That sounds like a great quick fix to me, Dave. It would mean that there was at least some chance that the calculation would take into account the likelihood of interdiction and some 'choice' would be exercised if the risk was too high.
I assume that the calculation of enemy firepower 'along the route' includes the firepower at the very end of the route, which is where - in all these 'problematic' examples - all the interdiction is actually originating. The result I would like to see is that in, say, nine out of ten instances, when the calculation determines that the enemy 'completely controls access to X part of the flot' then the column goes nowhere near that part of the flot, no trucks are lost (from interdiction at that point, whatever might happen somewhere else along the route)and you get a message saying 'H company is cut-off and cannot be supplied' or some such. That leaves how you define 'completely controls access to x'. But I would have thought some line of sight calculation combined with firepower comparison would do that (though it would be possible to argue about it, of course) - which surely is something like what the calculation does anyway, already - when it's deciding whether a certain weight of firepower does actually qualify for interdiction, no?
I can see that how to work out the other part of the issue - getting some smaller quantity of man-ported supplies through - would be much more complex. It would kick in, I would think, under circumstances where the enemy had any degree of control of access to the unit requesting supply, short of 'complete control'. Then you would simulate the jeeps stopping well away from that area (so again, no jeeps lost at that point on the supply route)and men carrying smaller amounts of supply through. Some of those men would be casualties, of course (either taken from the unit HQ, the unit itself, or the base manpower total). How much supply and how many casualties would be on a sliding scale which depended on the degree of control of access exercised by the enemy.
And wouldn't that calculation be something like this? 1. Precondion for 'control of access' - complete line of sight from some enemy unit to unit requesting supply and the area immediately around it (including behind it). No line of sight, no control (so in the last picture I posted above there would not be any control over the unit 11-HOF (with the red interdicted box showing), I think, because it's in a forest at night and it's not reasonable to assume the enemy can snipe at men creeping through that with backpacks full of ammunition). 2. If precondition 1 exists, then a sliding scale based on something or some complex of conditions, like firepower. So (i) enemy in contact with unit is 10% greater = 10% control of access = 50% of normal supply gets through by backpack, with a casualty rate of 1 man per run (or some percentage), (ii) enemy in contact with unit is 20% greater = 20% control of access = 40% of normal supply gets through by backpack, with a casualty rate of 2 men per run.....Etc Etc.
But I think you would still need a 'DO NOT SUPPLY' button, otherwise you might very quickly find that you were crippled through loss of men rather than jeeps.
is this all absurd and naïve? I'm just thinking aloud, really.
Another thought - why can't jeeps be landed on airlanding SEPs as part of resupply? Say 3 jeeps per drop?
< Message edited by phoenix -- 8/29/2013 11:49:14 AM >