Supply help please

[77NY]

So what happens with supply produced in Buffalo or the tip of Florida? Is its movement only drawn by the needs in a 5-region radius?

And which comes first, the pull or the push?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Chertio]

I also have the impression that a transport with a fleet at sea helps supply the fleet (as a wagon helps with land supplies). I don't know if this is general supply and ammo both, or whether 1 transport per shipping box or sea area will supply multiple fleets.

As I say, this is only a guess on my part.

[Heldenkaiser]

You can also break your force up into two or three stacks. I haven't looked at the file but if you have 250,000 troops in Alabama under Grant/Sherman/Sheridan, I don't see anything touching you, especially during the winter. The prohibition against dividing your forces only applies if you are in the face of superior enemy numbers, which seems extremely unlikely.

It's actually in five different regions right now. Only the most forward region in the center of the line, opposite Lee, is occupied by two corps. Grant, the two other corps, and the cavalry are each alone in their region.

[Major Tom]

So what happens with supply produced in Buffalo or the tip of Florida? Is its movement only drawn by the needs in a 5-region radius?

And which comes first, the pull or the push?

Pulling and pushing are part of the same action, not sequential. Basically, supply is a 2-step process:

1) Supply is distributed between structures (and wagons, though wagons only receive.)
2) Units pull supply from adjacent structures or wagons.

The revelation to me is that the demands of #2 have no influence on the resolution of #1, because #1 comes first.

The three "push" phases for supplies happen during step #1. Only after that is step #2 resolved.

Apparently, whether or not a structure pulls supplies, and how much, is dependent upon how much of a "magnet" the structure is. It's known that depots are the biggest magnets, and that the presence of troops in a region with a structure acts as a magnet. I would think this would also apply to units in a region in an adjacent structure, since they can draw supplies from that structure, but Pocus only referred to units in the same region as being magnets. If that's not the case, then I would assume that structures that are low on supply will pull more (but that hasn't been stated by Pocus) -- so if units pull supply out of a neighboring structure there's a good chance it will get refilled in step #1 on the following turn.

I believe I have that right. I'm still collating all of the Pocus quotes I've collected on the subject. In the aggregate, I think they'll give a pretty complete picture of how the system works, but not all of the nuances and variables.

[Banks6060]

Pulling and pushing are part of the same action, not sequential. Basically, supply is a 2-step process:

1) Supply is distributed between structures (and wagons, though wagons only receive.)
2) Units pull supply from adjacent structures or wagons.

The revelation to me is that the demands of #2 have no influence on the resolution of #1, because #1 comes first.

The three "push" phases for supplies happen during step #1. Only after that is step #2 resolved.

Apparently, whether or not a structure pulls supplies, and how much, is dependent upon how much of a "magnet" the structure is. It's known that depots are the biggest magnets, and that the presence of troops in a region with a structure acts as a magnet. I would think this would also apply to units in a region in an adjacent structure, since they can draw supplies from that structure, but Pocus only referred to units in the same region as being magnets. If that's not the case, then I would assume that structures that are low on supply will pull more (but that hasn't been stated by Pocus) -- so if units pull supply out of a neighboring structure there's a good chance it will get refilled in step #1 on the following turn.

I believe I have that right. I'm still collating all of the Pocus quotes I've collected on the subject. In the aggregate, I think they'll give a pretty complete picture of how the system works, but not all of the nuances and variables.

AH! MAGNETS! Good work Maj.! That's exactly the term I was looking for.

So no...troops by themselves...with NO supply wagons...will not attract ANY supply whatsoever. This is what I knew that I had such a hard time explaining.

Depots are the strongest magnets. With forts, harbors, towns, and supply wagons jumbled into the second tier.

Bravo man

[Major Tom]

I have completely rewrritten my supply distribution description in post #25 of this thread, here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=132957

I searched the forums for every Pocus post using any of the words "depot," "supply," or "wagon" and sorted through them to find info about supply distribution. Pocus really has posted a LOT of info on supply. I've merged it all together into a single document, A lot of it is Pocus word-for-word (I couldn't make up "equilibrated with an iterative approach" and it's too beautiful to re-word), a lot is my own re-working of his words and elaborating on some points, and papering over a few discrepencies. At the bottom of post 25 I list the links to the seven key threads with the information I used.

Once all of the quotes are pieced together, a remarkably clear picture emerges. We'll never know how all of the variables work together, but at least the underlying mechanism now seems clear.

Some of Pocus' info is already in the Wiki article on supply, but not all of it. After some time passes, if there are no more corrections, I'll see if I can edit this stuff into the Wiki.

Of course I still have a lot of questions, and given how much Pocus has written on the subject I don't expect any more from him, but maybe someone else has found the answers to these three?

1) Is the algorithm that determines where supplies are sent performed only once per turn, or is it, as I assume, computed from scratch before each of the three supply movement phases?

2) For supply via the Shipping Box, is a coastal depot treated the same as a harbor, and if so, what size equivalent harbor?

3) Units in the same region as a structure increase the "magnetism" of thestructure. Does this also work for units in a region adjacent to the structure? It seems like maybe it should, since the units can draw supplies from adjacent region to structure.

[Major Tom]

So what happens with supply produced in Buffalo or the tip of Florida? Is its movement only drawn by the needs in a 5-region radius?

That's why I asked question #1 in the post above. I'm guessing that the answer is yes, movement is only drawn by the needs that are within a 5 region radius (or less, with weather and terrain), and that this is computed separately for each of three supply "pushes."

It could be that it's computed just once, so it's looking at a 15-region radius, but that would seem to negate the need for a 3-phase process.

[77NY]

It could be that it's computed just once, so it's looking at a 15-region radius, but that would seem to negate the need for a 3-phase process.

If there is a default level of supply:

900/900 Depot
120/100 Lvl 2 city

Then the logic would (1) identify need and (2) identify potential sources to replenish. Step 2 is the interesting issue for me. Are "push forward" centers commanded to push even if that leaves them at less than default levels? Or only to the extent that they have a surplus? I'm guessing the latter because it would be silly to have random unsupplied cities in New York or the heart of Dixie.

What I really like about this setup is that it is decentralized. In a lot of strategic-level wargames, supply is presumed to originate in a single hub, usually the capitol. This model treats supply more organically, which is very nice. In fact, the model reminds me a bit of nutrients perfusing through cells.

What we're puzzling over is the nature of the "gradient" algorithm that drives the perfusion of supply in AACW -- is it like pressure or particle density gradients in living tissue or something else? How would the supply system perform if you take away all units? What kind of equilibrium would you get?

Interesting stuff (at least to a complete nerd like me!).

[Major Tom]

If there is a default level of supply...then the logic would (1) identify need and (2) identify potential sources to replenish. Step 2 is the interesting issue for me. Are "push forward" centers commanded to push even if that leaves them at less than default levels? Or only to the extent that they have a surplus? I'm guessing the latter because it would be silly to have random unsupplied cities in New York or the heart of Dixie.

Yes, an important question I neglected to add to my list of questions. My assumption is that you are right, and land-based supply works a lot like ocean supply, in which the game engine attempts to equalize the ratio of supply/harbor level for all ports. For the limiting factor, it seems to be implied that it's what Pocus described as the "ideal ratio" of 100 supply per 1 harbor size point. My guess is that this is not just an ideal but a limiting factor, and that a port won't push out supply that would drop its own stockpiles below that level. Pocus has said that structures will not empty themselves out, but will retain enough supply for their own needs.

It's more complicated for land movement but the principle is likely the same, as far as having an ideal ratio that the supply network will attempt to equalize (or "equilibrate" to use Pocus' word) across all structures, but instead of harbor size for the denominator, it's a number based on structure type and size, modified by the presence of and number of troops. Also complicating the matter is that for land supply the process is repeated three times. This isn't necessary for ocean supply because distance is not a limiting factor.

Or, it might be a completely different system. It just seems more likely that the same basic principle would be applied to both types of supply distribution.

I agree with you ... I find this stuff fascinating. I've only dug deeply intoa few of the game's many subsystems, but each one has turned out to be much deeper than first suspected, and with the tantalizing hint of even further depths just out of reach. The more I learn the more admire and respect the design of the game engine.

[Heldenkaiser]

Put your mouse pointer over a stack's supply icon in the unit screen. It will tell you how much supply it has, and how much it uses per turn.

Checked this ... but unless I am missing something, this does NOT tell me how much supply the stack is RECEIVING per turn. Only how much it has, how much it is using, and by implication how much it could stock (since it gives the current stock as a percentage and an absolute figure).

[Major Tom]

Checked this ... but unless I am missing something, this does NOT tell me how much supply the stack is RECEIVING per turn. Only how much it has, how much it is using, and by implication how much it could stock (since it gives the current stock as a percentage and an absolute figure).

Yes, the tooltip will show only your current stock and you usage per turn, not how much you are receiving. To see that you would have to compare the numbers over two turns: amount received = current supply+usage-previous supply

[Comtedemeighan]

Well I think your all wrong

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

+1

And its another reason why, even if it already is a done deal, that the role of Logistics is going to be cheapened by dumbing it down to make it less costly.

-1

Have you ever thought to keep raiding the USA supply lines... Cutting Rails, attacking depots when possible... etc. using Forrest and Morgan as was done historically? Or would you rather the game artificially limit depots by keeping them ahistorically ridiculously expensive to make up for a lack of aggressive raiding? You don't have to answer that, because I already know your answer.

If you read Civil War history, there were constant behind the lines Cavalry raids to do just that and it was pretty effective, one time forcing Grant to abandon an overland eastern side of the Mississippi River approach on Vicksburg. Logistics lines were cheap... It's the protection of them that's supposed to be expensive. You make them expensive by raiding them effectively forcing the USA player to constantly rebuild RRs and even the occasional insufficiently garrisoned depot that you can destroy.

[soundoff]

-1

Have you ever thought to keep raiding the USA supply lines... Cutting Rails, attacking depots when possible... etc. using Forrest and Morgan as was done historically? Or would you rather the game artificially limit depots by keeping them ahistorically ridiculously expensive to make up for a lack of aggressive raiding? You don't have to answer that, because I already know your answer.

If you read Civil War history, there were constant behind the lines Cavalry raids to do just that and it was pretty effective, one time forcing Grant to abandon an overland eastern side of the Mississippi River approach on Vicksburg. Logistics lines were cheap... It's the protection of them that's supposed to be expensive. You make them expensive by raiding them effectively forcing the USA player to constantly rebuild RRs and even the occasional insufficiently garrisoned depot that you can destroy.

Now excuse me Gray for getting slightly angry but if you already know my answer which you do then why pose the question to me?

Similarly forgive me for saying but you do tend to get concepts rather confused. Logistic lines as you so rightly put it have always been cheap (other than in manpower terms of protecting them) to maintain. Creating a Logistic depot though has ever been anything else other than expensive if its to be a permanent facility ....which I'd always supposed in AACW it was.....or have I got that wrong?

Edit note 1 PS I'm aware that we rub one another up the wrong way...but I would like to call a truce on the 'points scoring' by both of us.

Edit note 2 So angry given that I'd e-mailed you privately that I forgot to make sure what I was saying made sense. Have amended now so it reads as I'd intended.

Edit note 3 No it does not read as intended on reflection. You heavily imply that I want to make depots expensive to compensate for the lack of aggressive raiding. Now I'd be grateful Gray if you'd retract this comment as that has never been my position and for you to infer that it is .....quite frankly *******

I always heavily defend my depots (particularly as the Union) often with Division and more strength. Far and away beyond the usual call for a militia unit or two. Please lets not mix the two issues up. The cost of creating and maintaining a depot should have now't whatsoever to do with whether the enemy raid it.

[Gray_Lensman]

The only reply I'll give you here is that I gave you what I thought was some pretty good historical reasons and justifications concerning depots and supply lines. If you want to read more into that be my guest.

P.S. Don't bother emailing me with this type of attitude...

[soundoff]

Come back Rafiki soon

[Major Tom]

It might help if you learned all the game's interface functions before remarking about it's design. For instance, here's a screen shot taken with the supply filter enabled. (Please notice it's for the CSA side exclusively, so you should not have "missed out" on it).

Just for your benefit, I've included a more "transparent" notice by the appropriate button at the bottom left corner. (No, it's not permanent so you better remember it!)

[ATTACH]6277[/ATTACH]

By the way, No personal offense meant other than to defend the game design... I'll be the first one to admit that I've been surprised by things included in the game that I previously did not know existed either, even after 18 months of constant work on it.

Gray - no offense taken, but the supply filter is not what I had in mind. As far as I know, the supply filter only shows where supplies may theoretically pass based on military control, not where they are actually passing. It also usefully shows depot locations. I play more with this filter on than any other, including no filter.

Also, my comment was more wishful thinking than expectation. I do think a commander-in-chief ought to know where supply bottlenecks are occuring, but I realize that the abstracted nature of supply movement makes this a practical nightmare to implement, and maybe an impossibility. Go ahead and defend the game design, but I don't think it needs it -- I am in awe of it.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Heldenkaiser]

The supply filter actually shows relative amounts of supply that have accumulated at the various points. You can use this information thru consecutive turns to actually see your bottlenecks. Nothing theoretical about it. (It's a pictoral representation of where all you supply is currently at.)

But it's a static picture, per turn. Even comparing the situation over various turns (already way too complex for me, personally) would still give only a vague idea of what's going where on which path. If I only have one single supply line that guess may be more accurate than in a situation where supply could pass through many different paths to the final destination, but unless I am mistaken it's still a guess in any case.

Seeing instead where supply actually passes through (or passed through this turn)--which amounts, which actual path (no idea how a map filter could accomplish that)--is, I believe, what Major Tom had in mind.

[Jim-NC]

Would it be possible to have something like the Shift key for movement available for supply? When you have a stack choosen, you could tell where it could (note - not would) pull supply from. Maybe different colors for levels of supply (colors like green for enough supply, brown for partial supply, and red for no supply). I realize that I make this sound so simple (especially as I don't have to do the programing) And that actually doing may be a hugh undertaking.

[Major Tom]

I have completely rewrritten my supply distribution description in post #25 of this thread, here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=132957

I have updated the Wiki article on Supply based on my article in this thread at post #25.

Wiki page: http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/Supply

I've included pretty much everything, and I've added to the reference section links to every Pocus post regarding supply (the same reference list in my articel above).

[Generalisimo]

I have updated the Wiki article on Supply based on my article in this thread at post #25.

Wiki page: http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/Supply

I've included pretty much everything, and I've added to the reference section links to every Pocus post regarding supply (the same reference list in my articel above).

Great work!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

Nice work on the Supply article at the wiki, Major Tom

[Pocus]

Although everything said there is exact (and this is a great job!) there is perhaps something lacking emphasis:

Combat units don't receive supply directly. They augment the 'magnet' factor of a valid supply receiver, but they are not, by themselves.

Meaning that a small town with a lot of troops will call for many supply, but troops which don't have supply wagons and are not on a valid supply destination will receive nothing. Said otherwise, troops not with or adjacent to a structure or a wagon, will receive nothing and die from starvation.

[Major Tom]

Thanks, Pocus -

That's all in the article, but I think you are correct that with all the extra info the article became so long that this obvious and important point may be lost.

I've made some Wiki edits that should fix this -- I moved the "Effects of Supply" section from the bottom to the top of the page and made explicit the fact that units without supply will die. I also re-worked the "Supply Consumption" section to make it more obvious how consumption works. In the "Supply Distribution" section I added another line to reinforce the fact that troops do not act as supply magnets on their own.

Pocus - if you check back here, maybe you could answer these two questions:

1) For supply via the Shipping Box, is a coastal depot treated the same as a harbor, and if so, what size equivalent harbor?

2) Units in the same region as a structure increase the "magnetism" of the structure. Does this also work for units in a region adjacent to the structure? It seems like maybe it should, since the units can draw supplies from adjacent region to structure.

Thanks!

[Gray_Lensman]

Harbors and depots are 2 entirely different stuctures. Depots of course, pull in supply, but if in a coastal region without a harbor, they will not pull supply via the naval supply routines. You would need both.

[Major Tom]

Harbors and depots are 2 entirely different stuctures. Depots of course, pull in supply, but if in a coastal region without a harbor, they will not pull supply via the naval supply routines. You would need both.

Gray - here's the relevant quote from Pocus:

Supply by sea is completely different, done in another phase. Basically, you have a 10x your transport capacity in the Merchant box allowance. Ports with a lot of supply will then displace some of them to ports or coastal depots (even w/o ports) of the atlantic facade. (yes it is an english word too )