supply sources

[Bonaparte78]

Really love the idea of supply sources [:)]. Can someone tell me if there is a way to make a city (in addition to the original ones) available to be a new supply source?
Thank you!

[MorningDew]

I have a supply depot question. I notice that I cannot create a depot unless in a supply source or next to another depot. I love this.

The question I have is, once the depot is created, does the string of depots need to stay intact for depots to provide supply (i.e. if the string is broken, do "downstream" depots no longer provide supply. Or, once created, does it always provide supply regardless of whether the string of depots is still intact?

I ask because I noticed that I can create a string of depots and then, once I reach the maximum point, I can immediately turn around and remove all the depots except the furthest one. If the string needed to be there in order for supply to work to the furthest depot, then such a tactic would be useless. However, if the depot always provides supply, than I'm sure this gamey tactic will be used and the loophole should be closed.

[06 Maestro]

If you loose one in the chain the supply points beyound the source will auto remove-you will be informed by a pop up. This can occur due to enemy action or insurrection. Just recently, in a game as Spain, I lost the intial base in a rebellion due to a rebellion defeating the garrison. Spain imediately lost a chain of depots that reached almost all the way to Paris.

[Anthropoid]

This is quite possibly the best addition in a patch to a game this year! [:D] Will do alot to deter gamey excessive penetration of enemy lines.

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

If you loose one in the chain the supply points beyound the source will auto remove-you will be informed by a pop up. This can occur due to enemy action or insurrection. Just recently, in a game as Spain, I lost the intial base in a rebellion due to a rebellion defeating the garrison. Spain imediately lost a chain of depots that reached almost all the way to Paris.

Nice! I like it.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

This is quite possibly the best addition in a patch to a game this year! [:D] Will do alot to deter gamey excessive penetration of enemy lines.

Yes... that and combined with march attrition it will actually be possible for a more intelligently managed force to defeat a larger force before they actually engage in battle.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Bonaparte78

Really love the idea of supply sources [:)]. Can someone tell me if there is a way to make a city (in addition to the original ones) available to be a new supply source?
Thank you!

You can mod the scenario to change the status of a city to a supply source before you begin play. I know of no way to do that within a game in progress, however.

[ericbabe]

I had strongly considered some sort of rule that would allow a certain combination of developments to turn any province into a supply source.  However, in the end, I was worried about what sort of exploits this might create, worried that the AI would have no idea how to deal with this, and worried that there wouldn't be proper time to test and balance out such a rule.

Does anyone think we've omitted any historically important supply sources?  (Or, conversely, included supply sources that should not be?)

[morganbj]

Yeah, Mosquito Bite, Texas should be a supply source.  I'm fat and happy here.  Well, I'm fat anyway.  [:D]

[Russian Guard]

My old hometown of Altoona, PA was a big railroad head back in the day...not sure it quite goes back to 1805 though...

[aprezto]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard


My old hometown of Altoona, PA was a big railroad head back in the day...not sure it quite goes back to 1805 though...

recommend playing the 1815 scenario then [:'(]

[morganbj]

[:D]
 

[ptan54]

On the question of supply sources, I noticed there isn't a single supply source in Finland. This makes it impossible for Sweden to defend Finland. Stockholm is a supply source, but you can't build a depot in Lapland to extend that across the Gulf of Bothnia. If the Russians build a supply source in St Petersburg and send a huge army rampaging in Finland, there's precious little Sweden can do except let the Russians have it or have an army destroyed by foraging losses.

[Raidhaennor]

I've noticed that too. Althought it might be possible to work around that by building depots in a sea province adjacent to your last depot, as I have seen the ai do it.

[Franck]

Yes you must build depot in sea area... That's how britains supplies everything!

[barbarossa2]

I do like the supply point addition.

Please note that I am not complaining about anything here, as without a doubt, the addition of these supply sources has made it a much, much better game. I am not even saying anything needs to be changed (except perhaps for the addition of Cologne).

I have to agree with ptan's concern about Finland not having a supply depot.  It seems odd that Algiers should have one, but Finland does not. This makes me concerned about the Swedish player balance in our 23 year scenario. What was the rationale behind the decision not to put one in Finland...I am just curious? I will take a look into a book I have covering the Northern Wars between 1550 and 1721 or so to see where most of these invasions were carried out from.

I am really not sure I would have made Algiers a supply point (and Cologne and Stuttgart not!). I would have also added Christiania (Oslo) to the list of supply points before adding Algiers.

I would guess that the most logical approach to the selection of regions which receive supply sources would be to give them to the most fertile/developed/highly populated regions which are capable of supporting the most people/troops by producing goods above and beyond subsistence needs and then decide on a cut off point as this value drops.

In some of the reading I have done recently, such regions were called out specifically. The regions mentioned which could support operations and large armies historically were...of course, the Netherlands (the United Provinces and the Austrian Netherlands), most of France (leaving out 3-4 of the least productive regions), much of Germany (the northern districts--especially around Brandenburg were not so good at this), Bohemia (much richer than Austria), Silesia, and of course the plains of northern Italy. I would guess, that almost all of these should have the ability to support armies. Then you can get selective about cities and regions to put them in after that. Again, deciding on the cut-off point would determine if places in Denmark got them (certainly Copenhagen should) and other capitals in other regions.

I am guessing according to the method described above, most of England proper would be eligible. Perhaps Wales, and southern Scotland. And perhaps a region or two in Ireland.

Oh. Hungary was not highly populated and probably doesn't deserve any supply points outside of Budapest if Cologne doesn't get one. I am not sure if the Habsburgs had managed to turn this economically backward and relatively sparsely populated region around by 1792. Most of it was acquired from the Turks in 1699 with the treaty of Karlowitz and was definitely more of a burden for the Habsburgs than a contributor. At least this is the definite impression that "Austria's Wars of Emergence: 1683-1797" by Hochedlinger leaves me with. There are amazing discussions about tax revenues and government function in there which I have never seen anywhere else. Ottoman mismanagement for 200 years had left the region in a bit of a mess and behind western European standards.

In the eastern, northern, and African reaches of the map (Sweden/Norway/Poland/Russia/Ottoman Empire), I would really limit them to larger cities/capitals. Of course, Cairo demands one. But I don't know about the rest of the continent. Campaigning in Africa with massive armies certainly wasn't as easy as pie.

Additionally, I am wondering how the supply points in Germany were decided on. I don't really have a problem with any of them, however, I would have certainly made Cologne a supply point and not the region to its east if I had been designing. Cologne, not only on the heavily trafficed Rhine, was at least on par with the region to its east (capital Dusseldorf I believe). I would definitely say that Stuttgart gets one IF Algiers does. Same for Baden. I of course, wholeheartedly support Munich and Augsburg having one. I would probably just take a population density map for 1800 Germany and add them to the most developed regions. Breslau, Dresen, and Hamburg definitely qualify.

I guess really I am using Algiers as the test for the weakest link in the chain. But I haven't really even looked at the eastern regions of the map in detail yet.

This may be a little off topic, but does lend an interesting thought to the process of selecting which regions should be "supply bases". The following is an interesting note that I discovered while reading "Command of the Oceans" (an incredible survey of British naval history between 1650 and 1800)...
[/i] 
"An effective naval base had to be a place of trade, with a substantial population of merchants and contractors who could discount bills for cash, and supply victuals and naval stores; otherwise everyting would have to be sent from England at great expense-and nothing could be had at short notice."[/i]
[/i] 
I have to look closely at the rest of the map and consider it again.  Again, this is not a complaint, I am merely adding my two cents worth since the topic came up.

[ericbabe]

Mr Z gave me a list of supply sources based on some economic tables (from McKenzie, I think... not sure).  We added and subtract a handful from this list based on game-play considerations.

Finland should have a foraging value of 30,000.  The entire Swedish-Finnish army operating in Finland at the outbreak of the Russo-Swedish War in 1808 was only 13,500, including all garrison strength; thus historical Swedish army sizes should comfortably be able to operate in Finland.

[ptan54]

This is true historically, but it still makes defending Finland from the Russians pretty much impossible. I can use the Swedish fleet to try to build and defend a depot at sea but the Russian navy is far superior to the Swedish one....

[barbarossa2]

Like I said, it is really fine as is. No major complaints here.

And I was thinking that forage capacity might be enough for Finland too. I don't think the armies here ever exceeded 30,000.

I guess the only reason I wondered about Finland was because of the fact that Algiers and Tunisia have a supply point. It seems that if foraging is enough for Finland, then perhaps the same should be true for Algiers and Tunisia.

Other than that, I still think Cologne should get one and Hungary should really only have one in Budapest.

What year was the McKenzie data from?

Anyway. Again, I think the supply points are definitely a major improvement...even as is. Perhaps we can discuss the "super-fortresses" regions next.

[barbarossa2]

I guess what I am saying is, look at the current supply sources. Pick out the province least deserving of one (in my undereducated and uninformed opinion, Algiers in this case). Then look at the map and make sure that every region which deserves a supply source more than this weakest candidate gets one (for instance, Cologne, Stuttgart, many regions in France, Denmark, etc., etc.). If in the end you have too many supply points, then raise the hurdle.

To do this "objectively" one could generate an Excel spreadsheet which listed each and every province on the map. Then next to it, list the region's population (or best estimate, because these numbers are hard to come by...but you can come close using many regional numbers available in the materials for the period...I am currently compiling such numbers as I come across them), its economic output multiplier (EOM) (this is an art--not a science), and perhaps its average fertility level (AFL) (which is the average fertility of each square mile in the region). Then use something like the following formula to come up with a "relative capacity index":

0.5 population X EOM X 0.5 average fertility level= Relative Capacity Index

Then say you want 30 supply regions. Take the top 30. I think, even by using a rough estimate for each region's EOM, you will come up with a different distribution of supply sources and you will find quickly that Algiers and Tunis don't qualify ahead of Stuttgart, Cologne, and Baden.

I personally don't see any reason to deviate from this type of a method and start assigning "supply points" to regions just to put one there and make it easier to operate in the region (for instance, again, my favorite example...Algiers). There is no reason a region low on the Relative Capacity Index should get a supply source and one much higher up should not. Indeed, I think that is what makes operations around the peripheries of Europe so interesting. That is, the relative difficulty of supply which kept numbers operating there so low.

Oh, and in these regions with difficult supply, light troops should dominate action. Historically, "light troops" (Cossacks, Croats, Austrian Border troops, etc.) excelled at "petty war"--that is attempting to dominate the resources of a region and "forage them". There are several reasons for this which are too lengthy to go into here. However, to reflect this, I would then say that light troops only count half of their numbers towards the total army strength for forage AND that each light cavalry unit also reduces the forage burden of one regular unit in the same army by half. Then if you have to adjust the forage numbers on the map down somewhat to reduce overly large stacks, do it.

Anyway, again, just my two cents and not a major issue for me. 

Game design is also a bit of an art, and if there needs to be a supply point in Algiers to keep things "interesting" so be it.

However, there is probably a good reason why the coast of north africa was not permanently dominated by foreign powers, but instead by pirates and nomads. For hundreds of years, when the western european powers took colonies in this region, they were generally limited to just a coastal city (for instance Tangier in Morocco was a British colony/possession/base from 1677-1678).