Corps HQ getting exhausted

[jimcarravallah]

. . . It may be that we need to think of "basics" as the consumables needed to sustain combat operations, since no one is dying from lack of basics . . .

I've understood that a lack of Basics should have an impact on morale and fatigue -- well armed troops with full fuel supplies who lack food, drinking water, and clothing / shelter being less capable as fighting units that those who receive three-squares a day, drinking water, and are adequately protected from the weather.

Without knowing how a lag in basics is translated into morale and fatigue impacts, or further, how those impacts affect a unit's ability to fight, I accept it by faith that falling short of consumables is a problem.

We spent a significant amount of time aggregating the number of ounces of water per soldier per day for drinking, washing, and brushing teeth required to sustain a highly mobile brigade that had to be deployed quickly by air transport, but still required tons of water simply so the troops could drink for the first three days after initial deployment.

 

[共工熙雲]

Not that, then. Thanks.

I'm half way through day 7 (haven't yet read last part of your AAR, but look forward to it) and I think maybe everything is working as intended. No bases have run out of basics, though one (the LL base and it's HQ) have come pretty close at times. What I see, due to the way the SEPs are set up to reflect history, I assume, is that after day 4, certainly, almost all of the supply has to come from the Maleme airfield SEP and to reach my most furthest flung units that's almost 18km through territory that is littered with the enemy. Hence, in my game (the computer's game, actually - since I've just let the computer play itself at full speed) I have many units running out of basics at day 7 because their supply is continually being shot up. I recall that one of the changes made relatively recently (don't recall which update) was one to stop bases and HQs hoarding supplies for themselves whilst their front line troops starved. It may be that what we see now is the bases' and HQ's basic stocks running low (or out) if their front line troops are in difficulty. Hard to say without looking at a save for your game, Bie. But certainly, in my game, with the computer not having taken care to ensure clean supply lines, there has been heavy attrition of supply lines, personel and equiptment, resulting in many failed or suspended supply runs and this has hit the bases and HQs way back from the action, because, I assume, they are having to send stock down the line more, to try to replace that lost (more emergency requests). It may be that changes in the last 2 betas (I'm playing on the very latest beta) have also affected things to mitigate whatever was happening. So, it seems ok (or at least will be when you run the latest beta/update) but worth keeping an eye on it, for sure. I think, if you're running it from steam, that you can choose to use the latest beta in the settings for the game on steam. I would always do that rather than waiting for an official update. It means you're 'testing' the beta, of course, but we're all always testing the game in many ways, so why not have the latest changes?

On steam:
5.1.3 - Major supply system update
Beta - Work in progress
What's the difference between the two versions and the official version?

 

[jimcarravallah]

On steam:
5.1.3 - Major supply system update
Beta - Work in progress
What's the difference between the two versions and the official version?

I have both versions (one from Lock 'n Load, and the other from Steam).

Both are "official" versions as they use the same files for the game mechanics.

The difference in the releases is in how the game is accessed, the Lock 'N Load version being accessed from a menu installed directly on a player's computer, and the Steam version being accessed via a Steam-authored menu which is used to catalog all Steam games installed on the computer along with Steam community utilities not aligned with any specific game.

 

[john connor]

I think that's not quite correct, Jim. When she says 'official', she means the version which is the 'official update', ie; not a beta. The beta version on steam (5.1.31) is not, I think, available from LnL - not until it progresses from being beta to being the 'official' LnL update. I think LnL are still on 5.1.29. Either beta from steam will be closer to the next update, when it arrives, but it's still beta. As to the exact change list, players will get that when the beta becomes official, both on steam and on LnL. I agree that the listing of 2 betas on steam is confusing, with little info to choose between them. I'm not myself certain which is which, but I believe that 5.1.31 comes before the other (listed as 'wip') and hence the 'wip' beta will include the 5.1.31 changes.

 

[GoodGuy]

1) Without knowing how a lag in basics is translated into morale and fatigue impacts, or further, how those impacts affect a unit's ability to fight, I accept it by faith that falling short of consumables is a problem.

2) We spent a significant amount of time aggregating the number of ounces of water per soldier per day for drinking, washing, and brushing teeth required to sustain a highly mobile brigade that had to be deployed quickly by air transport, but still required tons of water simply so the troops could drink for the first three days after initial deployment.

1) In RL or in the game? Next to an enemy's bullet/shell/grenade, the threat of dehydration was the soldier's most evil enemy. On all sides, groups of soldiers had surrendered "just" due to the lack of water supplies, so lack of water should definetly have an impact on morale and fatigue, and especially on the physical ability to fight, in the game.

2) When troops were surrounded/cut off from supply deliveries, water was rationed immediately, so that it wasn't even allowed to be used for washing or brushing teeth, usually. Even the field manuals of the involved armies (all countries) of that era stressed to restrict the use of water to drinking and gave tips how to keep up a minimum of hygiene with minimal use of water and even without water. In contrast, in case of a lack of food supplies, modern field manuals, like the US FM 3-05.70 ("survival", 2002) stress to procure and drink more water, if the food supply level is low, for instance. A quote from the manual: "in any situation where food intake is low, drink 6-8 liters of water per day."
Also:

• "Conserve sweat, not water.
  • Limit sweat-producing activities but drink water.

• Ration water.
  • Until you find a suitable source, ration your sweat, not your water. Limit activity and heat gain or loss"

These are survival tips, of course, which may be impossible to follow in a combat zone, especially if surrounded, but they mark a different approach than the manuals during the war. Allied and German/Italian troops in the desert had different supply regimes, where basically both sides put a lot of effort into planning and distribution of water supplies, and it's actually quite impressive how the Italians (in the main) had managed to keep most of their troops supplied with water, despite their lack of (fast) transport vehicles, in North Africa. Afaik, the Germans denied handing over transport capacities for troop transport in quite some sectors, and - even worse - they denied to hand over trucks for water supply to the Italians in pretty most sectors, and they didn't handle much of the Italian water supply system, either.
The Brits in Arnhem assessed on the 20th of September that water supplies would last for one more day. Some houses in the outskirts had their own wells, but quite some water pipes in the city center near the brigde were probably destroyed, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans actually cut off the water pipelines supplying the city. Only 13% of the supply (supply drops) assigned to the British paras had actually reached them, and it can be assumed that the bulk rather consisted of ammunition supplies and food, than water.

Anyway, 3 days sounds realistic for urban or suburban areas or areas with natural water sources (small rivers, lakes, etc.), but probably less when cut off and forced to move and fight in say plain, wooded and steppe environments without any natural water sources. In the Ardennes, some cut off troops started to fill their cantinas with water from mudholes, quite some soldiers got diarrhea and desentery. US troops had chlorine-based Halazone tablets in their C-rations, which were used for (personal) water purification of unsafe water, but the short usable life of opened bottles and the limited amount carried by soldiers prevented continuous purification. I am not sure whether the Germans had similar tablets, but I tend to think that they didn't have those, as I know that Coys put quite some effort into securing water sources for the unit, by sending out what I would call water detachments or even single troopers to resupply platoons and groups.

 

[GoodGuy]

The engine should actually factor in the type of terrain when calculating water supply levels. Say in plain grassland, steppe, desert, etc. without any rivers, lakes or creeks, completely cut supply lines should have the usual effect, means that no water supplies reach the unit.

But say in or near a fortress perimeter, the garrison could either have collected huge amounts of water, or build cisterns, or even maintain their own wells being fed by ground water. For instance, St. Nazaire was expanded to something that halfway resembled a fortress, and the garrison denied to surrender. The garrison surrendered eventually on May 11, 1945, 3 days after Germany's unconditional surrender, though, so it did have sufficient supplies of food, water and ammunition to survive a siege of several months.
Tobruk (Sevastopol too, I guess) was similarly expanded, so that large amounts of supplies could be stored.

In terrain with natural water sources, units in the game should be able to retrieve water from these local sources. Say a Coy resides right next to a river, it should be able to draw water from that source. Pollution of rivers was not an issue at the time, and unlike in World War I , where the Germans poisoned a number of wells in France, used as scorched-earth tactic, poisoning (as a form of passive combat) did not play a role during World War II, because the Germans came to the conclusion that such sources could be used to support their own troops, when counterattacks were successful. I have heard about single cases in Russia, where Russian troops and also German troops dropped dead animals into wells, before they retreated, but that was not a widespread method, and not a successful method either, as modern military supply systems could handle supply of water effectively (even if horsedrawn), usually.