Bugs

[Mantis]

I don't believe so - I just grabbed the latest version from the FTP site, I believe it was on Oct 2nd. I'll take a peek - thanks!

[paolov999]

That is a new bug, not reported yet (i hope):

I selected a naval Unit (Bismarck in the North Sea), hold the CTRL key and click into the sea to have a waypoint, then click again far away to have the final destination of the Bismarck for that turn.
The game blocked and after some time crashes

[sPzAbt653]

It'll take me six posts to get thru this.

The last couple games I thought I had a grip on Supply. Watching the fluctuations, I could figure out why they were occurring. Now I doubt, but could it be a bug ?

v1.10b, me Axis against computer Allies. I am doing SeaLion, I have taken London and the capitol has moved to Manchester. I noticed that Oxford [red circle] is at Supply Level 2 for the Allies, and I can't see why. I haven't bombed it, and it is connected to Manchester. So I pay attention to it, and to Coventry [blue circle] which is at 8, which I think is normal.

[sPzAbt653]

The above shot is from when I ended my turn. Now the Allied turn has run, and this shot is from my following turn, before I have taken any action. Oxford has gone to 0 [while Coventry has remained at 8].

[sPzAbt653]

Next turn. Ok, I couldn't look at Oxford any more so I captured it, now I am looking at Coventry, which has gone from 8 to 6. It is still connected to Manchester the Capitol, which is at 10. [Sorry I cut Manchester out of the shot, but it is north of Birmingham, which is also at 10].

[sPzAbt653]

Next turn, I haven't attacked or bombed Coventry . It has gone from 6 to 4. {Now we can see Manchester in the upper left].

[sPzAbt653]

Next turn, again I have taken no action against Coventry, I am bypassing it and Manchester so that I can watch what happens. Coventry has now gone from 4 to 2. Birmingham and Manchester are both still at 10 [not pictured but I checked, so trust me].

[sPzAbt653]

And finally, the following turn Coventry is now at 0 and Birmingham has dropped to 8 from 10, but I suppose this is because the German Tank Unit has cut their rail line from Manchester.

I am curious as to why Oxford and Coventry were dropping 2 per turn when they were still connected to the Capital ?

[BillRunacre]

Hi

Thanks for posting these and the reason is that you've got several Axis units adjacent to the resource, and their effect is to reduce the resource strength by 1 per turn, as they are interdicting supply to the resource.

You may recall that this was originally set to require 4 units but that was too many, and made it much harder to reduce cut off resources, especially on the Eastern Front.

[sPzAbt653]

Thanks, but still confused ...

In this case they are 'cut off' because they can't trace back to London ?

I thought that they were tracing to Manchester instead ?

But looking at the manual it doesn't say 'cut off' :
Any resource except for a Capital or Fortress that has 2 or more enemy units adjacent to it will have their resource strength reduced by 1 point per turn until it reaches 0.

So is it that they can't trace to London, or that they simply have two or more units adjacent ?

[BillRunacre]

The latter, as the rule about adjacent enemy units is a separate and additional rule to the one about being connected to a Key Resource.

[sPzAbt653]

Ok, thanks very much Bill. I thought they had to be cut off before they started losing value, so I had missed the point altogether. [:(]

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Ok, thanks very much Bill. I thought they had to be cut off before they started losing value, so I had missed the point altogether. [:(]

You are not completly alone in this case. The deal with the supply has become a little tricky. After a few games, I wonder whether it would not be simpler and more intuitive as a requirement for a supply countdown to separate a city completely from the enemy's core territory and then leave at least one suitable unit in a neighboring hex. A resource that is separated from its traffic routes (road, rail) should not be generate more than 5 supply, whether it is territorially enclosed or not. In the end, two circumstances are to be simulated: on the one hand the control and blockade of the surrounding area and secondly an increased consumption and shrinking productivity due to combat operations. Just a thought...[8D]

[Benedict151]

I'm inclined to agree, I'm afraid supply is an area I don't fully "get" and tend to opt for a strategy of "that looks about ok"
and hope for the best. It is something of a 'black box' for me ... I go with encircling is good (although I'm still not
a 100% sure how good), being cut off is bad and lots of units in a low supply area should be avoided!

Not that it seems to alter my enjoyment any!

regards
Ben Wilkins

[zakblood]

as long as you enjoy it, for me it doesn't matter, i'll also figure it out one day, just not before it comes out i'd guess

[sPzAbt653]

I am disappointed in myself for having played for four months now and I was still compelled to spend all the time that it took to put together the above six posts and screen shots in order to ask for help. I don't know if it is because I couldn't grasp it from the manual, or if I wasn't applying myself to the rules. Either way the bottom line was that it didn't have any great effect on my game play and didn't frustrate me as a player. It's part of the learning curve for any of these games.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Benedict151

I'm inclined to agree, I'm afraid supply is an area I don't fully "get" and tend to opt for a strategy of "that looks about ok"
and hope for the best. It is something of a 'black box' for me ... I go with encircling is good (although I'm still not
a 100% sure how good), being cut off is bad and lots of units in a low supply area should be avoided!

Not that it seems to alter my enjoyment any!

regards
Ben Wilkins

I agree. It's fun because it's gamy. For sure. But on the other hand there was a lot of realism in almost all aspects of the game . The screenshots of SPzAbt653 show a disputed city which still has a road connection to its own territory and slowly bleeding to zero. This looks a little bit strange. Probably because you would not expect it intuitively. Without question, the Indian encirclements of cities in the past were always a little bit irritating. These had little impact on the infrastructure of the resource but a lot of troops were bound. Now it is considerably more dynamism in the game. But a surrounding with up to 6 units and a "cutting of" the home territories are two pair of shoes, right? As said, only a belly feeling...[:)]

[sPzAbt653]

Probably because you would not expect it intuitively.

Correct, because it is not something we are used to seeing in games, which is why I could not grasp it until Bill re-explained it to me. There was no question in my subconscious that the target had to be surrounded by at least zoc's before it would start to suffer. But my subconscious was wrong.

[sPzAbt653]

I don't know if it warrants any adjustment, but the Soviet Sub retreated from an air attack into this channel up near Sweden, and now it cannot escape [although it darn well dives all the time!].

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

ORIGINAL: Benedict151

I'm inclined to agree, I'm afraid supply is an area I don't fully "get" and tend to opt for a strategy of "that looks about ok"
and hope for the best. It is something of a 'black box' for me ... I go with encircling is good (although I'm still not
a 100% sure how good), being cut off is bad and lots of units in a low supply area should be avoided!

Not that it seems to alter my enjoyment any!

regards
Ben Wilkins

I agree. It's fun because it's gamy. For sure. But on the other hand there was a lot of realism in almost all aspects of the game . The screenshots of SPzAbt653 show a disputed city which still has a road connection to its own territory and slowly bleeding to zero. This looks a little bit strange. Probably because you would not expect it intuitively. Without question, the Indian encirclements of cities in the past were always a little bit irritating. These had little impact on the infrastructure of the resource but a lot of troops were bound. Now it is considerably more dynamism in the game. But a surrounding with up to 6 units and a "cutting of" the home territories are two pair of shoes, right? As said, only a belly feeling...[:)]

I think we've got the problem of trying to make rules that by their nature have to apply in all situations, and therefore they make more sense in some circumstances than others.

So if we take a cut-off town in the USSR as an example, it has a maximum strength and supply value of just 3.

I had thought this would be low enough to ensure a swift and easy destruction without requiring too much force, but it seems to be that it isn't the case.

So the potential to reduce the strength and supply value of the resource further if two units are effectively besieging it exists. This should make these cut-off places easier to take.

However, as the presence of two units adjacent to an enemy held resource doesn't just apply in the USSR, it applies everywhere, it means that in this instance some towns in the UK aren't producing as much supply as before.

Which I think is on the whole correct as it represents the enemy shelling the town and impeding its resupply, as they would have been in real life.

This places the onus on the defender to drive the enemy away from the resource.

One question is how much it matters. Reason being that even if the town's strength is reduced, the connection and proximity of another supply source (e.g. Manchester) means that the supply value of a unit occupying the town will only be marginally reduced in most situations.

I do wonder if the solution is more that the resource that has two enemy units adjacent to it should only lose strength in the opponent's turn, so that the rate of reduction is slower. So in this example Oxford would lose strength over time, but not as quickly as it's been happening.