USA Naval Supply Capacity & A Bottleneck Somewhere

[Captain_Orso]

I've been playing around testing some things on patch level 1.15 and ran into an odd situation in which supply is not being delivered to Ft Jackson and Ft St Philip.

All the US naval transports located in the Atlantic Shipping Box comprise the naval supply pool. If you count up their total transport capacity it equals the the third line of Transports Assets & Capacity display at the top of the map divided by 10.

EG I have 20 transports in the Atlantic Shipping Box @ 20 transport capacity per transport = 400 transport capacity. The Transport Assets & Capacity display says "You have a naval supply capacity, allowing your blue-water naval forces to transport upt 4000 supplies and ammunitions (sic.) points over the seas."


So far, so good. The odd thing is that I've taken Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip at the mouth of the Mississippi and actually put a depot in each and the supply just seams to only trickle in like about 30 points per turn.



I also took Fort Pike and put and depot on it as soon as it was captured and it immediately had a supply stock of 58/122 the turn after the depot was built.


Anybody have an idea why Fort Jackson and Fort St Philip aren't drawing supplies?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

Good thinking! This sounds like the problems in RoP getting winter supply from Mother Russia to the captured ports at Memel and Konigsburg...

.... distance, winter travel speeds through the links, etc.....

[Captain_Orso]

I've read the Supply Primer and about everything that I could find about naval supply. There really isn't all that much information floating around on it; pun intended .

Attached is the turn from which the screen shots were taken. I have to amend that it is July '63 and at this time I've sent half of the Atlantic Shipping to New England for refitting, because I thought that the poor cohesion of the units might have been hampering the transfer of supply (winter was hard and there was a lot of cohesion loss and damage).

This was not the case, as after having cycled all of the Atlantic Shipping though port for refitting, once they were back on post and with good cohesion, nothing changed.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

I remember having precisely the same situation with Fort Jackson and Fort St Philip. I think the supply situation got much better when I parked a fleet in the mouth of the Mississippi. Been awhile; can't remember the details.

[Captain_Orso]

Hi Captain Lovejoy,

Many thanks for your reply.

I reloaded the game and tried that, but I saw no improvement. In fact it seemed that what little supply was arriving at Forts Jackson and St Philip was being soaked off by the transports in the fleet . After I moved the fleet out of the Mississippi Mouth again the trickle of supply again started 'pouring' into the forts and their supply depots meaning, no difference from before .

Only after New Orleans was taken did supply start arriving in more appropriate amounts. Since NO produces a rather large amount of supply itself and not all that much supply is arriving at Fort Pike that I could believe that the naval supply is cycling through Fort Pike to NO and then the MS forts, I believe that the supply arriving at the Mississippi forts is coming directly from NO and in no way though the naval supply pool , go fig.

[fusileer2002]

I had something similar in my last couple of pbem games as the Union. Depots and captured places on the Gulf coast received hardly any supply per turn despite having what i thought was a fairly strong naval supply pool. Places on the Atlantic coast didnt seem to suffer the same. Alas i dont have the save files from these games any more. Perhaps a supply chain of depots is required to reach that far round in a single 2 week turn?

[Captain_Orso]

Hi fusileer, many thanks for you answer.

I'll have to backup my scenario and try that. I'll put a depot in Fort Zackery and/or Johnson and see what happens.

[tagwyn]

Pocus: It seems as though the complications of this game (AACW) are somehow paralleled in reality requirements?! The more complicated, i.e. realistic, the game becomes its structures seek to mesh with reality? You have created a nightmare? L3

[Captain_Orso]

You have created a nightmare?

I think life creates the nightmare, Pocus just created the simulation of it.

All kidding aside, I re-ran the game with the bottle neck last night.

Situation From the outset of the war Fort Pickens supported the Gulf Blockade with supplies without any real issues. During stormy months it could occur that due to the Gulf Blockade Fleet taking an excessive number of hits, which are to a large part taken from transported supplies, the supplies needed for the blockade fleet went up drastically for a short period of time to the point where transport fleets docking in Fort Pickens started needing far longer than one or 2 turns to replenish their supplies. Outside of the stormy season, they generally only needed only about one turn. In many games I've played, once Forts Jackson & St Philip were taken and had depots and naval engineers deployed, they took over this duty without issue. But in most of those games, once they were taken, New Orleans was also taken within one to 3 months, which has shown proven to alleviate the issue of too little supply arriving at Forts Jackson & St Philip through naval supply completely.

In this game at the outset of the New Orleans expedition there were transports in the Atlantic Shipping Box with a transport capacity of 400, which equates to 4000 naval supply points for transportation per turn. At this time there were no other US held forts or US forces along the Atlantic coast, so I have no reason to believe that this pool of 4000 supply points could be going to anywhere but into the Gulf of Mexico. This is my general strategy and I cannot remember ever needing more. One other issue which might play a role is that in this game I made no expenditure for industrialization, so each turn I was receiving a message stating that my Atlantic Shipping was bringing so-n-so much War Supply and Money, generally about 30-40 each. The Gulf Blockade consisted of 6 blockade fleets and 4 doubled-up transport fleets, which means I took 8 normal 2-element transports fleets and combined them to 4 4-element fleet, each of which transport 240 of each general supply and ammunition.

The New Orleans Expeditionary Force consisted of two full divisions (18 elements) and a supply train, navel transports with capacity to transport them with enough left over for building a supply depot in each of the twin forts and Adm. Farragut's fleet which consisted of all of the oceanic units allotted the US at the beginning of the war and through events, with the exception of Palmer's fleet in the Atlantic Shipping Box. I did not buy any other shipping other than blockade fleets and oceanic transports.

During this expedition, once the twin forts had been taken, the expeditionary force in the twin forts quickly came into difficulties with supplies while recovering from cohesion loss. Supply points were dangling at around 30 each in the forts and seamed to need about 2 turns to even get to that. The expeditionary force, which was set to passive posture to recover their cohesion loss immediately was in distress with a lack of supplies. By the time they should have recovered their cohesion their supplies were so low that they stared taking man power hits in their regiments. So in this situation, although the they were under powered - down to two 5 element brigades plus the supply train - I sent them to capture Fort Pike, which they did. Once taken I immediately built a depot there which took on supplies up to about 80 supply points, but not much higher.

Having noted that the Atlantic Shipping Fleet had very poor cohesion due to the storms of the winter past, I wondered if this might be the cause of supplies only trickling into the twin forts. So I cycled them at about 1/3 at a time through Boston Harbor to bring them up to an acceptable level. During this cycling through port is when this testing starts.

Strategy My strategy was to treat naval supply more or less like land supply. Since Fort Pickens with a depot was able to support the gulf blockade with supplies, having lost Fort Pickens about the same time I took Forts Jackson, St Philip and Pike, I knew that supply could get at least as far as Fort Pickens without issue. I purposely did not take New Orleans, because I wanted to test how to get supplies onto the twin forts without having supplies being pushed from NO.

Results:

• Depot built in Fort Johnson (Florida Keys) - No change in the twin forts, Fort Johnson only filled to just above 60 supply, but Fort Zackery without depot was at about 100 - 120 I also noted that before building the depot in Fort Johnson, supply was at about 100 -120, but during its building is dropped to 63, as if the building of the depot itself was soaking off the supply, or the presence of the depot was putting a limit on the supply that can be stored in the fort.
  
• Took Fort Marion on the Florida coast and built a depot - again, no change in the twin forts, supply in Fort Marion was about 80 - 100 and stay there most of the game. Again, supply stored in the fort with depot dropped drastically from what was there at the beginning of building the depot. Here the change was very notable, because when Fort Marion was taken it had about 350 supply points in it. What's happening to these supply points?
  
• Took Fort Macon, NC and built a depot - again, no change in the twin forts, supply in Fort Macon at about 130 and stayed there for most of the game. As with Fort Marion, the supplies in the fort evaporate when the depot is built, only this time the supply points at the beginning of building is about 650(!!).
  
• Built a depot in Fort Zackery - again, no change in the twin forts, supply in Fort Zackery dropped from about 120 before building the depot to about 80 after and stayed there for most of the game. What I find odd, is that from what I can see, Forts Zackery (on the right) and Johnson (on the left) are identical, but Zackery always had more supply than Johnson, as if being that little bit closer to the Atlantic was making for a difference of 20 supply points or having being built later gave it a higher high-water-mark for supplies.
  
• Increased the Atlantic Shipping to almost 8000 supply points - again no change in the twin forts in regard to how much supply they are holding, but it seams that naval units in them are picking up supplies quicker, as if their presence was triggering the delivery of more supplies. This sounds very similar to land supply. The major difference being that in a level 1 city with a level 1 supply depot, you can accumulate easily over 1000 supply points. In the coastal forts that I've mentioned there seamed to be a limit on the amount of supplies that can be stored. This seams very odd to me because in all my previous games, once NO has been taken, the twin forts were storing about 250 supply points each, which doesn't sound logical to me.
  
• Took Forts Morgan and Gaines - again no change in the supply limits in the twin forts, but fleets resupplying in all the gulf forts seam to refill much quicker.
  
• Took Fort Pickens back - again no change to the supply limits in the twin forts, but as with Forts Morgan and Gaines, fleets seam to replenish yet quicker.

(*) I have to go back on my statements from above, in that during the last three steps above all the gulf forts stared storing a little bit more supply. In the twin forts it went up to about 80 points each, which still seams very low to me.

Here is where I stopped testing. It seams that there was nothing I could do to raise the limit on how much supply is stored in the twin forts. During all this testing there was constantly a lot of activity of transports in the Gulf Blockade Box sending transports to one or more of the forts with depots for replenishing plus invasion fleets and forces being active in the gulf. This last situation will certainly use up some amount of supply reaching the Gulf, but all the units in and around the Gulf of Mexico just don't equate to the 4000 and more supply points which should be able to reach the Gulf through the naval supply pool.

I am stumped. As I previously stated, this is the only game in which I did not take NO, which changes everything, so I have no other experience with this situation, nor can I find any explanation for this behavior in the rules or the forum.

If you've read this far, my hat off to you and my thanks for your patience and interest. Any comments are very welcome.

[Jim-NC]

I have some information that is helpful. It appears that each structure has certain hard coded limits for supply. I did some testing with your game, and found the following:

Ft. Pike holds at 84 GS points. It generates 16 per turn, and consumes 22 (grabs 6 points from Atlantic shipping).
Ft St. Philip/Jackson hold at 0 GS points. They generate 32 pionts, and consume 18 points (they fill the transport each turn with 14 excess points or add to their supply level)

Fts Zackary/Jefferson hold around 60 total points. They generate 18 points, and consume 12 .

These appear to be hard coded in the game at the current situation.

Now for the fun part. Send everyone in New York City to Berwick LA, and build a Depot. As the union, Berwick prvoides +5 GS. My forces consumed 32 points per turn. After the depot is built, check the supply situation. After 1 turn, Berwick sits at 76 points (It pulled 100 points from the Atlantic fleet). The next turn, it sat at 76 points, but the transport in Ft. Jackson moved up by 40 points (14 from above, and 26 from Berwick which meant that Berwick was grabbing 58 points).

Then I moved Hooker's corps to Ft. Zackery (in the Keys) and built a depot. Hooker was consuming 134 points a turn, but the fort increased by over 100 points on top of that. So it was grabbing over 200 points. Then I moved the Gulf fleet to Berwick, and then Berwick grabbed over 90 points a turn.


Bottom line - the size force seems to determine how much supply is added to the supply source. Forts with depots seem to not be able to grab as much as a town with a depot. And they appears to be limits to how much a fort/town will hold (unless there is a large local source of supply). Higher amounts of supply can flow through a supply source, but the end result appears to hold at a given level. For example, FT. Pike held at 84 GS points for over 5 turns (grabbing 6 points from the Atlantic fleet), which was it's limit at the time (with 22 points being consumed). Berwick LA held at 76 for 5 turns, with over 25 points being grabbed (with 32 points being consumed). But when I moved the gulf fleet, the level went up (after the initial turn), as did the amount being grabbed from the Atlantic.

[Jim-NC]

I think life creates the nightmare, Pocus just created the simulation of it.

All kidding aside, I re-ran the game with the bottle neck last night.


[*]Took Fort Marion on the Florida coast and built a depot - again, no change in the twin forts, supply in Fort Marion was about 80 - 100 and stay there most of the game. Again, supply stored in the fort with depot dropped drastically from what was there at the beginning of building the depot. Here the change was very notable, because when Fort Marion was taken it had about 350 supply points in it. What's happening to these supply points?

[*]Took Fort Macon, NC and built a depot - again, no change in the twin forts, supply in Fort Macon at about 130 and stayed there for most of the game. As with Fort Marion, the supplies in the fort evaporate when the depot is built, only this time the supply points at the beginning of building is about 650(!!).

[*]Built a depot in Fort Zackery - again, no change in the twin forts, supply in Fort Zackery dropped from about 120 before building the depot to about 80 after and stayed there for most of the game. What I find odd, is that from what I can see, Forts Zackery (on the right) and Johnson (on the left) are identical, but Zackery always had more supply than Johnson, as if being that little bit closer to the Atlantic was making for a difference of 20 supply points or having being built later gave it a higher high-water-mark for supplies.

It appears, that until there is a higher level of supply somewhere else, then the forts won't increase too much. They stay at 0 for several turns as the transport fleet pulls the excess. I found that you needed a large force to get large amounts of supply into the gulf (Hooker's corps which required 134 points per turn was able to increase a fort to 196 per turn and hold it there).

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Incidentally, supply is not just piled up in a forward area... You have to have something there that uses it to some extent to draw it in. Depots just help to draw it in and are not storage magnets in and of themselves.

That's what I was thinking, but he did say that any force he put in the forts had alot of trouble staying supplied and even started starving. As long as they had some supply wagons with them, it still sounds like something is wrong.

[Captain_Orso]

Incidentally, supply is not just piled up in a forward area... You have to have something there that uses it to some extent to draw it in. Depots just help to draw it in and are not storage magnets in and of themselves.

That's what I was thinking, but he did say that any force he put in the forts had alot of trouble staying supplied and even started starving. As long as they had some supply wagons with them, it still sounds like something is wrong.

Yes, you are both very correct and have brought my thoughts back on track.

Yes, the very first indicator of an issue was having the two divisions plus one supply train in Fort Jackson and having them starve. Additionally putting a 4-element transport squadron (240 each of GS + Ammo) with 0 GS alone in either of the forts was taking more than 4 turns to replenish the transport squadron.

During testing I noted this issue but lost track of it's significance I'll have to restart my test game and pay more attention to units in the forts replenishing their supply. But in the last test this issue with the transports taking more than one turn to replenish their supply was occurring in all the forts I held in the Gulf of Mexico from Zackery to Jackson.

In glaring contrast I have a game going in the early stages in which I have in Fort Pickens the standard issue troops (a 3 regiment garrison, 1 fort battery, 1 coastal artillery, plus a depot and a naval engineer). Since transport squadrons are constantly cycling through the harbor there is no way to see what the stored supplies would be without under supplied units to draw more in, but sending a 4-element transport squadron with 0 GS in will have it completely resupplied the turn after arriving so that they can immediately return to the Blockade Box.

You've got to love this game. It does so keep you on your toes

[Carrington]

Bottom line - the size force seems to determine how much supply is added to the supply source. Forts with depots seem to not be able to grab as much as a town with a depot. And they appears to be limits to how much a fort/town will hold (unless there is a large local source of supply). Higher amounts of supply can flow through a supply source, but the end result appears to hold at a given level. For example, FT. Pike held at 84 GS points for over 5 turns (grabbing 6 points from the Atlantic fleet), which was it's limit at the time (with 22 points being consumed). Berwick LA held at 76 for 5 turns, with over 25 points being grabbed (with 32 points being consumed). But when I moved the gulf fleet, the level went up (after the initial turn), as did the amount being grabbed from the Atlantic.

The odd thing is that this problem doesn't seem to hold for Atlantic forts: I recently took the NC coastal forts, put depots on them, and have a huge stack of supply sitting on them, perhaps because they are being resupplied from Ft. Monroe?

I seem to remember these huge stacks of supply were also a feature of Gulf forts with Depots: Pickens and the FL keys, back around 1.09.

[GraniteStater]

Far from your guys' level of knowledge, but Pocus mentioned that Depots are not supply 'magnets'.

I regard Wagons and Transports as being 'magnets'. I was running a US62 start recently and lost elements in the Sea Islands in SC with Burnside & Co. I did end up building a depot, but, to ensure supply, I would recommend parking Transports at desired places as well.

If it's theortical overkill or somehow unnecessary...meh. I do things like that as an ad hoc solution, without much experimentation or number crunching.

According to my understanding, parking Transports and Wagons at desired points should work, even if it's only a temporary fix. AFAIK, though, it should work.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GraniteStater]

Thx for the compliment, GL. I do believe it was an older observation in some post, somewhere, prolly in the Supply discussions a year ago, that structured my outlook.

Even in recent games, I've had the aforementioned supply problem in Beaufort, SC and even in Pennsylvania - didn't have a Wagon with the stack.

Wagons and Transports seem to act as magnets. I rarely build Depots as the US; most I capture. Depots on the Southern coast are a good idea. New Orleans doesn't need one. Incidentally, Industrializing Louisiana is not a bad idea for the US - it's a Money generator.

River Transports, AFAIK, will act as a supply magnet and dispenser of same even when just moored in the river next to your bridgehead - but I usually try to establish a riverine port as my logistical connection. Ocean TPs need to be in the port, I believe.

N. B.: Harbors might qualify per above remarks, but I don't know, and thus concentrate on "Ports" - i. e., Cities with a decent Harbor.

[Captain_Orso]

While it is true that depots in themselves are not supply magnets it does not explain why when a supply train or transport is in the depot location (one of the twin forts) that supply still just trickles in (in the situation previously mentioned).

From testing and having a number of forts from the North Carolina coast down to the twin forts and noting that the further down the coast they were the fewer supplies they had, I believe that the entire naval supply system works much like land supply. The further from a supply source the less supply arrives. And this also being affected by poor weather in the winter months and possibly also by raiders in the shipping box interfering with supply transportation.

At this point I will have to assume that during the pre-invasion of Louisiana months enough supply for just the Gulf Blockade can be sent into the Gulf of Mexico and that once the invasion forces arrive they soak up so much supply themselves that little is left to replenish the depots in the twin forts or elsewhere in the Gulf. IIRC oceanic transports do attract supply be they in port or coastal waters.

Unfortunately there does not seam to be any method of building a line of depots along coastal regions to increase the amount of supply reaching the Gulf. I guess the coastal depots follow the land supply rules and do not take naval transport capacity into account for pushing supply along the sea lanes.

[Carrington]

Testing ongoing, but I'm not finding that the Gulf supply situation is helped by 'transport magnets.'

I'm thinking that there was a change in the code (between 1.09 and 1.16) that may have inadvertently (or WAI) restricted supply to the Gulf Coast.

[Jim-NC]

While it is true that depots in themselves are not supply magnets it does not explain why when a supply train or transport is in the depot location (one of the twin forts) that supply still just trickles in (in the situation previously mentioned).

From testing and having a number of forts from the North Carolina coast down to the twin forts and noting that the further down the coast they were the fewer supplies they had, I believe that the entire naval supply system works much like land supply. The further from a supply source the less supply arrives. And this also being affected by poor weather in the winter months and possibly also by raiders in the shipping box interfering with supply transportation.

At this point I will have to assume that during the pre-invasion of Louisiana months enough supply for just the Gulf Blockade can be sent into the Gulf of Mexico and that once the invasion forces arrive they soak up so much supply themselves that little is left to replenish the depots in the twin forts or elsewhere in the Gulf. IIRC oceanic transports do attract supply be they in port or coastal waters.

Unfortunately there does not seam to be any method of building a line of depots along coastal regions to increase the amount of supply reaching the Gulf. I guess the coastal depots follow the land supply rules and do not take naval transport capacity into account for pushing supply along the sea lanes.

In your game, I found that building a depot with a large sized force in the Florida Keys helped to push along supply. It appears to me that a large force in 1 of the forts pulls supply from up north, and stores it, allowing excess to be pushed along to the gulf. It did not help the Gulf forts to "grab" extra supply, it only seemed to help the port or Berwick (see my original post). After there was excess in Berwick, then were the forts able to significantly increase their supply stocks. So there is something about the forts, and the amount of supply they can "grab"/store even with a large force in them.

[Pocus]

Naval supply is not a function of distance. The code works like that: harbors with excess of supply are able to give them to harbors or depots in coastal regions, if there is a lack. The Naval Supply Pool is simply the max allowance is such reshuffling, and is x10 the transport capacity of the ships in the OMBs.

[Captain_Orso]

Hi Jim,

My brain is starting to give off smoke

In the real world depots are installations for storing large amounts of supply for redistribution to other locations. The amount of what is stored depends upon what has been reported as necessary by the organizations being serviced.

In-game they work much the same way with the exception that the organizations do not actively (from the player's stand point [thank goodness]) make requests for supply. That happens in the supply phase of the game at or near the beginning of each turn.

So land units 'report' that they need X amount of which supply which (and this is where my knowledge drops off) is then pulled from the closest supply source (supply train/ships, depots, cities). However the descriptions of supply distribution often speaks of 'pushing' supplies from one location with supplies to the next. I am guessing that locations with or without depots that seam to accumulate large amounts of supply do so coincidentally because more supply is being 'pushed' through them than is being received by the military units actually 'requesting' that supply. This I assume is how the supply-algorithm works.

Example of how my understanding of supply distribution works:
X is a unit with a supply train of 4 elements. The supply train can carry 80 each GS (General Supply) and Ammo (Ammunition Supply) and 'requests' what it lacks each turn from the closest supply source(s?) (I can't remember ever hearing if supply is pushed/pulled from more than one location to a single unit). X uses 10 GS per turn and can inherently carry 20 GS itself.
C is a depot in the field one region distanced from X.
B is a level 1 city with a depot 3 regions distanced from C and 4 regions distanced from X.
A is a level 5 city which produces each 500 GS and Ammo. It is 3 regions distanced from B, 6 regions distanced from A and 7 regions distanced from X.
A and B are connected by a rail-line of the same length as their distance from each other.

At the beginning of the supply phase on day one of each turn (see the AGE-Wiki/Supply link below) X uses 10 GS and thus is 10 GS down from it's full-supply. This is taken from the supply train in it's stack. Now the supply train is lacking 10 GS. This is 'requested' from the depot in C.
C pushes or X(supply train) pulls 10 GS from the depot in C.
C, because it is having supply 'pulled' from it, 'requests' not 10 but 30 GS from B. (I'm really just guessing at this value, because I've never even tried to figure it out, but it seams to me that locations in the supply-chain are always getting a much larger amount of supply than being consumed at the end-unit(s)).
B, now down 30 GS, 'requests' not 30 GS but 90 GS from A, which is then 'pulled' to B.
A now has 410 GS left from what it produces each turn. Whether any of this is also 'pushed' along to B and C I have no idea.

However, if in my theoretical example above, supply is only 'pulled' in the amount needed by the end-units, then the rest of the supply in the supply-chain being built-up in each location in supply-chain (my observations) must be being 'pushed' there by that location 'remembering' that supply was being 'pulled' through that location, thus allowing more supply to be transported into and through all locations in the supply-chain than actually used by the end-units.

Jim, carrying this example of land-supply over to naval-supply, this would pretty much explain how your observations come about, with regards to supply being accumulated in forts with depots where units are present.

But in Gray's Supply Primer and in the AGE-Wiki/Supply
it is also described that locations with limited supply capacity (how much they can contain I am assuming, as it is not really spelled out) will not allow more supply to be 'pushed'/'pulled' though it per 'push'/'pull' iteration; thus a bottle-neck is in the supply-chain. Here it is also described that this bottle-neck can be eliminated by building a depot in locations with limited capacity.

So what is the supply-chain using naval-supply? My assumption is, from major cities with large supply-stockpiles and large harbors adjacent to a coastal region (New York, Boston) to the Atlantic Shipping Box to a Fort or City-Harbor with or without a depot also adjacent to a coastal region. It doesn't appear to me that it is possible to build a chain of forts or cities along the coast which would work as a supply chain. Each is either a supply source or a supply consumer and only transport supply inland but not to the next fort or city along the coast.

How far supply is transported is also described in the above links, but only for land supply. Naval supply is ignored in these sources. But from my observations the same. That is, the number of ticks for supply to reach a locations is calculated referencing weather and other factors to see whether a supply chain exists. There must also be some factor about how much supply is transported, because the descriptions only describe the chain as being completed or not, but not that supply transportation is being slowed or hampered by adverse affects.

From all my readings and experience, the bottle-necks I've experiences in the Gulf of Mexico occur because of bad weather, and an increase in supply usage in the area. Why the affects are sometimes so grave or don't seam to dissipate during seasonal good weather is beyond my experience or understanding. Maybe as Carrington suggests, something changed at some time in the coding which reduced the actual naval-supply-capacity over larger distances, but I just don't know.

[Carrington]

Naval supply is not a function of distance. The code works like that: harbors with excess of supply are able to give them to harbors or depots in coastal regions, if there is a lack. The Naval Supply Pool is simply the max allowance is such reshuffling, and is x10 the transport capacity of the ships in the OMBs.

Humm. This sounds like we're back to the original question, which is 'has there been a bottleneck introduced somewhere?' or is it WAI that Union Gulf Depots receive much less supply than Depots on the Atlantic coast.

[Jim-NC]

Captain Orso,

At least we can agree that we don't really understand the ocean supply. I did see Ft. Zachary (in the keys) get large amounts of supply when a Corps was placed there (I placed Hooker's corps after the depot was built). Berwick was able to pull enough supply after being taken, but the forts at the Mississippi mouth pulled almost no extra supply.

So I can't answer your question (after all that).

Carrington,
I am not sure if this is a new issue. Heldenkaiser was asking a similar question in 1.10 a while ago. He had an army starving to death in Alabama/Mississippi after a naval invasion. See the attachment: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=13316&highlight=supply I don't believe we were never able to really help him out. It appears that since at least 1.10 there has been some bottle neck somewhere in regards to the gulf and ocean supply. I would guess that most Union players never see it, as they take New Orleans or Mobile, significantly easing their supply problems. I know that when I play the union, I generally only raid along the coast, and attempt to drive south with my main armies (I have never attempted to land more than 2 division along the coast in a game - except at New Orleans, and so have never found the problem).

[GraniteStater]

Start an 1862 US game and do nothing for Burnside in Beaufort, SC. You'll see "the problem".

Look, when I'm pushing South, in the continental interior, I grab every town with cannonballs that I see. Never mind naval bottlenecks - got a stack that's low on supply? Near a Reb supply point? Take it! Supply sources are, as we all know, "Any town or city, fort, depot, or Wagon/TP". Towns of Level One or Two never request supply.

IOW, the US must actively bring TPs to Beaufort, keep the landing force in bacon and make active attempts to seize Savannah or Charleston, because they are Level 3+ Towns.

Start to see the picture? Yes, you are gonna have to seize something that can request beaucoup Supply, or actively support your beachhead.

WAD, IMHO. Good job. You see the same thing in interior campaigns - yes, you will die in Missouri or even Pennsylvania if you don't bring a Wagon for that PWR 210 stack.

[Carrington]

Captain Orso,

At least we can agree that we don't really understand the ocean supply. I did see Ft. Zachary (in the keys) get large amounts of supply when a Corps was placed there (I placed Hooker's corps after the depot was built). Berwick was able to pull enough supply after being taken, but the forts at the Mississippi mouth pulled almost no extra supply.

So I can't answer your question (after all that).

Carrington,
I am not sure if this is a new issue. Heldenkaiser was asking a similar question in 1.10 a while ago. He had an army starving to death in Alabama/Mississippi after a naval invasion. See the attachment: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=13316&highlight=supply I don't believe we were never able to really help him out. It appears that since at least 1.10 there has been some bottle neck somewhere in regards to the gulf and ocean supply. I would guess that most Union players never see it, as they take New Orleans or Mobile, significantly easing their supply problems. I know that when I play the union, I generally only raid along the coast, and attempt to drive south with my main armies (I have never attempted to land more than 2 division along the coast in a game - except at New Orleans, and so have never found the problem).

FWIW, I've played the my last two games using a Corbettian or Periclean strategy. Needless to say, sea logistics matter rather more. In my last game, this strategy led to a stinging defeat as my attack on New Orleans became a siege.

That would match my experience: Union Gulf Depots such as they Keys forts stopped receiving significant sea supply sometime after 1.09. This is surprising given what Pocus has said about sea supply (and given my experience that Atlantic Coast Depots in forts do seem to receive supply).

Now there is another interesting possibility, which is that my Depots on the Carolina islands are being supplied by riverine via shallow water (and around my opponent's fortress at Norfolk).

Start an 1862 US game and do nothing for Burnside in Beaufort, SC. You'll see "the problem".

Look, when I'm pushing South, in the continental interior, I grab every town with cannonballs that I see. Never mind naval bottlenecks - got a stack that's low on supply? Near a Reb supply point? Take it! Supply sources are, as we all know, "Any town or city, fort, depot, or Wagon/TP". Towns of Level One or Two never request supply.

IOW, the US must actively bring TPs to Beaufort, keep the landing force in bacon and make active attempts to seize Savannah or Charleston, because they are Level 3+ Towns.

Start to see the picture? Yes, you are gonna have to seize something that can request beaucoup Supply, or actively support your beachhead.

WAD, IMHO. Good job. You see the same thing in interior campaigns - yes, you will die in Missouri or even Pennsylvania if you don't bring a Wagon for that PWR 210 stack.

GS, thanks for your post. Just three points to make in response:

1) I think our opinions differ on the design issue -- I'd argue that amphibious campaigns and land campaigns are fundamentally different logistically, and need not behave in the same way. Whatever the best outcome of our design debate. I think the existing documentation -- and pocus' recent post -- supports this interpretation, so NWAD.

2) On land there's a third way to avoid supply attrition, which is to build a chain of depots within 2-3 spaces of each other across (e.g.) Missouri and Penna, or into Tenn and Alabama.

3) If sea supply is not range-constrained, then it is constrained by something else. From what I read, I'm guessing the constraint is harbor size, which would be a reasonable design decision. But then, per above, I'm confused by the mounds of supply building up on the Carolina Coast. I'm speculating above that this supply may be being distributed by riverine, in which case it's interesting that riverine supply is not restricted by harbor size.

Perhaps these are picayune details, but such details take on added significance when the Confederacy has a human brain.

[GraniteStater]

All I know is that if I am in doubt about Supply somewhere, I address the issue. I said "WAD" largely from a modeling viewpoint.

It is December in the Pennsylvania mountains and you will die without a Wagon, 'cuz you're not near a supply source (no Level 3 City or not in a smaller Town with Supply; nor a Fort; nor a Depot). WAD. Bring your food with you, ninny.

You are General Burnside in April of 1862 and the beachhead is going to be wiped out 'cuz the War Dept. hasn't sent you a rasher of bacon or any ammo for six weeks. WAD. Give landings plenty of support.

I land 100,000 men, horses, artillery and auxiliaries in Mobile and eventually have problems keeping a quarter million supplied in the Deep South. Build lotsa TPs and Wagons for a war winning invasion, General - you're gonna need 'em. WAD, IMHO. 1863 is not 1943; the best you can do is moor large vessels and unload at a proper dock or take forever with lighters and skiffs.

Thus an amphibious operation must first seize a major City on the littoral to support operations. Same for riverine attacks. Same for any "Marches to the Sea" or similar plan. Major thrusts need to be supported.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

All I know is that if I am in doubt about Supply somewhere, I address the issue. I said "WAD" largely from a modeling viewpoint.

It is December in the Pennsylvania mountains and you will die without a Wagon, 'cuz you're not near a supply source (no Level 3 City or not in a smaller Town with Supply; nor a Fort; nor a Depot). WAD. Bring your food with you, ninny.

You are General Burnside in April of 1862 and the beachhead is going to be wiped out 'cuz the War Dept. hasn't sent you a rasher of bacon or any ammo for six weeks. WAD. Give landings plenty of support.

I land 100,000 men, horses, artillery and auxiliaries in Mobile and eventually have problems keeping a quarter million supplied in the Deep South. Build lotsa TPs and Wagons for a war winning invasion, General - you're gonna need 'em. WAD, IMHO. 1863 is not 1943; the best you can do is moor large vessels and unload at a proper dock or take forever with lighters and skiffs.

Thus an amphibious operation must first seize a major City on the littoral to support operations. Same for riverine attacks. Same for any "Marches to the Sea" or similar plan. Major thrusts need to be supported.

This is my interpretation. The problem only manifests itself when tring to support an army out of a gulf fort? Supporting a large army in an area with no supply production (ie forts) would be extremely difficult. Being 1000's of miles from any other friendly force or supply makes things different than being on a railhead 50 miles from Washington. Forcing the player to provide manual supply seems like a reasonable answer to this problem.