RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series



Message


dazkaz15 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (9/21/2013 11:17:28 PM)

I know I wasn't going to do another post on this but I have just had an unexpected result in a test I was doing that was not to do with the supply problem, so here it is.
Dave has mentioned several times now that supplies are delivered to the rear of the units then man handled the rest of the way.
I would love to know what this distance is because the area of visibility for the enemy in this test was very low indeed, not to mention the fact that it was heavily suppressed.

[image]local://upfiles/43598/9C3500FB9E1649459B4351580CF971BB.jpg[/image]




dazkaz15 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (9/21/2013 11:34:43 PM)

Have sent the save from before the jeeps were destroyed its called
JeepLOL-D1-2302




Phoenix100 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (9/22/2013 9:26:52 AM)

Is it a surrender pic, Daz? So we know for sure there's no enemy hanging around the route?

Goes to my point about it not just being the crap jeep drivers at issue. I personally think - and I did a long post on this already, I realise - that it shouldn't be happening very much (or at all) that units that are NOT surrounded, with a clear supply route in, but are engaged, end up being cut off and suffering 100% interdiction. By which I mean the supply should get through. It's absurd to think of those hard-pressed Axis troops - in your example above - managing to get their heads above the parapet just to target the jeeps which are beyond their encircling enemy.

But, as I've also remarked, this effect also seems very capricious - it doesn't always happen like this, and it's hard to predict when it will happen. I think it shouldn't happen at all, for starters, when the units needing supply are fighting in a city and not surrounded. Supply would get through, through the buildings and back streets, somehow. So, in the Nijmegan sector it happens continually that the front line troops fighting at the bridge (usually the 508th, when I play it)are 100% interdicted of supplies, when there are only enemy in front of them, when there are an abundance of safe avoidance routes from base to them and when they are in terrain (city) that is excellent for cover and concealment. And when they're providing return fire too.

And I'm noticing it isn't just a problem on airborne scenarios. It happens in all scenarios - it's just that in the shorter ones it isn't so crucial.




dazkaz15 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (9/22/2013 10:02:58 AM)

Yes its a surrender pic mate.

I would also like to add that the inability to turn of supply, and the bad supply route finding, makes it very hard to conduct deep penetrations, and sweeping encirclements, without destroying your supply vehicle assets, which means that for longer scenarios, where this can be a problem, you are faced with a broad front approach to your tactics, thus severely limiting a more creative approach [;)]




simovitch -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (10/15/2013 2:06:36 PM)

I'm starting to take a look into this. I'm playing RDOA and experimenting with utilizing the "minimum" supply request tabs for most if not all Para units, especially those that are 'out on a limb'. Also setting MIN ROF for units that are in danger of becoming isolated.

I'm on D2 in the afternoon and although I get some 100% interdictions, the capacity for the bases to deliver supply is still robust. Do you guys micromanage the ROF and request toggles? have you seen an improvement if/when you do?

Perhaps another fix would be adding a 'none' toggle to the supply request tabs. That way isolated units would not call for the suicide supply runs.




Phoenix100 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (10/15/2013 2:35:15 PM)

Have tried that, Simovitch, yes. It does affect things. For some reason I have the feeling that you will see more of what we are talking about if you play your big scenario - From the Meuse to the Rhine. I don't have the feeling of desperation I get with all the supply interdicted 100% messages when I play RDOA. If you get the 82nd up to the Nijmegan Bridges then you will start to see units 'irrationally' cut-off, no matter what your settings, by early hours day 2 usually. then it just gets worse. A no supply button would be great. But it would only address half the issue - because though you would keep your jeeps, supply would still not get through to key units. The second half of the issue is where the interdiction comes from. And mostly - and see all the posts about this from various people - it seems to hit front line units not over a weak extended supply chain but from simply being engaged. We have posted examples where - checking via surrenders - the supply chain is clear, but still front line units cannot get supply, even in built up areas, either because the 'avoidance route' used (we assume) is very poor and avoids really obvious small diversions that would take the chain out of los near the front, or because the weight of enemy opposing the flot seems in itself to be enough to 100% interdict. And that's when we are losing all the jeeps, and not getting supply. There have even been examples of almost surrounded single enemy units interdicting supply to firing/suppressing opposing troops!! And if you're talking about built up urban areas (usually) then that seems particularly wrong - because (i) in RL, it seems, the supply attempts over hopeless routes would not just continue, and (ii) in RL we suggest, the routes through urban cover wouldn't be so hopeless, and it would have been possible to infiltrate (by foot, if necessary)supplies through such great cover and concealment. The paras in RL in the Oosterbeek pocket had to give up because no supply was dropped on them (very little, anyway), because it was all being dropped elsewhere. What supply was dropped they could, by hook or by crook, distribute amongst themselves and hold on, thus, as long as they did. But in the game you can have a pocket like that and guarantee supply into it (if necessary by modding it to place a SEP there, as we have done) and still the front line troops in the pocket will be repeatedly 100% interdicted and get no supply. I hope this clarifies a bit. I'm sure Daz - and maybe others - will add their share, and hopefully you've read the threads. It's great you're looking at it. Many, many thanks. It wrecks the para scenarios for me, at the moment. And others, I know, from what has been said.




Phoenix100 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (10/16/2013 9:25:31 AM)

OK. I'm playing through FTMTTR now, using the frugal supply and ammo settings wherever I can. I'll post and save and send you examples as (and if) they arise, Simovitch.




simovitch -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (10/16/2013 1:44:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

OK. I'm playing through FTMTTR now, using the frugal supply and ammo settings wherever I can. I'll post and save and send you examples as (and if) they arise, Simovitch.

I'm doing the same. I recall during playtesting that except for a handful of units, the 82nd became burnt out and unsupplied by D4-D5 which I felt was a fair situation. The fact that XXX Corps didn't resupply them caused some indignation, but in a way it added to the realism for me - the airborne were not intended to be used in an offensive role after XXX Corps arrived.




dazkaz15 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (10/16/2013 2:50:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch
I'm doing the same. I recall during playtesting that except for a handful of units, the 82nd became burnt out and unsupplied by D4-D5 which I felt was a fair situation.


The problem with that is they became un-supplied because their DZ's got overrun not because they ran out of supply transport.
We have no way at the moment to get an alternate outcome for this supply situation, because even if you manage to maintain an open supply route, and drop zone, the attrition to the vehicles causes the whole thing to break down.

If there was supply that is in friendly hands, and there was an open route to it, I'm damn sure that they would make every effort to get it, and that's what's missing from the supply situation at the moment. The ability to collect supply in various ways from the bases, once the Jeeps are gone, as well as a bit of common sense from those trying to deliver it.
Someone needs to tell the Jeep drivers that the price of those Jeeps will be taken out of their pay if they survive to draw it [:D]

This "burnt out" is meant to be handled by the fatigue stats in game though.
Once properly rested, they should become a credible fighting unit again. Especially with the arrival of XXX Corps, and the morale boost, and extra supplies that must have come with its arrival.

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch
The fact that XXX Corps didn't resupply them caused some indignation, but in a way it added to the realism for me - the airborne were not intended to be used in an offensive role after XXX Corps arrived.

The problem with this is that once the basics run out, you can't even use them in a defensive role. In fact you can't move them at all!

I don't have time to play at the moment so can't help you out much with play testing sorry [:(]




Phoenix100 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (10/17/2013 9:31:13 AM)

Had to start again, as just realised that orders delay set to nil from some testing I was doing. Doh...

Just a thought, Simovitch. What was your thinking in putting so little airstrikes in for the Allies (in FTMTTR)? I read all the time about the skies being full of jabos etc and units having airstrikes on call. Do you not think the number allowed should be higher?




wodin -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (10/17/2013 12:12:48 PM)

Really I think the supply routine that deals with the route supply takes needs to be enhanced..so that it will re route to find a new way around if enemy is spotted or they are shot at. I'd also add some sort of convoy protection so if there aren't to many forces blocking they could shoot their way through. I'd imagine a jeep could speed off and race around back streets etc to get the supply in. I'd also imagine that once a route comes under heavy fire the next supply run would try to find another way through, they'd send out a scout\recon to see if the routes are clear first aswell I'm sure.




simovitch -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (10/17/2013 12:54:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Had to start again, as just realised that orders delay set to nil from some testing I was doing. Doh...

Just a thought, Simovitch. What was your thinking in putting so little airstrikes in for the Allies (in FTMTTR)? I read all the time about the skies being full of jabos etc and units having airstrikes on call. Do you not think the number allowed should be higher?

I recall that the part of allied air command that was not supporting the bombing campaign had their hands full supporting XXX Corps and the 2 airborne lifts on D1 and D2. Then the weather turned bad.




simovitch -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (10/17/2013 12:59:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Really I think the supply routine that deals with the route supply takes needs to be enhanced..so that it will re route to find a new way around if enemy is spotted or they are shot at.

Wodin, that would help... and give bases the ability to convert personnel into manpacks when the vehicles are gone, and give the player the option to disband defunct bases.




Phoenix100 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (10/17/2013 1:31:45 PM)

Just like that, Wodin and Simovitch - that would solve it, those raft of measures. But I guess that kind of change is a long, long way off, no?

Thanks for the answer re the airpower, Simovitch. But I had thought that supporting the lifts on day 1 and 2 did involve not just top cover but a load of CAS too. There are certainly accounts of CAS missions in the Nijmegan theatre. I'm not sure it makes much diff anyway, to be honest.




Phoenix100 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (10/17/2013 2:24:43 PM)

I'll post my efforts as a brief AAR as I go, Simovitch. In the AAR section.




Arjuna -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 4:51:08 AM)

Hi all,

Just to update you on some of the changes we have made re Supply.

First off we now maintain a Resupply History within each unit's data. If a unit has had a resupply run within the last two days and the last one suffered casualties of 25% or lost a vehicle, then its resupply request will be suspended. This mitigates against more and more resupply runs being despatched and getting wiped out. The fact is recorded in the unit log and you get a message to that effect.

[image]local://upfiles/8882/334162C6A6824E1B9F4016C97267073B.jpg[/image]




Arjuna -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 4:52:59 AM)

Next I have modified the code so that Bases have their personal allocation (ie the supplies assigned to the Base unit itself) subject to rationing like all the other units that draw on it. This will prevent the Base hogging all the supplies.




Arjuna -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 4:54:33 AM)

Also I have made it more difficult to kill supply trucks by increasing the amount of firepower required to kill them from 6 to 10.




Arjuna -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 5:01:04 AM)

Another nice neat feature we have added is that you can now see the route of any outstanding resupply run when you either click on the unit requesting it or click on the Base. Note below that we drop off the supplies some 500m back along the original route calculated. The unit is assumed to collect the supplies from that point. So this minimises casualties against the supply trucks.

[image]local://upfiles/8882/B833D07111B842C3A96E6686B777E5AF.jpg[/image]




Arjuna -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 5:08:43 AM)

We have also identified an outstanding issue. When you have enemy units close to the requesting friendly unit the supply route may often trace close to the enemy units. The reason for this is because while we factor in enemy firepower, the grid size we use to store this data on the intel maps is 300m. If the enemy is within 300m of the friendly unit and it has a fair bit of firepower then the area around it becomes uniformely bad and so the route reverts to using whatever is the least cost.

To fix this we need to change the data size down to 100m. But there could be a lot of downstream effects in doing so that may break the game and/or cause a lot of work to fix. I am not going to undertake this change until we start on Command Ops 2. What I have done for this final Cmd Ops 1 patch is to mitigate the problem and to suspend runs where previous ones have been destroyed or taken casualties. It will be a lot better than what it was.




wodin -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 5:41:23 AM)

Excellent work Dave. How is it playing? Are you finding units running out of supply fast because of the 25% or vehicle loss restriction? Also when does the base re start sending supply? I just envisage possible issues and lots of tweaking..or is it working well enough to leave alone?




navwarcol -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 6:34:01 AM)

I am thinking that it should be realistic enough as it sounds above. If your forward unit is not getting sufficient supply, they can pull back to an area where they can more easily be supplied, or else other units behind them can try to widen the corridor bringing in the supplies to them. This seems like an excellent fix Dave.




Phoenix100 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 7:10:31 AM)

Superb, Dave. Many many thanks. I'm very impressed.

Can I ask - if a unit got an interdiction at 6am, say, and a truck was lost, when it comes to the 6pm run there will be no attempt to resupply it, even if it has moved (or the interdicting enemy has moved) since 6am? Or only if the situation as was at 6am remains the case?




Arjuna -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 7:36:30 AM)

If a unit moves more than 500m from the location it was in when the last run tried to get through then it can get a new run or if 48hrs pass.




Phoenix100 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 7:50:30 AM)

Excellent. What if the enemy moves but the unit stays put? I'm thinking - what if you bring in reinforcements and oust the enemy that was interdicting the unit, but the unit is still where it was?




Remmes -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 8:09:06 AM)

Sounds like a pretty good fix. It's good to see this place spring back to life the last couple of weeks...[:)]




Missouri_Rebel -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 8:14:51 AM)

It's a good time for me to buy into the system. I'm hooked.




Arjuna -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 9:17:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Excellent. What if the enemy moves but the unit stays put? I'm thinking - what if you bring in reinforcements and oust the enemy that was interdicting the unit, but the unit is still where it was?

No I'm not addressing this case at the moment. There are too many what ifs to cater for, like poor visibility, suppression of the unit etc which could falsely lead to a conclusion that it was now safe, when in fact it isn't. All this take more processing and I just don't think its worth it. But look we can monitor this and if we fin it needs something more we can do that within Command Ops 2.




Phoenix100 -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 9:34:09 AM)

quote:

No I'm not addressing this case at the moment. There are too many what ifs to cater for, like poor visibility, suppression of the unit etc which could falsely lead to a conclusion that it was now safe, when in fact it isn't. All this take more processing and I just don't think its worth it. But look we can monitor this and if we fin it needs something more we can do that within Command Ops 2.


I understand. Ok. Great.





Renato -> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT (11/20/2013 9:58:31 AM)

It seems very promising.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.320313E-02