Supply questions

[MarkShot]

(1) The manual says that supply units are not counted towards the number of units which a leader can command in an army. However, the game rollover text seems to indicate that the opposite is true (supply units are counted). I assume that the manual is in error?

(2) How can you tell how large of an army(s) a particular region can support without actually basing it in a region to see if it will be able to draw adequate supplies?

Thanks.

[Pocus]

this is a difficult question, as each regiment can use a different amount of supply. You have to check the numbers, in the tooltip of each unit, or in the detail window (when you click on a NATO symbol at the far right). Also a supply chip, as reported in the region tooltip is worth 5 supplies and 2 ammos, so no direct relation can be calculated. Only some experience with the game will tell you that the city will be enough, or not...

There is also the supply filter, which is of good use: green, the region should provide enough supply, red, you are in danger of lacking. But its only an estimate, as adjacent regions can also give supplies to your army.

Sorry to not be much more precise. I suppose you know more than the generals of the era when they waited for the wagons of food...

for question (1): supply unit now use one command.

[[FS] Feltan]

I think this is modelled well. Supply during this timeframe was difficult -- if anything, I think there is too much supply. I have yet to have a major army in difficult circumstances due to supply, but it was a constant problem for both the Americans and the British.

When I was in the military, there was a saying that I found difficult to accept at first, but became convinced of its truth: Military amateurs talk about tactics; Military professionals talk about logistics. (Google says: Les amateurs militaires parlent de la tactique; Les professionnels militaires parlent de la logistique.)

If you have ever been out in the field with a military unit for an extended period of time, this becomes your #1 priority -- you can't accomplish any mission without water, food, fuel, ammuntion, etc., etc.

Regards,
Feltan

[epsilon]

I think this issue of logistic has evolved in time. From memory the US army use to have 3 non combating soldier for 1 combating in the WW2, and the ratio today is close to 10 to 1 (numbers from memory so forgive me if this is not the actual numbers). At this time I believe the ratio would have been below 1.

[[FS] Feltan]

I think this issue of logistic has evolved in time. From memory the US army use to have 3 non combating soldier for 1 combating in the WW2, and the ratio today is close to 10 to 1 (numbers from memory so forgive me if this is not the actual numbers). At this time I believe the ratio would have been below 1.

Epsilon,

This is true with regard to logistics troops.....how many people involved. However, the problems....the lack of supply....was more accute during this time period.

Remember, the British left Philidelphia because of fear the French fleet would cut off supply from sea. They sailed and marched to NYC to consolidate their position --- not tactically, but rather from a logistic perspective.

The British had the better logistic system, but it depended on port acces and their navy. The Americans were able to make better use of living off the land, and probably had less need to begin with. However, both sides suffered at various times, and both sides took more casualties from disease, starvation and exposure than from enemy fire.

Regards,
Feltan

[Levis]

Also, military doctrine in the 18th century discouraged "living off the land." Armies built chains of depots and magazines to supply their forces in the field and (in Europe) campaigns were often a series of maneuvers to cut the other side's suppy lines or besiege a depot. The difficulties of supply was the main reason most campaigns in the colonial period moved back and forth over a few transportation corridors (e.g. the Hudson River-Lake Champlian route).