+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 141

Thread: How to simulate Sypply routes / TC correctly

  1. #41
    I like the assignable TC idea.
    David

  2. #42
    AoD's Old Geezer Balesir's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerHoI AnthologyArsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: Armageddon
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDarkest HourDeus Vult
    DiplomacyEast India CompanyEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    For The GloryFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the Throne
    ImpireEuropa Universalis III: In NomineIron CrossMagickaMajesty 2
    March of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeRome Gold
    Semper FiSengokuSword of the StarsSword of the Stars IISupreme Ruler 2020 Gold
    Supreme Ruler: Cold WarVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae Victis
    Mount & Blade: WarbandWarlock: Master of the ArcanePride of NationsRise of PrussiaCK2: Holy Knight
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The wooly wilds of England
    Posts
    1,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Lennartos
    hum?
    you want them simulated as real units???
    i can see the value of using the time by strategic redeployment.... but ... but.... noooo.....
    im for the glabal TC = surplus TC value.
    when you remove TC from a SC, it will take a week for it to return to the global TC counter. When you assign it will take a week to work.
    its ok if they are stuck in the deployment window... but i would rather have a global counter rather than having 200+ extra units to take care of
    Well, I didn't really mean for them to be treated as units - after all, they can be allocated to SCs or supply routes only - but that moving them from SC to SC should take time (as per SR). I don't really like the idea of a common pool - that would be too much of a world-wide 'fire brigade' that can be instantly deployed anywhere, for me. The point here is that shifting assets from one front to another (in a big change of strategic emphasis) should be difficult.

    The 'move' order would be given on the SC screen - 'move to SC xxx' then choose a number of TC to move. This would be automatable, as for convoys, etc.

    Adding TCs to a convoy would take TCs from both end SCs (alternating) until one ran out, then take from the one with TC left. Reducing TCs in a convoy adds TCs back to both end SCs, alternating. This should be flexible and easy without allowing too easy TC 'teleportation' across SCs...

    Edited to correct a typo...
    Last edited by Balesir; 14-12-2007 at 00:16.
    Balesir.
    ======
    Arsenal of Democracy - Hearts of Iron 2 on steroids...

  3. #43

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Balesir
    Well, I didn't really mean for them to be treated as units - after all, they can be allocated to SCs or supply routes only - but that moving them from SC to SC should take time (as per SR). I don't really like the idea of a common pool - that would be too much of a world-wide 'fire brigade' that can be instantly deployed anywhere, for me. The point here is that shifting assets from one front to another (in a big change of strategic emphasis) should be difficult.

    The 'move' order would be given on the SC screen - 'move to SC xxx' then choose a number of TC to move. This would be automatable, as for convoys, etc.
    But the "difficult part" should not be the interface.
    even if its a global variable, the locked times give a limit to flexibilty.
    Set it to 2 weeks for deployment and one month for reassignment.(where it is "strategicly redeployed")

    Either that or let it become a fluid resource that can be transported back and forth according to demand just like everything else.

  5. #45
    AoD's Old Geezer Balesir's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerHoI AnthologyArsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: Armageddon
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDarkest HourDeus Vult
    DiplomacyEast India CompanyEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    For The GloryFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the Throne
    ImpireEuropa Universalis III: In NomineIron CrossMagickaMajesty 2
    March of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeRome Gold
    Semper FiSengokuSword of the StarsSword of the Stars IISupreme Ruler 2020 Gold
    Supreme Ruler: Cold WarVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae Victis
    Mount & Blade: WarbandWarlock: Master of the ArcanePride of NationsRise of PrussiaCK2: Holy Knight
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The wooly wilds of England
    Posts
    1,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Lennartos
    But the "difficult part" should not be the interface.
    even if its a global variable, the locked times give a limit to flexibilty.
    Set it to 2 weeks for deployment and one month for reassignment.(where it is "strategicly redeployed")
    Yeah - I think we are arguing over semantics, now - your system with delays for deploying out of the pool (instead of into it) would be OK for me - I think I just have a bad feeling about a pool of trains, trucks and waggons floating 'in the sky' waiting to be used anywhere from London to the Pacific Islands...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lennartos
    Either that or let it become a fluid resource that can be transported back and forth according to demand just like everything else.
    Well, that's essentially what I was saying - but with an option for the player to control moves.

    Since there will always be AI nations, it seems to me that any system (a) will need to be possible to program for automatic management so that the AI nations can function, and (b) could therefore be automated for the player (using the same algorithms) for those players who don't want to take a 'hands-on' approach to this stuff.
    Balesir.
    ======
    Arsenal of Democracy - Hearts of Iron 2 on steroids...

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Balesir
    I think I just have a bad feeling about a pool of trains, trucks and waggons floating 'in the sky' waiting to be used anywhere from London to the Pacific Islands...

    i get your point...
    but the holy grail is always to get the greatest effect with lowest efford.
    what i think is important is control over the usage of TC:

    I would rather have my troops in africas desert starving, than loose the initiative in the start of barbarossa...
    having the whole thing fluidly will make it kind of hard to maintain a overview over the TC usage.

    I was thinking of making it "board game" style... a level 5 SC could for examle have 1-5 TC units assigned... just click a button and one TC will be subtracted from the suplus storage and be active in 2 weeks time on location.

    its quick and easy.. and fast to make a "auto" maneger to assign TCs if ((demand > availible) and ((over demand time * over demand amount)> treshold ) and (surplus TC > 1))

    if its fluid, its harder to get an overview.... how much TC surplus do you have... where is it?... when can i count on the front getting my supplies again?.. where should the shortage be?
    .... you could of course have automatic TC movement based on the above board game approach.. but i think we should weigh gameplay above simulation detail here

  7. #47
    First Lieutenant
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron III

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Keystone State
    Posts
    281
    Hi guys,

    Ok there are a lot of things I want to touch on here;

    Lennartos;

    Code:
    @Tonrich:
    3 points struck me immediately:
    1) Where is the limit on TC usage? you only have a cost usage... but unlimited amount of TC can be assigned anywhere on the network.
    Well you would assign enough TC to each SC to handle what needs to be handled. Different SCís will have different amounts of raw material and supplies flowing through them depending on where theyíre located. The resources available in those provinces will be different and require various amounts of TC.

    Code:
    2)
    Quote:
    ē At 0% to 20% this is basically horse and mule paths. No rivers or roads that can be used effectively to move material. (Fuel use = 1) Will only support level 1 TC. 
    
    Quote:
    If we were trying to move material in a mountain province with 20% Infra using a level 1 TC the formula would be: (((1 x Infra) x Province type) x TC use) or (((1 x 1) x 4) x1.2) = 4.8. 
    
     
    i can see it vividly:
    former train driver with steel transport caravan almost on top of mountain, talking to himself:
    "brrr...damn its cold...
    i just dont know what i did wrong.. 
    i have already used more than half our assigned coal reserve,but no matter how much coal i throw into this mules mouth,it just wont budge anymore!... 
    the least thing it could do was to swallow it itself...brrr..."
    All Iím trying to say here is there is a distinct difference when transporting material in a mountain province or a plains province as well as a difference in 20% infra or 100% infra. Iíve always assumed energy is a homogenous grouping of coal, natural gas, hydro, wood or grass. Whatever burns, flows (or is eaten) and creates energy, itís an abstract idea! The formula I created is just trying to take all these factors and prioritize them in a way that makes logical sense. It should cost more to transport across a mountain then a plain, even at 100%. Itís normal, that what happens in RL so why shouldnít it be modeled that way??? (I like your EX. It made me laugh)

    Code:
    3) SCs are a province structure, not a division.. therefore they dont have any Air attack or ground defence or strength.
    I can go along with you and Balesir on this. So then maybe we could decrease the cost and time of production.

    Balesir;

    Code:
    Land TCs are like convoys, I think, and as such should not have 'versions' and so on. Just keep them as abstract collections of various transport assets (with an emphasis on rail for this period). Several Siberian provinces, after all, have quite low Infra but still have the trans-Siberian railway...
    The versions were based on doing R&D work that gives a country an edge. IMO if you donít have something like this then thereís no strategic difference between Germany and Ethiopia when it comes to logistics. I assume then it would strictly be based on the level of infra in your provinces. Iím going to push for this one. I think itís important to allow countries to get an edge when handling logistics. Also if each TC unit requires 1 manpower and a level 1 TC only moves 3 units vs. a level 3 TC moving 20 units youíre getting a huge advantage in your manpower. That is why you want to research that tech because when your moving 150 energy out of a province you could have 50 level 1ís or 8 level 3ís. Do you think that having an extra 42 manpower available would be helpful to Germany or Great Britain?

    Code:
    This means that Infrastructure need not affect the types of TC usable - although it might influence the quantity, forcing some routes to use parallel provinces and making them more vulnerable to attack (or even limiting total capacity where natural bottlenecks exist).
    I respectfully disagree. The infra has a huge determining factor of what type of TC is used and how effective and efficient it will be. I think this should be modeled in the game. In RL picture a rail road running from Cleveland to Chicago (flat plains with no rivers) or Montana to Washington State (all mountains and forest). Now even if the Montana run is at 100% infra it still has grades and turns so a train is not going to be running all out. The Chicago run is strait flat and a train could travel at peak efficiency. By making the terrain mean something you will automatically create ďsweetĒ travel paths and therefore you will have your bottlenecks and vulnerable infra points.

    Code:
     Energy or fuel usage - you have the right general idea, but I think it would be easier to say TCs cost so much per day to run, and then have the effective distances (and therefore the capacity of the routes) affected by Infra etc.
    You can do this however I think itís easier to force a ďpath of least resistanceĒ as well as more RL by using the formula. If this chokes the game then Iím obviously not for it, but it would force a player to think strategically about how raw materials get to his factories. I think one important item that the TC cost and infra would allow is raw material deposits that are too costly to use. A country might have a deposit of energy (coal) in a mountainous region with low infra and finds itís cheaper to buy from another country. In the meantime they can improve the infra in that province until it becomes economically feasible to mine that site.

    For the SC Iím fine with what you suggested.
    Iím good with posting TC units to SCís. I think the control aspect is reposting them to different SCís. So you can assign as many TC units to a SC as you want and I think that will happen. You will have one SC with 50 TC assigned to it while another SC will have 150 assigned to it. There should be a strategic redeployment of TCís that puts it in a queue for 10 days before itís available at the new SC.

  8. #48
    First Lieutenant
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron III

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Keystone State
    Posts
    281
    Sorry guys, I'm not sure what i did in that last post. Lennartos got his quotes in so I'll just retry Balesir's.

    Balesir;

    Land TCs are like convoys, I think, and as such should not have 'versions' and so on. Just keep them as abstract collections of various transport assets (with an emphasis on rail for this period). Several Siberian provinces, after all, have quite low Infra but still have the trans-Siberian railway...
    The versions were based on doing R&D work that gives a country an edge. IMO if you donít have something like this then thereís no strategic difference between Germany and Ethiopia when it comes to logistics. I assume then it would strictly be based on the level of infra in your provinces. Iím going to push for this one. I think itís important to allow countries to get an edge when handling logistics. Also if each TC unit requires 1 manpower and a level 1 TC only moves 3 units vs. a level 3 TC moving 20 units youíre getting a huge advantage in your manpower. That is why you want to research that tech because when your moving 150 energy out of a province you could have 50 level 1ís or 8 level 3ís. Do you think that having an extra 42 manpower available would be helpful to Germany or Great Britain?

    This means that Infrastructure need not affect the types of TC usable - although it might influence the quantity, forcing some routes to use parallel provinces and making them more vulnerable to attack (or even limiting total capacity where natural bottlenecks exist).
    I respectfully disagree. The infra has a huge determining factor of what type of TC is used and how effective and efficient it will be. I think this should be modeled in the game. In RL picture a rail road running from Cleveland to Chicago (flat plains with no rivers) or Montana to Washington State (all mountains and forest). Now even if the Montana run is at 100% infra it still has grades and turns so a train is not going to be running all out. The Chicago run is strait flat and a train could travel at peak efficiency. By making the terrain mean something you will automatically create ďsweetĒ travel paths and therefore you will have your bottlenecks and vulnerable infra points.

    Energy or fuel usage - you have the right general idea, but I think it would be easier to say TCs cost so much per day to run, and then have the effective distances (and therefore the capacity of the routes) affected by Infra etc.
    You can do this however I think itís easier to force a ďpath of least resistanceĒ as well as more RL by using the formula. If this chokes the game then Iím obviously not for it, but it would force a player to think strategically about how raw materials get to his factories. I think one important item that the TC cost and infra would allow is raw material deposits that are too costly to use. A country might have a deposit of energy (coal) in a mountainous region with low infra and finds itís cheaper to buy from another country. In the meantime they can improve the infra in that province until it becomes economically feasible to mine that site.

    For the SC Iím fine with what you suggested.

    Iím good with posting TC units to SCís. I think the control aspect is reposting them to different SCís. So you can assign as many TC units to a SC as you want and I think that will happen. You will have one SC with 50 TC assigned to it while another SC will have 150 assigned to it. There should be a strategic redeployment of TCís that puts it in a queue for 10 days before itís available at the new SC.

  9. #49
    AoD's Old Geezer Balesir's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerHoI AnthologyArsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: Armageddon
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDarkest HourDeus Vult
    DiplomacyEast India CompanyEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    For The GloryFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the Throne
    ImpireEuropa Universalis III: In NomineIron CrossMagickaMajesty 2
    March of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeRome Gold
    Semper FiSengokuSword of the StarsSword of the Stars IISupreme Ruler 2020 Gold
    Supreme Ruler: Cold WarVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae Victis
    Mount & Blade: WarbandWarlock: Master of the ArcanePride of NationsRise of PrussiaCK2: Holy Knight
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The wooly wilds of England
    Posts
    1,579
    Quote Originally Posted by TonRich
    The versions were based on doing R&D work that gives a country an edge. IMO if you donít have something like this then thereís no strategic difference between Germany and Ethiopia when it comes to logistics. I assume then it would strictly be based on the level of infra in your provinces. Iím going to push for this one. I think itís important to allow countries to get an edge when handling logistics. Also if each TC unit requires 1 manpower and a level 1 TC only moves 3 units vs. a level 3 TC moving 20 units youíre getting a huge advantage in your manpower. That is why you want to research that tech because when your moving 150 energy out of a province you could have 50 level 1ís or 8 level 3ís. Do you think that having an extra 42 manpower available would be helpful to Germany or Great Britain?
    Sure, but what I'm saying is that you don't need different models to do this - just tech advances. Set your 'scale' so that 1 TC carries a fixed amount over a route of given length each day. Now, a low tech TC is 1,000 mules with their drivers (say), while a stat-of-the-art TC is either 5 trains or 50 trucks. Now, for any given tech, a TC will cost to build - let's say (for example) 1 MP and 30 IC-days for the low tech one and 0.05 MP and 120 IC-days for the high-tech one. Meanwhile, the low tech one takes no fuel (but some supplies for parts?) but the high tech one takes 1 energy or 1 oil per day.

    Quote Originally Posted by TonRich
    I respectfully disagree. The infra has a huge determining factor of what type of TC is used and how effective and efficient it will be. I think this should be modeled in the game. In RL picture a rail road running from Cleveland to Chicago (flat plains with no rivers) or Montana to Washington State (all mountains and forest). Now even if the Montana run is at 100% infra it still has grades and turns so a train is not going to be running all out. The Chicago run is strait flat and a train could travel at peak efficiency. By making the terrain mean something you will automatically create ďsweetĒ travel paths and therefore you will have your bottlenecks and vulnerable infra points.
    Again, this is really just a matter of how you look at the thing. In Lennartos' scheme Infra 100 means that the tracks of the railway run through huge tunnels and cuttings like crevasses cleave through with autobahns in them. The fact is, though, no mountains will every likely have this level of Infrastructure because it would cost too much and take too long to build. You will still have your "sweet" paths because that is where it will be far easier to build up your Infrastructure.

    As an example of how this might work - say that each 'level' of Infra. costs its level in IC for 3 months. The actual Infra gain in clear terrain is 10%; in mountains it's 1%. Now to get to 100% Infra in the plains and 10% Infra in mountains will cost the same - 3,300 IC-days...

    Quote Originally Posted by TonRich
    You can do this however I think itís easier to force a ďpath of least resistanceĒ as well as more RL by using the formula. If this chokes the game then Iím obviously not for it, but it would force a player to think strategically about how raw materials get to his factories. I think one important item that the TC cost and infra would allow is raw material deposits that are too costly to use. A country might have a deposit of energy (coal) in a mountainous region with low infra and finds itís cheaper to buy from another country. In the meantime they can improve the infra in that province until it becomes economically feasible to mine that site.
    I agree that there should be an effect - I'm just saying that the approaches amount to the same thing in the end. To get coal from a low Infra mountain region will take many more TCs (and thus bigger SCs - see below) and therefore need more fuel because the route capacity is TCs used divided by Infrastructure, summed for all provinces routed through.

    Quote Originally Posted by TonRich
    Iím good with posting TC units to SCís. I think the control aspect is reposting them to different SCís. So you can assign as many TC units to a SC as you want and I think that will happen. You will have one SC with 50 TC assigned to it while another SC will have 150 assigned to it. There should be a strategic redeployment of TCís that puts it in a queue for 10 days before itís available at the new SC.
    The biggest bottlenecks in any distribution system are the loading/unloading points. A Supply Centre is limited by the number of loading/unloading bays it is able to effectively operate - this is almost what SCs are, since at the most crude end 'storage' is just some waterproof covers in a field! Hence, I think it is critical that each SC has a limit (decided by its level) to how many TCs can be serviced by it. 'Serviced by' here means 'TCs based at the SC or in a route that terminates at the SC'. This means that building big SCs at key logistics choke points will be essential - as will defending them from air attack!
    Balesir.
    ======
    Arsenal of Democracy - Hearts of Iron 2 on steroids...

  10. #50
    First Lieutenant
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron III

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Keystone State
    Posts
    281
    Balesir,

    Sure, but what I'm saying is that you don't need different models to do this - just tech advances. Set your 'scale' so that 1 TC carries a fixed amount over a route of given length each day. Now, a low tech TC is 1,000 mules with their drivers (say), while a stat-of-the-art TC is either 5 trains or 50 trucks. Now, for any given tech, a TC will cost to build - let's say (for example) 1 MP and 30 IC-days for the low tech one and 0.05 MP and 120 IC-days for the high-tech one. Meanwhile, the low tech one takes no fuel (but some supplies for parts?) but the high tech one takes 1 energy or 1 oil per day.
    Ok I believe I didnít explain myself very well. What I was proposing was that land TC units are ordered similar to convoy ships in todayís game. They are generic in the order and screen phase, however as you research techs it jumps them to the next level. (no upgrade cost) However the infra in the terrain is going to determine which level of TC unit is used. For example if Ethiopia was researching level 3 logistics it would be pointless because their infra is all 20% to 40%. That infra wonít support super heavy locomotives pulling 100 car trains. So a country can have a level 3 tech for logistics and in all the provinces where the infra supports it, a level 3 TC is assumed used. In the lower infra provinces the lesser level TC unit is used. What Iím proposing is that the infra level of the province will determine the level of TC unit used depending upon that countries logistic tech level. (I hope I was clear in this.) I was thinking about changing cost when you researched the next level but I donít want to confuse the issue with people thinking they have different TC units at different levels.


    Again, this is really just a matter of how you look at the thing. In Lennartos' scheme Infra 100 means that the tracks of the railway run through huge tunnels and cuttings like crevasses cleave through with autobahns in them. The fact is, though, no mountains will every likely have this level of Infrastructure because it would cost too much and take too long to build. You will still have your "sweet" paths because that is where it will be far easier to build up your Infrastructure.

    As an example of how this might work - say that each 'level' of Infra. costs its level in IC for 3 months. The actual Infra gain in clear terrain is 10%; in mountains it's 1%. Now to get to 100% Infra in the plains and 10% Infra in mountains will cost the same - 3,300 IC-days...
    Ok I see where youíre going with this. I didnít pick up the change in the infra upgrade, so Iím good with this because it still becomes terrain specific. I would probably add that if you start a scenario in 36 no mountain province should be over 70% infra.


    I agree that there should be an effect - I'm just saying that the approaches amount to the same thing in the end. To get coal from a low Infra mountain region will take many more TCs (and thus bigger SCs - see below) and therefore need more fuel because the route capacity is TCs used divided by Infrastructure, summed for all provinces routed through.
    Your right, my only concern is that you can choose not to use that coal deposit until you build your infra up to the point where it becomes economically sensible to extract it. Even in the AI logic it should say this deposit is too costly to get, use another source.


    The biggest bottlenecks in any distribution system are the loading/unloading points. A Supply Centre is limited by the number of loading/unloading bays it is able to effectively operate - this is almost what SCs are, since at the most crude end 'storage' is just some waterproof covers in a field! Hence, I think it is critical that each SC has a limit (decided by its level) to how many TCs can be serviced by it. 'Serviced by' here means 'TCs based at the SC or in a route that terminates at the SC'. This means that building big SCs at key logistics choke points will be essential - as will defending them from air attack!
    I think what your describing is a level 1 SC. I think a top level SC would be a long standing established facility like Bremen shipyards or a large rail yard with warehousing. I definitely agree that the level of the SC should determine the number of TC units that SC can use at one time. I would say that you should be able to assign a higher number of units then what the SC can handle. This way that SC would have a reserve base to dip into when replacing battle damage.

    Good discussion points!!!

  11. #51
    Guys, I don't know if this has been discussed previously so please excuse me if I'm resurrecting an old issue.

    But if I'm not mistaken, the railroad gauge in Russia is different (wider) then in the rest of Europe. Since in WW2 logistics meant primarily trains, I remember that the Germans had huge problems with railroads in Russia. A main bottleneck in the transport of supplies from Germany was the old Polish/Soviet frontier, where you had to unload everything from the wagons and put it into captured Russian ones.

    Should this be taken into account ? Perhaps by applying a penalty TC once an army is inside Russia ?

  12. #52
    First Lieutenant
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron III

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Keystone State
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Vladek
    Guys, I don't know if this has been discussed previously so please excuse me if I'm resurrecting an old issue.

    But if I'm not mistaken, the railroad gauge in Russia is different (wider) then in the rest of Europe. Since in WW2 logistics meant primarily trains, I remember that the Germans had huge problems with railroads in Russia. A main bottleneck in the transport of supplies from Germany was the old Polish/Soviet frontier, where you had to unload everything from the wagons and put it into captured Russian ones.

    Should this be taken into account ? Perhaps by applying a penalty TC once an army is inside Russia ?
    Welcome to the discussion. You are right. That was a major bottleneck and probibly needs to be accounted for in some way. I'll mull that one over.

  13. #53
    Hello guys... just coming back from one week in tenerife,4 stars all inclusive... so im now im pretty much 10 pounds more happy

    i think balesir did a good job on explaining our current viewpoints here regarding infra and TC usage, so i wont go into them again unless there is any remark, or open wuestion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vladek
    ...the railroad gauge in Russia is different (wider) then in the rest of Europe. ...the Germans had huge problems with railroads in Russia. A main bottleneck in the transport of supplies from Germany was the old Polish/Soviet frontier, where you had to unload everything from the wagons and put it into captured Russian ones.
    Should this be taken into account ? Perhaps by applying a penalty TC once an army is inside Russia ?
    Thats a tricky one, because the TC penality would not be permanent.
    Once the required amount of wide track trains or dual track trains witch can drive both rail types(where tested late in the war iirc) the bottleneck would dissapear.
    Thoughts:
    How do we distinguish between compatible TC usage and incompatible?
    where there even compatible tracks in WW2?
    trians between germany and denmark still had the same problem, not so long ago. How about germany and france?

    1) We could just destroy SCs(or a permanent downgrade) as we conquer, requiring the player to slownly rebuild the TC network, therby simulating a buildup phase. That would however work against us in the france campaign if they should be compatible.
    2) SCs in occupied, not owned provinces could have a negative TC max modifier added?
    3) inability/extra long delay to add new TCs to SCs in occupied territory?

    Quote Originally Posted by TonRich
    I would say that you should be able to assign a higher number of units then what the SC can handle. This way that SC would have a reserve base to dip into when replacing battle damage.
    Propably a good idea...

    Quote Originally Posted by TonRich
    ...land TC units...are generic...however as you research techs it jumps them to the next level. (no upgrade cost)...the infra in the terrain is going to determine which level of TC unit is used. ...So a country can have a level 3 tech for logistics and in all the provinces where the infra supports it, a level 3 TC is assumed used. In the lower infra provinces the lesser level TC unit is used. What Iím proposing is that the infra level of the province will determine the level of TC unit used depending upon that countries logistic tech level. (I hope I was clear in this.)...
    Nice thought even thougfh its contradictory in the explanation.
    1) TCs are generic.
    2) if TC = lev 4 and infra = lev 3, TC lev 3 is used.
    so you have 18 Lv 1 TC, 11 Lv2 TC, 7 Lv3 and so on?

    only backwater countrys in afrika would have a low TC level(mules and lamas)... there would be no change in the war countrys.
    so the game effect all in all when everything is calculated right is the same as with the generic approach, the difference is just in the infra modifier.(you just proposed a different infra modifier... that could be modded )

  14. #54
    ok, heres how to do it:

    get rid of convoys altogether. transports will be a bit cheaper and have an option on the bottom next to priority saying "convoy/transport". this will transfer control (if you desire) to the ai. as for all other ships, they will have an potion saying "escort/interdiction".

    as for supply depots: each province will have a supply depot option next to their building tab where a small depot can be built in 2 days for no ic but have a cap of maybe 1000 resources TOTAL. a medium depot can have 2000 resources but have 4 ic for 5 days. large depots can have unlimited resources but have 10 ic for 30 days.

    as for suppling units: a small depot can supply units 3 provinces away. after that, another depot (small) will be created (automatically, though the player may wish to turn it off). it can be upgraded though. medium depots can supply units 7 provinces away. large is unlimited. this way, encircled units will have some supplies and supplies may be captured.

    as for consumption: units will have regular and offensive supply but if they're low- limited (50%), minimal (25%), or no consumption. this way you can conserve supplies.

    as for transfering supplies: it will be auto where it will move supplies from depots too far back or in the case of retreat, provinces on the front that have been empty for 2 days. the player may override this. as a last resort if the enemy is about to capture a major depot, the player and the player only may destroy a depot. if a large deopt is on the front and empty for 2 hours, a box will warn the player.

  15. #55
    AoD's Old Geezer Balesir's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerHoI AnthologyArsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: Armageddon
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDarkest HourDeus Vult
    DiplomacyEast India CompanyEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    For The GloryFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the Throne
    ImpireEuropa Universalis III: In NomineIron CrossMagickaMajesty 2
    March of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeRome Gold
    Semper FiSengokuSword of the StarsSword of the Stars IISupreme Ruler 2020 Gold
    Supreme Ruler: Cold WarVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae Victis
    Mount & Blade: WarbandWarlock: Master of the ArcanePride of NationsRise of PrussiaCK2: Holy Knight
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The wooly wilds of England
    Posts
    1,579
    Quote Originally Posted by TonRich
    Ok I believe I didnít explain myself very well. What I was proposing was that land TC units are ordered similar to convoy ships in todayís game. They are generic in the order and screen phase, however as you research techs it jumps them to the next level. (no upgrade cost) However the infra in the terrain is going to determine which level of TC unit is used. For example if Ethiopia was researching level 3 logistics it would be pointless because their infra is all 20% to 40%. That infra wonít support super heavy locomotives pulling 100 car trains. So a country can have a level 3 tech for logistics and in all the provinces where the infra supports it, a level 3 TC is assumed used. In the lower infra provinces the lesser level TC unit is used. What Iím proposing is that the infra level of the province will determine the level of TC unit used depending upon that countries logistic tech level. (I hope I was clear in this.) I was thinking about changing cost when you researched the next level but I donít want to confuse the issue with people thinking they have different TC units at different levels.
    Ah, OK - so a country with advanced logistics tech does not have loads of different TCs hanging about, but rather the logistics tech advances provide a cap to the level of Infrastructure that you can make effective use of? I like this idea, since it means that places like the USSR or Ethiopia will not have any reason to increase Infra much - they cannot use it all! - wheras Germany will want/need to upgrade the Russian networks or, with their lower number of TCs, they will be struggling to get effective supply!

    This could actually represent, in an abstract way, the rail-gauge issue mentioned further up this thread. If we envisage the Russian starting setup as lots of TCs, big depots and fairly poor Infra supplying its frontline troops. Germany invade and capture the supply centres (that, due to the technology gap and battle damage, are reduced in effective 'size') and considerable numbers of TCs (that are likewise reduced in usefulness to the more advanced German system). The Germans are now left with a far slimmer logistics capability, but still with the low Infrastructure! They will urgently need to either (a) build or draft in from elsewhere lots of TCs to get the supplies through, (b) increase the Infrastructure, which might be imagined to include railway line modification, or (c) both!

    Quote Originally Posted by TonRich
    I think what your describing is a level 1 SC. I think a top level SC would be a long standing established facility like Bremen shipyards or a large rail yard with warehousing. I definitely agree that the level of the SC should determine the number of TC units that SC can use at one time. I would say that you should be able to assign a higher number of units then what the SC can handle. This way that SC would have a reserve base to dip into when replacing battle damage.
    Sure - high level SCs should be able to handle a lot of TCs, and I agree that there is no reason the number of TCs stationed at an SC should be limited - just the number that can be used!
    Balesir.
    ======
    Arsenal of Democracy - Hearts of Iron 2 on steroids...

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Balesir
    Ah, OK - so a country with advanced logistics tech does not have loads of different TCs hanging about, but rather the logistics tech advances provide a cap to the level of Infrastructure that you can make effective use of? I like this idea, since it means that places like the USSR or Ethiopia will not have any reason to increase Infra much - they cannot use it all! - wheras Germany will want/need to upgrade the Russian networks or, with their lower number of TCs, they will be struggling to get effective supply!
    Hmmm...
    Basically im all for it...
    1) The SCs level should be reduced when occupied. (as discussed)
    2) Max infra level is limited to research...
    maybe just increase build time exponentially if infra level > researched level?
    3) SC max level is also limited to research.

    That would also reduce USSRs agressive war capability before 41, where they recieve large amounts of TCs from USA.

  17. #57
    First Lieutenant
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron III

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Keystone State
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Balesir
    Ah, OK - so a country with advanced logistics tech does not have loads of different TCs hanging about, but rather the logistics tech advances provide a cap to the level of Infrastructure that you can make effective use of? I like this idea, since it means that places like the USSR or Ethiopia will not have any reason to increase Infra much - they cannot use it all! - wheras Germany will want/need to upgrade the Russian networks or, with their lower number of TCs, they will be struggling to get effective supply!

    This could actually represent, in an abstract way, the rail-gauge issue mentioned further up this thread. If we envisage the Russian starting setup as lots of TCs, big depots and fairly poor Infra supplying its frontline troops. Germany invade and capture the supply centres (that, due to the technology gap and battle damage, are reduced in effective 'size') and considerable numbers of TCs (that are likewise reduced in usefulness to the more advanced German system). The Germans are now left with a far slimmer logistics capability, but still with the low Infrastructure! They will urgently need to either (a) build or draft in from elsewhere lots of TCs to get the supplies through, (b) increase the Infrastructure, which might be imagined to include railway line modification, or (c) both!
    Yes, thatís what I was envisioning. You explained it better than I did so Iím glad my concept is at least on the table. So with this idea a country can build TC units and make use of however they decide. (You explained the Russian situation beautifully) The USSR can have many TC units to make up for their lack of infra because manpower isnít an issue for them. Germany will starve as they go further into Russia because the infra doesnít support their higher level TC units and they donít have the manpower to build a couple hundred more units. I tried to come up with something that blended the use of infra, R&D(tech) and strategic thought into how a country really manages their logistics. The harsh truth is that an army can only go as far as they can move the gas, bullets and food. Adding an element like this into the game I believe really forces a different strategic thought process from the gamer. (Ok, Iíll get down from my soapbox now)

    By the way, ďHAPPY NEW YEARĒ everyone.

  18. #58
    Master of Shadows. Shadow Master's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonVictoria: Revolutions

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Detroit Province, USA.
    Posts
    898
    Interesting thread here guys! I am a newcomer to the world of HoI, and just finely got a game too the 1940 mark!

    I made several mistakes, and the biggest was in logistics. My TC was a red 1100 something.

    I thought initially that this thread was going to cover military supply problems, but after reading all three pages it looks like your trying too come up with a working model for resources and supplies to be moved about. Is this correct?

  19. #59
    first, welcome to the forum...

    The system proposed now will cover the distribution of all resources inside every country.(trade is still to be discussed)
    So as far as i can see a military aspect is also part of it.
    No great scale military war can be fought without supplies beeing freighted around...if the supply consumtion is much higher than the capacity of your infrastructure, the people will have to fight with sticks and stones on an empty stomach...

    Did you have a special idea regarding the military supply system?

  20. #60
    Master of Shadows. Shadow Master's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonVictoria: Revolutions

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Detroit Province, USA.
    Posts
    898
    I have a couple Ideas, but keep in mind my HoI2DD career is just weeks old and as yet I have only attempted to play 1936 Germany. I was just messing around with my latest game and got a US DoW in Jan 1942.

    My ideas for the supply checks in the game would be for units too be considered to have an 'organic' supply for say a week or so at any given time that they are currently 'in supply'. If a unit is cutoff from its supply lines, no adverse affect would accrue until after the 'organic' supplies have run out.

    In other words, If you advanced units get cutoff for a couple days before supply lines are re-established, this will not have any effect for the time being. Out of supply penalties would start after a unit has gone through it's supplies and not the moment it's supply lines were cut.


    If I am understanding everything correctly in this thread, then it looks like SC will figure in to how resources are shared within the nation. With my limited experience with HoI, I don't really know what effect this will have on gameplay. If someone could explain this too me, I'd be happy to chime in.

    I did read about the trade situation mentioned (Lux-Japan). My thoughts would be that during peace time, a nation would allow another nation to conduct trade across its territory for a small $$ value. This could be abstracted by doing something like showing money coming into the treasury from the tariffs on goods coming and going from their ports, the money their dock workers are spending that they made from loading/unloading all the foreign ships ect. I wouldn't make the trading partners pay anything directly, so this would be best done along these lines.

    An alternative would be to approach Belgium and France, and the nation that can do the work the least expensively gets the trade going through its ports.

    One thing I would like too see in the game is the ability to built extra TC! That and control where it will be used. In my game an hour ago I had 900 or so TC, but was needing at least 1100!

    For me, I believe that infrastructure in a province should also be about the level of resource exploitation that is possible. One of the other fellows mentioned that mines in the mountains might not be viable at low infra levels because of the terrain. I got a kick out of reading the response. I believe his point too be valid. I would like to see infra being considered as not so much concerned with traffic moving through, but mainly traffic within the province and the facilitating of resource exploitation. In other words, only a tiny portion of the provinces road/rail network would be needed to carry through traffic, most would be to allow local traffic and all points access within the province.

    Another thing I would like to see is the ability to ignore a provinces level of infra, and just build a military 'strategic railway' through the province. The railway would take the form of being shown when clicking on a province display, and where it shows the type of boarder it has with neighboring provinces it would show RR tracks running from the center of the province to whichever provinces had such a 'strategic railway'. If these were to be able to be built by military forces (read as engineer divisions), this could allow for a better ability to transport and supply ones troops in conquered lands. Infra isn't really a consideration of how to move through a province, but mainly how to move within the province. A 'strategic railway' would be just to transport and supply military units, would have no effect on units movements moving through the province on their own, and should need either an embarkation/debarkation point, or have an engineer brigade able to improvise a field expedient, with consequent delays in the units availability for a less than perfect load/unload site.

    I just realised how tired I am. Please forgive me if I am rambling on...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts