Loss of equipment due to 0 supply

[FrankyVas]

I never liked this in the orignal game, and it has carried over to these game. Unsuplied units that don't move still loose equipment every turn. I can see unsuplied units that move loosing stuff, after all they wouldn't take broken down stuff with them. But I would think that a crew that looses their tank due to mechanical failure wouldn't abandon it after 1 week. I would think that if they don't move, they could repair it when supplies finaly arrive.

Frank V.

[frank1970]

Absolutely right!

[Pyrolight]

Well you could excpect to see a small loss of equipment even when not moved. The oil the germans were using for their tanks wasn't heavy enough and kept freezing. Also the german tanks and equipment were extremely complex (unlike the russian equipment) and their small parts tended to snap or breakdown just sitting there. Parts like most german suppy durring that first winter was hard to come by. Add that with the difficulty to fix, the cold and the russians busy trying to kill then, they would leave busted equipment for junk. With resuply they may be able to fix some stuff but not all of it.

[frank1970]

That is the point: you loose equipment when you do not move! A sinking readiness should replicate this evect.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Frank:
That is the point: you loose equipment when you do not move! A sinking readiness should replicate this evect.

This is a strategic game, just because your corps doesn't move on the map doesn't mean the vehicles in the corps are not required to move, particularly if there are enemy forces adjacent. Nearby enemy formations will result in recon patrols, skirmishes, spontaneous firefights, localized counterattacks, etc, that aren't shown in a strategic view. US armor trapped with the paratroopers in Bastogne had exactly the same problem and many tanks just ran out of gas because of the shifting they had to do to match changing dispositions by the Germans, even though, on a strategic map, they never moved, and once a vehicle is immobilized due to lack of fuel/parts its very vulnerable to being destroyed by the enemy. A crew won't want to man it because they know they can't retreat, and its stationary, thus making it a sitting duck for artillery, air attack, or a kid with a Panzerfaust.

[FrankyVas]

So in August 1941, half way to Moscow, my unsiplied panzer division is going to destroy their tanks because of lack of fuel in the face of, .... 0 oposition. I don't think so.

I could see it if they are attacked, or move, not just for sitting there doing very little. Secondly, most patrols are conducted by infantry, not tanks.

Frank V.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by FrankyVas:
So in August 1941, half way to Moscow, my unsiplied panzer division is going to destroy their tanks because of lack of fuel in the face of, .... 0 oposition. I don't think so.

I don't either, I was just trying to point out that in a strategic game, a unit that doesn't move on the map, doesn't mean it hasn't done a lot of movement within the hex its in. I'll suggest this on the list, but adding an exception for cases where the unsupplied unit is not adjacent to an enemy force may be more than they're willing to do.

[Ed Cogburn]

FrankyVas, I didn't know the penalty was HALF the tanks, I just checked. I agree with you at least in saying the penaly is way too harsh especially if we're talking about a unit that neither moves, attacks, nor gets attacked while out of supply. I just sent a message to the list stating "our" case. I'll letcha know what happens.