Jump to content

Have movement logistics changed for Global?


Recommended Posts

In a moment of realization, after months of contemplation, I found what it was that made me feel something was going on in SC2 and WW. Here I'll state the issue and ask if it exists in Global (GC).

It's the movement parameters of Movement versus Strategic/Operational Movement. Moving units, air, land and naval in Strategic mode should be the least expensive if not close to free. Units moving via ship and rail road are the most economical means by which to move units and all stuff for that matter.

Least amount of fuel and other assets are needed for Strategic Movement.

Load em up and off they go, the passengers sit in rest for the journey.

It is when units are in the field of operations and combat that all the resources and supplies are sucked up.

i.e. panzers running out of diesel, ammo, oil.

then there is the great strategic planning the IJN had to make time and time again when planning and executing naval operations because of the fuel shortages.

The Russians even managed to rail heavy industries via rail to beyond the Urals, a great feat buy by rail it was economical at every level of consideration.

A critical key for the German advantages in the early part of the war was their Infrastructure. A much improved infrastructure from W.W.1 with the creation of their strategic highway called the autobahn. With a concentric industry, rail and highway network the German military had this as a Strategic Logistical Superiority over all of europe and the world. That coupled with mechanized forces, well trained, equipped military...they were the greatest Military - Industrial Complex in the world.

So? For our SC2 and WaW then, the movement points as they are are upside down. Units should be burning resources (fuel, supplies, food etc.) when moving normally. What schedule of consumption? I do not know...

But that is the issue and the question.

Does Global Conflict use the old movement parameters or has it changed to reflect real world Logistics?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair question (but lousy name, if i may say).

Movement is expressed by the reduction of readiness. And morale.

It is not so much in mmp measurements. I think it works. So that there is less of all of this overcalculation.

Just because a unit is at ten, does not mean it's a good ten. Might be weak, not entrenched, not supplied, not rested. The numbers seem to measure out.

So, to my mind, it's not upside down at all. But that's only to my mind, which is odd

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if you decided to have moving cost money it would be more realistic and in theory great. but if they did that they would have to rescipt every thing and that takes a long time. but if they did do something like that they sould add a resource called "oil or gas" and it would use that resource not money

The only time Points (mps) are spent for movement is when executing Strategic Movement. There is no expense for normal/battle movement. Hence, the exclamation that movement costs are upside down here.

Re: the challenges faced by the IJ Navy strategy and the late war panzers stalled because of lack of fuel (mmps).

The SC engine already incorporates fuel, supply, build, refit, movement in the Build and R&D schedules. That is one reason, I assume, why new ships cost as much as they do to build.

An illustration would be to allow all strategic moves to be free and those of Corps and support units. Armies, Tank Groups, air craft carriers and air units would face the ticking meter of burning mps for their movements and combat operations...for argument sake...one (at least) mp per move and or battle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A critical key for the German advantages in the early part of the war was their Infrastructure. A much improved infrastructure from W.W.1 with the creation of their strategic highway called the autobahn. With a concentric industry, rail and highway network the German military had this as a Strategic Logistical Superiority over all of europe and the world.

I would say the "Autobahn" is a sort of idealized after war AngloAmerican view. in fact the most part of almost EVERY movement was on the back of Horses (!) and Rail ( Reichsbahn ) fueled by Coal (!).

These two arguments show that there are worlds between the way Axis Logistics worked versus Allied ( "swimming" in Oil ) As both approaches for the simple Logisitcs worked fine it is quite difficult to simulate this.

i.e. Would one say: ok, to give the BB Tirpitz 9 Mouvement points Germany needs MPP extracted from "Mines" while for USA to move the CV Enterprise needs MPP extracted from "Oil"... not easy the approach, specially as this goes into Tactical and Micromanagement

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say the "Autobahn" is a sort of idealized after war AngloAmerican view. in fact the most part of almost EVERY movement was on the back of Horses (!) and Rail ( Reichsbahn ) fueled by Coal (!).

These two arguments show that there are worlds between the way Axis Logistics worked versus Allied ( "swimming" in Oil ) As both approaches for the simple Logisitcs worked fine it is quite difficult to simulate this.

i.e. Would one say: ok, to give the BB Tirpitz 9 Mouvement points Germany needs MPP extracted from "Mines" while for USA to move the CV Enterprise needs MPP extracted from "Oil"... not easy the approach, specially as this goes into Tactical and Micromanagement

Tirpitz & coal is one of the worst examples you could choose from, as this BB didn't used coal (maybe for a stove in the kitchen, but not as "fuel").

The Autobahn and the German rail system worked good for the 3rd Reich.

When fighting neighbors. But are not very helpful in the USSR with her different rail gauge width and NO autobahn / highway system at all, but way to many dirt roads, which turns to mud after rain. Most of the Wehrmacht marched per pedes into Russia and all the way back.

quote wikipedia:

"...The Heer entered the war with a minority of its formations motorized; infantry remained approximately 90% foot-borne throughout the war, and artillery primarily horse-drawn. The motorized formations received much attention in the world press in the opening years of the war, and were cited as the reason for the success of the German invasions of Poland (September 1939), Norway and Denmark (April 1940), Belgium, France and Netherlands (May 1940), Yugoslavia (April 1941) and the early campaigns in the Soviet Union (June 1941)...."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imho if fuel(oil)is added into the game and has the effct it really did then the Axis are going to be in VERY big trouble.The Allies GROSSLY outproduced them.Japan would be in the most trouble.The oil they did capture they couldnt get alot of the benefits because they hadnt near the shipping to move the oil back to Japan to refine it.They also didnt have near enough refinerys even if they did manage to have the tankers to move the oil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tirpitz & coal is one of the worst examples you could choose from, as this BB didn't used coal (maybe for a stove in the kitchen, but not as "fuel").

Yes, sorry this one was "new". But While Coal fas not "hip" at this time for Warships there where still the most Axis CR and BB's using Coal. ( if i Remember well the whoole Hipper Class etc ) For the Importance of RailRoad with Coal Fueled SteamEngines:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=145161

the links inside are also very interisting, stating that i.e. German Railconversions from Normal to Wide Gauge where 80 Miles in 8 Hours (!).

In total one can say that with exeption of Airfleets and Tank Battlefield Operations the barbone of the Transport was Coal-Stam-Locomotives, mentionning that Germany was almost easy Autosufficient in Coal.

For Japanese Oil and Capacities, it is interisting to Mention that in Manchuko

was extracted 1.000.000t Oil (!) in 41.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Manchukuo

Anyhow: The main Argument is that Each Civilization used "its" Logistic Energy provider: Allies mostly Oil, Axis mostly Coal. And this is a little complicated to emulate.

For the Highways: The Network was quite unfinished i 39, and did not proceed much further due to other primary goals. see:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Autobahnnetz_1934.jpg

as said this is an afterwar idealization.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a new version or patch for SC2 and/or WaW I'm not aware of?

My game requires the expenditure of points for Operational Movement.

("No one here seems to be playing the same game version I have?")

That is why I said that the schedule for paying points for Operational Movement and not for normal/combat movement was "upside down".

Logistically, and logic seems elusive...Operational Movement i.e. railroads and ship transport is the most economical in comparison to normal/battle movement in the real world. I doesn't matter if the trains are running on coal, oil or electricity. Moving a division by rail is cheap and fast compared to moving cross country on roads and off roads and having to supply the men, horses, trucks. Either way Readiness is sacrificed, but that's not the point.

I suggested that the strategic costs be removed and a simple schedule (of those same nation resource points pool) be spent on normal movement.

How to assign those costs, that is which units consume what amount of mps is the next decisive step.

Or! Why not have a Locomotive pop up at a city when a player wants to use rail transport. Similar to Sea Transport. And allow the travelling unit to freely transfer to a ship when it arrives at a port city via rail movement...hmmm. Makes a target rich train, ehh? Realistic use of air for rail interdiction...Yes, that just came to me...

But the fundamental correction to paying for Operational Movement ought to be eliminated. Normal movement should have the burden of being paid for in Production Points (mmp's). That shouldn't be a monster task and would be more realistic which would result in a benefit to the Production Pools for the Axis and USSR. i.e. The allies land in France, the Axis player needs to use Operational movement for seven units in Russia. The cost will be well over 100 Production Points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, sorry this one was "new". But While Coal fas not "hip" at this time for Warships there where still the most Axis CR and BB's using Coal. ( if i Remember well the whoole Hipper Class etc ) For the Importance of RailRoad with Coal Fueled SteamEngines:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=145161

the links inside are also very interisting, stating that i.e. German Railconversions from Normal to Wide Gauge where 80 Miles in 8 Hours (!).

In total one can say that with exeption of Airfleets and Tank Battlefield Operations the barbone of the Transport was Coal-Stam-Locomotives, mentionning that Germany was almost easy Autosufficient in Coal.

For Japanese Oil and Capacities, it is interisting to Mention that in Manchuko

was extracted 1.000.000t Oil (!) in 41.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Manchukuo

Anyhow: The main Argument is that Each Civilization used "its" Logistic Energy provider: Allies mostly Oil, Axis mostly Coal. And this is a little complicated to emulate.

For the Highways: The Network was quite unfinished i 39, and did not proceed much further due to other primary goals. see:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Autobahnnetz_1934.jpg

as said this is an afterwar idealization.

Sorry, but there was no german ship of importance using COAL anymore in WW2, neither the Hipper class not any other.

But i'm not sure about the Linienschiffe Schlesien and Schleswig-Holstein (the only main ships Germany was allowed to keep in the Versaille Treaty), both build in the ealry 1900). I don't know too much about the merchant fleet, but even there the "Steamer" were probably already obsolete.

The german trains ran mainly with coal, here you're correct, this changed in western germany in the 1950 - 1960ies, in east germany even later.

But even the allied nations did use coal in this time for their trains, the UK and Russia for sure, while the USA started to introduce diesel engines in the 1940s, but the change from steam to diesel wasn't complete until the 1950s.

Length of the german Autobahn-freeway (completed and opened to the public) in km:

May 1935: 22 km

December 1935: 108 km

October 1936: 1000 km

Decemerb 1937: 2000 km

December 1938: 3000 km

start of WW2: 3297 km (in 1939 most of the worker were withdrawn to build fortifications at the westwall / eastwall)

end of WW2: 3893 km

2005: 12200 km

The Autobahn was mainly build to allow the Wehrmacht fast movements.

It was a waste of money, material and time if it would have build for private cars. At the begin of the building process only 1 of 100 german citizen owned a car (today there the ratio is 2 citziens : 1 car).

Source: http://www.autobahngeschichte.de/Seitenstreifen/Geschichte_n_/geschichte_n_.html

Anyhow: The main Argument is that Each Civilization used "its" Logistic Energy provider: Allies mostly Oil, Axis mostly Coal. And this is a little complicated to emulate.

Sure, what else could they do as to use what they can grabb?

But let me quote wikipedia again:

"... Direct conversion of coal to synthetic fuel was originally developed in Germany. The Bergius process was developed by Friedrich Bergius, yielding a patent on the Bergius process in 1913. Karl Goldschmidt invited him to build an industrial plant at his factory the Th. Goldschmidt AG (now known as Evonik Industries) in 1914. The production began only in 1919.

Also indirect coal conversion (where coal is gasified and then converted to synthetic fuels) was developed in Germany by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923. During the World War II, Germany used synthetic oil manufacturing (German: Kohleveredelung) to produce substitute (Ersatz) oil products by using the Bergius process (from coal), the Fischer-Tropsch process (water gas), and other methods (Zeitz used the TTH and MTH processes). The Bergius process plants were the primary source of Nazi Germany's high-grade aviation gasoline and the source of most of its synthetic oil, 99% of its synthetic rubber and nearly all of its synthetic methanol, synthetic ammonia, and nitric acid. Nearly 1/3 of the Bergius production was produced by plants in Pölitz (Polish: Police) and Leuna, with more than 1/3 more in five other plants (Ludwigshafen had a much smaller Bergius plant which improved "gasoline quality by dehydrogenation" using the DHD process).

Synthetic fuel grades included "T.L. [jet] fuel ", "first quality aviation gasoline", "aviation base gasoline", and "gasoline - middle oil"; and "producer gas" and diesel were synthesized for fuel as well (e.g., converted armored tanks used producer gas). By early 1944, German synthetic fuel production had reached more than 124,000 barrels per day (19,700 m3/d) from 25 plants, including 10 in the Ruhr Area.

In 1937, the four central Germany lignite coal plants at Böhlen, Leuna, Magdeburg/Rothensee, and Zeitz, along with the Ruhr Area bituminous coal plant at Scholven/Buer, had produced 4.8 million barrels of fuel. Four new hydrogenation plants (German: hydrierwerke) were subsequently erected at Bottrop-Welheim (which used "Bituminous coal tar pitch"), Gelsenkirchen (Nordstern), Pölitz, and, at 200,000 tons/yr Wesseling. Nordstern and Pölitz/Stettin used bituminous coal, as did the new Blechhammer plants. Heydebreck synthesized food oil, which was tested on concentration camp prisoners.the Geilenberg Special Staff was using 350,000 mostly foreign forced laborers to reconstruct the bombed synthetic oil plants, and, in an emergency decentralization program, to build 7 underground hydrogenation plants for bombing protection (none were completed). (Planners had rejected an earlier such proposal because the war was to be won before the bunkers would be completed.) In July 1944, the 'Cuckoo' project underground synthetic oil plant (800,000 m2) was being "carved out of the Himmelsburg" North of the Mittelwerk, but the plant was unfinished at the end of WWII. ..."

To cut a long story short:

i agree with your statement that this is difficult to emulate.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but there was no german ship of importance using COAL anymore in WW2, neither the Hipper class not any other.

:)

Yes i agree, i found that allways when i read "boiler" or "Steam Generator" i thought these where Coal Fueled, but they where Oil/heavy Oil fueled, correct.

Maybe someday then a sort of "conversion Tech" could be helpul, if Oil-MPP would be used for move: i.e. Mine MPP value 50% Actionpoints of Oil-MPPs, while this tech Increase makes later on a sort of 1/1 conversion. Then Gemrany becomes "Coal-To-Oil" Tech level 3 or 4 , while USA becomes Tech level 0. hypotetically possible solution to this proposal... but this is just loud thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we ever see another SC I would like to see a fuel expenditure calculation similar to PGs. Playing PGforever has impressed me again with its eloquence and simplicity in that as a unit moves it expends its fuel, unless of course it is foot infantry. The player does have to initiate a refueling "click" and the amount of fuel it receives is dependent upon its current supply status, but it seems to work fairly well.

Each nation would of course build fuel supplies depending on their receipts through convoy routes and an infrastructure multiplier(tech levels) on which their combat units would draw off of as they moved. Like PG though you could allow them to run short and become immobilized but if they were next to a port or urban facility there could be some inherent recovery from scavenging like efficiency recovers from the current combat devastation.

In addition I would also like to see a system where by the combat unit mix is at the players discretion with the only things limiting the build would be things like population and manufacturing(MPP) capacity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My game requires the expenditure of points for Operational Movement.

That is why I said that the schedule for paying points for Operational Movement and not for normal/combat movement was "upside down".

I disagree. As an old veteran wargamer of boardgames, rather than the newer crowd who has grown up with computer games like HOI with ever more micro-managing of everything, it was never the original intention of unit movement points to require payments for normal/combat movements. At least at this scale of strategy. For tactical simulations, fuel/ammo accountability becomes more important.

I'll regress to my Avalon Hill Third Reich boardgame as an example where operational movement (strategic redeployment) is not exactly free but restricted to how many SRs can be performed each turn. It may be cheaper to move, but certainly not unlimited. Since SC/SC2 does not have op move limits (or for transports or amphibious transports either), restricting these movements by adding a cost is a reasonable compromise. Players can edit these costs up/down if they wish, but the point is the costs impose an economic limitation to consider. I'd prefer to see editable limits, with some nominal costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. As an old veteran wargamer of boardgames, rather than the newer crowd who has grown up with computer games like HOI with ever more micro-managing of everything, it was never the original intention of unit movement points to require payments for normal/combat movements. At least at this scale of strategy. For tactical simulations, fuel/ammo accountability becomes more important.

I'll regress to my Avalon Hill Third Reich boardgame as an example where operational movement (strategic redeployment) is not exactly free but restricted to how many SRs can be performed each turn. It may be cheaper to move, but certainly not unlimited. Since SC/SC2 does not have op move limits (or for transports or amphibious transports either), restricting these movements by adding a cost is a reasonable compromise. Players can edit these costs up/down if they wish, but the point is the costs impose an economic limitation to consider. I'd prefer to see editable limits, with some nominal costs.

I agree. The way I see it, paying for Op Movement accounts for all of those resources (trains, fuel, etc.) being directed away from their normal function of supporting the manufacturing and transportation.

Therefore the 'cost' is not of the actual cost of moving the troops but the lost production from the disruption caused by taking these industrial resources off line for the purpose of moving troops.

I hope that makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...