Supply Bug in Contested Hexes?

[esteban]

Hi:

In my current game I have been attacking a city for two impulses now, and the city is contested. I notice that the supply level in the hex is 0%. Shouldn't this be higher, especially considering that I won the two impulses of combat in the hex?

[FrankHunter]

Which side actually controls the hex?

[esteban]

Its showing as controlled by Romania (its Bucharest).  
 
My question is that shouldn't there be supply for both sides in the hex?  Especially considering that the CP won the previous two impulses of combat (both combats listed as successful attacks where the CP took 50% or less casualties comared to the Entente.
 
It doesn't seem very intuitive that the supply should be zero when there is supply in a hex right next door.  It's reducing the readiness of the units that were in combat far more than the combat itself did

[FrankHunter]

Well its working as designed, the idea was that it would force attackers to withdraw from a hex that they couldn't take rather than both sides sitting there for an extended period.  But I see your point, perhaps 0% is too harsh.

[esteban]

Frank:
 
I would agree with what you said about supply, and on top of that say that your current system for contested hexes actually PUNISHES someone for launching a "successful" attack.  In both the first two impulses of combat in Bucharest I inflicted at least twice as many casualties as I took, and I got a "successful" attack both times.  In reality, I would have been better off getting an "unsuccessful" attack and retreating out of Bucharest to hexes where I had supply so they were in better shape to attack again next impulse.  So in reality rather than sending in a full stack of German corps, I should have sent in 2-3 each impulse so that they would retreat out of the hex and end the impulse in supply. 
 
Thats a perverse design decision, if I may say so.
 
I would change the current situation to either eliminate the contested hexes (someone has to retreat or be eliminated at the end of combat in a hex) or make supply in a contested hex equal FOR both sides to what it would have been if either side controlled the hex.
 

[SMK-at-work]

IMO units on hte attack should outrun suply - that's what happened in WW1 like all wars.

This is only a "problem" in those few cases where a hex remains occupied by both sides - which most commonly occurs in forts but not always.

The answer for it is to plan hte attack to have 2 or more waves - when the 1st wave is exhausted pull it out and replace with a 2nd wave.  You dont' need to activate units to replace hte exhausted ones, so IMO it's quite a reasonable situatoin.

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

IMO units on hte attack should outrun suply - that's what happened in WW1 like all wars.

This is only a "problem" in those few cases where a hex remains occupied by both sides - which most commonly occurs in forts but not always.

The answer for it is to plan hte attack to have 2 or more waves - when the 1st wave is exhausted pull it out and replace with a 2nd wave.  You dont' need to activate units to replace hte exhausted ones, so IMO it's quite a reasonable situatoin.

This is exactly what I did--two attacks with 4 fresh (9 readiness) corps each impulse.

And I am not saying that units shouldnt outrun their supply. What I am suggesting is that the attacker in a contested hex should draw supplies as if he had captured the hex. Now that % might be much less considering it is an advance from friendly territory into hostile territory, but as it stands now there is a perverse incentive to "lose" the battle.

And sure this is only a problem in contested hexes, but it is a problem.

[Shawkhan]

Stalemmate is certainly a momentum killer. That is basically what is happening. Neither side is willing to withdraw, resulting in a battle of the Somme or Verdun or any number of less famous battles of WWI where troops were thrown into a meatgrinder. I find it a good representation of things beyond the control of any commander.

[esteban]

Yes, but its not really a stalemate.  The attacker has to withdraw because the 0 supply leaves his units unable to fight and lowers their readiness even more than the preceding battle did.
 
Let both sides draw supply in the hex as if they each controlled it, or make sure that each impulse ends with only one side having units in a hex.
 
 

[SMK-at-work]

The defender has an established infrastructure in the hex...the attacker doesn't.  Same as if you do conquer a hex you don't get as much supply as hte defender had in it.

[boogada]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
The defender has an established infrastructure in the hex...the attacker doesn't. Same as if you do conquer a hex you don't get as much supply as hte defender had in it.

I agree with this, but I'd like to add that the attacker has also established some infrastructure. The contested hex is part of the frontline and not just some units operating independently in advance of it. Also with a battle going on for a few impulses or even turns we are talking about weeks if not months of fighting, and that would be time enough to start building lines of supply and communication. So the attacker should get at least some supplies. Maybe not as much as the defender. Remember: The (successful) attack has definitely an impact on the lines of supply and communication of the defender too.

[James Ward]

Given the time scale and hex scale I don't see why any battle should be a draw. Someone should retreat.
Given hexes represent 5,000-10,000 square kilometers I don't see how you could say who would control what infrastructure after a 2 month assault.

[06 Maestro]

What about Verdun?

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

What about Verdun?

What about it? In game terns either the attacker takes the hex or they retreat. I don't see a problem with that in a strategic game.

[06 Maestro]

At the given hex size of this game, Verdun was occupied by both side for about 5 months. The units were constantly rotated out during the battle- for rest and an opportunity for full supply.

I do think that some supply for the attacker in a contested hex would be realistic, but not full supply.

[hjaco]

I see contested hexes not as a stalemate but more as a random decided "vital hex" (like Verdun) which the generals decide to fight ferociously for at all cost.

The owner of the hex will obviously have the supply level designated by the game but its a contradiction that a military target designated as having a high profile by the attacked and therefore receive full commitment of necessary combat troops wouldn't also have an appropriate prioritation of combat supply to sustain the offensive where the logistic in all likelihood would have a top priority over other sectors of the front.

Bottom line is I support the view that 0 % supply for the attacker in contested hex is absurd. I would suggest halving the attackers supply level compared to the defender.

[jimwannop]

I've been playing the CP player attacking Paris, with all fortifications destroyed and no defending trenches. For three turns the CP have been firing gas (Green Cross arrived in 1914!) into a contested Paris, attacking with 4 fresh full-strength corps each time and getting Successful combat results but without ending the stalemate. I can rationalise the long stalemate as the French fiercely defending their capital, but the Zero Supply penalty is too severe. Especially when the CP units only lose 1 readiness in the attack but then lose 6 to lack of supply. 50% of the defenders supply would be a reasonable figure

Having said this, the game system is the best simulation of WW1 strategic warfare I've seen. The game system forces you to plan your strategy several turns in advance, and you really do feel like you're making the same difficult decisions as the generals back in 1914 (not which bottle of wine to open...).

[Shawkhan]

Just took Paris yesterday in my current game. I isolated Paris, then simply rotated fresh troops into the place for two rounds before it fell. I do believe the AI might itself reinforce if you don't isolate the objective first.
 

[jimwannop]

I feel better about what's happening in contested hexes now I know what to expect. The same thing happened in Belgrade but I just didn't notice it (I thought I just misread the screen). Something to go in the FAQ. Do contested hexes only occur in capital cities?

Some observations about artllery barrages - 'Normal' barrages can be loaded up on an artillery unit, and are kept loaded if you decide not to use them that impulse. If you load up an artillery unit with a Gas attack but don't use it that impulse, the gas attack is lost.

Also need to be careful about the order you do things. To make a gas attack, select the 'Gas' option for the artillery unit, then select the 'Barrage' option, then choose which stack you're firing at. Gas attacks are best fired at a stack you intend to attack in the same impulse, as the gas is used as a modifier in the combat. Not sure gas has any impact if you simply fire gas at a stack but don't attack it.

[FrankHunter]

Do contested hexes only occur in capital cities?

Theoretically they could happen anywhere but its really only in forts and capitals that it will ever actually happen.

Not sure gas has any impact if you simply fire gas at a stack but don't attack it.

Not much although that depends on the defender's supply level.  As some of the readiness lost wil be recovered.



Also, perhaps I will change the attacker supply in contested hexes to a minimal amount.  Just enough to be in supply but not enough to be recovering readiness.