formation with poor supply will be in the area with poor supply. However, things may break down -- the player might move the formation, etc. It's like using the dog as a coffee tray. How much better if we had a system where supply really depends on the variables it actually depends on. Then we could do anything reasonable without things promptly going out to lunch.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/22/2007 7:15:49 PM)
In my mind I see the division in Kent tracing it's supply chain, even thru several HQ's, right down the road to the main HQ in London. No major disruptions there. But if located in Norway, the chain must cross those nasty blue hexes, which throws up big negative numbers. This is also affected by the amount of sea transport available, which can be used to manually increase the tonnage from port to port, via a few convenient mouse clicks. 'Sea superiority' would influence the numbers, but we don't have that in TOAW. The same with air transport, from airfield to airfield, influenced by air superiority. Mr. Rabbit, I understand what you are describing now, it makes good sense. It does seem similar to what I was saying, I think, in that there is a specific supply chain running between higher echelon HQ's, and then from the lowest HQ to the individual units, or from a specific HQ to whatever units are attached to it.

ColinWright -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/22/2007 9:55:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 Mr. Rabbit, I understand what you are describing now, it makes good sense. There's a first. 22 December 2007. It happened. Somebody understood White Rabbit.

a white rabbit -> RE: The Truck Unit Icon (12/27/2007 6:23:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 And TOAW already has a formation specific supply level to help with those distant areas of operation... That's more or less the problem. Supply isn't formation-specific so much as area specific. Units of the 1st Guards division can be supplied just fine -- if they're in Kent. Considerably harder keeping them supplied if they move to some bridgehead in Norway. ..and i'm even agreeing with you more these days, one of us must be getting old... ..but you've put your finger on the real problem with the current toaw supply, it is area not formation specific. ..At a cost, i accept, the Germans can supply a panzer korp for the drive on Murmansk. The cost is that it should use virtually every transport unit they have, given the terrain, so draining the other fronts, and the result should be that the Allies can destroy most of the cargo ships involved if unprotected, and/or do serious damage to the fighting ships deployed to protect that part of the supply line..

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.84375