Zero Supply Effects (with reference to Lion of Africa)

[mdsmall]

I have recently been playing the 1916 Lion of Africa game in which putting the enemy into zero supply is an important tactic to destroy enemy units. Given the size of the map, the few railroads, low supply levels of most resources (usually 5), the wide open spaces between resources, and the higher action points of most units (between 5- 7 ) and it is relatively easy to put an unwary unit out of supply. Along the way, I discovered three features of the zero supply rules in the Strategic Command game system which I had not noticed before when playing other games in the series.

First, units at zero supply have one Action Point. They can always move one hex regardless of the terrain (e.g. into a jungle or mountain hex). But they can not move into an empty hex which is within an enemy's zone of control. Thus, if you want to prevent a zero supply unit from creeping back into supply, you can't rely just on rough terrain to prevent them from moving.

Second, I always thought that units at zero supply lose one point from attrition each turn. Not so. The Manual says (section 6.29.2) that zero supply units, HQs excepted, will suffer attrition "if they are one hex beyond available supply". From my recent tests, I now realize this means that there has to be one hex between the unit and the closest hex from which they can gain 1 level supply. Thus, if a friendly unit moves four hexes away from the nearest settlement with level 5 supply, the unit will have a supply level of 1. If it moves five hexes away, it will be at supply level of 0, but will not suffer attrition. Only if it is 6 hexes away (or has enemy controlled hexes between it and the supply source) will it start to suffer attrition. Thus units can exist at 0 supply indefinitely if they are adjacent to a hex where they could draw level 1 supply.

Third, under special circumstances, units can lose 2 points from attrition in a turn. This can happens if they are at zero supply and/and they are next to at least two enemy units which are at level 5 supply or above and at full strength. Note that in this instance, they can be adjacent to a hex which offers level 1 supply. In this situation, there seems to be a 50% of attrition happening per turn, and if it does happen a 50-50 chance of the attrition being 1 or 2 points. Contrary to the wording in the manual (section 6.29.2) having more than two adjacent enemy units at 5 or higher strength and supply does not seem to trigger higher levels of attrition; the maximum per turn is a 2 point loss.

There is also a 20% chance per turn of attrition happening in this situation if the unit is at level 1 supply, with the same chance of attrition being 1 or 2 points. This means that over time it becomes costly to hold onto a entrenched position at level 1 supply if your units are adjacent to front-line enemy units that have level 5 supply or higher.

These situations are relatively rare in the WW1 or WW2 era games in the series (I can not comment on the American Civil War game and its DLC versions). But they are quite common in Lion of Africa. In most other games, players usually take the first opportunity to destroy low supply or zero supply enemy units. But in Lion of Africa, where build levels are a serious constraint for both sdies (especially for the Germans) there may be situations where a player prefers to destroy an surrounded enemy unit at zero supply slowly through attrition, so will take longer before the enemy has the opportunity to rebuild it and deploy it near a new supply centre.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Interestingly, some points illustrated here (about 0 supply and it's nuances) were recently discussed in a Beta communication.
Thanks for posting this.