Being cut off & immediate strength drop

[xandamere]

I have noticed that if my opponent has turn 1 and manages to cut off one of my units, that unit tends to suffer an immediate and massive supply drop on my turn, even though resupply has not even taken place. So, in an "open" scenario with lots of space, one can just sort of run around the enemy if one has the initial turn advantage.

For example, I had a cluster of units defending a city area, divisions of strengths 10 through 12 or so. On my next turn, without being attacked, those units were down to strength 4 and 5 just because they were cut off.

I don't understand exactly what's happening here - can anyone explain?

[TheeWarLord]

Supply calculation is conducted at the start of your player turn. So, if you were cut off during player one turn, it is feasible that on your player two turn supply calculation, you would suffer those effects, this is my understanding. Any one else care to chime in?

[xandamere]

Alright - but even so, should a unit really lose ~50% of its strength via desertion and drop to 1% supply immediately? That seems...unduly harsh.

[Lobster]

Player turn one and player two turn one happen, virtually, at the exact same time. Player two should still be in supply during their turn since things are supposed to be happening simultaneously. Both players start the day in supply. Why should player two's units start their day out of supply all of a sudden when they began it in the same state as player one? Calculating player two's supply at the start of their turn does not make sense.

In my opinion supply should have never been done this way. It's a grossly unfair way to do it for player two and nothing has been solved regarding the way it was done without the new turn order. The burden of unfairness has simply been shifted to player two.

However, it's IGOUGO so there's no real solution is there? It might be better to use the new turn order but reduce the penalty for being out of supply. What about that, "a unit would become more frugal in using their supply" mantra I have heard so many times regarding running in the red? Shouldn't that also apply here? That would at least make things a bit more fair.

[sPzAbt653]

Try turning New Turn Order Rules = OFF and see what you think.

[TheeWarLord]

equalization will mean that enemy
units cut off from communications in the friendly
player-turn will be unsupplied in the immediately
following enemy player-turn regardless of side
(previously an unfair advantage for side-two).

[xandamere]

Ok, so I get the turn order thing and how that forces units out of supply. What I don't get is the penalties for it - the units losing half their equipment in the very same turn they're cut off and immediately dropping to 1% supply (I should point out these units had supply ranging from 30-50% or so before being cut off - so they weren't at full supply, but not nothing, either).

[sPzAbt653]

Depends on Scenario/Time Scale. A unit won't lose much in one day, but cut off for a week will lose more [;)]

[xandamere]

Gotcha, that's very helpful. Thank you!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Player turn one and player two turn one happen, virtually, at the exact same time. Player two should still be in supply during their turn since things are supposed to be happening simultaneously. Both players start the day in supply. Why should player two's units start their day out of supply all of a sudden when they began it in the same state as player one? Calculating player two's supply at the start of their turn does not make sense.

In my opinion supply should have never been done this way. It's a grossly unfair way to do it for player two and nothing has been solved regarding the way it was done without the new turn order. The burden of unfairness has simply been shifted to player two.

No. Now both sides have been equalized: When it becomes player two's turn, he gets supplied while player one doesn't.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Player turn one and player two turn one happen, virtually, at the exact same time. Player two should still be in supply during their turn since things are supposed to be happening simultaneously. Both players start the day in supply. Why should player two's units start their day out of supply all of a sudden when they began it in the same state as player one? Calculating player two's supply at the start of their turn does not make sense.

In my opinion supply should have never been done this way. It's a grossly unfair way to do it for player two and nothing has been solved regarding the way it was done without the new turn order. The burden of unfairness has simply been shifted to player two.

No. Now both sides have been equalized: When it becomes player two's turn, he gets supplied while player one doesn't.

Not if player two, who starts at the exact same time of day as player one, gets cut off from supply. So while they both have the same supply at the beginning of the turn somehow player two's supply goes away without having done anything. I realize it's impossible to resolve in an IGOUGO setting. Maybe the penalties are too harsh as the OP suggested simply because player two does absolutely nothing and yet supply is dramatically impacted. It's understandable if player two started the turn out of supply. Not so much if player two started the turn in supply.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Player turn one and player two turn one happen, virtually, at the exact same time. Player two should still be in supply during their turn since things are supposed to be happening simultaneously. Both players start the day in supply. Why should player two's units start their day out of supply all of a sudden when they began it in the same state as player one? Calculating player two's supply at the start of their turn does not make sense.

In my opinion supply should have never been done this way. It's a grossly unfair way to do it for player two and nothing has been solved regarding the way it was done without the new turn order. The burden of unfairness has simply been shifted to player two.

No. Now both sides have been equalized: When it becomes player two's turn, he gets supplied while player one doesn't.

Not if player two, who starts at the exact same time of day as player one, gets cut off from supply. So while they both have the same supply at the beginning of the turn somehow player two's supply goes away without having done anything. I realize it's impossible to resolve in an IGOUGO setting. Maybe the penalties are too harsh as the OP suggested simply because player two does absolutely nothing and yet supply is dramatically impacted. It's understandable if player two started the turn out of supply. Not so much if player two started the turn in supply.

No. They are equalized: If player two cuts off player one in his player turn, that unit is unsupplied in player one's turn (that's the way it's always been). But now, if player one cuts off player two in player one's player turn, that unit is also unsupplied in player two's turn (old way, that wasn't so). So it's equal for both sides.

[xandamere]

No. They are equalized: If player two cuts off player one in his player turn, that unit is unsupplied in player one's turn (that's the way it's always been). But now, if player one cuts off player two in player one's player turn, that unit is also unsupplied in player two's turn (old way, that wasn't so). So it's equal for both sides.

I get the point here in theory but that's somewhat a simplistic assessment - this one particular mechanic is equalized but how that mechanic fits into the rest of the game and the scenario is not. At least in most scenarios, player 1 is usually the aggressor and has the initiative - it's bad enough to open a turn as the defending player 2 and find your units are cut off (in many cases on turn 1 before you've even had a chance to move) - it's entirely worse to find that not only are they cut off, but they've also lost large amounts of strength and unit supply before even having a chance to move/respond.

The first player, at least, generally gets themselves into that position via overextention. The second player often doesn't have such a choice. Obviously all of this depends on the specific scenario - but in some scenarios, specifically ones with more open battlefields instead of solid lines up and down the front, it's entirely possible to keep the second player on their back foot through nothing new other than this mechanic, each new turn just going around.

Even the Germans in Barbarossa had to stop to eliminate the Soviet units they pocketed, and suffered significant casualties while doing so. That's really no longer the case with this current turn logic.

[Oberst_Klink]

Matt

to fully (or at least partially) understand the supply issue... check out my tutorials, right?

Klink, Oberst

[xandamere]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Matt

to fully (or at least partially) understand the supply issue... check out my tutorials, right?

Klink, Oberst

I have, and they're very helpful, thank you for making them! I'm not sure what you're precisely trying to point out that you believe I'm missing here, though.