View Full Version : Unit Support
Can some please explain in a manner that Forrest Gump would understand the differences between the various support levels (Free, Internal, Army & Force) and under what conditions a certain level would be, or not be, used? :nuts:
Can some please explain in a manner that Forrest Gump would understand the differences between the various support levels...
Before we begin, have you already absorbed the matrix on page 115 of the CoW manual? At this stage, it's not important to understand it, but simply to note, with some familiarity, where the "L" line runs through it.
...(Free, Internal, Army & Force) and under what conditions a certain level would be, or not be, used? :nuts:
Are you more concerned with design theory, or the interactions that a player is apt to notice? The nature of your answer will determine how "Gump'ish" I get... ;)
Actually, I'm sitting in a hotel room sans manual.
What I'm specifically concerned about is:
How the PO uses the different support levels
and
Does the different support levels effect supply gains for an individual unit?
The latter concern is based on an observation that some units in my scenario regain their supply at an alarmingly slow rate even though they are in a prime location.
On a side note, is there a setting to increase the entrenchment % a unit can do or is this based on map and unit sizes (along with composition)?
Actually, I'm sitting in a hotel room sans manual.
Oh...okay. Then we'll come back to that in more depth, when you can follow the matrix and refer to that section of the manual.
What I'm specifically concerned about is:
How the PO uses the different support levels
Honestly, I don't know that for sure, as the PO does so little right with the assets that it has, that I find it very hard to imagine that it does actively take into account any of the subtle effects of cooperation levels.
and
Does the different support levels effect supply gains for an individual unit?
Yes. Free Cooperation between units and an adjacent HQ give a 50% boost to the resupply rate. Limited or No Cooperation gives no boost.
The latter concern is based on an observation that some units in my scenario regain their supply at an alarmingly slow rate even though they are in a prime location.
The calculation is L*S*M*H*(2/3)*E = Amount of supply received by unit, where
L = Supply Level of hex (the number in the supply icon)
S = Supply unit modifier, where it is one of two values: 1, or 1.5, the higher value used if the unit is adjacent to a supply unit during the Automatic Bookkeeping Phase, when supply is checked.
M = Movement modifier, where it is one of two values: 1, or 1.5, the higher value used if the unit did not move in the previous turn.
H = HQ modifier, where it is one of two values: 1, or 1.5, the higher value used if the unit is adjacent to an HQ that it has a level of "Free" Cooperation with, during the Automatic Bookkeeping Phase, when supply is checked.
(2/3) = is an arbitrary, yet constant, multiplier that only Norm knows the reasoning behind why it is included in the supply calculations.
E = Formation Supply Distribution Efficiency, where E is some value between .01 and 1.0 (i.e., between 1% and 100%), and is the number assigned to the formation by the designer.
L, and E, are the two biggest culprits in most cases of low resupply. Both are determined by the scenario designer, and IMO, are often way too low for active players. L may vary in the course of the game, depending on interdiction levels, supply radius and distance from a fully supplied source, but the base amount is set by the designer.
On a side note, is there a setting to increase the entrenchment % a unit can do or is this based on map and unit sizes (along with composition)?
Are you referring to what a player can do to maximize entrenching success during a turn, or what a scenario designer can to to either boost the entrenchment level of a hex at the start of the scenario, or to bolser the entrenchment abilities of units for the scenario?
E = Formation Supply Distribution Efficiency, where E is some value between .01 and 1.0 (i.e., between 1% and 100%), and is the number assigned to the formation by the designer.
Very good! I'll have to search around for that assigned number selection. That may be my problem as I'd hazard a guess that it's currently set at .01.
Are you referring to what a player can do to maximize entrenching success during a turn, or what a scenario designer can to to either boost the entrenchment level of a hex at the start of the scenario, or to bolser the entrenchment abilities of units for the scenario?
I was referring to your last remark...a way to bolster the entrenchment abilities of the units.
Damn, your good :)
If I could get a guarantee that you wouldn't talk politics, I'd buy you a drink :drink:
Very good! I'll have to search around for that assigned number selection. That may be my problem as I'd hazard a guess that it's currently set at .01.
It defaults at 1 (or 100%) in the force editor. That is, you see 100 when you look at the properties for the formation. However, if you change for one formation, then create additional ones after that, new formations will be at the default of the previous formation in the OOB.
Your problem might just be the very low rate that you have set for the forces at the beginning, as well.
I was referring to your last remark...a way to bolster the entrenchment abilities of the units.
Engineering squads in the units is one way. I asked in the other thread, but what scale are your units? If divisional, then you should have some number of engineer squads in normal divisions.
You can also make some Corps level engineer regiments or brigades for special circumstances. Whether you choose to incorporate them into the HQ's or leave them as separate units depends on what your design preferences are.
Finally, in the "Transports, APC's and IFV's" section of the equipment list there are a few engineering vehicles. They have an engineering capability and will help boost the ability of units to entrench. Most of them are for more modern scenarios, but the "Tracked Earth Mover" is appropriate for use in WWII scenarios. Just don't use too many, as even though they are passive defenders, unarmored and have no attack strengths, they do have fairly good defense strengths.
If I could get a guarantee that you wouldn't talk politics, I'd buy you a drink :drink:
LoL...appearances on this forum to the contrary, I really dislike talking politics. Especially face to face, since it's a lot more awkward when the various parties start getting a little hot under the collar. In writing, you can always step back and measure your words, edit out your foolish statements, and present a more polished argument. In the heat of oratory rhetoric though, that's a bit more difficult... ;)
Besides...I'd much rather talk about TOAW, and the fairer sex... :love:
Bob Cross
19 Mar 04, 10:51
E = Formation Supply Distribution Efficiency, where E is some value between .01 and 1.0 (i.e., between 1% and 100%), and is the number assigned to the formation by the designer.
Just to make an already complex subject a bit more obfuscated, remember that the above number can be reduced by loss of support squads, if the formation's HQ has them. I've never checked to see if loss of all support squads = 0% FSD. It probably bottoms out at 1%.
Just to make an already complex subject a bit more obfuscated, remember that the above number can be reduced by loss of support squads, if the formation's HQ has them. I've never checked to see if loss of all support squads = 0% FSD. It probably bottoms out at 1%.
Good point, Bob. To further confuse things, there is an entire matrix (or flowchart, depending on how you want to look at it) of effects based on how many HQ's the formation has, whether or not every HQ is assigned support squads, what unit size the HQ is designated as being the command for (i.e., brigade, division, corps, etc.), the number of support squads in the least effective HQ, et al.
Menschenfresser
19 Mar 04, 12:31
Good point, Bob. To further confuse things, there is an entire matrix (or flowchart, depending on how you want to look at it) of effects based on how many HQ's the formation has, whether or not every HQ is assigned support squads, what unit size the HQ is designated as being the command for (i.e., brigade, division, corps, etc.), the number of support squads in the least effective HQ, et al.
This was a question I had when I first started playing TOAW (i.e. multiple HQs in one formation). I never got a substantial answer.
You wouldn't happen to have said matrix would you, Jam, in a postable form?
You wouldn't happen to have said matrix would you, Jam, in a postable form?
Only if you want a bunch of question marks, blanks, and "to be determined"'s in it.
I haven't yet done any rigorous testing to establish the exact parameters of the various fields. A linear regression analysis would be required to determine the relationship between HQ size, and number of support squads. This should be done for a single HQ in a formation, then tests run to determine the effects on formations with multiple HQ's, both existent in the formation and all on the map, and with varying proportions of on-map, and off-map (both eliminated, and not yet deployed, but scheduled for reinforcements), to determine the exact formulae.
Some quick and dirty checks can be made with the Arracourt scenario (my favorite for quick tests) by editing/copying the HQ for the 111th Pz Brigade.
Note, first of all, that the FSDE of the formation is at 60%, unedited. If you assign 10 Support squads to the HQ, and then check the FSDE, you'll see that it is adjusted to 50%. Change the Brigade symbol of the HQ to Division and the FSDE goes to 25%. Change to Regiment and it goes to 66%. Change back to Brigade to restore to 50%. Now, change the amount of support squads assigned to 5, and then you'll see that the FSDE is now 25%. Copy the unit and you'll see that it is still 25%. Assign 10 to one of the HQ's and you'll see that it goes to 50%.
I did some of this earlier today, and found that some different results were displayed (on the fly) depending on the order that I made the changes, so there may be different behavior depending on what happens when the scenario is saved in the editor and the game is started.
That's more work than I want to get into right now... ;)
Bdr.Mallette
31 Mar 04, 21:49
Dedicated Arty and independant arty.
Dependant means they will HAVE to answer the calls for Arty fire that they are directly supporting and then assist other formations with support. Independant means they can support any formation with priority depending on Need and availability.
Air units are the most obvious example:
If you have air units with free support, there will be no penalty because they can support all actions but if it only supports Army, when it goes to support another unit(diff. colour unit) lets' say Marines, (if diff colour) it will not have the Full effect, due to possible comms problems or not fully understanding that Army's objectives and supporting units etc.
You will notice this when planning an attack, flag colours will reflect support ( Gold-full support, grey- Support with some loss of strength, Black- not entirely beneficial support)
Sumthin like that.
I dunno, makes sense to me, being a Bombardier and all, we are dedicated Arty and support the R.H.L.I.s when we do maneuvres.
(Royal Hamilton Light Infantry)
When they don't need it, we give SOME support to other units, possibly 4-6 guns worth, enough to stun the enemy. (105's)
:cool:
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.