Supply Units Losing Vehicles

[Sgt Fury]

Well in that case, they should not be subject to vehicle breakdown. These are not combat units but a supply abstraction.

Fury

[Dog Soldier]

Since they are a vehicle type unit, they would have to organized as a sub set of vehicles immune to breakdown to accomplish this Sgt Fury. That may require some OOB changes or game engine coding.

As to supply vehicles not being able to recover strength, is it just that their employment has caused them to never be in position to recover vehicles? I think, it may have to do more with the supply units not being subordinate to any HQ. I will check this.

Dog Soldier

[HMCS Rosthern]

While motorized infantry and motorized-drawn artillery are not vehicle units per se, their trucks and limbers are immune to the break down rule.

[Dog Soldier]

I checked the HQ issue. This is just my inexperience with using supply units. It appears they are attached to the highest HQ present in the scenario.

Dog Soldier

[Steel God]

Like I said, it's easier to rationalize the losses to supply vehicles as wastage and consumption along the route of supply, and not a truck breaking down that can be fixed (like a tank). Any real world logistics models incorporate these facts. Not to go off on a tangent, but the reason why Rommel could have never gotten to Alexandria even if the 8th army had surrendered, was simply logistics...hi supply lines were so long the vehicles moving the supplies wold have consumed more than their capacity to deliver. I do some of this crap for a living, trust me it makes perfectly good sense to just view the "losses" as consumption and wastage.

[Steel God]

While motorized infantry and motorized-drawn artillery are not vehicle units per se, their trucks and limbers are immune to the break down rule.

Because those units are counted in men and guns respectively, which for game purposes are immune from breakdown. If you included them you'd have situations where you have more men then could fit into vehicles, and more guns than tractors could tow, and while that all sounds very attractive to a realism nut like myself, from the game design point of view it's simply extra programming and extra complication to the rules for no appreciable change in game play.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I'd like to see the supplies going empty and at some point if one wanted to, they could breakdown into separate convoys and send the empties back to supply depots to refill and go back to the front. The icon could show 50/50, all fully loaded with supplies. Then at some point it would show 25/50, half the trucks are empty. Owning player could breakdown into 25/25 fully loaded and 0/25, all empty and return them to the supply depot to reload. I know, more counters, but I'd rather be able to send him back to a supply depot 25 hexes away than have to wait on a fresh convoy reinforcement 300 hexes away at the map edge. I know some scenarios have them coming in closer, but that's the idea of what I was thinking.

[Steel God]

Will never happen Mark. Whether it's a good idea or not is almost besides the point I think. JT is not a fan of complicated supply rules to begin with, and really needed to be convinced of the necessity for explicit supply in some circumstances. I can't see a situation that would make him revisit supply at all, let alone explicit supply, and make it more complicated.

At the end of the day, JT's design vision for PzC games is for them to be operational level combat simulations. Supporting rules are exactly that, and secondary in nature, and things like air power and supply will simply never be modeled to the level of detail that the combat and movement routines are.

[Krak]

Not to go off on a tangent, but the reason why Rommel could have never gotten to Alexandria even if the 8th army had surrendered, was simply logistics...hi supply lines were so long the vehicles moving the supplies wold have consumed more than their capacity to deliver.

It seems strange to me, that if your ascertion is correct that an obviously intelligent commander such as Rommel would denote Alexandria as his objective when he had no means to get his army there in the first place. My understanding of the reasons why the German High Command gave Rommel permission to continue his offensive operations beyond Tobruk were twofold, the possibility of the destruction of 8th Army AND the capture of Alexandria.

Surely the stockpiling of of supplies at forward dumps allows operations beyond the range of truck supply transit legs. Numerous games or simulations I have played allow for stockpiles to be created so that operations can continue onward to the objective. Otherwise how did Germany supply its Panzer/Motor Divisions in the Caucases? Or the deep penetrations in the summer of 41-42 in Russia?

The Operational Combat Series has one of the most detailed logistical systems I have played, and indeed it is possible to advance motorized units to Alexandria or Baku through the use of forward supply dumps.

I don't use explicit supply in PzC because I don't believe the extra brain work required by driving supply trucks around gives an equivalent gain in realism. For me I would like to see seperate ammo/fuel supply resources that are moved in truck or wagon units, where the truck or wagon is a seperate transport unit, the possibility to create supply dumps (thus freeing up transport units to move ahead and extend the range of operations) and the direct allocation of supplies to individual units i.e allowing the commander to prioritise which units get fuel and/or ammo. That would be a supply system of merit worth the extra effort to run. It would also show the player why offensives come to a halt, why the resupply of forward dumps has to occur before the offensive can resume. But such a detailed supply system won't happen for all the reasons you mention. So I stick to VST. A pretty good abstraction.

[Steel God]

It seems strange to me, that if your ascertion is correct that an obviously intelligent commander such as Rommel would denote Alexandria as his objective when he had no means to get his army there in the first place. My understanding of the reasons why the German High Command gave Rommel permission to continue his offensive operations beyond Tobruk were twofold, the possibility of the destruction of 8th Army AND the capture of Alexandria.

Rommel was tactically gifted and operationally brilliant, but as a logistician he was anathema. He gave no thoughts to supply and expected his staff to muddle through.

As for his permission to proceed to Alexandria, that was Hitler's doing, and it was against the advice of saner council. Kesselring was against it, as was the Italian Commando Supremo. As it turns out they were 100% correct and Rommel 100% wrong.

Surely the stockpiling of of supplies at forward dumps allows operations beyond the range of truck supply transit legs. Numerous games or simulations I have played allow for stockpiles to be created so that operations can continue onward to the objective. Otherwise how did Germany supply its Panzer/Motor Divisions in the Caucases? Or the deep penetrations in the summer of 41-42 in Russia?

Yes text book stuff. But in Russia the Germans used rail as the primary supply mover, with dumps at the ends of rail lines and trucks from the dumps to the FLOT. And as you are likely aware in Russia the logistics effort was hardly barely adequate after the first 2 months of Barbarossa. In North Africa the Germans has no rail lines. Everything moved by truck. In 1942 when Rommel moves east from the border Benghazi has been wrecked (it was an artificial harbor) and Tobruk was under the RAF's interdiction range and very unsuitable for shipments. Which means that everything was being shipped to Tripoli and trucked the all the way to Alamien. That's got to be 100s of miles, possibly a 1000 or better. At those ranges it's simple math, the trucks are consuming almost as much fuel as they can deliver and that's not delivering the first round of ammo or box of food. Simple failure to understand the basics of supply did more to doom Afrika Korp than the 8th Army did prior to Alamein.

The Operational Combat Series has one of the most detailed logistical systems I have played, and indeed it is possible to advance motorized units to Alexandria or Baku through the use of forward supply dumps.

I don't use explicit supply in PzC because I don't believe the extra brain work required by driving supply trucks around gives an equivalent gain in realism. For me I would like to see seperate ammo/fuel supply resources that are moved in truck or wagon units, where the truck or wagon is a seperate transport unit, the possibility to create supply dumps (thus freeing up transport units to move ahead and extend the range of operations) and the direct allocation of supplies to individual units i.e allowing the commander to prioritise which units get fuel and/or ammo. That would be a supply system of merit worth the extra effort to run. It would also show the player why offensives come to a halt, why the resupply of forward dumps has to occur before the offensive can resume. But such a detailed supply system won't happen for all the reasons you mention. So I stick to VST. A pretty good abstraction.

The only OCS game I own is DAK, and it is easily among my favorite top 3 board games. But it's supply system is simple compared to Berg's supply system design for SPI's CNA. If you want to truly understand logistics get a copy of those rules. Personally I agree with you that more complicated supply rules appeals to me, but it's not in the cards for this series of games I'm afraid.