Out of supply--sit or move?

[Heldenkaiser]

As some people here may remember, at the moment I am learning the hard way how to keep my units supplied. Half of my army in AL has starved last turn. Now I am sort of trying to keep the remainder alive as best as I can until my chain of depots becomes operative. The question that comes up is--if they are already out or nearly out of general supply, is it better to let them sit and wait until supply comes (hopefully) up, or to move them into a region that is presently supplied? I have one corps sitting on my railhead and I confidently expect supply to come up there next turn, or at the latest the turn after it (strangely two of my depots seem to take just one more day to complete, odd), but using the railroad I could move it to a fully supplied region (Mobile) within a single turn. Is that smart, or will the soldiers starve on the trains all the same? (In fact, are units drawing supply at all while entrained?)

Any help would be appreciated. You have it in your hands to save the lives of 35,000 brave Federal soldiers.

[Jim-NC]

As some people here may remember, at the moment I am learning the hard way how to keep my units supplied. Half of my army in AL has starved last turn. Now I am sort of trying to keep the remainder alive as best as I can until my chain of depots becomes operative. The question that comes up is--if they are already out or nearly out of general supply, is it better to let them sit and wait until supply comes (hopefully) up, or to move them into a region that is presently supplied? I have one corps sitting on my railhead and I confidently expect supply to come up there next turn, or at the latest the turn after it (strangely two of my depots seem to take just one more day to complete, odd), but using the railroad I could move it to a fully supplied region (Mobile) within a single turn. Is that smart, or will the soldiers starve on the trains all the same? (In fact, are units drawing supply at all while entrained?)

Any help would be appreciated. You have it in your hands to save the lives of 35,000 brave Federal soldiers.

You draw supply before you move. In my experience, you need to move back to your supply. There is no guarentee that your troops will draw supply if they sit tight (usually they starve to death first) as the supply has to flow to them. If it is not now flowing to them, then it usually won't turn after turn. In short my advice is to move back to Mobile.

[arsan]

Yes, go back to base But maybe its too late already
Next time move back a couple of turns before
Also on extreme cases like this you can send by rail wagons back and forth from supply bases to the starving troops to gain some time, changing their empty wagons by others full of supply.
But i fear it may be too late for this too

[Brochgale]

Well I learned from being CSA and having Yank raids destroy rails, depots etc to travel with supply wagons to compensate for supply problems in certain areas. It is not just Corps size gatherings but had severe supply problems with fairly large independent divisions.
I usually sit and wait and try to build some supply wagons within easy reach of my isolated Corps or Divisions. Hoping that they can reach the afflicted before they start eating each other.

[W.Barksdale]

Move

[SkyWestNM]

Your answer is how high is your risk. To lose a division or corps is pretty severe....in those cases I would take immediate action and move closer or directly into supply. If a militia is in the hills next to supply in the winter, I usually wait. If militia survives there are plenty of replacements available. With a corp or division, IMHO, all bets are off and we're running back for supply in most cases. Better to come back another day than to vaporize.

A note. I find the supply system quite elegant its in unyielding stance when it depicts the ACW. To place a quarter of your army in a small section of the East, for instance, for either side, just can't be supported early game for very long and nor should it. Historical reading indicates that both sides suffered war long from the supply needs and how to get them to the troops. McClellan and his successors repeatedly drew up general orders to reduce the size of wagon trains by reducing the baggage train of the officers!

And not only breadth is important, but depth too. You need plenty of supply back home to make sure enough reaches the field.

Large invasions, ala D-Day can't either. Shermans march was to the sea and Union supply not the other way around, from the sea to Atlanta.

The Mississippi is an exception as it provides a supply highway for both sides, within reason.

I hear alot of complaints that the supply chain "reaches me" and thus I shouldn't be effected. Au contraire. The sheer volume of supply that is needed to be concentrated to supply large forces in concentrated areas means some units are prolly gonna go begging unless the commander has had the foresight to preposition through industrialization/carry embedded hard tack and extra ammo. Or had the foresight to target naval ports where ship supply could arrive.
Equally, invasion forces of any size better be prepared for their supply needs with both tactical ship supply/heavy numbers in the Atlantic transport box.
And as the North, you'd be well advised to start early building up a food surplus in the North through industrialization. Late game it will be needed and the USA can't expand well without copious amount of food and ammo throughout his supply grid which spreads thru his acquisitions fairly evenly (unlike how his armies spread). Be prepared for geographic expansion to eat up local supply fast. The CSA equally has to worry about end game food and ammo in the late game. Small shots of industrialization in key areas where Yankees are not likely to look can be the late game difference.

And don't forget bad weather uses supply to keep units from taking damage and thus even more supply must be planned and is required when the weather is bad. At sea, too!

Lastly, industrialization in captured areas for the USA is a great way to expand your supply capacity closer to the front for states to handle larger armies in the field. The deeper into the South the USA goes, the more pronounced it is.

This logistics system is brilliant in its placing heavy logistics considerations before conducting operations. Did you know the average division eats 35 general supply a turn? There are few cities that even produce that, early game!

Many wargamers are just not used to supply in game being this dominant. Each of us is used to playing Patton not Beatle Smith! AACW requires both.
Well done, design team!

Lastly beware the swamps of NC and the bayous of Arkansas and Louisiana. They can be killers.

Bon Chance!

[SkyWestNM]

Oh yeah. I forgot the hills and mountains of West Virgina and Tennessee too. I think we've all tasted that one once or twice.

[marvingardns]

I had marched Sherman to the sea from Corinth to Mobile and found it absolutely crucial to garrison every region with small brigades. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but does not lack of military control of a region prevent full flow of supplies to depots? I had found that maintaining military control of every region that rails pass through seems to improve supply flow.

Depots, in my mind, seem to act like supply 'magnets.' The more distant that depots are from one another, the less they 'pull.' The larger the army, the more strength of the 'magnet' needed. For example by 1865, I had depots built in ever region from Arlington to Richmond and I was able to supply a substantial army of nearly 200k down there without control of a single port.

I also developed, economically, states in which I had some measure of control. Once I had taken Little Rock (and not taken Island 10 yet), I found it necessary to supply a light corps by rushing transports beneath the guns of Memphis, Helena and Island 10. Naturally they took their hits. But I found it more practical in the long run to invest economically in Little Rock so the town could produce its own supplies.

[Chertio]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but does not lack of military control of a region prevent full flow of supplies to depots?

You need at least 25% military control of a region to pass supply through it.

There's a section on supply in the Quick Reference and a very good discussion of supply (especially post #25) here.

[PJL]

You need at least 25% military control of a region to pass supply through it.

There's a section on supply in the Quick Reference and a very good discussion of supply (especially post #25) here.

Actually it's 33% now. And I agree with SkyWest that the supply/logistics system in AACW is one of the best I've seen in any wargame.

BTW on a related issue, how does supply from off map boxes get forwarded onto the map and other off map boxes? Do they count as two regions right next to each other, as if they were on the main map?

[Chertio]

Actually it's 33% now.

Thank you - which patch did that come with? I've looked through the 1.13b and 1.13e changes list and couldn't see anything about it - but maybe I missed the reference.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[PJL]

Last I knew it was still 25%, but then what would I know? Maybe it was slipped in without me knowing it...

There's nothing in the ACW Updates.rtf file listing a change like that and the latest info in the "Quick Reference" also states 25%. I'm betting it's still 25%.



Supply moves just as a normal movement (think Supply Wagon), so if there is a legitimate link between the off-map box and the region in question the supply movement is processed as if a Supply Wagon was making the move.

Since many of those boxes take longer than usual to go to and from there, does that therefore mean supply doesn't always get if there is bad weather?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[PJL]

It would have to be able to make it there in 15 days (3 supply cycles of 5 days each). If not, you have to have additional depots interspersed along the way, meaning that some of the Off-map boxes will not work except in Fair weather.

But then if you build a depot there, it should still have the same problem though? Or are depots supplied in a different way? It's just that I'm playing a PBEM right now, and was pleasently suprised just how much supply & ammo I got stocked at Tuscon when I built the depot there.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

This logistics system is brilliant in its placing heavy logistics considerations before conducting operations.

Many wargamers are just not used to supply in game being this dominant.

Back in 1981, the USAF sent me to school to get an M.S. in Logistics Management. This has given me "logistics on the brain," for good or for ill. I still remember "teeth-to-tail ratio," and other catch phrases. SkyWest is right about the brilliance of AACW's logistics system. It's undoubtedly an overstatement to say "logistics is everything" (another catch phrase), but logistics is a WHOLE LOT. Do everything you can to master AACW's logistics system!

[Chertio]

Do everything you can to master AACW's logistics system!

A wish-list item from me would be a map overlay which showed graphically how much was being supplied and demanded at each point in the supply chain so that one could see where the weaknesses were and correct them. Surely not impossible as the game is anyway making such calculations. A Quartermaster's or Logistics Manager's view.

The existing supply overlay shows only where supply might potentially flow and gives a rough idea of what is getting stocked up and where.

Probably showing only general supply to keep it simple - ammo only gets used in battle and seems to take priority, as witness the ammo boxes on the current supply overlay where a city might have 2 or 3 ammo boxes and 0 general supply displayed. Given this an overlay which showed me how much general supply any supply point, army etc had demanded and recieved would work - ammo suply can be taken for granted if a point has enough general supply.

[Heldenkaiser]

Bon Chance!

Thank you! And for all your comments too.

And to everyone else who took the time to reply.

[Heldenkaiser]

A wish-list item from me would be a map overlay which showed graphically how much was being supplied and demanded at each point in the supply chain so that one could see where the weaknesses were and correct them. Surely not impossible as the game is anyway making such calculations. A Quartermaster's or Logistics Manager's view.

Seconded, if it's possible. I believe this has been suggested before.

[arsan]

Don't let us wondering the result!
Did you troops finally starved to death? recurred to cannibalism? survived??

[Heldenkaiser]

Don't let us wondering the result!
Did you troops finally starved to death? recurred to cannibalism? survived??

Meade's corps is practically gone. Thomas and Kearny seem safe (I diverted them to different areas two turns ago). Hooker is the one I'm worried about right now. He is railing back to Mobile this turn as suggested, with two divisions at full strength and three very nearly gone, and completely out of supply. I guess there won't be many survivors. I'll let you know.

The problem is that, with the three depots built, I have no supply wagons left in the area, and it will be 2-3 turns before reinforcements arrive from back home. That pretty much limits my options to inattractive ones (like starve sittig vs. starve moving).

My first campaign ever, it went soooo well so far ... leading 114 to 95 in NM, January 1864, and my armies knocking at the backdoor of Georgia ... and now that! A hard lesson indeed.

[Heldenkaiser]

Not to forget either, I have seen a good deal of reasonably qualified division commander die ... and I really don't have those to spare.