Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/1/2013 8:38:27 AM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
As to your example above, Daz, I very definitely think that you should not have lost 100% of supply by passing that single unit, even on the crappy avoidance route (which doesn't avoid the unit completely, though there were plenty of other options for an 'avoidance' route that would have achieved that). That's one surrounded and outnumbered enemy unit that has hit your supply. How on earth is the calculation made that that unit can interdict your route? I had assumed the calculation was made by comparing weight of firepower at places where the route was in los - but surely that can't be happening here? And even if we allow that Axis unit some influence - surely not 100% (even if that did only involve sniping at one jeep and hitting it). Sniping a jeep moving carefully through a dense urban environment. With all those Allied forces surrounding and outnumbering the enemy. I think this would need changing, myself.

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 31
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/1/2013 9:38:27 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
I totally agree that they should stop throwing away the transports like this if the route is too dangerous.
I would much rather no supply got through, and I had to send a relieving force through, or pull back to the depot, to get back in supply, than what happens now, which is for them to run out of Jeeps, and in short order the entire 1st Para Corps becomes useless for the rest of the scenario.

The Depots won't even get a resupply of Jeeps, or help with distributing supplies when 30 Corps reaches them, which makes this extremely un realistic.
Also no supply is distributed by hand even if its drawing units are surrounding their organic depot in close proximity.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 32
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/1/2013 10:33:33 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
This is what I was trying to explain to you about being overlooked, especially near the bridge on the main road.
Note the enemy range rings, and visibility.
I was not referring to them being able to hit your depot, but the supply convoys moving on the road.

quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Should that have resulted in 3 100% interdiction messages?


Unfortunately we have no idea of the route that it took to get there, at the time it left so its hard to say.

Some of these situations are like driving right through your own guys, that are heavily engaged , in a Jeep, towards the enemy and expecting to make it.
Then the next one doing exactly the same thing, Then the next, and so on.

Others are doing the same thing even when there is a clear alternate route.

You have to remember that during the day the enemy that can interdict the route, may be along way off mind. See the screen shot as an example.

This is why I am going to try to move the depot into the bridgehead during the night.
If we had more control over supplies I would leave it outside, and specify resupply only at night.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 9/1/2013 10:37:37 AM >

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 33
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/2/2013 12:55:35 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
I see what you mean. Look forward to seeing if having it right behind the flot makes any difference.

But surely this issue is across the board (even if you haven't noticed it yet) - ie in all the other scenarios, in BFTB and Greece, too?

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 34
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/2/2013 2:57:31 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
An historic moment.....Lead elements of 1 AL make contact with lead elements of XXX Corps. Almost midnight, day 4.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 35
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/2/2013 3:24:59 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
There may be trouble ahead. We're breaking through at Nijmegan, but this is what awaits at Arnhem......




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 36
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/2/2013 6:03:43 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Good stuff mate.
That was a fast link up, will give you plenty of time to whittle away some of that lot in Arnhem.
I'll be mighty impressed if you can get over the bridge and through that lot mind.

If I lose my bridgehead at Arnhem, I intend to put in a diversionary attack over the railway bridge to draw some away.
I think you blew the railway bridge in your game though if I remember right. Are you goinig to re-build it?
You have five days to get it up.
You can have a max of 1200 engineers assisting you on a heavy bridge re-build I think, and it will take about 40 hours.

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 37
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/2/2013 6:20:52 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix

I see what you mean. Look forward to seeing if having it right behind the flot makes any difference.

But surely this issue is across the board (even if you haven't noticed it yet) - ie in all the other scenarios, in BFTB and Greece, too?


I have hardly touched the Greek scenario pack yet. Only had a quick browse of it actually.

Most of my time is still in BFTB, where the terrain in undulating with good cover, its dark half of the time, and foggy the rest.
The bases have plenty of transports in BFTB so its not really been an issue.
Also the Allies don't have a lot of long range fire power either as I mostly find myself facing infantry, and often in a forest, especially in Elsenborn Ridge.

I think the main issue with this scenario, and to make it work, is we need to give the drivers more self preservation awareness.
If they would just stop destroying the Jeeps, we could be resupplied a night, or rotate units back or something.

If Dave's quick fix idea don't work I think he should look into changing all the 100% losses messages into supply could not get through, make the delivered quantity of supplies for it zero, and stop the Jeeps being deleted from the depots equipment.

I know nothing about the computer programming side of it however so if its a stupid suggestion, just ignore me lol

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 38
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/2/2013 6:24:39 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
This is the answer. I agree: I think he should look into changing all the 100% losses messages into supply could not get through, make the delivered quantity of supplies for it zero, and stop the Jeeps being deleted from the depots equipment.


because then, yes, you could do this: If they would just stop destroying the Jeeps, we could be resupplied a night, or rotate units back or something.

Agreed. I wonder if Dave - when he's next able - could quickly change that...

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 39
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/2/2013 6:28:25 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
That was a fast link up, (Daz wrote).

Yes, because the AI enemy seemed to suffer the same supply issues, I think. All those Axis units nth of the Nijmegan Highway bridge were cut off for about 6 hours and almost constantly engaged/bombarded before they started to surrender. That's all it took - 6 hours. And to think - way back when - I used to complain that it was impossible to cut-off units in this game! Things seem to have changed....

As a workaround, Daz, in an amended version of the scenario I've tampered with the 'Summary/%of estab' figure for all the 1 AB bases - upping it to 200%. That gives them about 150 jeeps instead of 25. Not sure if it works because not sure if the AI will just put more jeeps in each column and take the same percentage of them as they get hit. Hope not, since I have a feeling it will be a while before Dave is able to look at this.

< Message edited by phoenix -- 9/2/2013 8:26:36 PM >

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 40
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/2/2013 9:55:00 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
next 100% losses write up.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 41
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/2/2013 10:42:26 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
That is so weird that 'bug' springs to mind....

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 42
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/3/2013 12:38:04 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
another one

Phoenix
I was wondering if it may be something you have done, while altering the SEP's and supply while adjusting the scenario?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 9/3/2013 12:42:35 AM >

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 43
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/3/2013 9:39:11 AM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Could be. But what? I think in that version you have there might still be an error I ironed out in later versions - check if 1AB CORPS base is in the same theatre as 1AB CORPS HQ (Nijmegan or Arnhem). In one version - I don't recall which - the scenmaker strangely placed the Corps HQ in the Nijmegan theatre, but the Corps base up in Arnhem. I don't see how that would interfere, however, unless 508 reg base was already dry or dead, as I believe only then does the AI hunt up through the command structure to use a higher level base to use.

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 44
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/3/2013 9:49:17 AM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
This is my day 5 evening pic. What a nightmare. Even if supply worked as we might wish, this is a frightening task - to somehow get through all these units and get top that huge concentration of forces nth of Arnhem. Of course, the more successful you are at stopping Axis access sth by blocking the Arnhem bridge, the greater the concentration of forces you have to face once you get to Arnhem.

I will stop this run through now and start again, I think. I don't think I can do as well as I hoped with this. There were 3 big tactical errors, I've decided.
1. Essential to keep as large a bridgehead as possible nth of the Rijn in Arnhem because all the land sth of the Rijn, around Elden, is a kill zone - flat, without much cover. This makes me think I should consider dropping bases nth of the Rijn and placing SEPs there somewhere too.
2. I shouldn't have dropped the rail bridge.
3. For smooth progress up Hell's highway I should have put in at least a Bn, early on, to block the twin crossing east of Doornenburg - because that's where all those Axis units hitting me half way to Arnhem have come from.

Will need to think about where I can place SEPs, realistically, nth of the Rijn to be able to stand a chance of taking the bridges and defending them. I don't suppose it would be realistic to just drop supplies into Arnhem centre - though they did try to drop supplies into Oosterbeek, and I read an interview with Gavin in which he said he didn't care if they dropped supplies onto rooftops in town, as long as they were dropped near the objectives.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by phoenix -- 9/3/2013 9:51:26 AM >

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 45
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/6/2013 4:23:20 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Bridgehead secured






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 9/6/2013 4:28:55 PM >

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 46
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/6/2013 4:47:29 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Lol Daz. Very funny. Love those paras with 26 PIATs and bugger all else whilst XXX Corps swarm all around them eating their chocolate and smoking those fags....!! definitely needs fixing. Hope Dave gets the chance to look at it all.

You seem to have won, however, despite the terrible loss of life. Did you use the rail crossing at all?

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 47
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/6/2013 10:04:17 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Not yet mate.
Here is the latest situation. I have ran out of time to annotate it fully, but at least I have got the bit done that you were interested in at the Railway Bridge.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 9/6/2013 10:08:48 PM >

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 48
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/6/2013 10:53:21 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
Looks good. Excellent work. So it can be done with the original forces, but you need to drop them all on day 1, closer to the targets, with closer re-supply SEPs.

If the jeep thing was fixed - by which I mean (i) there was a greater AI care not to pick routes, repeatedly, which sacrificed these precious assets (ideally with an option for the human commander to designate the actual supply routes), (ii) bases out of jeeps could draw from bases with plenty (or jeeps be transferred - it seems to happen, we learned this week, we just can't control it) (iii) some kind of simulation of man-ported lower level supplies to troops engaged at the FLOT, (iv) options to switch off supply or only supply under cover of darkness - then that would allow us to develop tactics to deal with these situations where supply is interdicted, including where interdiction occurs at the FLOT, from beyond the FLOT, simply through engagement. Then we might be able to fight the original FTMTTR, in original historical conditions and see what could be done.

As I said, I hope Dave gets the chance to look at this issue at some point, though I suspect it's all a bit awful in RL at the moment and he's not any time for this (though this is too, for him, RL, of course!)

Do you agree with my suggested fixes, Daz (i to iv above)?

< Message edited by phoenix -- 9/6/2013 10:54:46 PM >

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 49
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/6/2013 11:40:15 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
I would love for the game to make "more of supply", as we have just seen, its such an important factor in any battle.
I don't think its in the scope of this release of the game engine to be able to implement the kind of things I would like to see, like you mentioned in your list above, and I have written about many times now.

I would like to think it is being considered for Command Ops 2 however.

In the mean time, its definitely no fun to watch your supplying capacity be diminished in this fashion, and have no realistic way to prevent it.
Its also extremely frustrating, and un-realistic to not be able to supply the men once out of the danger zone, and close to the depot, when that depot is full of supplies, and there are other units near by that could asset share.

My best guess at an easy fix for this supply transport asset problem, for this engine (I don't know how easy it would be, as I don't know much about programming) would be:

1, Turn all the yellow "100% losses" into red "supply could not get through" messages. This simulates the driver using his common sense, and turning back rather than lose the valuable Jeep and his life.
It will also mean that your unit will start to run out of supply as it should. You should then look into securing your supply route or pulling back the unit.

2, Always have at least one transport left in the depot for supply, that cannot be destroyed, unless the depot is.
This will allow a trickle of supply to still come out of the base that will simulate man portage of the supply to nearby units, as a work around until we get a better simulation in future expansions.

(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 50
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/7/2013 12:07:01 AM   
wodin


Posts: 10166
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Again I think supply mechanic has crossed the boundary and went in a detailed direction..however I think this causes problems because it hasn't gone detailed enough. Thats why I think supply mechanic could have been abstracted more in the first place..as long as it seems reasonable are we really bothered how it gets to the reasonable results. At the minute it probably needs some tac ai work done on the convoys.

I do agree that hose 100% losses should more times than not been returned back to the supply dump as no doubt the convoy would have spotted enemy at a distance and sent out scouts esp as they are usually resupplying during combat..this would have the added benefit of your supply at the depot staying reasonable. Next is the issue of burning through ammo very quickly. There are plenty of reports of units being in a long drawn out firefight that went on for hours..the difference is in real life there would be lulls in the fighting..also it's unlikely the whole coy say would all be firing at the same time..some squads maybe caught up in a firefight..others might not have shot around for an hour or so another might have been pinned down for a couple of hours and barely got a round off, again all this complex tactical stuff is abstracted in game yet we have detailed supply system and ammo counts etc..this is when ammo sharing would come into play. The game obviously doesn't model all this, it boils down to an issue I find many indepth complex wargames have esp at the tactical or grand tactical scale..a conflict between the complex in depth parts like supply and weapon fire rates \ballistics with the abstractions of say terrain and tac ai and it's unit size etc etc.

_____________________________


(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 51
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/7/2013 12:50:05 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1502
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
First off, nice analyzis there, Phoenix.

Along with a few other users, I have been pointing out (since COTA), that such high numbers of supply vehicle losses, or losses of means of supplies in general, where the player has at least ONE clear and safe approach route for re-supplies, are not realistic.

Dave's quick-fix sounds very interesting, but does not fully take into account historical supply handling of the US Army (and most likely of the British Army as well).

While the British Army employed Machine Gun Bns to lay down long range interdiction fire on enemy supply routes (at ranges of up to 4000 meters), which turned out to be devastating for the Germans during Operation Varsity, for example, and while the Western Allies put up a massive effort on aerial recon, myriads of tactical air strikes and bombings to interdict German supply efforts, the Germans used small planes (Fieseler Storch), elevated observation posts, recon scout tanks and vehicles and matrix maps to be able to lay down artillery interdiction fire on the enemy.

As outlined in the Logistics and Marches sections of the "US Armored Force Field Manual" (I quoted details here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3358681&mpage=1&key=%EF%BF%BD%29,#3359948 ), supply elements were to be escorted and alt supply routes were to be identified.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Armored Force Field Manual

"f. Trains.--(1)
Trains usually do not accompany the combat elements when combat is imminent but are held in rear areas under protection of its organic weapons. When trains accompany the columns they may follow without distance if protection is essential or they may advance by bounds. (2) Because of enemy reaction and weather conditions, supply routes may be different from the routes of advance of the combat elements. Alternate routes for trains are selected when possible."


Marches of armored elements were to be executed at night, according to the Field Manual: "Night marches will be used frequently when secrecy or surprise is desired and to avoid long range interdicting fires."
Most likely, in heavily contested areas and in situations displayed by Phoenix' screenshots, supply efforts would have been made at night, as well, if interdicting or direct fire could have hampered/reached supply vehicles even across rivers.



quote:

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

I totally agree that they should stop throwing away the transports like this if the route is too dangerous.
I would much rather no supply got through, and I had to send a relieving force through, or pull back to the depot, to get back in supply, than what happens now, which is for them to run out of Jeeps, and in short order the entire 1st Para Corps becomes useless for the rest of the scenario.


In order to make rendering of supply efforts historically more accurate and realistic, the player should have an option (a button) ...
  • a) to halt all supply efforts for all selected units. The user could then re-enable re-supplies during the night, for example, in order to maintain a proper pool of supply vehicles. An enhancement would be a "Night only" button, which restricts the supply train to perform re-supply efforts at night only.

  • b) 1) Another solution would be the implementation of a routine that would assess the risk level (and number of potential losses), and then halt re-supply efforts automatically, once the losses reached a certain level.
    2) An enhancement of this approach would involve threshold buttons (like the losses/aggro settings) for the supply, where the player can set the level of acceptable supply train losses himself: Low - Medium/moderate - High.


Historically, the G-4 of a given unit would have evaluated the supply situation, and - if supply routes would have been contested/attacked/interdicted - would have taken countermeasures to rectify the supply situation.
Historically, several options were employed: strengthening escort forces, diverting combat forces to secure the approaches of the supply trains, suppressing enemy interdicting forces/fire by air or ground/artillery forces, or even halt all re-supplies on the ground and (if feasable) restrict re-supply efforts to air drops.


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Again I think supply mechanic has crossed the boundary and went in a detailed direction..however I think this causes problems because it hasn't gone detailed enough.


That may be true. The supply system tries to pump in as many supplies as possible, no matter the costs, at least, which is neither historical, nor realistic.

A solution could be to render supply units as well (say as counters 1/4 or 1/8 of the size of a combat unit. This would give the game a whole new level of realism, as - historically - the operational commander (and not just a unit's G-4) had to cater for a proper supply system as well.

Rommel, for example, did not really care for supply planning and left the job to his subordinates, who were partially overstrained, as decisions in the supply department are also operational and "policy" decisions that have to be made by the operational commander.

Such solution would also open up a whole new bag of realism, where the player can actually see enemy supply trains and plan interdiction raids on supply routes.

On top of that, if the user wouldn't just have air strikes at his disposal, but also recon missions over and behind the front lines, the user could perform realistic and historically correct missions to bombard enemy supply bases (air strikes, artillery strikes), send raid forces to eliminate such bases, or to destroy and cut off the aforementioned supply vehicles. Individual units could also be sent to intercept/capture enemy supply vehicles and either add their cargo and vehicles to their stocks or destroy them.

While some may think that it would add to the need of micromanagement and cpu load, I am convinced that today's multi-core CPUs can handle it easily. The rendered supply units would be controlled by the AI (on "auto-cruise" and avoidance route settings), they would have light escort elements, and the user would be able to halt or redirect them, if necessary.



< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 9/7/2013 8:49:27 AM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 52
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/7/2013 8:23:58 AM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline
All sounds great, Goodguy. When I started playing this game I couldn't have cared less about supply (I'm talking about many years ago, I guess, with the original HTTR)but as you get into it then this kind of thing really ends up frustrating you so you finally feel you would be happy to have to micromanage it if that's what's required to get the jeeps through. I guess daz is right though and most of these changes would be for consideration for the CO2 engine. A fix of some sort is needed though. If I had to pick one quick fix, of all those mentioned, it would be a button to switch it off for selected units, so that you could just do it by night, I suppose. Dave's quick fix might go a long way to making these airborne scenarios more playable though.

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 53
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/7/2013 4:45:52 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10166
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Goodguy..sounds great and probably is the way to go for the game. Though personally I'd have preferred the system to be more abstract (where what you say all happens but under the hood and managed by ai staff officers) but with realistic results so then it would avoid to much micromanagement. As for a button to turn it off during the day..this doesn't solve the problem of excessive supply drain in the game.

< Message edited by wodin -- 9/7/2013 4:47:45 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 54
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/7/2013 8:55:38 PM   
jimcarravall

 

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Goodguy..sounds great and probably is the way to go for the game. Though personally I'd have preferred the system to be more abstract (where what you say all happens but under the hood and managed by ai staff officers) but with realistic results so then it would avoid to much micromanagement. As for a button to turn it off during the day..this doesn't solve the problem of excessive supply drain in the game.


Well, having the AI staff manage supply is what's happening now. Unfortunately, staff is a little too efficient at reporting its failures, and commanders become alarmed.

It's amusing that the poster child for strangulation by lack of supply is the British First Airborne Division and attached assets in Arnhem, since, well, that's why Arnhem was considered a "bridge too far" in historical the narrative of the battle.

Not only did the brave British troopers run into more resistance than expected because of poor intelligence that missed the fact that elite Panzer divisions were near to recover from battle, but also that the plan left supply drops remote from the bridge where they could be interdicted before being dispersed to the combat troops.

Here's a little bit about the issue from a military historian's perspective:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA309692

Stillwell's experience in his Burma campaign isn't all that different from what the First Airborne faced in the Highway to the Reich concept during operation Garden.

And, as far as supply being interdicted near the front by defending troops, review some writings on the D-Day invasions, and the need for troops to expand the bridgehead to assure that more troops, and necessary supplies would arrive safely by the sea.

The "column lost 100-percent" notice is an indication to the commander something isn't working.

It's either he doesn't have enough rear area intelligence to provide a truly secure "avoidance route" from his base, he hasn't expanded the protected zone around supply choke points (like the only bridge across a river) to deter direct interdiction fire on supply columns, or he's used more bullets to win gains that he can't protect once obtained.

Losing 100 percent of demanded supplies for a unit that expended 33-percent of its ammo before demanding a pull from the base isn't as big a problem as a unit that expends all its ammo, and demands a pull to replenish all from an untenable position.

Battles are won, as Jeb Stuart said, by "getting there fustest with the mostest" but not necessarily by "expending the mostest" once you get "there."









_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 55
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/7/2013 9:13:22 PM   
Phoenix100

 

Posts: 2568
Joined: 9/28/2010
Status: offline

deleted

< Message edited by phoenix -- 9/8/2013 8:52:47 AM >

(in reply to jimcarravall)
Post #: 56
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/7/2013 10:03:35 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10166
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Yes they had supply issues at Arnhem..but if they had the supply issues we have in this game they'd have surrendered after a few hours as they'd have no ammo...instead they lasted days even with supply issues and constant fighting.

_____________________________


(in reply to Phoenix100)
Post #: 57
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/8/2013 9:20:35 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1267
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
They still do last days Wodin.
Its very realistic what happens to the units once they are cut off from their supplies in game at the moment.
The problem is the inability of the abstracted game engine to find and follow an open supply route, that you have provided for the troops, and its will full destruction of its supply transports.

Then the worst problem of all is not being able to re-supply the depot with new transports, that leaves several entire Brigades out of supply and useless for the rest of the scenario, which only becomes a prevalent problem in a long scenario, like this 10 day epic.

For anyone doubting the problem here, just play the scenario, and take note of what happens to the supply convoys.
You only need to get to day 2 to see the problem first hand.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 58
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/8/2013 1:58:40 PM   
jimcarravall

 

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

They still do last days Wodin.
Its very realistic what happens to the units once they are cut off from their supplies in game at the moment.
The problem is the inability of the abstracted game engine to find and follow an open supply route, that you have provided for the troops, and its will full destruction of its supply transports.

Then the worst problem of all is not being able to re-supply the depot with new transports, that leaves several entire Brigades out of supply and useless for the rest of the scenario, which only becomes a prevalent problem in a long scenario, like this 10 day epic.

For anyone doubting the problem here, just play the scenario, and take note of what happens to the supply convoys.
You only need to get to day 2 to see the problem first hand.

Daz,

The illustrations show an open line of communications, but a significant length of that line lies in a pretty heavy direct fire zone under the observation of massed enemy units, not to mention the bombardment of indirect fire units.

Because the bridgehead is critical, those enemy units are packed tight to the front line of the friendly troops requiring supplies.

They're packed tight because there's a chance of retaking the objective with an assault.

Part of an assault tactic would be to attrit the friendly front line troops and limit their supplies before launching that attack.

Damage accumulates gradually any time the supply "units" are traveling along a path that can be fired upon.

If damage to the column reaches 100 percent on a trip, a carrier is lost.

The potential of damage to the carrier fleet is multiplied by the distance traveled under fire multiplied once again by the frequency the assets are sent along that distance.

Each demand for non-cyclic resupply increases the frequency the trips taken along that route.

The problem becomes most acute when friendly units demand more frequent supplementary runs because they have expended their supply before the next cyclic delivery.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 59
RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT - 9/8/2013 3:00:28 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10166
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Daz..I thought the ammo was used up in combat within a few hours? Has this now changed? What needs to be looked at is rof. Working out roughly how much ammo a coy would use up in an hour..rembering some platoons\squads may not be in any action in this hour while others maybe for anything from a few mins to the full hour..so maybe the rof of weapons need to be lowered as you can't go by the actual real life rof but an overall rof for the whole coy that is really just the expected ammo consumption of a coy in action taking into account it's very unlikely the whole Coy is shooting.

I know it's already low..but maybe it needs to be lower for certain weapons like rifles.

< Message edited by wodin -- 9/8/2013 3:04:51 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to jimcarravall)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> RE: SUPPLY INTERDICTION NOT RIGHT Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.188