Rationale of “proposed” supply flights ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room



Message


Balou -> Rationale of “proposed” supply flights ? (6/17/2012 9:53:33 AM)

Whenever I hit shift/F9 (supply flights), the engine proposes a certain number of transport/bombers. If I accept, and I’m talking about fuel for Pz/Mot Divs, their fuel stock increase amounts to roughly 20-40%. Of course, if I want more fuel to be delivered, I have to allocate more AC. Question: whats the rationale behind the number of initially proposed AC numbers?




rrbill -> RE: Rationale of “proposed” supply flights ? (6/17/2012 11:49:23 AM)

If anyone can definitively answer this, bless them. Its a complex game and maybe there's a lot not needed known.

Maybe Air Doctrine (max sorties & % required) affects the proposed amount.




carlkay58 -> RE: Rationale of “proposed” supply flights ? (6/17/2012 6:33:06 PM)

I think it has something to do with the AI side of things along with the Air Doctrine - but who knows?




kg_1007 -> RE: Rationale of “proposed” supply flights ? (6/17/2012 8:58:03 PM)

Along the same lines..I have noticed that not the entire amount delivered, arrives to the unit..so yes, it is a very complex system.




Balou -> RE: Rationale of “proposed” supply flights ? (6/18/2012 3:09:36 PM)

Anyone out there who did sort of tests? Supply esp. fuel is a main concern in any offensive 41' Axis strategy. Since Pz/Mot spearheads loose contact with railheads pretty soon, I thought that lots of Axis fanboys should have "data" from their exploits. Has anyone seen sharp crew morale drops when assigning more AC than proposed by the game engine ?




heliodorus04 -> RE: Rationale of “proposed” supply flights ? (6/18/2012 7:43:15 PM)

If I understand my many hours of gameplay properly, here is AN answer, it certainly can't be completely correct:

Using Shift-F9, you see the options for the AC and their number. The AC number reflects the current number of FRAMES in the unit. It does not represent the actual number that will fly your proposed mission. If you were to check all those air units, their cumulative aircraft will match. But that doesn't take into account the number of Ready aircraft. If some are damaged or otherwise unready, you have to factor that into your totals.

There are two things that I know about supplying German panzer units:
1) Always fly your fuel drop to the HQ rather than the stack of units (exception: if a hex contains nothing except motor/panzer elements you want to fuel - but you can never guarantee even distribution to each unit in that hex).

2) Always check the divisions' Fuel NEED above all other factors, and keep adding air groups until you have the amount of fuel you want (25%-50% of Need is a realistic goal). If you are comparing the number of aircraft that are proposed to fly, see above. If you are comparing the amount of fuel that will be dropped (rather than the aircraft) that number will always be very close to the accurate amount of fuel that the Ready Aircraft can deliver.

A caveat is that you definitely, definitely want to concentrate your Ju-52s where they are needed. It is far more effective to focus your air resupply on one major army group, and one minor army group. Early in the first 6 turns, I prioritize AGN (major) and AGS (minor). Once Leningrad's back door is accessible, hopefully by turn 7 or so, then you make AGS (major) and AGC (minor).

Often, I give the JU-52s a turn off when their ready aircraft numbers are critically low (<25%) for one turn only.
I no longer care what the fatigue levels of my Ju-52 fleet are, nor morale. I have noticed no difference in casualties nor supply drop effectiveness.
Never put Ju-52s in reserve.




Balou -> RE: Rationale of “proposed” supply flights ? (6/18/2012 9:52:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Never put Ju-52s in reserve.


Why ? I always thought AC crew experience increases back home which hopefully boosts supply effectiveness. Wishful thinking ?




heliodorus04 -> RE: Rationale of “proposed” supply flights ? (6/19/2012 12:10:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Balou


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Never put Ju-52s in reserve.


Why ? I always thought AC crew experience increases back home which hopefully boosts supply effectiveness. Wishful thinking ?


To put an air group in reserve uses a minimum of 1 full turn of do-nothing and that's only if you know how to do the sneaky-reserve command after your planes have flown. If you use the standard reserve command, where you send planes to reserve at the start of the turn (i.e., 0% flown) then it will take you two turns - one into reserve, one out of.

IMO, you are always better off when you skip flying on a turn, rather than go to reserve.

I have found no rhyme or reason as to why the effectiveness AND mission losses for air resupply bear no correlation to unit morale and fatigue. They do not, thus, fly-fly-fly until they have fewer than 12 frames ready.

2 caveats:
I don't play human opponents anymore, but even when I did, this was my approach

This is for the 1941 offensive, where time and distance are critical. After 1941, I might start rotations into and out of reserve.




rrbill -> RE: Rationale of “proposed” supply flights ? (6/19/2012 12:13:42 PM)

Discussion has helped, not so mysterious anymore. Psheesh, this game is detailed.




Balou -> RE: Rationale of “proposed” supply flights ? (6/19/2012 5:01:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Discussion has helped, not so mysterious anymore.


Apart from the fact that in heliodorus experience neither morale nor fatigue have an impact on supply delivery, which doesn't make sense IMO. Finally: morale and fatigue could be skipped, for air crew experience seems the only virtue that matters.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.757813E-02