RE: supply sources (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition



Message

DaveP -> RE: supply sources (6/25/2009 2:58:55 AM)

I think the English need something for the Med.  Right now the English must either have an unsustainable line of depots from England, or engage in ahistorical invasions, such as grabbing Morrocco.  I vote for making Gibralter a supply source to represent the centrality of Gibralter in all English activities in the Med.

Thanks,
Dave



Mus -> RE: supply sources (6/25/2009 4:01:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveP

I think the English need something for the Med.  Right now the English must either have an unsustainable line of depots from England, or engage in ahistorical invasions, such as grabbing Morrocco.  I vote for making Gibralter a supply source to represent the centrality of Gibralter in all English activities in the Med.


Considering there is no way of carrying a certain amount of supplies by ship or building up a level of supply in a distant province not capable of being a "source" of supply itself Im inclined to agree.

In both of my PBEM games (the two I am playing the Brits in that is) Im forced to contemplate seizing a source of supply to help support operations in the Med. In reality I think Malta would have been used.



barbarossa2 -> RE: supply sources (6/25/2009 4:16:10 AM)

Well, I would kind of agree with you DaveP. But I don't think Britain ever mounted an invasion with more than 30,000 troops in the Mediterranean (outside of the Iberian peninsula). I think forage levels could take care of operations in the Mediterranean. Or they would have to dominate the sea and actually have a supply chain to the region. Which I believe they managed historically. Or?

Most British amphphibious invasions were limited affairs. Except for the "Grand Expedition/Walcheren Expedition" of 1809 (to raid the new massive French naval bases around Antwerp, which would compare with Toulon when finished). The expedition set sail amid much fanfare with 40,000 men and hundreds of ships--the largest invasion fleet in British history to that point. Even that was a relatively small affair by CoG:EE standards.

Does anyone know of a British attempt to have a large number of troops operate in the Mediterranean?

I doubt the British could have supplied a major invasion force of over 30,000 in the Mediterranean for long if they hadn't have had command of the Ocean. And the game does certainly give them a good chance at that. :) Logistics were simply a much more complicated thing than most games represent.

The only way Gibraltar could have become a "major" supply point would have been if the British had commanded the sea. Again, the game allows for such things.

P.S. The "Grand Expedition" of 1809 was a miserable failure. Poor command, poor decisions to waste time on Flushing instead of advancing straight on Antwerp which gave Napoleon time to assemble a defence. Finally a massive malaria epidemic among the British soldiers landed on the mosquito infested island of Walcharen ended it. Napoleon knew about the disease problems in the area, and while on Elba, he told his British doctor that he knew the invasion would amount to nothing because of the conditions on the island. Only French prisoners and Spaniards were used to garrison the island.



Mus -> RE: supply sources (6/25/2009 4:35:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Does anyone know of a British attempt to have a large number of troops operate in the Mediterranean?


No but Napoleon stopped to water at Malta en route to Egypt.

As it is, if you get caught in the ocean out of supply you take massive casualties. I dont know if thats because the water is considered "zero forage" or what, but I have personally seen full strength divisions take 2000+ casualties from a single turn out of supply. This is compounded by super long supply chains which will collapse entirely if disrupted at a single point. In reality you have supplies on ship and stop for food and water en route if needed.

I agree more complicated supply rules are a good thing. For the most part the current system is an improvement of the prepatch system. But a means of prepositioning supplies in locations like Gibraltar and Malta for use by expeditions or a means for taking a couple turns worth of supply embarked with naval expedition troops is needed.



Kingmaker -> RE: supply sources (6/25/2009 7:03:10 AM)

HiHi

Dave have you tried using Diplomacy to gain supply bases in the Med, it's what England had to do during the period (and presumably one of the reasons there is a diplomacy element in the game).

For eg as I understand it English Diplomatic efforts with regard to Naples were in part designed for Supply perposes and not just so Lord Nelson could go screw Hamaltons wife Fanny. :-)

All the Best
Peter




Mus -> RE: supply sources (6/26/2009 5:45:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker


For eg as I understand it English Diplomatic efforts with regard to Naples were in part designed for Supply perposes and not just so Lord Nelson could go screw Hamaltons wife Fanny. :-)


Getting supplies from foreign sources (particularly minors) isnt modeled very well unfortunately.



Kingmaker -> RE: supply sources (6/26/2009 8:05:33 AM)

HiHi

No minors are out as you cant set up treaties with them, but some creative thinking re treaties with Major powers should get you what you want, ie "they will accept this", in this case a supply point.

All the Best
Peter



Mus -> RE: supply sources (6/26/2009 10:13:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

HiHi

No minors are out as you cant set up treaties with them, but some creative thinking re treaties with Major powers should get you what you want, ie "they will accept this", in this case a supply point.

All the Best
Peter


An option allowing me to start a supply chain from somebody elses territory would be nice.

The current options are rather clumsy in this regard. Lend province could be used which would be expensive to "buy" from another player. Shared supply depots, again expensive for the player footing the bill, and here you would be at the mercy of the player supposed to maintain the depots.

No, there really isnt a diplomatic option similar to the British system of obtaining their own local supply in the current system.



barbarossa2 -> RE: supply sources (6/26/2009 10:49:12 AM)

Mus, I agree with you completely on the game needing more attention to logistics. The ability to preposition supplies is important. As well as lots of other things. Have you ever played "Campaigns on the Danube"? Though still not perfect, it had the best supply system I have ever encountered.



Anthropoid -> RE: supply sources (6/26/2009 1:25:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
quote:

ORIGINAL: ptan54

You mean make all of Finland like Lapland / Switzerland / Pripyet marshes?


Yes, that would be my idea. Then neither side would likely mass a large Army in Finland, which was historical.


That does sound like an interesting possibility.

ADDIT:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Does anyone know of a British attempt to have a large number of troops operate in the Mediterranean?


No but Napoleon stopped to water at Malta en route to Egypt.

As it is, if you get caught in the ocean out of supply you take massive casualties. I dont know if thats because the water is considered "zero forage" or what, but I have personally seen full strength divisions take 2000+ casualties from a single turn out of supply. This is compounded by super long supply chains which will collapse entirely if disrupted at a single point. In reality you have supplies on ship and stop for food and water en route if needed.

I agree more complicated supply rules are a good thing. For the most part the current system is an improvement of the prepatch system. But a means of prepositioning supplies in locations like Gibraltar and Malta for use by expeditions or a means for taking a couple turns worth of supply embarked with naval expedition troops is needed.


Troops on ships don't take attrition/foraging casualties do they? Or is it just the ships themselves that are always in supply?



MorningDew -> RE: supply sources (6/26/2009 1:28:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
quote:

ORIGINAL: ptan54
You mean make all of Finland like Lapland / Switzerland / Pripyet marshes?

Yes, that would be my idea. Then neither side would likely mass a large Army in Finland, which was historical.


I had this exact thought yesterday. I agree.



morganbj -> RE: supply sources (6/26/2009 1:54:04 PM)

Well, I respectfully disagree that logostics needs more attention.  The currect system, especially with the addition of the supply sources, is effective in what it does.  One of the problems with the original COG was its complexity.  Many people just couldn't get into the economy, so they quit playing.  The same would be true if we tried to make the logistics of the era "more realistic," i.e., more complicated.

If you want a supply source somewhere, you should go into COG2Provinces.txt and put a "1" in the supply source column for the province you want.  Then, play the game several dozen times, changing countries each time, to see what the AI does with that new source.  Adding Gibraltar may seem like a wonderful idea to the British player, but when you're playing Turkey and you see 120,000 British AI troops invade Egypt as a result of your change, you'll begin to think that maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all.  But, if it seems not to cause any great problems, and the game plays well, then leave it there, post what you did in the "Mods" thread, and let everyone get the advantage of your work.

I would not want to see other logistical features added, however.  The existing system is a tremendous simplification and abstraction, I'll agree, but generally has the effect in the game (at a strategic level!) that the real logistics had during the period.



Dab -> RE: supply sources (6/26/2009 3:02:41 PM)

I am wondering if minor countries like Bavaria, Denmark, Saxony and Piedmont who have larger armies will take foraging casualties since they don't build depots. Winter snow in the province their army is sitting in would cause a lot of casualties.

If they are taking foraging casualties; my suggestion would be that they are always in supply when inside their territory and sitting on or adjacent to a supply point.



ant1815 -> RE: supply sources (6/26/2009 3:35:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dab

I am wondering if minor countries like Bavaria, Denmark, Saxony and Piedmont who have larger armies will take foraging casualties since they don't build depots. Winter snow in the province their army is sitting in would cause a lot of casualties.

If they are taking foraging casualties; my suggestion would be that they are always in supply when inside their territory and sitting on or adjacent to a supply point.


Or maybe make barracks of a certain size able to support a certain number of troops in that particular province.



barbarossa2 -> RE: supply sources (6/26/2009 4:51:36 PM)

BJ, I have to admit, whether the supply system needs more attention certainly is a matter of taste. :)

However, what I miss in wargaming is the need to actually plan your operations months in advance in some cases. For instance:

1. Victualling (preparing/loading the supplies) for your naval expedition was something that had to be planned in the fall of the preceeding year. You had to know how many ships you would have out and for approximately how long. Why? Because packaging and salting the food could only be done in the winter months. Which meant that the orders had to be placed around October of the previous year at the latest. In CoG:EE navies are ready to sail anywhere anytime at the drop of a hat. Yet there are several instances in 18th century warfare where due to lack of victuals, British fleets were forced to turn back or abandon operations. Indeed in the 1660s (yes, another era entirely), the English fleet was forced to give up the successful and useful blockade of the United Provinces after one (1!) month because the supply system virtually collapsed because the ships were "more than 100 miles from their base". Interestingly, the English navy had hundreds of ships at its disposal to send home for supplies. In addition to a vast merchant fleet (growing by the day due to captured Dutch vessels), they actually had over 100 ships in battle for some engagements! But a 100 mile supply chain was too complicated to deal with.

2. Somehow players should be able to decide on which points (for instance, which islands in the Mediterranean) become naval and supply points for their fleets. If the location in question wasn't a thriving port of trade (the preferrable situation) capable of discounting bills and providing everything you needed, you had to ship everything there at no minor cost--yes, even "major cost". Indeed, naval supply bases are so important I have read descriptions of admirals falling back on them to keep them in friendly hands rather than continue a blockade. There is absolutely no incentive for this in CoG:EE. Of course, the role of naval bases is totally under represented in CoG:EE. Large benefits flowed from carrying out operations in a region with a friendly naval base or with one which you could purchase supplies at. Sure, you could "forage" for some food in neutral and friendly regions and this was done, but the essential supplies of twine and spare masts and canvas could only be brought in from home.

3. Preparing frontier magazines with flour for hundreds of thousands of man-months took time. If you were France and planned your operations for the Belgian frontier and suddenly decided that you wanted to send your hundreds of thousands of men south into Italy instead, it could take months just to redeploy the food. Louvois, who worked for Louis XVI and developed the magazine system, demonstrated that feats of organization and logistics were not 1 month affairs. For an amazing look at some of the issues of supplying an army, see "Feeding Mars" by Lynn--its really the best 1 volume work on logistics I have ever seen. Lynn specializes in 18th century logistics and does a lot of primary research in the field (he is in Paris right now as I write this, doing primary research on the fascinating aspects of supply in the era).

4. In CoG:EE it is impossible to prepare specific points (magazines/fortresses) in the game to withstand a several month long siege...unless they are supply sources. Although they are supply sources in the new CoG:EE patch, the fortress of Berlin and Breslau had at least a year of supply for 60,000 or 70,000 men by the time of Frederick the Great's death. Players should be able to do this in any frontier region with enough time.

5. In CoG:EE, there is no way to represent over-extended or compromised supply lines. You are either "in supply" or out of it. In the Russian advance into Prussia in the Seven Years' War the extended supply line over very poor roads often threatened the advance with total collapse. Yes, they were still "in supply", but barely. And every captured magazine was surely a godsend.

6. The problem of the supply of food, fodder, ammunition, naval stores, and victuals each put totally different demands on the system are required different kinds of advanced planning.

It is such aspects of war which separated the men from the boys. And the victors from the vanquished. Just as much as any maneuver on any battlefield ever did.

Such elements make the problem of warfare interesting to me personally. However, they may be dry as pants to others. But switching lines of communication at the drop of a hat and not having to plan out operations months in advance is rather boring to me and lacks real challenge. That is just my two cents. But I am still a fan of the game. :)

Actually, what I am for is a "basic" supply system (leaving CoG:EE as is) and an advanced one which takes the issues discussed above into some account.



morganbj -> RE: supply sources (6/26/2009 6:10:05 PM)

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you Barbarossa2.  In fact, I wish ALL wargames were like WITP, detailed almost to the point that the game is a true simulation.  Weekly or even shorter turns, weapon type modifications, more comprehensive formation effects, more leader effects, a FULLY developed political subsystem, ... I could go on and on.

But, that shouldn't happen and won't happen with COGEE.  It's a strategic level game that only takes a few days to play when against the AI, even when the time limit is set to 23 years.  For MOST people that's important.  MOST people don't want a lot of complexity; they just don't have the time or inclination to learn the details.  Gaming companies must make a profit, and that means volume of sales compared to development costs.  Some believe that the original COG was less successful that it could have been because so many people didn't like the advanced economy.  Enter the simple economy in EE.  If logistics had been more realistic in COG, I'm sure EE would have simplified them.

My point is that once the decision is made to have a relatively easy to play strategic game that appeals to large numbers of people, it's folly to then start adding in all types of "unnecessary" complexity.  Develop something that is pretty faithful to the strategic options that were historically available, and then move on.  And, saying that a particular piece of complexity could be turned on and off as an option does not always pan out because of the extra development costs involved in developoing that compexity (realism).  It's tremendous.  Besides, once one piece is done, a few players will want something else added, or something changed, or will complain that it's not realistic enough.

I spent many years (more than a decade) developing a strategic Napoleonic board game.  It was detailed in every way that it could be.  But, the rules alone were over 100 pages long, and when computer games came along, I just gave up on the project, knowing that eventually such a game would exist electronically.  Sadly, I'm still waiting.

I would like to see a very detailed civil war game, too (no, those on the market aren't even close).  And I would LOVE to see a very detailed Napoleonic game, where virtually all important variables are included.  COGEE could not be that game because it is, after all, an extension of an existing engine, not a new game.

Maybe at some point in the future it will happen, perhaps once younger players today evolve into true grognards, and development techniques become more sophsticated.  But, there are just a lot of players who currently like role playing "shoot-em-up" type games, so that kind of grognard may never develop in sufficient numbers.  More complex games may just never hit the market any time soon.  I think WITP is one of a kind.

Don't think that this is a criticism of EE in any way.  I think it's the best game of the period.

Maybe if there's a COG III that is developed with a new engine ....



barbarossa2 -> RE: supply sources (6/27/2009 12:53:16 AM)

BJMorgan, I have to say I have a tremendous respect for you.

1) I definitely agree 100% that a game like CoG:EE (not specifically CoG:EE) cannot be shipped without a simplified logistics model as we have here with CoG:EE.

2) I agree that CoG:EE is the best grand strategy game about the Napoleonic Era out there.

I also have to say:

3) I feel that just as CoG:EE has an "advanced economy" and the players who really get into CoG:EE dig it (most PBEM games being set up are "advanced economy"), I also feel that a slightly "advanced" logistical system would fly with many of the same people for the same reasons.




Mus -> RE: supply sources (6/27/2009 2:18:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Troops on ships don't take attrition/foraging casualties do they? Or is it just the ships themselves that are always in supply?


Yes they do. Bigtime.

In the "another PBEM game" I deliberately left a few Corps out of supply to kill off the low morale guys and fill them back up with 4.50 morale replacements.

They were taking 20%+ casualties sometimes.

Again, I dont know if thats because water is considered "zero forage" or what, but the amount of casualties taken by troops out of supply/at sea is amazing.

[;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

3) I feel that just as CoG:EE has an "advanced economy" and the players who really get into CoG:EE dig it (most PBEM games being set up are "advanced economy"), I also feel that a slightly "advanced" logistical system would fly with many of the same people for the same reasons.


Agreed.

I like the option of dummy rules if it helps make the game more accessible and increases sales.

But I also like the idea of advanced rules for the same game.



Russian Guard -> RE: supply sources (6/27/2009 3:30:31 AM)


Agree with both of you. Unfortunately, the cost and development time to make sophisticated supply and communications rules (I believe this sounds MUCH easier than it would be to actually code) would almost certainly not make financial sense given the reasons bjmorgan rightly summarizes.


edit: spelling






terje439 -> RE: supply sources (6/27/2009 4:57:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

Yes they do. Bigtime.

In the "another PBEM game" I deliberately left a few Corps out of supply to kill off the low morale guys and fill them back up with 4.50 morale replacements.

They were taking 20%+ casualties sometimes.


All together now;
Gimme a G
Gimme an A
Gimme a M
Gimme an E
Gimme an Y

[:D]



Mus -> RE: supply sources (6/27/2009 5:06:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

All together now;
Gimme a G
Gimme an A
Gimme a M
Gimme an E
Gimme an Y

[:D]


Well theres no way to do what the Brits actually did to increase the quality of their troops: Pay money to actually have them fire their weapons in training a bunch.

Go figure.

[:D]



Anthropoid -> RE: supply sources (6/27/2009 5:09:11 AM)

Well I just found out how harshin' those little X-marked "high attrition" provinces can be EVEN when there is a supply depot in the adjacent territory and containers set to work on supply. I think I must have lost about 15,000 or 20,000 in ONE winter turn! Must've been an epidemic . . .



Mus -> RE: supply sources (6/27/2009 5:41:16 AM)

That little red X means no supply can be had in that province I think, so basically you are just foraging even if you have a depot next to it.



Anthropoid -> RE: supply sources (6/27/2009 11:15:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

That little red X means no supply can be had in that province I think, so basically you are just foraging even if you have a depot next to it.


[:@][X(][:@]



morganbj -> RE: supply sources (6/27/2009 3:46:25 PM)

Well, the red X means that a depot can't be built there.  There is still supply in the city and, of course, you can forage.  And, for those who don't like the rule, you can mod these back to normal, if you wish.  Sssshhhhh.  Don't tell anyone that I told you that.



Mus -> RE: supply sources (6/27/2009 8:54:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Well, the red X means that a depot can't be built there.  There is still supply in the city and, of course, you can forage.  And, for those who don't like the rule, you can mod these back to normal, if you wish.  Sssshhhhh.  Don't tell anyone that I told you that.


IF thats the case why would he have taken massive forage losses with a depot adjacent?



morganbj -> RE: supply sources (6/28/2009 1:17:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

IF thats the case why would he have taken massive forage losses with a depot adjacent?

Well, if he was over the forage limit, he'd lose a lot of men. Winter lowers the forage limits. So, if he lost 20k men, then that tells me that he had a lot more than that. That's why I say he was over the forage limit.

So, let's see ... over the forage limit, no depot, winter, and I'm not sure if the X automatically means that the province is "high attrition" (I think it does), but if that's true, that would add even more losses.

I've had small numbers of troops 10k - 20k in provinces with an X for MONTHS and never lost a man. So, either my computer is the luckiest die roller in the world, or you can still forage in those hexes. Maybe somebody ought to put a single division in one of those provinces and see if you get a forage success. I bet you will.



Russian Guard -> RE: supply sources (6/28/2009 6:30:08 AM)


You cannot draw supply into or through a red "X" province, period, even if a depot is adjacent. You are _always_ out of supply in a red "x" province, regardless of all other considerations.








Mus -> RE: supply sources (6/28/2009 11:28:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard


You cannot draw supply into or through a red "X" province, period, even if a depot is adjacent. You are _always_ out of supply in a red "x" province, regardless of all other considerations.


Ok, thats what I thought.



morganbj -> RE: supply sources (6/28/2009 4:03:08 PM)

No, I think you're in supply in the city, and you can forage.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.1875