Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

You guys can argue and speculate till you are blue in the face over how the algorithm is being used for supply consumption.

The bottom line is if you were able to remove the AA devices to save the supply consumption of their fire you are going to suffer a far greater supply consumption by airbase supply hits.

After all, airbase supply hits are the unrealistic mechanism every JFB exploits to rob China of its meager supply.

The AA supply consumption versus supply destruction quandary is interesting and I have no data. But here, as I read the CR, the IJA attacks were all on ground LCUs and not the AF. Direct supply destruction was not the Japan player's aim. Is that not how you read the CR?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

You guys can argue and speculate till you are blue in the face over how the algorithm is being used for supply consumption.

The bottom line is if you were able to remove the AA devices to save the supply consumption of their fire you are going to suffer a far greater supply consumption by airbase supply hits.

After all, airbase supply hits are the unrealistic mechanism every JFB exploits to rob China of its meager supply.

The AA supply consumption versus supply destruction quandary is interesting and I have no data. But here, as I read the CR, the IJA attacks were all on ground LCUs and not the AF. Direct supply destruction was not the Japan player's aim. Is that not how you read the CR?

If you want some data, you can turn off Fog of War on some test turns - the combat report will tell you exactly how much supply is lost to a supply hit or set of supply hits. I've seen values of around 17-20 supply for a single "Port supply" or "Supply" hit. Nowhere near 1000 as is mentioned above... It is random, though.



I've done some rudimentary hands-on research on supply burned up by units. If the manual (and what Alfred says in his Logistics 101 thread) is correct, then the "Supply needed" in the unit information screen is a monthly estimate based on the last day's supply usage. It's why your unit's supply required amounts go up immensely on the day after an attack, vs. sitting still - the code assumes you're going to keep up yesterday's pace of supply usage.

My instinct is that the 271 supply usage shown on this unit here is a combination of the daily usage (per my research, each portion of 30 in the Supply Required value is equal to 1 daily supply "eaten", so in this case 10 points) and the AA fire. So at 10 points daily "unit has to eat" usage, that's 260 spent on AA fire. However, the Supply Required on April 8th doesn't seem to reflect this... Given that level of expenditure, I'm not sure I'd want a "fix" on this - it would mean the unit's supply required would skyrocket, just for this base force unit, and it would suck up that much more supply.

Is firing 261 tons of AA shells realistic from just these 4 guns realistic? Probably not.

There is a game point that someone brought up above, however, which is that the Japanese player spends roughly 1-2 points per bomber in each raid in "sortie" costs. 100 Sallys = 100 points of supply, I think. Not a bad return on investment, if you're looking simply at a war of supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

You guys can argue and speculate till you are blue in the face over how the algorithm is being used for supply consumption.

The bottom line is if you were able to remove the AA devices to save the supply consumption of their fire you are going to suffer a far greater supply consumption by airbase supply hits.

After all, airbase supply hits are the unrealistic mechanism every JFB exploits to rob China of its meager supply.

The AA supply consumption versus supply destruction quandary is interesting and I have no data. But here, as I read the CR, the IJA attacks were all on ground LCUs and not the AF. Direct supply destruction was not the Japan player's aim. Is that not how you read the CR?

If you want some data, you can turn off Fog of War on some test turns - the combat report will tell you exactly how much supply is lost to a supply hit or set of supply hits. I've seen values of around 17-20 supply for a single "Port supply" or "Supply" hit. Nowhere near 1000 as is mentioned above... It is random, though.



I've done some rudimentary hands-on research on supply burned up by units. If the manual (and what Alfred says in his Logistics 101 thread) is correct, then the "Supply needed" in the unit information screen is a monthly estimate based on the last day's supply usage. It's why your unit's supply required amounts go up immensely on the day after an attack, vs. sitting still - the code assumes you're going to keep up yesterday's pace of supply usage.

My instinct is that the 271 supply usage shown on this unit here is a combination of the daily usage (per my research, each portion of 30 in the Supply Required value is equal to 1 daily supply "eaten", so in this case 10 points) and the AA fire. So at 10 points daily "unit has to eat" usage, that's 260 spent on AA fire. However, the Supply Required on April 8th doesn't seem to reflect this... Given that level of expenditure, I'm not sure I'd want a "fix" on this - it would mean the unit's supply required would skyrocket, just for this base force unit, and it would suck up that much more supply.

Is firing 261 tons of AA shells realistic from just these 4 guns realistic? Probably not.

There is a game point that someone brought up above, however, which is that the Japanese player spends roughly 1-2 points per bomber in each raid in "sortie" costs. 100 Sallys = 100 points of supply, I think. Not a bad return on investment, if you're looking simply at a war of supply.

The issue of the Supplies Required line isn't in dispute I think. Alfred's posts plus the BigB62 link show how that's calculated and displayed. It's a rolling 30-day average against last day's consumption. I think would be a way to say it. The red 288 looks fine to me.

The issue for me is that this unit is not in a base (no base infrastructure building) and the actual reduction in in-unit organic supply is from 301 to 30, with the screenshots taken at the same turn phase point. Given what the OP says was the activity on April 7th, and that there are no replacements drawn at all, I can't square how he spent 271 points. I'm not saying it's a bug. But I don't understand it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

You guys can argue and speculate till you are blue in the face over how the algorithm is being used for supply consumption.

The bottom line is if you were able to remove the AA devices to save the supply consumption of their fire you are going to suffer a far greater supply consumption by airbase supply hits.

After all, airbase supply hits are the unrealistic mechanism every JFB exploits to rob China of its meager supply.

The AA supply consumption versus supply destruction quandary is interesting and I have no data. But here, as I read the CR, the IJA attacks were all on ground LCUs and not the AF. Direct supply destruction was not the Japan player's aim. Is that not how you read the CR?

If you want some data, you can turn off Fog of War on some test turns - the combat report will tell you exactly how much supply is lost to a supply hit or set of supply hits. I've seen values of around 17-20 supply for a single "Port supply" or "Supply" hit. Nowhere near 1000 as is mentioned above... It is random, though.



I've done some rudimentary hands-on research on supply burned up by units. If the manual (and what Alfred says in his Logistics 101 thread) is correct, then the "Supply needed" in the unit information screen is a monthly estimate based on the last day's supply usage. It's why your unit's supply required amounts go up immensely on the day after an attack, vs. sitting still - the code assumes you're going to keep up yesterday's pace of supply usage.

My instinct is that the 271 supply usage shown on this unit here is a combination of the daily usage (per my research, each portion of 30 in the Supply Required value is equal to 1 daily supply "eaten", so in this case 10 points) and the AA fire. So at 10 points daily "unit has to eat" usage, that's 260 spent on AA fire. However, the Supply Required on April 8th doesn't seem to reflect this... Given that level of expenditure, I'm not sure I'd want a "fix" on this - it would mean the unit's supply required would skyrocket, just for this base force unit, and it would suck up that much more supply.

Is firing 261 tons of AA shells realistic from just these 4 guns realistic? Probably not.

There is a game point that someone brought up above, however, which is that the Japanese player spends roughly 1-2 points per bomber in each raid in "sortie" costs. 100 Sallys = 100 points of supply, I think. Not a bad return on investment, if you're looking simply at a war of supply.

The issue of the Supplies Required line isn't in dispute I think. Alfred's posts plus the BigB62 link show how that's calculated and displayed. It's a rolling 30-day average against last day's consumption. I think would be a way to say it. The red 288 looks fine to me.

The issue for me is that this unit is not in a base (no base infrastructure building) and the actual reduction in in-unit organic supply is from 301 to 30, with the screenshots taken at the same turn phase point. Given what the OP says was the activity on April 7th, and that there are no replacements drawn at all, I can't square how he spent 271 points. I'm not saying it's a bug. But I don't understand it.

I think it's all going into AA fire.

Especially after having seen obvert's/Greyjoy's experiences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Maybe. But that's a pantsload of supply given what actual ground combat costs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
I've explained that the 260 tons is not correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
No you are wrong on the 260ish tons of additional supplies. I have told you what the incremental increase was.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface
Either way the supplies that are being used in combat actions are in addition to the 'supplies required' figure.

Once again you keep repeating this fallacy. As already stated by me in this thread and in this reply, the supplies required figure takes into account what occurred. (my emphasis)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1. The BF unit shown has 179 ready devices and 4 unready devices. This means it's estimated monthly supply requirement would be around 180 supply points if not engaged in any combat or building activity. IOW if totally inactive. That it's two screenshots show an estimated monthly supply requirement of about 290 supply points means that its activity is imposing an estimated additional 110 monthly supply points.

2. The BF combat related additional supply cost is not being expended only by the 4 heavy AA guns which are capable of reaching the enemy aircraft flying at 10k. On a LCU, there is no tracking of supply consumption by individual devices. The tracking is at the LCU level. Units engaged in combat may fire up to 10 shots. Each shot increases the supply requirement by 10%. Hence a LCU which fires all 10 shots will increase it's supply consumption by 100%. If it fired only 2 shots, the increased supply consumption would be 20%.

3. As established in point 1 above the BF additional combat related supply consumption is 110 or approximately 60%, thereby indicating it fired 6 shots at the enemy aircraft.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
When I keep on seeing people misinterpreting what I say, and paying no attention to the ramifications of what I say because they have an agenda to push using wonky figures, I really lose any respect for what they say, especially when I'm told I am merely making assertions with the clear implication that I have no proper grounds for my commentary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A few of the other contributors to this thread are much closer to the right concept, but are not quite there.

(A).  As usual, I am careful in my use of terminology.  The key point which underlays what I said, and which doesn't appear to fully sink in, is the difference between an inactive and active unit.  That BF, even if not involved in combat, is not inactive, it is active.  The entire unit, not just device x or device y.  It is the entire unit which consumes supply to address all the various needs of the active unit.

(B).  The supply requirement/30 is only an aid to determining how long supply will last.  It does not accurately represent the actual consumption which will occur that day.  Never has and never will.



1.  Reference has been made to my Logistics 101 guide.  A close perusal of that document will note the supply consumption of engineers engaged in building activity.  That consumption is 1 point per engineer per phase.  The BF in question has 9 engineers.  It is building forts.  There is therefore a daily expenditure of 18 supply points just from that activity.  Building forts alone accounts for about 16% of the incremental consumption due to the unit not being inactive.  Those of you who remain wedded to a spreadsheet approach using false logic will now attempt to argue that it should be 18/30 or just over half a daily supply point.  Try using that false logic on an Allied base with several seebee units working hammer and tongs in construction and then try to explain why they consume so much more supply than the oft repeated x/30 daily rate would imply.  Or just look up the fortification building costs table posted some years ago on the forum which shows the actual supply consumption is not simply derived from the simplistic x/30 approach.

2.  One of the replies said I can't use the figure "about 290" because it was 290 on the 7th and 288 on the 8th.  Once again, someone who is not as precise as me is telling me that I am wrong and yet they can't even get this right.  The screenshot of the 7th actually says 292, not 290, and the 8th screenshot says 288.  So me saying 290 is the average of the two days.  But I said "about 290" because I don't know what the figures were for the 6th, the 5th, the 4th .... etc.  Having only datum points for a unit which allegedly had been in combat for a prolonged period, is not a good basis for providing a meaningful average.

3.  Time after time, there is an attempt to use real world calculations.  Time after time I keep repeating those figures are meaningless in this game where abstraction is used and so much is done under the hood.  Again another actual supply consumption which is not covered by the simplistic (supply required/30) is the daily supply consumed to reduce fatigue.  Those of you who are not as precise as me fail to notice that both the disruption and fatigue levels of the BF remain the same on both days even though it was engaged in combat.  No one without access to the code ever knows exactly the consumption rate when reducing fatigue.  Rather makes these attempts to produce a spreadsheet answer rather pointless, even if they were inputting the right figures into the spreadsheet.

4.  Closely related to the preceding point is also the fact that no additional disabled devices were visible on the 8th.  That again is an overnight, under the hood and therefore out of sight to the player, use of actual supply to repair any disabled devices resulting from combat.


And before someone attempts to say the above is a post facto rationalisation, I already had the above points in my draft notes when I was undertaking my homework before distilling it to the essentials in my first post.  Other homework points included

* looking up the location (85,39) - to confirm whether it was in the actual Sian base
* the TOE of the 36th, 66th and 82nd Chinese LCUs - to confirm their lack of any flak guns
* noting the three air bombardment in the CR and the damage suffered by the enemy air and the damage it inflicted on the Chinese - to indicated the level of flak resistance, important for the shot concept
* rereading several dev posts - to ensure I was not going to give wrong commentary


Things like fatigue reduction, device recovery, even construction can not be accurately captured by the simplistic (supply required/30) which is being deliberately misused in this thread.  .  It is one thing to attempt to get some ball park figures to understand the relationships, which some of the posters in this thread are trying to do; that is laudable but for others to continue to misinterpret what I say because they have an agenda to "prove" a bug exists, is not.

When I keep on seeing people misinterpreting what I say, and paying no attention to the ramifications of what I say because they have an agenda to push using wonky figures, I really lose any respect for what they say, especially when I'm told I am merely making assertions with the clear implication that I have no proper grounds for my commentary.  People wouldn't dream of acting that way if my name appeared on the AE credits as a dev.  How many times do you see a dev pointing out a mistake in my posts and yet 5 years after the game release, we see them still correcting other posters.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue


Alfred, I have immense respect for the level of knowledge you have of this game, and the fact that you share it with others.

However, when reading your posts, it is sometimes hard to concentrate on the information provided because the tone can be interpreted as condescending or adversarial. I hope you continue to respond to questions like these and help those of us that don't have as deep of an understanding of the game as you do. I know that it can be deeply frustrating when people don't understand what you're explaining to them the first time, and you have to explain it again. When writing those responses, please remember that it costs nothing to be kind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

I think I can explain why you are not seeing it.

The only way to tell what supplies have left a unit in the previous day is to make sure that it does not draw supply to replace any usage.

If you have the unit in a base or within 15 'supply point' range (3 points for a road hex, 5 for trail, 10 for clear etc) it will draw supplies every day and you will see no reduction.

Also - if Sian had supplies then it would supply that unit daily (IIRC). This happens even if you set the base to stockpile supplies. Units take precedence over the base toggle.

The fact you are not seeing any days in the red pretty much indicates that the unit is drawing supply daily as even at rest it will use some supply each day

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

I think I can explain why you are not seeing it.

The only way to tell what supplies have left a unit in the previous day is to make sure that it does not draw supply to replace any usage.

If you have the unit in a base or within 15 'supply point' range (3 points for a road hex, 5 for trail, 10 for clear etc) it will draw supplies every day and you will see no reduction.

Also - if Sian had supplies then it would supply that unit daily (IIRC). This happens even if you set the base to stockpile supplies. Units take precedence over the base toggle.

The fact you are not seeing any days in the red pretty much indicates that the unit is drawing supply daily as even at rest it will use some supply each day

Yes and no. Sian has supplies in my test, yes. But I saw no consumption figure day-to-day even close to your 271. And supplies should not flow up a yellow road every day.

Edit: Sian on the initial day has supply of 12,692 with Stockpiling On. Stockpiling does allow LCUs to pull supply, but it should not move every day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

I think I can explain why you are not seeing it.

The only way to tell what supplies have left a unit in the previous day is to make sure that it does not draw supply to replace any usage.

If you have the unit in a base or within 15 'supply point' range (3 points for a road hex, 5 for trail, 10 for clear etc) it will draw supplies every day and you will see no reduction.

Also - if Sian had supplies then it would supply that unit daily (IIRC). This happens even if you set the base to stockpile supplies. Units take precedence over the base toggle.

The fact you are not seeing any days in the red pretty much indicates that the unit is drawing supply daily as even at rest it will use some supply each day

Yes and no. Sian has supplies in my test, yes. But I saw no consumption figure day-to-day even close to your 271. And supplies should not flow up a yellow road every day.

Edit: Sian on the initial day has supply of 12,692 with Stockpiling On. Stockpiling does allow LCUs to pull supply, but it should not move every day.

Sian produces around 200 supplies a day so may well be masking usage - then there's other bases.

The fact that you are seeing no red numbers any day indicates that the unit is certainly being resupplied every day. Even if not firing that unit would use 5-6t per day. That would at lease put it in the red on many days in your test. The fact it didn't means it must have drawn more supply each and every day, completely hiding the quantities it has used.

The only way to get an accurate picture is to get the supply chain length into the 40-50 range so that it only draws supplies a few times a week

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Bullwinkle,

With those test beds, you really have no chance of replicating the OP experience.

1.  You are flying far fewer aircraft units and aggregate planes.

(a)  The OP had 3 raids.  You don't say how many you had but at most you could only have had two raids
(b)  The OP had an aggregate of 109 aircraft from 4 different IJA bomber units.  You appear to have only 2 different IJA bomber units with presumably at best only 50% of the OP aircraft flying

2.  Only when you flew at 1k did the IJA suffer any casualties.  OTOH, the OP inflicted more casualties on the IJA @ 10k.  At 1k, all your flak guns had a chance to inflict damage whereas at 10k only the 4x90mm could inflict damage.


These two points strongly suggest that the OP put up a much more intensive flak barrage and for a longer period than you did.  A stronger and lengthier flak barrage is indicative that more shots were expended.  The more shots expended means a greater run down of the on hand organic supply stock.  Further support for the OP firing more shots is seen in (a) your much smaller incremental increase in required supplies on the following days, and (b) being subsequently in the red re organic supply, that also impacted upon flak performance.  The fact is that it is not obvious to the player just how many shots are fired by a unit and that has a direct impact on the consumption of supplies.

3.  What you see the following morning re disabled devices and fatigue is not determinative of what was the actual outcome of combat.  With sufficient organic supply on hand, plus adequate support personal, the end of turn auto logistics phase can bring everything back as new for human inspection first thing next morning.  Your first test had sufficient organic supply so there is no evidence that any disabled devices/fatigue suffered was not automatically addressed.  Whereas in your second test, with a shortage of organic supply you started to see some disablement next morning.  Whether that second test result was due to the shortage of organic supply and therefore insufficient supply which could be expended on "repairs", it is impossible to say with certainty but it is strongly suggestive.

4.  Your first test did show a spike of 18 required supplies after reaching level 1 forts.  That is consistent with 18 engineer points being expended that day.  For the second test, you simply did not have a long enough time frame to move from level 3 (when the bombing commenced) to level 4 fortifications.  It takes longer to build fortifications as one goes along the curve, and that speed is negatively impacted by a shortage of on hand organic supply.  But there is a simple logic in play here.  Why would the construction of forts in a base consume supply but the same undertaking out in the field not consume supplies.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Bullwinkle,

With those test beds, you really have no chance of replicating the OP experience.

1.  You are flying far fewer aircraft units and aggregate planes.

(a)  The OP had 3 raids.  You don't say how many you had but at most you could only have had two raids
(b)  The OP had an aggregate of 109 aircraft from 4 different IJA bomber units.  You appear to have only 2 different IJA bomber units with presumably at best only 50% of the OP aircraft flying

2.  Only when you flew at 1k did the IJA suffer any casualties.  OTOH, the OP inflicted more casualties on the IJA @ 10k.  At 1k, all your flak guns had a chance to inflict damage whereas at 10k only the 4x90mm could inflict damage.


These two points strongly suggest that the OP put up a much more intensive flak barrage and for a longer period than you did.  A stronger and lengthier flak barrage is indicative that more shots were expended.  The more shots expended means a greater run down of the on hand organic supply stock.  Further support for the OP firing more shots is seen in (a) your much smaller incremental increase in required supplies on the following days, and (b) being subsequently in the red re organic supply, that also impacted upon flak performance.  The fact is that it is not obvious to the player just how many shots are fired by a unit and that has a direct impact on the consumption of supplies.

3.  What you see the following morning re disabled devices and fatigue is not determinative of what was the actual outcome of combat.  With sufficient organic supply on hand, plus adequate support personal, the end of turn auto logistics phase can bring everything back as new for human inspection first thing next morning.  Your first test had sufficient organic supply so there is no evidence that any disabled devices/fatigue suffered was not automatically addressed.  Whereas in your second test, with a shortage of organic supply you started to see some disablement next morning.  Whether that second test result was due to the shortage of organic supply and therefore insufficient supply which could be expended on "repairs", it is impossible to say with certainty but it is strongly suggestive.

4.  Your first test did show a spike of 18 required supplies after reaching level 1 forts.  That is consistent with 18 engineer points being expended that day.  For the second test, you simply did not have a long enough time frame to move from level 3 (when the bombing commenced) to level 4 fortifications.  It takes longer to build fortifications as one goes along the curve, and that speed is negatively impacted by a shortage of on hand organic supply.  But there is a simple logic in play here.  Why would the construction of forts in a base consume supply but the same undertaking out in the field not consume supplies.

Alfred

quote:


While supplies are
actually consumed as used, without adequate supplies on hand to meet the expected needs,
units instinctively begin to curtail operations in order to stretch out the available supplies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj
The remaining tests add 24 additional Eng squads to the base unit for a total of 36.
For the first test, I tried to do a baseline... but I left the PBYs on recon by accident. This is interesting:
1-300
2-221
3-153
4-148

This surprised me... why would 24 extra eng draw this many more supplies? Oh, right... I left the PBYs on recon. Doh! It seems that the base force is firing at the PBYs (no surprise here... we know they do that). But it seems like they are shooting an awfully lot at a handful of A/C. My sense is, that if anything is broken (and I'm not yet convinced it is), that this may be it. It also MAY be the difference between what the moose and yak are seeing. Yakface, do you know if your opponent is sending recon over this area at all?