Whilst there is FAQ about supply and the effects of ese (effective supply efficiency) there is no discussion about the statistical consequences of TC overload and the impact it has on your armed forces.
There comes a point in every game where you run out of TC so here is no maths for everyone about TC related strategies.
Firstly we can consider the question of what to do when you have built an army that, when put on attack supply, uses up or exceeds the current total TC. At this point the spare TC is being used as a 25% combat bonus for those units on attack supply. If instead we build additional units then for each 10% increase in total army size we can assume that we have used 10% more TC so 20% less of the army can go on full attack supply. The additonal 10% of troops gives a 10% increase in total army combat power but the 20% of the army that can no longer be put on attack supply represents a 20% X 25% loss of combat power, or doing the arithmetic -5% in total combat power.
Similar calculations can be carried out when you have exceeded your TC without attack supply. In this case each 10% increase in army size gives a -5% penalty via ese to all units.
From these calculations you can see that as soon as your army is capable of using up all TC then all new units achieve only 50% of there value in terms of increased total combat power for your armed forces. This is a significant issue and will commonly be the case for most combatants.
The next thing to consider is what you can do about it. If you have reached your limit then the TC increasing technologies are worth +5% for your whole army (i.e. +10% TC translates into +5% combat power through ese adjustments). This makes these technologies quite valuable as they are equivalent to a skill level increase for all your leaders.
This technologies are in short supply so what else can we do.
If you put in place a -15% supplies minister then this will translate into +7.5% combat power through ese adjustments. This makes this sort of minister a very valuable choice and probably one of the best choices. This is not immediately obvious to many players who just see it as saving in resources committed to supply consumption.
The next thing you can do is use logistic wizard leaders. These also have a signinficant effect as they reduce the TC load from units by 25%. This means the equivalent of a 12.5% combat effectiveness increase except that the effect is spread thinly over the entire army rather than the units they command. Given the massive TC load of armoured forces this makes logistic wizard panzer leaders and excellent choice for commanding armoured corps. From a TC point of view this may let you run 4 armour based armies instead of 3 which is a more significant increase than any other panzer leader combo. Note also that the impacty is incraesed if you are using attack supply with these units which is highly likely if they are your key mobile forces.
The is logistic wizards is quite a complex issue. The impact they have on the average combat effectiveness of your whole army is quite significant but this has to be balanced against the desire to focus combat bonuses on key armies.
The final step to consider is whether you get more by building more units or building factories. This is a slightly odd idea but here is the maths...
If I devote my entire production to factories for a whole year then I get a 20% increase in IC and hence a 20% increase in TC and hence a +10% combat adjustment by improving ese for my whole army. This is clearly thee best option to take unless a years production will achieve more than a 20% increase in your total army size (remeber the value of new units is halved due to the TC usage and damage to ese levels). So once you have spent 5 years building troops you are better off building more factories.
An issue not covered is that ese below 100% effects movement speed and therefore the damage is more than just the reduced combat efficiency. Slower units are less valauble so this elevates the value of all the various methods of reducing TC usage, increasing TC total and improving ese for specific forces (attack supply).
Does this all make sense?
Does anyone know if I have got anything wrong?
There comes a point in every game where you run out of TC so here is no maths for everyone about TC related strategies.
Firstly we can consider the question of what to do when you have built an army that, when put on attack supply, uses up or exceeds the current total TC. At this point the spare TC is being used as a 25% combat bonus for those units on attack supply. If instead we build additional units then for each 10% increase in total army size we can assume that we have used 10% more TC so 20% less of the army can go on full attack supply. The additonal 10% of troops gives a 10% increase in total army combat power but the 20% of the army that can no longer be put on attack supply represents a 20% X 25% loss of combat power, or doing the arithmetic -5% in total combat power.
Similar calculations can be carried out when you have exceeded your TC without attack supply. In this case each 10% increase in army size gives a -5% penalty via ese to all units.
From these calculations you can see that as soon as your army is capable of using up all TC then all new units achieve only 50% of there value in terms of increased total combat power for your armed forces. This is a significant issue and will commonly be the case for most combatants.
The next thing to consider is what you can do about it. If you have reached your limit then the TC increasing technologies are worth +5% for your whole army (i.e. +10% TC translates into +5% combat power through ese adjustments). This makes these technologies quite valuable as they are equivalent to a skill level increase for all your leaders.
This technologies are in short supply so what else can we do.
If you put in place a -15% supplies minister then this will translate into +7.5% combat power through ese adjustments. This makes this sort of minister a very valuable choice and probably one of the best choices. This is not immediately obvious to many players who just see it as saving in resources committed to supply consumption.
The next thing you can do is use logistic wizard leaders. These also have a signinficant effect as they reduce the TC load from units by 25%. This means the equivalent of a 12.5% combat effectiveness increase except that the effect is spread thinly over the entire army rather than the units they command. Given the massive TC load of armoured forces this makes logistic wizard panzer leaders and excellent choice for commanding armoured corps. From a TC point of view this may let you run 4 armour based armies instead of 3 which is a more significant increase than any other panzer leader combo. Note also that the impacty is incraesed if you are using attack supply with these units which is highly likely if they are your key mobile forces.
The is logistic wizards is quite a complex issue. The impact they have on the average combat effectiveness of your whole army is quite significant but this has to be balanced against the desire to focus combat bonuses on key armies.
The final step to consider is whether you get more by building more units or building factories. This is a slightly odd idea but here is the maths...
If I devote my entire production to factories for a whole year then I get a 20% increase in IC and hence a 20% increase in TC and hence a +10% combat adjustment by improving ese for my whole army. This is clearly thee best option to take unless a years production will achieve more than a 20% increase in your total army size (remeber the value of new units is halved due to the TC usage and damage to ese levels). So once you have spent 5 years building troops you are better off building more factories.
An issue not covered is that ese below 100% effects movement speed and therefore the damage is more than just the reduced combat efficiency. Slower units are less valauble so this elevates the value of all the various methods of reducing TC usage, increasing TC total and improving ese for specific forces (attack supply).
Does this all make sense?
Does anyone know if I have got anything wrong?
