ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre
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.
You are presumably right, Bill, balancing the supply is a game-technical mine field. [:D]
