How to simulate Sypply routes / TC correctly

[Lennartos]

This thread is for suggestions regarding the TC usage and supply system of the HOI series.


According to the suggestions this first post will be edited, and the armageddon improvement thread will be updated with the "conclusion" (best solution?) reached here.


It seems that we have found a good solution:
(i count all silent lukers as silent accepts of the idea )

General discription:
We need logistical nodes, wich we here will call Supply Centers or SC in short.
All provinces will belong to the nearest SC,therby defining that supplycenters distribution area. (like the Area of influence from trade centers in EU2).
Like EU2/3 that area is flexible and will vary depending on the relative SCs free TC capacity.
Resources will not be send to and distributed from the capital alone, but from and to each SC.
To simulate the inportance of the infrastructure, each resource/supply movement costs TC according to distance and infrastructure.
The general TC linked to IC will be removed and replaced by a system of buildable and assignable(to SCs) TCs.

Each SC has its own TC burden. It will distribute and collect to and from all provinces in its assigned area, and freight resources to other SCs. SCs capabilitys can be improved by upgrading the SC level or improving infrastructure.

Supply centers also limit the stockpile allowed.

Picture of germany with 4 SCs:

gameplay and rules:

Max SC size and max infrastructure level buildable is limited by techlevel.
When occupying an SC it will downgrade permanently.

Trade: trade will go through the SC/convoy system just as every other resource. A new diplomatic option will be added: "Trade agreement", where a cost / TC value can be agreed upon. This allows transporting through neutral land.

The transition from steam/oil based will be made posible with a slider(?).
A steam based infrastructure will use energy(coal) as primary TC cost source.
A Oil based infrastructure will have added oil cost, but have a much lower TC usage cost in low infra provinces.

Gameplay Actions:
Strategic Layer(things that the player should do)
Production of SCs and TCs.
Placing of SCs

Planning Layer(optional automatation)
Prioritys of SCs
Should SC build up the supplies/oil storage?(if yes maybe a desired value)
Should supplies and oil be prioritized over resources?
Should this SC be shut down and/or dismantled?
Should i make a shortcut with convoys over water?
Assigning of TCs to SCs*
Specifying which SC-to-SC routes are valid/possible for each commodity*

Execution Layer (things that should be automated)
From where should i take my demand?
Where should i send surplus?
How much should be send from A->B and B->C?
Assigning of TCs to SCs*
Specifying which SC-to-SC routes are valid/possible for each commodity*
Specifying in which direction goods should flow along these routes
Specifying what order of priority should the different routes have

* = Can be both places depending on implementation

current example topics:
How to model the transition of steam / oil based infrastructure.
How to make optimal routing mechinisms?
How do we balancing the game?

 

[Lennartos]

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.

I totally agree... also this IS necessary if a more advanced TC is to be implemented.
Another important step is that unit supply consumtion cannot be static!
Fighting should cost much more supplies than guarding a dead end province.
All of these can be found in the grand armageddon collection thread: here!

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.

Another thing I would like to see is the ability to...build a military 'strategic railway' through the province...this could allow for a better ability to transport and supply ones troops in conquered lands.

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!

You have basically answered your question with your own ideas!
The proposed SC system is basically a simulation of your total transport capacity.
Look at the first port for a picture of the system.
SCs are a collection and distribution points.
TCs are buildable and are assigned to specific SCs.
The SCs size determines the maximum assignable TCs.

TC is used to freight resources and supplies from SCa to SCb, and to distibute within the own SCs service area.
SCs can only transport to neighbouring SCs.
if your supply consumption is bigger than the infrastructure can distribute (for example a low level SC as bottleneck on the way) , then units will slowly run low out on supplies....

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.

Finally someone has the courage to enter the trade issue
i agree money should be a factor here...
Using a fixed amount of money to transport goods should be good enough.
but it is a little more problematic than that...

When you have japan trade to germany, one could go through russia... and pretty much preventing the ENG and US inteception of trade.
same for germany->china...
How would one choose witch way to go?
should russia accept the trade agreement, or just deliver the service for a small amount of $ automatically?
what happens if there is a TC shortage along the way after trade agreement accept?

 

[Balesir]

Ooh, trade!

I think this touches on two distinct points:

1. Maintenance of trade routes
2. Multi-way trade deals

For the first of these I think, once you have land (TC) 'convoys' established you just need to have, for each trade deal, two specified end points - each an SC. In other words, the two trade partners must agree where the goods will go to and from, and who will add TCs/convoys to the route to get the goods to flow. Other than this I think trades are just like normal TC/convoy routes.

The second issue is maybe a bit more tricky - how to get three (or more) way deals. For instance, the Japan-Russia-Germany deal involves, effectively, Japan trading with USSR and USSR trading with Germany. Other 'triangular' or even more-partner deals could be envisaged. I guess ideally these should be an arbitrary set of trade deals that can be tied together one to the other. This makes even more necessary a system where diplomatic deals can be laid 'on the table' with parties able not only to accept/reject them but also to tweak them as a 'counter-offer' to try to reach a mutually acceptable deal.

The other outstanding issue is supply from the SC to the unit. For this I have already suggested that each unit (except maybe garrisons) needs an 'element' (sort of a bit like a brigade attachment) for transport and supply. This element decides a number of things:

1. Whether a unit can be 'transport lifted' - i.e. whether it is a 'motorised' unit
2. What sort of unit terrain factors are applied to supply efficiencies
3. How much 'on hand' supply can be 'stored' by the unit
4. Adds to the unit's oil and/or supply usage

Point (1) is just the possibility for lightly equipped infantry or artillery to be made more mobile.

Point (2) is because the final (SC to unit) leg of the supply chain does not go entirely by road or rail, so the effective distance is (province size divided by a factor that depends on both infrastructure and terrain). This factor may be just (0.5 + infrastructure) times (supply element terrain movement modifier) if the current type of infrastructure is kept, or the average of infrastructure and supply element terrain movement modifier if the idea further up this thread of terrain-specific infrastructure is used. The supply element terrain movement modifier will be basically the movement percentage for a troop type appropriate for the type of supply element for the terrain of the province; truck elements would be like 'Mot', mule trains like 'Mtn', amphibious vehicles (DUKWs, etc.) like 'Mar', etc.

Point 3, keeping a record of 'on hand' supplies and oil for each unit, undoubtedly adds to the records that the computer must keep - but since records are currently kept of strength, morale, organisation and attack supply status (which would no longer apply, as such), I think two more figures in a unit record should be handleable.

Finally, point 4 is that, obviously, supply assets use oil and/or supplies just like everything else... I do agree that stationary, moving and fighting units should have very different supply and oil usages - say 10%/10%/100% for supplies and 10%/70%/100% for oil?

 

[Alex_brunius]

Finally, point 4 is that, obviously, supply assets use oil and/or supplies just like everything else... I do agree that stationary, moving and fighting units should have very different supply and oil usages - say 10%/10%/100% for supplies and 10%/70%/100% for oil?

Nice Idea. But Why not even add further realism?

Stationary/moving/defending/attacking units could use 30%/30%/70%/100% supplies & 10%/70%/50%/100% oil?

I think 30% minimum supplies because you will still eat full rations and need almost as much new cloths and other misc supplies just to fight weather and hunger, even more to fight boredom . Only thing you won't do is spend as much ammo (hopefully).

 

[Lennartos]

For the first of these I think, once you have land (TC) 'convoys' established you just need to have, for each trade deal, two specified end points - each an SC. In other words, the two trade partners must agree where the goods will go to and from, and who will add TCs/convoys to the route to get the goods to flow. Other than this I think trades are just like normal TC/convoy routes.

.................. im just too tired to get this into my head right....
But should not be a poblem, no...........
hmmmmmm.......

how about adding a diplomatic option to ask for passage: from SCa->SCb...
When you make the deal you must agree on reserved TC value and price/day.
Or just a general "ask for passage" and price/TC used (no limit and no restrictions)
The trade AI should then be pretty smart to always use the most efficient route and trading partner.
That would however make the horribly stupid autotrade AI kill the game with stupid routes and decisions... i cant really see a simple solution for AI...

...Maybe we should just limit trade to direct neigbours and countrys with ports.

The second issue is maybe a bit more tricky - how to get three (or more) way deals. For instance, the Japan-Russia-Germany deal involves, effectively, Japan trading with USSR and USSR trading with Germany. Other 'triangular' or even more-partner deals could be envisaged. I guess ideally these should be an arbitrary set of trade deals that can be tied together one to the other. This makes even more necessary a system where diplomatic deals can be laid 'on the table' with parties able not only to accept/reject them but also to tweak them as a 'counter-offer' to try to reach a mutually acceptable deal.

That would be a real improvement to the game, worthy of an expansion pack alone
That would also require a more intelligent AI rather than just :
Accept chance = (Offer_Value * (100/relations)) / Demand_Value
but I doubt that we will see that light shine in HOI3, im afraid.

The other outstanding issue is supply from the SC to the unit. For this I have already suggested that each unit (except maybe garrisons) needs an 'element' (sort of a bit like a brigade attachment) for transport and supply.

Hmm...
is that really historical? did every division have its own supply gatherers(its own and no others?)
armored spearheads that ran too far ahead of the logistics where in deep trouble.. by adding a fixed logistical part to each unit... it just doesnt quite seem right in my head right now.
Shouldnt that just be a part of the TC usage in the supplying SC?

Whether a unit can be 'transport lifted' - i.e. whether it is a 'motorised' unit
Point (1) is just the possibility for lightly equipped infantry or artillery to be made more mobile.

hmmm great idea, but i think that that should be a little more generally made:
Additions:
Divisions should have more than one brigade!!! (and brigades should have STR as well)
Speed caps can be defined as =,- or +.

Inf speed = 4km/h
Adding heavy ART
Cap speed = 2km/h (note its not -2 but = 2)

The infantry will still have a speed of 4km/h but it must wait for the ART so it will be capped at 2km/h

Now adding "Trucks" brigade:
Speed + 2km/h
Cap Speed + 5km/h (always from the lowest = )
Oil Usage + 2

So now the infantry will move with a speed of 6 as the cap has risen from 2 to 7.

Is ok,no?

Instead of the CapSpeed +X modifier one could also make the system more specific by adding scipts to brigades:
Speed +2
Oil Usage +5
command = Remove_Speed_Cap witch = ART
command = Remove_Speed_Cap witch = AT
command = Remove_Speed_Cap witch = AA

What sort of unit terrain factors are applied to supply efficiencies
Point (2) is because the final (SC to unit) leg of the supply chain does not go entirely by road or rail, so the effective distance is (province size divided by a factor that depends on both infrastructure and terrain). This factor may be just (0.5 + infrastructure) times (supply element terrain movement modifier) if the current type of infrastructure is kept, or the average of infrastructure and supply element terrain movement modifier if the idea further up this thread of terrain-specific infrastructure is used. The supply element terrain movement modifier will be basically the movement percentage for a troop type appropriate for the type of supply element for the terrain of the province; truck elements would be like 'Mot', mule trains like 'Mtn', amphibious vehicles (DUKWs, etc.) like 'Mar', etc.

See above... i still think that should be part of TC simulation.. not unit...
A armored division doesnt use its own tanks/mechanized trucks to drive back for ammo and food for the advancing troops.

'
How much 'on hand' supply can be 'stored' by the unit
Point 3, keeping a record of 'on hand' supplies and oil for each unit, undoubtedly adds to the records that the computer must keep - but since records are currently kept of strength, morale, organisation and attack supply status (which would no longer apply, as such), I think two more figures in a unit record should be handleable.

Each unit should maybe have about 2 days battle usage.
Adding brigades should increase that value.
The less supplies the unit has (from max) the less it uses and the worse it performs in battle (rationing of food and ammo).

Offensive supply will double that capacity for a month...
thereby also increasing supply/oil usage and battle efficiency.

Adds to the unit's oil and/or supply usage
Finally, point 4 is that, obviously, supply assets use oil and/or supplies just like everything else... I do agree that stationary, moving and fighting units should have very different supply and oil usages - say 10%/10%/100% for supplies and 10%/70%/100% for oil?

As its written in the "grand" thread, that is a improvment, but a type specific usage would be better.
The bigger the guns the more the min and max seperate.

If we use fixed table:
Inf = 0.1/0.15/1.15
Food and replacements = 0.1 for food(10K,50% more when moving)
So Ammunition = ~1 supply for the ~25T(?) of ammunition used per day

A standard artillery(germany) brigade could contain 12*155mm howitzers
Each easely shooting 6 rounds/minute and each shot ~22Kg
Thats a whopping 8T/Hour or 190T/day

An average of 50-60T per day would not be too far off while fighting the enemy i think.
So a Artillery brigade should for example use 0.03/0.05/2.5

 

[unmerged(7970)]

Hi! I came to this board after playing HOI2 for several days straight -- almost non stop -- and I had thoughts about a better supply system. No surprise it has been discussed so extensively already! I understand from the top post the idea of nodes is being suggested, this is exactly what I would have designed. I have some additional comments to make (sorry if these have already been addressed in the 5 pages of posts).

My comment is that the effort of supplying armies distant from industrial centers should be presented to the player. While Supply Centers can model the strain of distance on TC, the TC system itself does not present a realistic trade off to the player. When you have enough TC, transport is free. When you don't, there's nothing you can invest to improve your supply situation (besides making long term strategic investment in IC and Infra).

My proposal is make supplies pay for the transport of supplies. In other words, every transfer of supply takes a percentage deduction based on the infrastructure and distance of the route.

• the rate of transfer is capped by the levels of source and destination SC's
• the player now has the choice of how much industry to invest in transport capacity, by choosing his investment in SC levels
• the player now pays for the *operational* cost of supplying his army, in addition to the SC investment
• it is now beneficial to capture transportation junctions, forcing SC's to use suboptimal routes which results in reduced effective supply rate at destination SC.
• supply problems are now local problems rather than a global problem under TC system. There is no reason a static army sitting on a supply depot has to be affected by transport problems else where in the system.
• there is no micromanagement for the player. routes are automatic, and "convoys" are paid for from the supply pool

I appreciate your comments about this scheme. If people like it I will try to address other questions such as trade, sea convoys, steam/oil transitions, and routing mechanisms.

Kirby

 

[unmerged(7970)]

Proposal for supplies routing mechanism

Basic function:

• each SC has a capacity value, and it receives a number of transport points each supply cycle
• an SC will not accept incoming supplies beyond the capacity (supply production is idled for the region's provinces)
• there is a pre-calculated route from every province to its regional SC which minimizes distance / SQUARE(infrastructure). These can be updated weekly or monthly
• each time SC sends supplies out, it pays transport points as well as a percentage of the supplies based on the route cost. It will not send anything without transport points
• each IC province tries to sends all its supplies output to its regional SC (this uses transport points since it's like SC sending supplies to itself)
• each unit tries to get all needed supplies from its regional SC

SC to SC transfer:

• each SC has a maintenance threshold
• a lowest cost route is calculated between every pair of SC's
• if below its maintenance threshold, an SC will request supplies from the lowest route cost province, if source SC has transport points to spend
• if below its maintenance threshold, an SC will not send supplies to another SC , however it will always send any available supply to units
• the player can set the maintenance threshold manually or to auto. In auto mode the threshold is based on number of units in the supply region

The result is that supplies flow automatically to needed units, while paying the lowest route cost. The player can optionally build up a depot to prepare for an offensive or to "forward deploy" his supplies.

In my recent game, Germany had 400 divisions to Japan's 180. I used the forward deploy principle to invade western europe with the smaller Japanese army. I would need to to be able to do that with supplies if we have supply centers. Imagine how many supplies Soviets had to build up for the Manchurian campaign!

Dynamic supply regions.

• problem case 1: when on an offensive, player is supplied from his nearby high level SC in conquered provinces. what happens if he captures a low level enemy SC with the result that his supply is WORSENED by capturing the extra SC?
• problem case 2: when on the retreat, losing a low level SC causes nearby high level SC to become active, INCREASING your supply for losing the SC province.
• solution: make it possible to deactivate SC's, make captured SC's deactivated by default. Its provinces are dynamically reassigned to nearby SC's. The problem cases won't occur because the player will have chosen to keep the low level SC's deactivated.

 

[unmerged(7970)]

Yes resources movements should cost supplies and transport points as well.

This brings up the question of oil. Should oil be required for transportation? The answer is no. Many countries do not have oil. They use steam, donkeys, or human transport. Oil and energy are both industrial enhancements not requirements.

I would propose to give each IC province a type of industry it has

• IC should be much easier to build but eats up manpower
• you should be able to tear down IC's to free up the manpower for units
• each IC province can have a type ranging from primitive, industrial, advanced
• the manpower required is dramatically reduced with each type
• rare materials use increases with each type
• energy is used by industrial type
• energy and oil are used by advanced type
• players can convert a province's type as a production order (more costly for more IC's)

 

[Shadow Master]

I've got to interject a couple things here.

As a new player, it may be beneficial too many of the forum members if someone like me asks (dumb) questions, so that the answers can help everyone get 'up too speed' with the discussion so far.

For changes too be good things you have too be able too answer a couple of questions with a yes!

Question #1: Do the changes improve playability?
Question #2: Do the changes improve a players enjoyment?

In the game as is, TC is used for transport of supplies/fuel for military units, right? TC is determined as being IC x 1.5 (or 150% of your nations total Industrial Capacity). These TC are free and are assumed to have come into existence as a byproduct of the national economy, right?

If I have grasped these basics correctly then this thread is discussing how to make TC move resources (which it doesn't currently do) in addition too it's tasks of supplying the military's needs?

My questions are,
Why do this?
How will this be done?
What will I (the player) get out of these changes?

Keeping in mind the #1 & #2 questions at the top of my post, can you guys write up a kinda 'state of the thread' summary? This could help others in 'cutting to the bottom line' and being able too see where the discussion is currently at, why, and how.

I have several Ideas and will be posting them soon.

 

[unmerged(7970)]

Shadow your understanding of TC is correct. The motivation for having supply nodes is to make it harder to supply distant armies, which historically was a huge factor in every front. At the moment the distance doesn't matter at all over land routes, nor is it particularly costly over sea routes. Distance factored supply would make gameplay more realistic, make distant campaigns more difficult to pull off, and reward the player for strategically investing in infrastructure.

Assuming we're going with fixed supply nodes, for amphibious landings there will have to be an "artificial harbor" unit type to support large scale landings. This is again realistic.

The top post already contains a summary. It could use some expansion though.

 

[Lennartos]

Welcome to the forums panda.

Seems this thread is slowly getting more and more attention.

Some points have indeed been adessed and discussed...
feel free to read the last 3-4 pages, they should be of some interest to you.

Anyway, i think we all agree that TC should NOT be attached to IC in any way.
TC should be buildable like convoys and has to be assigned to SCs.
TC usage should cost resources, yes... as we have discussed it here its energy (Coal) and Oil.
Adding Supply cost may be an idea, but that will be further discussed later i think.

TC however is used not only for supplies for troops, but also for resource transportation within the country. (bombing infra will now have a great effect within the country).
SC to SC routing is automatic and always finds the route with the least resistance.


your "Proposal for supplies routing mechanism" post actually ver accuratly describes the system discussed in tha last 5 pages
however, what do you mean when you say "SC maintenance threshold"?
a new slider in productin screen?

Dynamic supply regions.
problem case 1: when on an offensive, player is supplied from his nearby high level SC in conquered provinces. what happens if he captures a low level enemy SC with the result that his supply is WORSENED by capturing the extra SC?
problem case 2: when on the retreat, losing a low level SC causes nearby high level SC to become active, INCREASING your supply for losing the SC province.
solution: make it possible to deactivate SC's, make captured SC's deactivated by default. Its provinces are dynamically reassigned to nearby SC's. The problem cases won't occur because the player will have chosen to keep the low level SC's deactivated.

I too have been worrying/thinking quite a bit about that too...
Disabling an SC would be a good idea.
Adding flexible SC borders, depending on free TC capacity is another.Provinces switch to other SCs, if SCs TC is limited.
Should be quite fixable by adding routing cost depending on free TC.

post#3:
"Should oil be required for transportation? The answer is no."
TC using oil should be an option..
either you use steam or diesel-electric trains...
the diference is great regarding infrastructure effect.

And if you dont have oil... well then you are pretty much stuck with steam trains

 

[Balesir]

how about adding a diplomatic option to ask for passage: from SCa->SCb...
When you make the deal you must agree on reserved TC value and price/day.
Or just a general "ask for passage" and price/TC used (no limit and no restrictions)

Aha - you're right - this is an adjunct to 'Allow Military Access' - maybe an extra permission, maybe the same one. This access allows transport routes to pass through the signatory's provinces (but does not allow building SCs there!).

...Maybe we should just limit trade to direct neigbours and countrys with ports.

This would, of course, be easier - but a cop-out!

Hmm...
is that really historical? did every division have its own supply gatherers(its own and no others?)
armored spearheads that ran too far ahead of the logistics where in deep trouble.. by adding a fixed logistical part to each unit... it just doesnt quite seem right in my head right now.
Shouldnt that just be a part of the TC usage in the supplying SC?

A armored division doesnt use its own tanks/mechanized trucks to drive back for ammo and food for the advancing troops.

It doesn't need to. Consider - a US armoured division (as an example) from 1943 had around 260 tanks (total - including light tanks) and 500 half-tracks - out of a total complemet of over two and a half thousand vehicles!

At the division level or below just about all armies expected troops to have and use their own 'organic' supply vehicles for fetching and carrying from the current supply dump. It makes good sense, when you think about it - the unit can carry the supplies it does not use with it, sending the empty trucks back to refill once they have found a need for the stuff. If the unit moves and switches supply centre, it's no problem - they just start sending their trucks to a different source.

Don't get carried away, here, though - these organic elements have a very restricted range - a couple of provinces, or maybe three if terrain and infrastructure is good. They are used only for the last link - from SC to the unit on the ground - not for the entire supply from home!

This separation - TCs vs. organic unit capability - is a nice divide from the game mechanics viewpoint. Transport between SCs is all along roads and rails - point-to-point. Supply to the troops, on the other hand, has to get to some guy in a foxhole three miles from the nearest road! The 'last leg' is a very different proposition from the earlier routes. Hitting it is the difference between logisitical strikes and interdiction. For rail-heavy systems (e.g. German) it's where the stuff comes off the rails and onto the roads (in either a truck or a cart). For the SC routes, the countryside is made to fit the hardware - rails or roads are driven wherever the supplies have to go. For the last leg, the hardware is often made to fit the terrain. In Burma the transport outfits were heavy on mules and amphibious DUKWs where in Europe they were mainly good old lorries once D-Day was over and done with.

So, in summary, I think this is both the most realistic and the simplest good method gamewise to handle SC to unit supply.

If we use fixed table:
Inf = 0.1/0.15/1.15
Food and replacements = 0.1 for food(10K,50% more when moving)
So Ammunition = ~1 supply for the ~25T(?) of ammunition used per day

A standard artillery(germany) brigade could contain 12*155mm howitzers
Each easely shooting 6 rounds/minute and each shot ~22Kg
Thats a whopping 8T/Hour or 190T/day

Yup - welcome to the reality of modern war. Since the advent of quick firing (QF) artillery and autofire personal and section support weapons ammunition has outweighed food and such by a factor of around 10:1. There is an excellent book - 'Supplying War' - that someone on this very forum pointed me to a while back and I can endorse the recommendation! It covers all this stuff for WWII and much earlier.

So, for Infantry, your figures should be something like 0.1/0.15/1.15 (static/moving/fighting).

 

[Balesir]

Hello, Golden Panda, and welcome to the party!

In my recent game, Germany had 400 divisions to Japan's 180. I used the forward deploy principle to invade western europe with the smaller Japanese army. I would need to to be able to do that with supplies if we have supply centers. Imagine how many supplies Soviets had to build up for the Manchurian campaign!

Yep - the ability/need to forward deploy supplies in preparation for an offensive is a major reason an upgrade to the supply system is needed. The task of spies locating major supply buildups as an important telltale for an impending attack was crucial. It also means you have to plan major offensives - you can't just decide to start an all-out assault tomorrow morning...

Dynamic supply regions.

• problem case 1: when on an offensive, player is supplied from his nearby high level SC in conquered provinces. what happens if he captures a low level enemy SC with the result that his supply is WORSENED by capturing the extra SC?

With the system for organic last-stage supply (see further up the thread) I really don't see this ever meaning a worse situation than drawing supply from the previous SC - it just gives the attacker a different set of headaches!

• problem case 2: when on the retreat, losing a low level SC causes nearby high level SC to become active, INCREASING your supply for losing the SC province.

Again, switching to an SC that is further away is never going to be good - but retreating nearer to the SC will improve supply - that's reality!

• solution: make it possible to deactivate SC's, make captured SC's deactivated by default. Its provinces are dynamically reassigned to nearby SC's. The problem cases won't occur because the player will have chosen to keep the low level SC's deactivated.

I think that, as is done for convoys now, every route and SC will need to have the ability to either supply or not supply each type of goods (energy/metals/rares/oil/supplies). As well as allowing control of troop supply, you don't want your front-line ammo-dumps collecting coal and steel from the newly conquered mines for shipment back home, do you?

 

[Balesir]

Hi, Shadowmaster, and welcome to the thread!

I've got to interject a couple things here.

As a new player, it may be beneficial too many of the forum members if someone like me asks (dumb) questions, so that the answers can help everyone get 'up too speed' with the discussion so far.

For changes too be good things you have too be able too answer a couple of questions with a yes!

Question #1: Do the changes improve playability?
Question #2: Do the changes improve a players enjoyment?

Well, the terms you use ('playability' for instance) are not too clear to me, but let's see if I can give an answer from my point of view.

I play a fair bit as the British Empire - I am a Brit and, although I like to try any and all other nations, too, I keep coming back 'home', so to speak. What do I find when I do this?

• Despite having ICs all over the globe, I have to transport all my resources to this little island off the coast of Europe to get stuff made.
  
• Once stuff is made, despite the fact that many divisions were in fact raised in India in WWII, I have to transport everything (including divisions thoughtfully named 'XXth Indian Division'!!) from the UK to wherever it's needed.
  
• I have one supply base per continent, period, that is placed by the AI without any input from me. this is actually not so bad, because it doesn't matter a fig where it is anyway, since the transport requirements I have are unaffected by where the supplies go to or from, or how many troops I have where, or what the province infrastructures are...
  
• Although the infrastructure in the province troops are in matters, they do not need to trace a supply route anywhere. I once attacked over Infra 0 desert to get round Vichy Tunis and suffered no real issues with supply once I was out the far side...
  
• Bombing the province infrastructure behind enemy lines (as opposed to on the enemy line) is pointless. It actually doesn't achieve anything. Bombing convoys does not really help, either - it just costs the enemy convoy ships, but it doesn't reduce the supply down the line, or even destroy any resources or supplies.

This all hampers my enjoyment of the game - YMMV, obviously.

I hope you can see the point that, for some of us, this system is somewhat claggy and in need of a serious revisitation if we are to have a game we really enjoy.

My questions are,
Why do this?
How will this be done?
What will I (the player) get out of these changes?

• Do it to address the issues I list above and give some player input to logistics
• Do it by having an extra base type (Supply Centre, or 'SC') that has to be built as for naval or air bases. Have TCs things that are built, like convoy ships, instead of automatically 1.5 times IC. Have 'land convoys' between SCs that use TCs in place of ship convoys and can be automated like sea convoys can be (but with a better AI for handling both!).
• You the player will get added depth to your strategic planning and more meaningful decisions regarding placement of ICs, building up of Infrastructure, etc. in return for a little extra work placing SCs and planning the construction of TCs.

I missed out a load of nitty-gritty detail that is needed to make such a system a reality in actual software code, but hopefully that gives a fairly clear overview?

 

[Lennartos]

Regarding the organic last-stage supply....
The more i thinkj about it the more i can accept it
As long as the range is very limited, its a good solution.

Only problem is that when brigades become a sperate unit from the division attached (own STR), then its possible to disable all trucks inside a division...
Now thats a good thing, until you get multiple divisions inside a province.. some have a functioning supply route and some are starving.
There should propably be a little extra code added to split supplies with divisions in the same province that are running low...
...problem in my head solved... supply brigade, here we come...

My point about artillery and STR planes was that 10%/15%/100% doesnt really cover the entire system.. it should be unit specific in the files.
Other than that i think we all agree.

 

[unmerged(7970)]

Hello, Golden Panda, and welcome to the party!

With the system for organic last-stage supply (see further up the thread) I really don't see this ever meaning a worse situation than drawing supply from the previous SC - it just gives the attacker a different set of headaches!


Again, switching to an SC that is further away is never going to be good - but retreating nearer to the SC will improve supply - that's reality!

Thanks bale!

The problem I'm seeing with organic supply is from the game play point of view. The supply level of the unit will depend totally on its own abilities, plus the distance to its SC. I have no way to invest in a supply sector to say, make this a strong supply sector.

From a realism perspective, organic supply is already represented by the organization recovery rate of each unit.

If we make SC's spend TC's to send supply to units, I can invest in the SC to make it a super distribution center for that region.

I think that, as is done for convoys now, every route and SC will need to have the ability to either supply or not supply each type of goods (energy/metals/rares/oil/supplies). As well as allowing control of troop supply, you don't want your front-line ammo-dumps collecting coal and steel from the newly conquered mines for shipment back home, do you?

I don't see why not. We certainly should reduce micromanagement from the current convoy system. Does anyone really like messing with it? I'd really rather not see land convoys added. I'd give each SC these player selectable settings:

• target supplies amount (the maintenance threshold I mentioned earlier): auto/manual slider
• transport focus: balanced/priority supplies/priority resources

I'd really like to do away with TC's altogether. Just give SC's levels you can build up like you build bases. The level determines both the storage capacity and transport rate.

 

[unmerged(7970)]

Welcome to the forums panda.
however, what do you mean when you say "SC maintenance threshold"?
a new slider in productin screen?

Thanks Lennartos. Great idea to have this thread!

it really means "target supplies amount". That's the amount of supplies the SC will try to maintain. The player can set this amount to build up a forward supply base.

"Should oil be required for transportation? The answer is no."
TC using oil should be an option..
either you use steam or diesel-electric trains...
the diference is great regarding infrastructure effect.

And if you dont have oil... well then you are pretty much stuck with steam trains

Adding Supply cost may be an idea, but that will be further discussed later i think.

The supply topic is so big now I'm wondering if we should break it into sub-threads, with the first post summarizing each sub topic. Do you mind if I start a sub-thread discussing the nature of TC's, their purpose, and their mechanism? My opinion is they are redundant to industry and supply centers. We should just fold TC into those.

Here's my proposed template for each sub-thread

How to simulate supply routes/TC's sub-topic: [insert topic]

Proposal 1

Mechanism

• ???

Gameplay

• ???

Realism

• ???

Side effects

• ???

Proposal 2

Mechanism

• ???

Gameplay

• ???

Realism

• ???

Side effects

• ???

 

[Lennartos]

The problem I'm seeing with organic supply is from the game play point of view. The supply level of the unit will depend totally on its own abilities, plus the distance to its SC. I have no way to invest in a supply sector to say, make this a strong supply sector.

That also depends on the game rules.
What determines a "strong" supply sector?
If SC can sustain 100% of supply usage for all troops at all times, thats it... you cant do anything else.

However 100% supply usage is quite a bit and it becomes inceasingly more difficult to sustain that kind of transportation capability the longer the destination is away.
Thats also why we currently want to keep TC as a unit in the game.
SCs can be upgraded,yes but they are static.. you dont have any option of prioritizing the east front over the west front.

Historically germany had 2 million men working on rails and transportation.
Thats a manpower drain you need to simulate
Now lets say each level of SC can sustain one TC unit, the assignment of the TC units is automatically, so when you place more units on the west front, automatically TC is assigned to the SCs to sustain your demand.. if they are moved east again, the TC is freed for other purposes.

So by increasing SC size you decrease bottlenecks.(as SC limits TC usage)
But TC is the "cost" for actually moving supplies/resources around.

That said, if units get resources from SCs themselves, than that makes SC simulation easyer to understand for the user.
SCs only freight from SC to SC...
Units gather supplies from nearest SC.

If we make SC's spend TC's to send supply to units, I can invest in the SC to make it a super distribution center for that region.

SC do spend TC to get supplies to the units.
However the focus is drawn to the backbone of the infrastructure.
Its always the SCs behind the "Front Supply centers" that really do the hard work.. but as the front goes forward, and new "Front" SCs are places, the old Front SCs need to take over the burden to ship supplys further along the lines.

Also if units have their own supply gathereres, the ESE value can be used.
Now however distance to that SC determines ESE.
SC level could also be one factor of increasing ESE...(this allowing you to make a "stong" supply region).


The TC simulation should always be transparent(no micro-manegment necessary), but controllable.
The ability to prioritise SCs and also what each SC should do would be additions but not requirements.

 

[Balesir]

Another reason to have TCs represented is so that they can be attacked! TCs and convoys should be attackable and should lose some of whatever they are carrying when they are hit. Identifying bottlenecks where all your enemy's supply has to be passing through, then bombing the s#!t out of them should be an important strategic tool!

On 'strong' supply areas - a strong supply area is one with several SCs instead of just one! Preparation for an offensive probably means building SCs in front-line provinces, one every 2 or 3 provinces of front, along the whole width of the intended offensive. If you want to keep the enemy guessing, you might build them in other places, too

On target stock levels: in general an SC should have a target stock of 30 times the actual demand on the SC last day for each commodity, with a minimum of X times the SC level (X = 10?). It should be possible to set flags for each commodity, though, to say either 'fill' (target stock = full SC capacity) or 'empty' (target stock = 0).

SCs actually need two target stocks - a 'primary' target that counts direct demand only (i.e. demand from units and from ICs) and a 'secondary' target that also includes demand from other SCs (indirect demand). Setting the flags will set both targets to 100% of capacity for 'fill' but only primary target to 0 for 'empty'.

Each route (and note that you will need routes between SCs, even if you don't explicitly show them as 'convoys') will give a share of its full capacity in each direction to any commodity where the percentage of primary (direct) target stock in the supplying SC is less than the percentage of total (secondary or direct and indirect) target stock at the destination. Note that assigning zero TCs to an SC and/or closing the routes to it is a way to 'freeze' an SC, as well as setting the flags. The one thing you can't do - and this is arguably the real situation anyway - is stop combat units from taking supplies from an SC that has them it it's the nearest supply source for that unit!

This way, supplies will generally go where they are needed but it will be possible to force a buildup at specified points in preparation for a big operation. Note, though, that setting all SCs to 'fill' will have some curious and not necessarily desirable results!

 

[unmerged(7970)]

That also depends on the game rules.
What determines a "strong" supply sector?
If SC can sustain 100% of supply usage for all troops at all times, thats it... you cant do anything else.

However 100% supply usage is quite a bit and it becomes inceasingly more difficult to sustain that kind of transportation capability the longer the destination is away.

SCs only freight from SC to SC...
Units gather supplies from nearest SC.

What about the "last mile" from SC to units? How do you represent the supply getting more difficult as we go farther from SC? What control does the player have to make the supply less difficult?

Thats also why we currently want to keep TC as a unit in the game.
SCs can be upgraded,yes but they are static.. you dont have any option of prioritizing the east front over the west front.

Historically germany had 2 million men working on rails and transportation.
Thats a manpower drain you need to simulate
Now lets say each level of SC can sustain one TC unit, the assignment of the TC units is automatically, so when you place more units on the west front, automatically TC is assigned to the SCs to sustain your demand.. if they are moved east again, the TC is freed for other purposes.

So by increasing SC size you decrease bottlenecks.(as SC limits TC usage)
But TC is the "cost" for actually moving supplies/resources around.

SC do spend TC to get supplies to the units.
However the focus is drawn to the backbone of the infrastructure.
Its always the SCs behind the "Front Supply centers" that really do the hard work.. but as the front goes forward, and new "Front" SCs are places, the old Front SCs need to take over the burden to ship supplys further along the lines.

I think we need a summary of the new TC mechanism in the top post. If it works just like the convoy ships works at the moment I think we need to make some changes. How about make it a steady supply instead of shipping in lumps (you wouldn't see TC's shifting around much but maintained at a more or less steady rate), and how about have the convoy units take attrition just for using them?

Also if units have their own supply gathereres, the ESE value can be used.
Now however distance to that SC determines ESE.
SC level could also be one factor of increasing ESE...(this allowing you to make a "stong" supply region).

Now I'm confused about what the organic supply is meant to be. We need a summary somewhere

 

[unmerged(7970)]

Another reason to have TCs represented is so that they can be attacked! TCs and convoys should be attackable and should lose some of whatever they are carrying when they are hit. Identifying bottlenecks where all your enemy's supply has to be passing through, then bombing the s#!t out of them should be an important strategic tool!

should we rename TC's to "land convoys"? Yes the routes should be attackable over both land and sea.

On 'strong' supply areas - a strong supply area is one with several SCs instead of just one! Preparation for an offensive probably means building SCs in front-line provinces, one every 2 or 3 provinces of front, along the whole width of the intended offensive. If you want to keep the enemy guessing, you might build them in other places, too

I started with wanting to have player built SC's too. But we need to prevent the player from somehow building "too many" of them, making it unmanageable and unfun. My impression from the first post was the SC's would come fixed in the game, with the exception of "artificial harbor" units which degrade and die after some time. I think that could actually make it a more elegant mechanism. Remember the game needs prepositioned SC's ANYWAY to keep the starting armies supplied.

On target stock levels: in general an SC should have a target stock of 30 times the actual demand on the SC last day for each commodity, with a minimum of X times the SC level (X = 10?). It should be possible to set flags for each commodity, though, to say either 'fill' (target stock = full SC capacity) or 'empty' (target stock = 0).

SCs actually need two target stocks - a 'primary' target that counts direct demand only (i.e. demand from units and from ICs) and a 'secondary' target that also includes demand from other SCs (indirect demand). Setting the flags will set both targets to 100% of capacity for 'fill' but only primary target to 0 for 'empty'.

Each route (and note that you will need routes between SCs, even if you don't explicitly show them as 'convoys') will give a share of its full capacity in each direction to any commodity where the percentage of primary (direct) target stock in the supplying SC is less than the percentage of total (secondary or direct and indirect) target stock at the destination. Note that assigning zero TCs to an SC and/or closing the routes to it is a way to 'freeze' an SC, as well as setting the flags. The one thing you can't do - and this is arguably the real situation anyway - is stop combat units from taking supplies from an SC that has them it it's the nearest supply source for that unit!

This way, supplies will generally go where they are needed but it will be possible to force a buildup at specified points in preparation for a big operation. Note, though, that setting all SCs to 'fill' will have some curious and not necessarily desirable results!

Can you say again why two target stocks are needed? I think it works with just one:

• will always ship any available supply to units
• will never ship to another SC if below target stock
• will always ask for shipments from other SC's if below target stock

I don't particularly see anything wrong with setting every SC on high targets. Perhap maximum target should be 80% of maximum capacity so there is room for accumulating supplies and transporting them away.