Logistics 101

[Cap Mandrake]

Alfred;

Do you think I should include more fiber in my diet?

[DivePac88]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Alfred;

Do you think I should include more fiber in my diet?

I think that depends on how many pimples you have on your bum old chap.

[fcharton]

Hi Alfred,

ORIGINAL: Alfred
To get a precise figure you need access to all the relevant algorithms, and hope the opponent will engage in exactly the sort of actions you are predicting he will undertake.

I respectfully disagree. Most of the time (in videogames just like in reality), you can "resolve" complex algorithms (I'm sure the supply algorithm is complicated) into simple, rule of thumb, formulae that roughly work.

This is the case here, you don't need a precise figure, but something that works in most cases. I was saying I don't like AV-based rules because it seems to only work for infantry and armour, and most of the time, LCU are not at 100% AV (because of reduced TOE, or fatigue, or... lack of supply).

I don't know the algorithm (and I don't want to know, the "game as a black box" is fine to me), but somehow, supply consumption seems to be heavily dependent on a weighted sum of squads in a stack, which, in turn, is correlated to the number of troops in the hex. Troop load is a decent measure of this (but the "nr of first/second line troops" in stack screens is fine too).

It does not make the calculations much more difficult, remembering a full IJA division is about 13000 troop load is no more difficult than knowing it is 450AV...

I fail to see how you can determine from recon, the troop load cost of an enemy stack. There is a very simple way of converting the info gained about an enemy LCU stack/garrison from recon into an estimate of the unadjusted AV it represents. Neither approach is of much value in helping to formulate a plan based on enemy supply consumption. Without even knowing how much supply the enemy has stockpiled at the location, I just don't see what you gain by undertaking this exercise.

Troop load cost is correlated to the size of the stack (nr of troops), which you get (with FOW) from recon, or you can deduce from bombardment. This provides an estimate of the supply needs of the stack. Summing over all stacks in an area, and deducing production, you get a good idea of its supply balance, and, therefore, whether the enemy must support the area or not.

Of course, this is not very useful at the tactical level (but logistics are at higher level, aren't they), and if all stacks are interconnected in a huge supply network, this information is irrelevant. But on islands, or in besieged areas, I believe this makes some sense.

Francois

[inqistor]

GREAT SUMMARY!

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The average size of a fully built up Allied division is about 450 AV. A fully equipped Chinese LCU could be double this but they tend to lack access to the necessary supply. A division of about 450 AV, which is not engaged in combat will consume approximately 1500 supply points monthly, or 50 daily. A brigade of approximately 150 AV not engaged in combat will consume approximately 500 supply points monthly.

When I have tested planes supply consumption, I have done also quick test of Base Force supply consumption. It seems it is VERY random, and overall draft from base was in range 3-14 supply points per day. So it seems daily consumption of Division can be more than 50 points.

Hence a 12 plane Liberator squadron sent to bomb an airfield will consume 96 supply points. A USMC torpedo squadron of 18 Avengers will consume 18 supply points.

I think there is also cost of automatic torpedo restock cost for Air HQ after TB used it for attack.

ORIGINAL: pompack

One small note: I think that the supply cost for an LCU engaging in combat is much larger than the daily log cost, but I don't have a clue how to quantify it beyond "Lots"

It seems pretty random, but I have seen LCU used ALL its supply in one combat. And it was full before.

ORIGINAL: Sredni

C.1 I also thought there was supply spoilage over poor roads at long distance and not just in overstocked bases, but I don't see any info about that here. I've thought for a long time that there was a lot of spoilage of the supply in china as it moves around and not just at bases.

I am not quite sure about this, but I think I have seen either in beta, or one of the patches line, that supply no longer are used during automatic movement to other bases.

[Cyber Me]

Thank you for your guidelines on supply usage Alfred. Now I know all there background trips for supply. No more starving millions....

[mikkey]

very useful, thank you Alfred!

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
(D.4) Cost of replacements

The basic supply cost for a LCU replacement device is the load cost.

For air units, the supply cost for each replacement airframe depends on the type of airframe:

• 12 supply points for fighter, fighter bomber
• 15 supply points for dive bomber, torpedo bomber, float plane, float fighter
• 18 supply points for night fighter, recon
• 30 supply points for heavy bomber, medium bomber, light bomber, attack bomber, transport, patrol

Thus the previously mentioned 12 plane Liberator squadron (see D.2 above) consumed 96 supply points to fly the mission. If the squadron had 4 planes shot down, it would need an additional 120 supply points to replace it’s losses.

This is something I always had issues with. Why is the mission specific supply consumption related to max load, but the replacement cost is not?
Replacing a Liberator should be much more expensive than replacing a Havoc, currently it costs the same.

I wonder how difficult an adaption of the replacement a/c supply consumption model would be.




Ah, and *BUMP* for an Alfred guide, always a good thing. [8D]

[pws1225]

Thanks to Alfred for the original post and to LoBaron for bringing it back to the surface. This is really 'must know' information all compiled into one concise post. Very useful.

regards, Paul

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


This is something I always had issues with. Why is the mission specific supply consumption related to max load, but the replacement cost is not?
Replacing a Liberator should be much more expensive than replacing a Havoc, currently it costs the same.

I wonder how difficult an adaption of the replacement a/c supply consumption model would be.




Ah, and *BUMP* for an Alfred guide, always a good thing. [8D]

I agree.

I think replacement cost should be combination of number of engines, with maybe some modification from service rating thrown in too.

[Yaab]

Does base development level (airfield+port) affect how much supply can be moved through a base? I am not talking about bases on India-Burma border or northern Australia, just ordinary bases with no max draw limits.

[Yaab]

A question concerning LCU supply cost.

"(D.1) LCU supply cost

Most players emphasise the Assault Value (AV) of a LCU instead of the combat firepower of the unit which is a much more useful measure. The merits of the two measures is however a discussion best left to another day. What players do generally tend to pay little attention is the cost of maintaining a unit out in the field.

The average size of a fully built up Allied division is about 450 AV. A fully equipped Chinese LCU could be double this but they tend to lack access to the necessary supply. A division of about 450 AV, which is not engaged in combat will consume approximately 1500 supply points monthly, or 50 daily. A brigade of approximately 150 AV not engaged in combat will consume approximately 500 supply points monthly".



So, if a fully equipped Chinese LCU corps (consuming 1500 supplies monthly) is parked in an empty base, the base tries to stockpile 3 x 1500 supplies ( three times than what is required by the corps ). If the LCU upkeep cost is monthly,then the base is stockpiling a three months reserve of supplies. This means there is almost no point in parking LCUs in bases in supply-poor environment like China since you dramatically reduce the number of free supplies available to units in the field, where LCUs carry only their monthly allotment of supplies instead of quarterly allotment.

[jmalter]

hi Yaab,

I don't understand your question. LCUs will spend supply for upkeep on a near-daily basis, drawing that supply from whatever source is available. Units in a non-base hex will draw from available bases, even if those bases are set to stockpile supplies.

In China, one must use air transport to bring supply to the theater, & rely on the game-engine to transport that supply to where it is needed. It's a very ineffeicient process, as the air-transport groups also use supply.

[Yaab]

In a supply-scarce environment such as China, the idea of bases hoarding three times the required supplies seems excessive. I can park a corps with a monthly upkeep of 1500 supply points in a non-base hex next to Changsha for the total monthly cost of 1500 supply points, or I can park the same corps in Changsha for the monthly cost of 1500 supply points + 3000 additional supply points tied to Changsha. Since bases can only export surplus supply above x 3 requirement, then it is very hard to justify parking Chinese corps in bases, because very little supply is exported from bases to units in field.

It would be much better if bases only collected twice the supplies required instead of thrice.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

A question concerning LCU supply cost.

"(D.1) LCU supply cost

Most players emphasise the Assault Value (AV) of a LCU instead of the combat firepower of the unit which is a much more useful measure. The merits of the two measures is however a discussion best left to another day. What players do generally tend to pay little attention is the cost of maintaining a unit out in the field.

The average size of a fully built up Allied division is about 450 AV. A fully equipped Chinese LCU could be double this but they tend to lack access to the necessary supply. A division of about 450 AV, which is not engaged in combat will consume approximately 1500 supply points monthly, or 50 daily. A brigade of approximately 150 AV not engaged in combat will consume approximately 500 supply points monthly".



So, if a fully equipped Chinese LCU corps (consuming 1500 supplies monthly) is parked in an empty base, the base tries to stockpile 3 x 1500 supplies ( three times than what is required by the corps ). If the LCU upkeep cost is monthly,then the base is stockpiling a three months reserve of supplies. This means there is almost no point in parking LCUs in bases in supply-poor environment like China since you dramatically reduce the number of free supplies available to units in the field, where LCUs carry only their monthly allotment of supplies instead of quarterly allotment.

I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately. I think you are right.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Yaab

A question concerning LCU supply cost.

"(D.1) LCU supply cost

Most players emphasise the Assault Value (AV) of a LCU instead of the combat firepower of the unit which is a much more useful measure. The merits of the two measures is however a discussion best left to another day. What players do generally tend to pay little attention is the cost of maintaining a unit out in the field.

The average size of a fully built up Allied division is about 450 AV. A fully equipped Chinese LCU could be double this but they tend to lack access to the necessary supply. A division of about 450 AV, which is not engaged in combat will consume approximately 1500 supply points monthly, or 50 daily. A brigade of approximately 150 AV not engaged in combat will consume approximately 500 supply points monthly".



So, if a fully equipped Chinese LCU corps (consuming 1500 supplies monthly) is parked in an empty base, the base tries to stockpile 3 x 1500 supplies ( three times than what is required by the corps ). If the LCU upkeep cost is monthly,then the base is stockpiling a three months reserve of supplies. This means there is almost no point in parking LCUs in bases in supply-poor environment like China since you dramatically reduce the number of free supplies available to units in the field, where LCUs carry only their monthly allotment of supplies instead of quarterly allotment.

I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately. I think you are right.

I believe the real issue is tangential to this point. It has long been recognized that LCUs in the field are often easier to keep in supply than those in bases. This is less due to the factor you cite, and more--and I believe this was proven years ago in the game's lifespan--that LCUs in the field will draw from ALL bases in supply range, while an LCU in garrison will only draw from the base it's in. So in a base-dense region like China, unless Japan owns everything in supply range of a field LCU, it will trickle supply in when its in-base brother starves as that base is trying to feed the whole resident stack.

IOW, if you want the Chinese to eat, get them out in the bush, in many cases.

[czert2]

Any idea how to quickly count dayily supply comsuption for whole bases ? Which is more accurate, counting whole AV or by looking at requred supply ?
At that base AC is 397 and supply needed 1552.

From that post i deducted that AV/9 gives you aproximate dayly supply needed, but how to do math for supply needed ? Since units like AA/ENG have manytimes very low/zero AV, but they need supply to live.

[Lokasenna]

I did a rundown on this. My conclusion is that, in general, you should look at the "supply required" amount for the base. That is a monthly amount. It can vary day-to-day. If there is no activity that consumes replaces, just feeding the LCUs and whatnot, then it will burn that amount divided by 30 per day. Roughly. Very roughly.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

In a supply-scarce environment such as China, the idea of bases hoarding three times the required supplies seems excessive. I can park a corps with a monthly upkeep of 1500 supply points in a non-base hex next to Changsha for the total monthly cost of 1500 supply points, or I can park the same corps in Changsha for the monthly cost of 1500 supply points + 3000 additional supply points tied to Changsha. Since bases can only export surplus supply above x 3 requirement, then it is very hard to justify parking Chinese corps in bases, because very little supply is exported from bases to units in field.

It would be much better if bases only collected twice the supplies required instead of thrice.

I realized this years ago and mentioned it in an AAR of mine, but no discussion ever developed further. The 3x supply at bases contributes to China being almost indefensible as you can't get the supply forward if garrisons are hoarding all the supply. I keep my rear Chinese bases almost empty of troops, but still defend against paratroops.

[Yaab]

Is there any upper limit to supply/fuel/resource/oil movement per day per hex? I have just had the code move 500,000 supplies in one turn over MINOR RAILROAD in RHS mod in a game vs AI. I went to check my old Tracker files for some stock campaigns, and I found out that San Francisco received 100,000 supplies + 265,000 fuel in one turn by MAIN ROAD/MAIN RAILROAD. Where is the upper limit? Are road/railroads capacities cumulative? Does code treat national capitals differently and allows for bigger,unrealistic capacities then anywhere else on the map?

Below is the supply jump at Trincomalee from turn 2 to turn 3:

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

Great report!  Should probably be added to the Wiki, as well.  With your permission, Alfred, I'll make that happen.

Is this what you are referring to Capt? War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition Wiki.

That is about all I'm coming up with from my googling and I'm curious if that is the most complete and up to date repository of information?