Logistics Package

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
I would like to get a discussion going on the amount of points a log pack should be for resuppling units.

For my up coming CPX “Into the Fire” I will have the conceptual supply points set at 0 and have the players rely on the use of Logistics Package for resupply of ammo. The units will have their basic load at the start of the battle.

I also know that to use the log packs your unit must be located within 200 meters.

My question is how much should the Log Packs percentage points should be? I know that the max percentage is 30,000 supply points. And the default is set for 5,000 supply points. I don’t want the log pack to have too much points or too little for it to be of any use.

All units have at least 50% ammo levels. For this example, I’m using the LAV25 IFV.

1xAPC, LAV25 IFV,
Cannon 25mm, 650 rounds, 100%
MG 7.62mm Coax, 1000 rounds, 100%
MG 7.62mm, 1600 rounds, 100%
Rifle 5.56mm M16, 900 rounds, 100%

In the TacOps Unit Wpns DB 030525b Excel spreadsheet, to resupply a Cannon 25mm with 100 rounds it will take 20 points, which for 650 rounds will take about 135 supply points from the log pack and for the MG 7.62mm Coax it states that it will take 1 point for 100 rounds, so to resupply for 1000 rounds it will take 10 supply points.
For the MG 7.62mm it will take 1 point for 100 rounds so again to resupply for 1000 rounds it will take 10 supply points. And for the Rifle 5.56mm M16 it will also take 1 point for 100 rounds and again to resupply for 1000 rounds it will take 10 supply points.
Now to add all that up it will be 165 supply points just for 1xAPC, LAV25 IFV

Is this how it has to be done? Is there an easier way of doing this? Do I have to go and calculate for all the units in one Company, one Battalion and up to set the log packs? Again I don’t want to set it to the max, for that would give the impression of unlimited ammo. And don’t want to set it too low for the unit to not be able to fight.

Would the points be different by how the log packs are being transported as well? Would the log pack be set at 30,000 points if it is being lifted by a helicopter or a truck? Or if the log packs are being transported that the log pack can only be for a certain amount of supply points?

Has anybody come up with a spreadsheet or a formula for how many supply points it will take to resupply different types of units? Or for that matter the vehicles or troops them selves instead of each individual weapon.

John Osborne
 

switch_back

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
331
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Country
ll
If someone has an idea please post, as this is somewhat of an important problem that needs sorting out.

Major, can you lend a hand on this one...? pretty please :D :D

John I had an idea, but it involves gentlmens rules in greater depth. in the unit menu you can change the name of the unit, if you were to say allocate a unit with adequate logistics points to keep a platoon of tanks running and then change the name of the unit to say "tank logistics 1" ( I dont know, anything you like really ), but then you would have to trust the player\s to not use that truck to re-supply an infantry ATGM team or something like that.

Because realistically, you would not have a truck carrying tank shells and a full load of ammo for infantry surely :crosseye: ?

If this sounds stupid John please say, and I realise it requires alot of trust with the players involved, if you are willing I will help you test that in our upcoming PBEM of this scenario?
 

MajorH

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
866
Reaction score
0
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Country
llUnited States
>Major, can you lend a hand on this one...? pretty please

I would rather mostly just listen to the discussion on this one to see what you guys think. The logistics pack abstraction was not my idea. It was added in early 2002 by user request. I don't recall if it was a hobby user or someone in the U.S. Army. I think it was a very good suggestion but I would not like to see it extended or complicated to a point where it significantly slows down game play. Unless of course some future military client wants to commission a logistics oriented TacOps variant. :)

>I had an idea, but it involves gentlemen rules in greater depth. in the
>unit menu you can change the name of the unit, if you were to say allocate
>a unit with adequate logistics points to keep a platoon of tanks running
>and then change the name of the unit to say "tank logistics 1" ( I dont
>know, anything you like really ), but then you would have to trust the
>player\s to not use that truck to re-supply an infantry ATGM team or
>something like that. Because realistically, you would not have a truck
>carrying tank shells and a full load of ammo for infantry surely ?

That is a good idea, but one of my coding principles is "Don't add detail when an abstraction will do." One could just consider a logistics package and the vehicle or vehicles that are carrying it as abstractly representing a more complex forward resupply unit with a variety of vehicles - some carrying single class loads and some carrying mixed loads.

On the other hand, you gents paid for your copy of TacOps so in my book that makes you intitled to play it any darn way that you want. :)
 

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
switch_back said:
John I had an idea, but it involves gentlmens rules in greater depth. in the unit menu you can change the name of the unit, if you were to say allocate a unit with adequate logistics points to keep a platoon of tanks running and then change the name of the unit to say "tank logistics 1" ( I dont know, anything you like really ), but then you would have to trust the player\s to not use that truck to re-supply an infantry ATGM team or something like that.

Because realistically, you would not have a truck carrying tank shells and a full load of ammo for infantry surely :crosseye: ?
Hi Terry,

I just received from Tom Briody a spreadsheet that he made for his personal use and it is what I was looking for. I will send it too you so that you can see for yourself. There is work that still needs to be done on it and I will use it for the PBEM/CPX test with you.

I like the idea of labeling the truck to what it is carrying, ie artillery shells, tank rounds, small rounds. As for the Gentlemans rules in the use of Log Packs for certain vehicles, that would work but like you stated there is no way I can control that during a CPX nor a PBEM.

John
 

switch_back

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
331
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Country
ll
I don't recall if it was a hobby user or someone in the U.S. Army. I think it was a very good suggestion but I would not like to see it extended or complicated to a point where it significantly slows down game play. Unless of course some future military client wants to commission a logistics oriented TacOps variant.
Thanks for your input Major, the addition of the log packs is indeed a very good idea and I look forward to trying it out with John, definatley a more realistic way than conceptual supply points.

Hi Terry,

I just received from Tom Briody a spreadsheet that he made for his personal use and it is what I was looking for. I will send it too you so that you can see for yourself. There is work that still needs to be done on it and I will use it for the PBEM/CPX test with you.

I like the idea of labeling the truck to what it is carrying, ie artillery shells, tank rounds, small rounds. As for the Gentlemans rules in the use of Log Packs for certain vehicles, that would work but like you stated there is no way I can control that during a CPX nor a PBEM.

John
Excellent I would love to see that, as I mentioned to you before im not very clued up on log packs and the such, so it would be really interesting for me to take a look at that to get a better understanding.

Also certainly if you know who your playing in a PBEM like myself you could have full trust, and most people on WFHQ are very trustworthy, it would work, but of course you dont know who might take advantage of that, especially in a CPX, although in a CPX as an umpire surely you would be able to see what they are doing with their trucks at any one time? :smoke:

Terry
 

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
MajorH said:
>Major, can you lend a hand on this one...? pretty please

I would rather mostly just listen to the discussion on this one to see what you guys think. The logistics pack abstraction was not my idea. It was added in early 2002 by user request. I don't recall if it was a hobby user or someone in the U.S. Army. I think it was a very good suggestion but I would not like to see it extended or complicated to a point where it significantly slows down game play. Unless of course some future military client wants to commission a logistics oriented TacOps variant. :)

>I had an idea, but it involves gentlemen rules in greater depth. in the
>unit menu you can change the name of the unit, if you were to say allocate
>a unit with adequate logistics points to keep a platoon of tanks running
>and then change the name of the unit to say "tank logistics 1" ( I dont
>know, anything you like really ), but then you would have to trust the
>player\s to not use that truck to re-supply an infantry ATGM team or
>something like that. Because realistically, you would not have a truck
>carrying tank shells and a full load of ammo for infantry surely ?

That is a good idea, but one of my coding principles is "Don't add detail when an abstraction will do." One could just consider a logistics package and the vehicle or vehicles that are carrying it as abstractly representing a more complex forward resupply unit with a variety of vehicles - some carrying single class loads and some carrying mixed loads.

On the other hand, you gents paid for your copy of TacOps so in my book that makes you intitled to play it any darn way that you want. :)
Hi Major H,

Thanks for the reply, My concern when I sent this email out was the long tedious time it took to look up the vehicle and then write down what it has and how many rounds and what the cost was for resuppling that vehicle.

But after receving the spreadsheet that Tom Briody started for his on personal use. He made the spreadsheet for his scenario "Fallujia Siege" too simulated the supply distribution difficulties of the US side.

I got his permissin to finish it by adding the OPFOR and the rest of the other countries. Once its done will post it here at WarfareHq.

John
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
Without getting too far down in the weeds with what class is on what truck and in what quantity, why not have the trucks loaded out per your cpx plan or by a pre-ordained request by the BLUFOR/REDFOR CO's and be assigned a different pin (of a notional S4 or XO back with the combat trains).

As the battle goes on and Tank Company X requests more fuel, the pin of the truck unit carrying a logpack of enough fuel to resupply a tank company is released/re-assigned the pin of that player controlling the tank company. The Tank Company CO is responsible for plotting that truck units path up to a covered and concealed position in order to resupply his tanks. Once resupply is completed, the trucks are returned to the trains and general support. As Rifle Company Y requests more small arms ammo, same procedure applies.

What do you think? Seems like it would work with cpx's moreso than pbem.
 

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
pmaidhof said:
Without getting too far down in the weeds with what class is on what truck and in what quantity, why not have the trucks loaded out per your cpx plan or by a pre-ordained request by the BLUFOR/REDFOR CO's and be assigned a different pin (of a notional S4 or XO back with the combat trains).

As the battle goes on and Tank Company X requests more fuel, the pin of the truck unit carrying a logpack of enough fuel to resupply a tank company is released/re-assigned the pin of that player controlling the tank company. The Tank Company CO is responsible for plotting that truck units path up to a covered and concealed position in order to resupply his tanks. Once resupply is completed, the trucks are returned to the trains and general support. As Rifle Company Y requests more small arms ammo, same procedure applies.

What do you think? Seems like it would work with cpx's moreso than pbem.
Hi Peter,

This is interesting, I like that idea very much Peter. Going to put that into the CPX. But instead of the Tank Company Commander plotting the truck route to the tanks. The tank commander is going to have his hands full :D Have either the XO or the player in control of the Brigade Supply and Ammo dump to plot the route. He will be responsible to get the ammo to the units that need them, like arty, tanks and so on. What about that?

John
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
John Osborne said:
Hi Peter,

This is interesting, I like that idea very much Peter. Going to put that into the CPX. But instead of the Tank Company Commander plotting the truck route to the tanks. The tank commander is going to have his hands full :D Have either the XO or the player in control of the Brigade Supply and Ammo dump to plot the route. He will be responsible to get the ammo to the units that need them, like arty, tanks and so on. What about that?

John
Hey John,

I initially thought that a player would be the S4, but don't know how long the line would be to be "the" S4.

I know in RL when everything goes well in "logisitics-world" it is supposed to be that way, but when they don't go according to plan - stand by. (As a infantry officer formerly playing Bn S4 - I can relate) :cheeky:

Who knows, I never thought anyone would only want to control the fires in a cpx, but I have seen that become popular in recent years. (As a former Fire Support Coordinator I can relate) :cheeky:

I'd like to see how it works out.

Keep me posted.
 

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
pmaidhof said:
Hey John,

I initially thought that a player would be the S4, but don't know how long the line would be to be "the" S4.

I know in RL when everything goes well in "logisitics-world" it is supposed to be that way, but when they don't go according to plan - stand by. (As a infantry officer formerly playing Bn S4 - I can relate) :cheeky:

Who knows, I never thought anyone would only want to control the fires in a cpx, but I have seen that become popular in recent years. (As a former Fire Support Coordinator I can relate) :cheeky:

I'd like to see how it works out.

Keep me posted.
I have a CPX scenario with the US fighing against the DPKA using map131c. But I also need to know how can I reduce the amount of ammo the units will have at the start of the battle? The Logistics Report states that all units and vehicles have 50% ammo level at start.

John
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
John Osborne said:
I have a CPX scenario with the US fighing against the DPKA using map131c. But I also need to know how can I reduce the amount of ammo the units will have at the start of the battle? The Logistics Report states that all units and vehicles have 50% ammo level at start.

John
Unfortunately, I have no clue as how to reduce the ammo levels. As it is I have never even experimented with the logpacks (tried them once, didn't like it, and never inhaled) ;)
 

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
2
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
John Osborne said:
I would like to get a discussion going on the amount of points a log pack should be for resuppling units.

For my up coming CPX “Into the Fire” I will have the conceptual supply points set at 0 and have the players rely on the use of Logistics Package for resupply of ammo. The units will have their basic load at the start of the battle.

I also know that to use the log packs your unit must be located within 200 meters.

My question is how much should the Log Packs percentage points should be? I know that the max percentage is 30,000 supply points. And the default is set for 5,000 supply points. I don’t want the log pack to have too much points or too little for it to be of any use.

All units have at least 50% ammo levels. For this example, I’m using the LAV25 IFV.

1xAPC, LAV25 IFV,
Cannon 25mm, 650 rounds, 100%
MG 7.62mm Coax, 1000 rounds, 100%
MG 7.62mm, 1600 rounds, 100%
Rifle 5.56mm M16, 900 rounds, 100%

In the TacOps Unit Wpns DB 030525b Excel spreadsheet, to resupply a Cannon 25mm with 100 rounds it will take 20 points, which for 650 rounds will take about 135 supply points from the log pack and for the MG 7.62mm Coax it states that it will take 1 point for 100 rounds, so to resupply for 1000 rounds it will take 10 supply points.
For the MG 7.62mm it will take 1 point for 100 rounds so again to resupply for 1000 rounds it will take 10 supply points. And for the Rifle 5.56mm M16 it will also take 1 point for 100 rounds and again to resupply for 1000 rounds it will take 10 supply points.
Now to add all that up it will be 165 supply points just for 1xAPC, LAV25 IFV

Is this how it has to be done? Is there an easier way of doing this? Do I have to go and calculate for all the units in one Company, one Battalion and up to set the log packs? Again I don’t want to set it to the max, for that would give the impression of unlimited ammo. And don’t want to set it too low for the unit to not be able to fight.

Would the points be different by how the log packs are being transported as well? Would the log pack be set at 30,000 points if it is being lifted by a helicopter or a truck? Or if the log packs are being transported that the log pack can only be for a certain amount of supply points?

Has anybody come up with a spreadsheet or a formula for how many supply points it will take to resupply different types of units? Or for that matter the vehicles or troops them selves instead of each individual weapon.

John Osborne
This is exactly how it must be done, John. It is a representative number and the numbers you have come up with are correct. I am looking for a calculator now...

Although it doesn't necessarily follow the Army standards of logistics calculations, it DOES force the player to calculate resupply, IF that is a goal in the CPX.

Now, IMO, for a civilian CPX, I would be wary of doing this unless you have a dedicated person to run log for both sides!

Let me investigate.
 
Last edited:

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
Also while we are on the subject of logistics issues. I would like to come up with an idea on how to get replacement troops into the field. Lets say an Infantry Company commander is losing alot of his troops and the commander has to pull back and regroup. He will then have to contact Battalion S3, I think, to get replacment troops to his location. We can also do the same for vehicles and or repair vehicles back in the fight?

What do you guys think?

John
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
John Osborne said:
Also while we are on the subject of logistics issues. I would like to come up with an idea on how to get replacement troops into the field. Lets say an Infantry Company commander is losing alot of his troops and the commander has to pull back and regroup. He will then have to contact Battalion S3, I think, to get replacment troops to his location. We can also do the same for vehicles and or repair vehicles back in the fight?

What do you guys think?

John
John, I believe that once joined to the bn by the S1, the S4 would transport these fine young gentlemen forward to a point where they would be given to the 1stSgt/XO for assignment to the platoons. During a lull, PltSgts would pick up and lead these men forward and onto their new squads.

All after the S4 bringing them forward to a point just short of direct fire range behind a unit in contact is below the scale modelled in TacOps and to be considered administrivia.
 

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
2
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
John Osborne said:
Also while we are on the subject of logistics issues. I would like to come up with an idea on how to get replacement troops into the field. Lets say an Infantry Company commander is losing alot of his troops and the commander has to pull back and regroup. He will then have to contact Battalion S3, I think, to get replacment troops to his location. We can also do the same for vehicles and or repair vehicles back in the fight?

What do you guys think?

John
What you are proposing is called WSRO (Weapons System Replacement Operations) or "WIZZROE". This is already a component of Decisive Action, and a form of it is in TacOps v.5, with the ability to place units "off map" at a certain distance and the game will calculate the time for it to show on the map.

In the absence of these features, if you are running a CPX, then the best way to replicate is to tell the participants to send a request to you as if they were sending a request for replacements through proper channels, and you either repair or replace units as needed.
 

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
2
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
MajorH said:
>Major, can you lend a hand on this one...? pretty please

I would rather mostly just listen to the discussion on this one to see what you guys think. The logistics pack abstraction was not my idea. It was added in early 2002 by user request. I don't recall if it was a hobby user or someone in the U.S. Army. I think it was a very good suggestion but I would not like to see it extended or complicated to a point where it significantly slows down game play. Unless of course some future military client wants to commission a logistics oriented TacOps variant. :)

>I had an idea, but it involves gentlemen rules in greater depth. in the
>unit menu you can change the name of the unit, if you were to say allocate
>a unit with adequate logistics points to keep a platoon of tanks running
>and then change the name of the unit to say "tank logistics 1" ( I dont
>know, anything you like really ), but then you would have to trust the
>player\s to not use that truck to re-supply an infantry ATGM team or
>something like that. Because realistically, you would not have a truck
>carrying tank shells and a full load of ammo for infantry surely ?

That is a good idea, but one of my coding principles is "Don't add detail when an abstraction will do." One could just consider a logistics package and the vehicle or vehicles that are carrying it as abstractly representing a more complex forward resupply unit with a variety of vehicles - some carrying single class loads and some carrying mixed loads.

On the other hand, you gents paid for your copy of TacOps so in my book that makes you intitled to play it any darn way that you want. :)
TJ mentioned something about a logistics calculator for TacOps, but it seems to be MIA. Any help on this, Major H?!:D
 

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
CPangracs said:
What you are proposing is called WSRO (Weapons System Replacement Operations) or "WIZZROE". This is already a component of Decisive Action, and a form of it is in TacOps v.5, with the ability to place units "off map" at a certain distance and the game will calculate the time for it to show on the map.

In the absence of these features, if you are running a CPX, then the best way to replicate is to tell the participants to send a request to you as if they were sending a request for replacements through proper channels, and you either repair or replace units as needed.
That is probaly the best way of doing this Curt. But after looking at the mission that they will have to do plus the supply issues. I will most likly not implement the replacement of troops in this CPX.

CPangracs said:
Civilian CPX, I would be wary of doing this unless you have a dedicated person to run log for both sides!
You would be surprised from the civilians participating in a TacOps CPX :D They could handly it.

Now if I can find a way for the vehicles and units to start with less ammo at the begining of the scenario.

For example, it states that all units have at least 50% ammo levels. But yet it shows that it is at 100% on the report. Am I reading it wrong?

1xAPC, LAV25 IFV,
Cannon 25mm, 650 rds, 100%
MG 7.62mm Coax, 1000 rds, 100%
MG 7.62mm, 1600 rds, 100%
Rifle 5.56mm M16, 900 rds, 100%

I would like to at least reduce the ammo down to this,

1xAPC, LAV25 IFV,
Cannon 25mm, 325 rds,
MG 7.62mm Coax, 500 rds,
MG 7.62mm, 800 rds,
Rifle 5.56mm M16, 450 rds,

That way the commanders know that they will be going into battle with less ammo and will have to plan for that.

Am I asking to much for the players to do? :nuts:

John
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
John Osborne said:
Am I asking to much for the players to do? :nuts:
I think that it is very important that the players are aware of the logistical implications/requirements that will be a part of the cpx. While there may be a few out there that really dig the log aspect, more will be there solely to command the tank and mech companies that will undoubtedly charging across the digital battlefield.
 

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
2
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
John Osborne said:
That is probaly the best way of doing this Curt. But after looking at the mission that they will have to do plus the supply issues. I will most likly not implement the replacement of troops in this CPX.

You would be surprised from the civilians participating in a TacOps CPX :D They could handly it.

Now if I can find a way for the vehicles and units to start with less ammo at the begining of the scenario.

For example, it states that all units have at least 50% ammo levels. But yet it shows that it is at 100% on the report. Am I reading it wrong?

1xAPC, LAV25 IFV,
Cannon 25mm, 650 rds, 100%
MG 7.62mm Coax, 1000 rds, 100%
MG 7.62mm, 1600 rds, 100%
Rifle 5.56mm M16, 900 rds, 100%

I would like to at least reduce the ammo down to this,

1xAPC, LAV25 IFV,
Cannon 25mm, 325 rds,
MG 7.62mm Coax, 500 rds,
MG 7.62mm, 800 rds,
Rifle 5.56mm M16, 450 rds,

That way the commanders know that they will be going into battle with less ammo and will have to plan for that.

Am I asking to much for the players to do? :nuts:

John
As far as I can tell, no, you can't reduce supply levels, only mobility %. You are also reading the supply report correctly, and the reason is that 50% is the cutoff for a warning message when you do a "short report" for supply. When you create a unit, you are at 100%.

NOW,...if you REALLY want to be tricky, you can try running a game for a few turns and then saving the OOB when your vehicles have depleted some ammo, then reimport that OOB into a new game! Tedious, I know, but it's the only way I know of to reduce ammo levels below 100%. Don't worry about vehicles with damage, because you can always repair them after you import them.

Still ANOTHER way is to take one each of the combat systems you want to use for the saved game, and place them opposite an OPFOR vehicle of similar type, and essentially let them fight for a while, then you can export and import, then duplicate the units until you have a full company/battalion/etc at the ammo level you want.

Just a couple ideas, which you can play with to achieve the desired results.

Good Luck!

Curt
 

John Osborne

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Location
Leavenworth, KS
Thanks guys for replying back to this question. All of the ideas will be used in the next "Into the Fire" CPX scenario. That is except the replacement of troops lost in the battle. Need to look at that issue.

Terry,

I'm going to have to push the test PBEM scenario back a couple of weeks. I need to work on this Log Pack issue and work on the scenario briefing. I need to add some units to the DPKA for supply and engineers for bridging the rivers, just in case the US blows the bridges up ;)

I just looked at the DPKA Handbook and they have bridging capabilities. I want to make sure that this will work and be a fun battle.

So bear with me, ok :D

John
 
Top