 |
|
DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth (/showthread.php?tid=49720) Pages:
1
2
|
DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth - FLG - 01-12-2009 Dear all I have modified the AFNorth scenario which comes with DF85 to include more realistic levels of explicit supply. The files has been added to the database and can be found here. New Scenario I suspect explicit supply in this game is something of an after thought. In the stock game the WP starts with approximately one supply truck per 2 divisions and then receives only one supply truck per day for the whole army group. The NATO set-up has similar problems, with the majority of supplies coming from the South, which is quickly isolated by the WP, and no supply dumps in the main area of operations and few supplies coming South from Denmark. Modifications include
RE: DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth - JDR Dragoon - 01-12-2009 WAPA conventional superiority in this scenario is already massive in the stock game at 4:1 in division equivalents (and even when you factor in the fact that about 2/3rd of the danish contingent is missing from the stock game it would still be 8:3). Hamstringing WAPA supplywise so that they can´t use all of their division at the same time without running into a supply crunch can be an effective way of remedying this. RE: DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth - FLG - 01-13-2009 JDR Dragoon Wrote:WAPA conventional superiority in this scenario is already massive in the stock game at 4:1 in division equivalents (and even when you factor in the fact that about 2/3rd of the danish contingent is missing from the stock game it would still be 8:3). Hamstringing WAPA supplywise so that they can´t use all of their division at the same time without running into a supply crunch can be an effective way of remedying this. You could try to balance things using supply but that was not my intent. There are other people out there making much better, balanced, mods of DF85 than I ever could. The aim of this mod is just to enable a better explicit supply model for this scenario. If anything, it is probably still too little for WP players. In stock, WP players don't have enough supply to keep most of there divisions moving for 32 turns, let alone supply there enormous art assets. I just can't imagine WP invading Germany/Denmark without providing at least some supply. One to two weeks say, not 1 to 2 days. I haven't increased NATO's allowance as the precept of a surprise attack means there will be a natural lag before supply starts arriving at the front. I would have assumed about 2 days. What I have done is re-organised NATO's supply so that they can actually use some of it, instead of it all appearing behind WP lines. RE: DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth - JDR Dragoon - 01-13-2009 You misunderstand: The stock scenario is already hamstringing the WAPA side if playing with explicit supply. By giving the WAPA player more supply counters you are essentially skewing play balance even more against the NATO player than it already is. The supply that the WAPA player gets in the stock game is enough to run 3 divisions continously for all 32 turns by my estimates (if we suppose a consumption norm of one 50 vehicles supply counter per attacking division per day). If the WAPA player chooses to use more of his forces he will run out of supply faster (but might bag more of the defending NATO forces in the proces). By giving WAPA more supply counters you are essentially allowing the WAPA player to both have his cake and eat it. RE: DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth - FLG - 01-13-2009 No I don't think I misunderstand, I just disagree. WP doesn't have 3 divisions they have 6 and I can't see that they would go to war without providing each division at least a few days of supply. It's a realism thing. Saying that, only two of the extra supply units are readily available to WP. The others arrive later and have to travel to the front line, most likely being interdicted on the way. However, by moving NATO's supply to where they can actually use it, I would say this mod favours NATO rather than WP. Exspecially as WP only has 32 turns to complete there objectives. RE: DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth - JDR Dragoon - 01-13-2009 The NATO players problem isn´t supply. The NATO players problem is being outnumbered 4:1 in division equivalents (3 brigades/Regiments: 1 Division equivalent. WAPA gets 8 division equivalents, with all the AB and Marine units factored in, and NATO gets 2 Division equivalents of troops, once every last Dane and Brit shows up) and having to defend in terrain suited for the attacker. I agree that the arrival schedule of the WAPA players supply counters should be sped up, but giving the WAPA player more supply is simply silly and serves at best to maintain an already pro-WAPA stock scenario in its present state (if you are in doubt you can enter the scenario database on this site and see the playresults for yourself). It might make it more "realistic" but it also destroys any possibility of using "Explicit Supply" as an optional rule in the defenders favor (and if everybody has enough supply counters why even bother playing with Explicit Supply "On" if you don´t have to prioritize your supply?). Doubling up the WAPA players supply merely means that the NATO player will go down so much more faster. RE: DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth - Kuriltai - 01-13-2009 "Supply ? We don't need no stinking supply!" Quote:The NATO players problem isn´t supply. The NATO players problem is being outnumbered 4:1 in division equivalents I played vs JDR in his mod as the Pact player and found the above pretty much sums things up.Even with over 50% of troops low ammo or low fuel or both.It was difficult for Nato to stem the tide if the Pact keep moving irregardless of supply.This was with my supply trucks getting interdicted and disrupted.Capture of Nato supply was helpful but not critical. If you are going to tweak nato supply,I would suggest using the Strategic Options to place the dumps to keep the Pact guessing as to their locations. Kuriltai RE: DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth - JDR Dragoon - 01-14-2009 Kuriltai Wrote:"Supply ? We don't need no stinking supply!"  Quote:If you are going to tweak nato supply,I would suggest using the Strategic Options to place the dumps to keep the Pact guessing as to their locations. An excellent idea (and one I have never thought of myself) RE: DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth - Kuriltai - 01-14-2009 Quote:If you are going to tweak nato supply,I would suggest using the Strategic Options to place the dumps to keep the Pact guessing as to their locations. Can't claim that idea for myself as it's in some B44 scenarios. ;) Kuriltai RE: DF85 Explicit Supply in AFNorth - fastphil - 01-14-2009 I have to agree with the dissenters.:) The last thing I will play again is this scenario and you wish to skew it even further in the WP favor.  So I guess it doesn't matter what I think does it.:whis:This is one of the problems with "MODs" . You have to be careful with what you ask for. The supply model for WAPA does work in this scenario as it stands if you look at WAPA doctrine. The initial attack is to make a hole(s) somewhere by grinding down NATO forces in the initial assault and accepting that the WAPA units initially involved will become combat ineffective and placed on the defensive if not outright withdrawn from battle to rebuild. WAPA will send reserves (and supplies) to exploit the holes. Reinforce success. I think your supply version allows them to be the Soviet Army of WWII not modern day- the club vice the rapier. :) JMHO |
){kind=link}