support vs motorized support

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
Mike McCreery
Posts: 4237
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:58 pm

support vs motorized support

Post by Mike McCreery »

Is there a fundamental difference between support and motorized support for units?

I am trying to figure out the proper HQ's to bring to the fight to crush NJP's Japanese forces :P
Image
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by Lokasenna »

Support is support. Motorized just takes up more space.
User avatar
Mike McCreery
Posts: 4237
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:58 pm

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by Mike McCreery »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Support is support. Motorized just takes up more space.

Have you noticed any movement advantage from motorized support?

I have an army HQ unit here, the 6th I believe that is entirely motorized support. Over 8K in shipping but less than 3K stacking. Maybe it would be good paired with armor.
Image
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Support is support. Motorized just takes up more space.

Have you noticed any movement advantage from motorized support?

I have an army HQ unit here, the 6th I believe that is entirely motorized support. Over 8K in shipping but less than 3K stacking. Maybe it would be good paired with armor.

Nope. It all depends on unit type. Doesn't matter what the devices are within the unit. You could have an "Armor" unit full of infantry squads (a few of those actually exist...) and it will move at the speed of tanks, not infantry.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by crsutton »

Motorized support gives no benefit to movement. Although a few Allied base and construction units without motorized support cannot use strategic road movement. Otherwise they all move at the same pace no matter the amount of motorized support. All infantry units move at the same speed with some variance given for experience, fatigue and disruption. Some units move slower in bad terrain but motorized support has no effect. All armor moves at the same speed as well. Armored cars will move at the same speed as the slow as mud Matilda.

Motorized support is just support and the only real benefit is that combined with regular support most large Allied infantry units have enough to be self supporting. Motorized support seems to die very easily though-especially in armored units.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Motorized support gives no benefit to movement. Although a few Allied base and construction units without motorized support cannot use strategic road movement. Otherwise they all move at the same pace no matter the amount of motorized support. All infantry units move at the same speed with some variance given for experience, fatigue and disruption. Some units move slower in bad terrain but motorized support has no effect. All armor moves at the same speed as well. Armored cars will move at the same speed as the slow as mud Matilda.

Motorized support is just support and the only real benefit is that combined with regular support most large Allied infantry units have enough to be self supporting. Motorized support seems to die very easily though-especially in armored units.

Been discussing this in another thread and WITPQS clarified for me that it IS the nationality "category" that matters and MT or lack thereof has no bearing.

I pointed out to him that a test with C Det USN Port Svc Battalion, which has no MT, and cannot use strategic road movement proving that just being the correct nationality didn't make SRM possible without MT being present.

He fired back that the LCU in question belonged to a "nationality" that cannot use SRM, namely the USN.

I fired back that the USN is not a "nationality".

He then clarified that in game terms it is.

That's why I used the term nationality "category".

The base forces you are seeing that cannot use SRM may belong to the USN and that is what is keeping them form using SRM, not the lack of MT.

I haven't had time to fully test WITPQS's claim.

Personally, I would be far more pleased if SRM capability was dependent on the presence of MT and not inclusion in a nationality "category".

Hans

User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: crsutton

Motorized support gives no benefit to movement. Although a few Allied base and construction units without motorized support cannot use strategic road movement. Otherwise they all move at the same pace no matter the amount of motorized support. All infantry units move at the same speed with some variance given for experience, fatigue and disruption. Some units move slower in bad terrain but motorized support has no effect. All armor moves at the same speed as well. Armored cars will move at the same speed as the slow as mud Matilda.

Motorized support is just support and the only real benefit is that combined with regular support most large Allied infantry units have enough to be self supporting. Motorized support seems to die very easily though-especially in armored units.

Been discussing this in another thread and WITPQS clarified for me that it IS the nationality "category" that matters and MT or lack thereof has no bearing.

I pointed out to him that a test with C Det USN Port Svc Battalion, which has no MT, and cannot use strategic road movement proving that just being the correct nationality didn't make SRM possible without MT being present.

He fired back that the LCU in question belonged to a "nationality" that cannot use SRM, namely the USN.

I fired back that the USN is not a "nationality".

He then clarified that in game terms it is.

That's why I used the term nationality "category".

The base forces you are seeing that cannot use SRM may belong to the USN and that is what is keeping them form using SRM, not the lack of MT.

I haven't had time to fully test WITPQS's claim.

Personally, I would be far more pleased if SRM capability was dependent on the presence of MT and not inclusion in a nationality "category".

Yes, but the problem is that some units only have a moderate amount of MT. Enough to do it's assigned job but not enough to move the unit a long distance. In fact, strategic road movement in the game does not reflect the number of trucks that any individual unit has. American and probably Allied forces maintained large motor pools for the transport of units. A vanilla infantry division (not motorized) did not have enough organic trucks for a major road move and the bulk of the trucks were provided by the motor pool and then returned to the pool after the move. This was how the 81st and 101st divisions were moved so quickly during the battle of the bulge. So, in reality any Allied unit-except Chinese in China. Should be able to use strategic move on major roads as the trucks would have been provided by the pools. It is silly to think that a Navy construction unit would have walked from Townsville to Normantown....CD units with large guns should not be allowed road movement at all. Rail or ship only.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: crsutton

Motorized support gives no benefit to movement. Although a few Allied base and construction units without motorized support cannot use strategic road movement. Otherwise they all move at the same pace no matter the amount of motorized support. All infantry units move at the same speed with some variance given for experience, fatigue and disruption. Some units move slower in bad terrain but motorized support has no effect. All armor moves at the same speed as well. Armored cars will move at the same speed as the slow as mud Matilda.

Motorized support is just support and the only real benefit is that combined with regular support most large Allied infantry units have enough to be self supporting. Motorized support seems to die very easily though-especially in armored units.

Been discussing this in another thread and WITPQS clarified for me that it IS the nationality "category" that matters and MT or lack thereof has no bearing.

I pointed out to him that a test with C Det USN Port Svc Battalion, which has no MT, and cannot use strategic road movement proving that just being the correct nationality didn't make SRM possible without MT being present.

He fired back that the LCU in question belonged to a "nationality" that cannot use SRM, namely the USN.

I fired back that the USN is not a "nationality".

He then clarified that in game terms it is.

That's why I used the term nationality "category".

The base forces you are seeing that cannot use SRM may belong to the USN and that is what is keeping them form using SRM, not the lack of MT.

I haven't had time to fully test WITPQS's claim.

Personally, I would be far more pleased if SRM capability was dependent on the presence of MT and not inclusion in a nationality "category".

Yes, but the problem is that some units only have a moderate amount of MT. Enough to do it's assigned job but not enough to move the unit a long distance. In fact, strategic road movement in the game does not reflect the number of trucks that any individual unit has. American and probably Allied forces maintained large motor pools for the transport of units. A vanilla infantry division (not motorized) did not have enough organic trucks for a major road move and the bulk of the trucks were provided by the motor pool and then returned to the pool after the move. This was how the 81st and 101st divisions were moved so quickly during the battle of the bulge. So, in reality any Allied unit-except Chinese in China. Should be able to use strategic move on major roads as the trucks would have been provided by the pools. It is silly to think that a Navy construction unit would have walked from Townsville to Normantown....CD units with large guns should not be allowed road movement at all. Rail or ship only.
It's one of the game's abstractions. Not perfect, better in some situations and cases than in others.

A few years ago (you might be able to find the thread with a search) I discussed the issue with the developers, specifically regarding lack of strategic road movement for USMC units. Maybe USN was mentioned but I forget. They discussed and referred to their go-to guy on the relative capabilities of those forces at the time and decided to stay with it the way it is.

The game has had to make a lot of abstractions and abstractions are always generalizations. In this case it's "pick one" for all units of each branch/nationality. That means that compared to real life it will be OK for some units, a gift to others, and a penalty for still others. Just the nature of the beast.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by Yaab »

Well, you can move any Allied unit by air to China and use motorised strat move there. Did the Chinese have mot support pool to share? Enough fuel for trucks? I doubt it.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Well, you can move any Allied unit by air to China and use motorised strat move there. Did the Chinese have mot support pool to share? Enough fuel for trucks? I doubt it.
Again, a limitation of that particular abstraction. You can find zillions of them throughout the game (any game) if you look hard enough. [:)]
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Well, you can move any Allied unit by air to China and use motorised strat move there. Did the Chinese have mot support pool to share? Enough fuel for trucks? I doubt it.

Actually not true.

Last game I shipped an entire Corps of American LCUs to China along with a mass of LCU support troops.

I did end up bringing in some of the USN owned troops that couldn't use strategic road movement.

At the time I presumed it was because they had no organic motorized support.
Hans

spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by spence »

In the game there is no advantage whatever to motorized support. IRL horse drawn supply units have a much smaller ability to support combat units especially as the distance from a port or railroad increases. A greater and greater proportion of what the horse/mule can carry is consumed carrying the horse's rations...essentially 2 days rations for each one day's march away from the railhead.

The WW2 British Army was motorized after logistical studies revealed that more shipping was consumed transporting horse fodder to France in WW1 than was consumed transporting ammunition. For exactly the same reason the US horse cavalry was not deployed overseas during WW2...too many ships required to just feed the horses.

Motorized support units certainly have their own foibles as their sensitivity to having their supply lines cut can attest. But by the same token units drawing their supply over roads can replenish ammunition faster and at a far greater distance from their rail head if their supply lines are not cut. It seems ironic that a game with so much logistical minutia ignores that fundamental distinction.
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by dr.hal »

What about this, and I admit I've not thought of this before. Remember that in Engineering terms a vehicle is worth 5 engineering squads, could this be true for motorized support vrs. simple support??
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

What about this, and I admit I've not thought of this before. Remember that in Engineering terms a vehicle is worth 5 engineering squads, could this be true for motorized support vrs. simple support??
It isn't. The developers confirmed a long time ago that Support and Motorized Support are the same, except for the other characteristics (loading size/weight factors, etc.).

1 Support squad = 1 Motorized Support squad = 1 support value.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by crsutton »

Yep the same, but I think motorized support is more difficult to transport and land. And in an abstract way this makes sense. You can land an American unit with non mobile support only in a quick way-or air transport it and leave the motorized support at home. But the drawback is that your unit is not in full support unless you add other units that provide support. But if you use the entire lift and time necessary then you have the benefit of a fully self supporting unit-something the Japanese do not ever have. So the additional motorized support add a great benefit at an operational cost. Sounds OK to me.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by spence »

Yep the same, but I think motorized support is more difficult to transport and land. And in an abstract way this makes sense. You can land an American unit with non mobile support only in a quick way-or air transport it and leave the motorized support at home. But the drawback is that your unit is not in full support unless you add other units that provide support. But if you use the entire lift and time necessary then you have the benefit of a fully self supporting unit-something the Japanese do not ever have. So the additional motorized support add a great benefit at an operational cost. Sounds OK to me.

When an IJA armored unit slices through Sinkiang in regular 'blitzkreig style' 500 miles from a rail head perhaps it doesn't make as much sense to you.

The load cost of American/Allied units (because of their motorized support) makes perfect sense. The support/supply abilities of Japanese horses and mules were either beyond phenomenally "superhuman" or make no sense whatsoever.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: support vs motorized support

Post by Alfred »

On strategic road movement you should read this thread
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3201300&mpage=1&key=strategic%2Croad&#3203071
 
and pay particular attention to Blackhorse's and my posts.  As always it pays great dividends to click on any linked threads I provide in my posts in the cascading threads.
 
Alfred
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”