Supply and Readiness Tests

[Heinz57]

Curiosity got the better of me, so I performed a test to determine how much a difference Supply and Readiness effects combat results. I created a mini-scenario using identical and very basic infantry regiments for both sides, keeping everything constant for the defending regiment, and using different R&S variables for the offensive regiments. 40 tests for each set of variables were run, average of casualties ignores the two lowest and highest extremes.

Details as follows:


Test Standards:

Attrition Divider: 10

Attack Variable Statistics According to Tests
All Attacks at Limit Losses, all other variables per default
Infantry: 108 Rifle Squads, 36 Medium MG, 18 81mm Mortars

Defense Formation Proficiency and Supply Distribution of 66%
Unit Proficency, Readiness and Supply constant at 66%
Clear Weather, Open Terrain, Fortified, Limit Losses, all other variables per default
108 Rifle Squads, 36 Medium MG, 18 81mm Mortars



TEST 1: Solo Infantry (x40)

Formation Proficiency and Supply Distribution Proficiency: 50%
Unit Proficiency: 66%
Unit Readiness: 33%
Unit Supply: 01%

Attack Defense
Average Casualties: 26% 0.4%
Advanced 0 of 40; 7 evaps of 40



TEST 2: Solo Infantry (x40)

Formation Proficiency and Supply Distribution Proficiency: 50%
Unit Proficiency: 66%
Unit Readiness: 50%
Unit Supply: 50%

Attack Defense
Average Casualties: 21.6% 0.9%
Advanced 1 of 40; 4 evaps of 40


TEST 3: Solo Infantry (x40)

Formation Proficiency and Supply Distribution Proficiency: 50%
Unit Proficiency: 66%
Unit Readiness: 66%
Unit Supply: 66%

Attack Defense
Average Casualties: 18.4% 1.2%
Advanced 5 of 40; evaps 3 of 40


TEST 4: Solo Infantry (x40)

Formation Proficiency and Supply Distribution Proficiency: 50%
Unit Proficiency: 66%
Unit Readiness: 99%
Unit Supply: 99%

Attack Defense
Average Casualties: 10.7% 1.7%
Advanced 1 of 40; evaps 0 of 40


TEST 5: Solo Infantry (x40)

Formation Proficiency and Supply Distribution Proficiency: 50%
Unit Proficiency: 66%
Unit Readiness: 100%
Unit Supply: 100%

Attack Defense
Average Casualties: 12.2% 1.8%
Advanced 6 of 40; evaps 1 of 40

[Heinz57]

While the tests do not include any supporting artillery, I think the same logic will follow that the higher S&R of supporting artillery will produce better results than those with lower S&R. One would almost say "duh!", except there is a distinct tendency in TOAW for many (most/all?) of us to keep attacking whether our units are in the red or green.

There are some aspects of TOAW that many players do not like, such as breaking down units and attacking with "ants". Historically, and tactically, this was usually the case. Most divisions would keep a regiment in reserve, and each regiment would keep a battalion in reserve -- this affords maximum offensive flexibility. With one unit in defensive/entrenched/fortified mode, it is less susceptable to counterattack. The regiments can also be rotated into the attack...after each attacks, it can dig in...or, "reform" - "redivide" and attack again. This has the benefit of averaging strength and supply throughout the division. On the other hand, attacking in thirds considerably offsets the potential to advance or make overruns.

Leastwise, relative to R&S, it is worthwhile to always keep "something" in reserve and to periodically rotate your forces from offensive to defensive mode, and back again.

Fix every bridge asap; build as much rail line as possible; aim to dominate the road net and force the defense (to the extent possible) into low supply terrain. If you have the option to advance another hex, or end your unit's turn on a road, see if you can find an expendable to take that extra hex -- keep your main forces in positions where they can get the best supply.

Keep your Army and Front HQ's in close proximity to the most units possible. BUT NEVER put your HQ's (or artillery) on the front line. Our proficiency scores are low enough without them being cut in half for the loss of their HQ.

If the situation is looking "that bad" where it seems you have to use your HQ, look for any other option -- shorten the perimeter or divide one of your units to fill the gap.

[CyberRanger]

While the tests do not include any supporting artillery, I think the same logic will follow that the higher S&R of supporting artillery will produce better results than those with lower S&R. One would almost say "duh!", except there is a distinct tendency in TOAW for many (most/all?) of us to keep attacking whether our units are in the red or green.
Count me in that group! I know I really need to work on letting my units get out of the "red" before launching attacks and rotating out the troops. I think the belief among players is that the penalty for attacking in the red is not severe enough in TOAW to warrant removing the troops from battle.

One area where I will attack in the red is if I'm using an "ant" in a ML/LA to make my artillery bombardment more effective. I then watch the combat results and as long as I'm killing more of them than they are of me ... I'll keep those tubes firing and the red units attacking.

But, great analysis! I wonder how the results would differ if some artillery was in support of the attack?

[Heinz57]

One area where I will attack in the red is if I'm using an "ant" in a ML/LA to make my artillery bombardment more effective. I then watch the combat results and as long as I'm killing more of them than they are of me ... I'll keep those tubes firing and the red units attacking.

But, great analysis! I wonder how the results would differ if some artillery was in support of the attack?

Keeping a number of "expendables" available is a good idea, too. Most definitely!

And in the last 6 turns or so, "the last push" rotating units solely for S&R is probably less relevant. Try to keep a few units of each army group in good shape for tackling important objectives.

I'll try to make an artillery test, too.

[Heinz57]

Went ahead and performed a test to see the effect of artillery in varying states of S&R in conjunction with infantry having varying states of S&R for which we have the baselines above. I can provide the file to anyone interested (e-mail me: yazidee@aol.com). Too complicated to post here (spacing skews the table too much for it to make sense).

Basically, gave each regiment a supporting battalion of 12 105mm howitzers, at ignore losses, tactical support. I generated 5 different groups, each with the same S&R provided to the infantry (1/33; 50/50; 66/66; 99/99; 100/100). These were committed so that one artillery unit of each level of S&R was paired with one infantry unit of each level of S&R. Combat was initiated 10 times for each combination (250 results). The variance is greater than the baselines for the infantry tests, run 40 times each.

To summarize the results:

1. In all cases attacking infantry casualties were significantly lower and with fewer evaps with artillery support, than without. Casualties were also more consistent thoughout (8 - 14%).
2. In all cases defender casualties were significantly higher with artillery support, 1-5% vs. .4 - 1.8%.
3. Combinations of Artillery and Infantry both with S&R's of 99-100% advanced 20% of the time while combinations with 50% or less advanced 2.5% of the time.
4. Infantry with high S&R supported by artillery with low S&R were slightly more likely to advance (5% more) than Infantry with low S&R supported by artillery with high S&R.

[CyberRanger]

Great information! Thanks!