Is there any point to not digging in all of your units towards the end of your turn?

[Icedawg]

If you leave units in mobile mode, they tend to get hammered if attacked. Also, units in defensive deployment are supposed to get a supply bonus. So, it would seem that you would be an idiot to leave units in mobile mode at the end of your turn - no benefit and lots to lose. Can anyone confirm/refute this?

[Hellen_slith]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

If you leave units in mobile mode, they tend to get hammered if attacked. Also, units in defensive deployment are supposed to get a supply bonus. So, it would seem that you would be an idiot to leave units in mobile mode at the end of your turn - no benefit and lots to lose. Can anyone confirm/refute this?

My understanding is that digging in units not set to tactical or local reserve will boost overall supply percentage thing.

It can be a real chore digging in, thus I wish there were some function button that say, "DIG IN THE UNITS THAT ARE NOT ALREADY DUG?" and you say, "YES!!!" and it digs them in for you. That would be esp. helpful for disorganized units that can still dig in but not move.

[sPzAbt653]

Not Moving a unit will gain it a Supply Boost. Digging in gains no boost [in Supply].

Units in Defend status gain a x2 Defense Bonus over units left in Mobile status. Therefore, always Dig-In if you can, if its feasible. Note that some scenarios have a reduced Entrenchment Rate, so the less Movement you have left, the less likely your chance of getting a Defend Status. And yes, it would be nice to have an Easy Button to 'Dig in All', but that is not really practical as it could create adverse results. To me, it's one of those little things to keep in mind as I phase thru all the units round after round - 'time to dig in, or still some use in this unit?'.

EDIT: To clarify, this is not referring to Artillery units. See Lobster's comment below.

[Icedawg]

Thanks for the input guys (even if you disagree about the supply bonus). I will just trudge through the formation lists and dig in everyone close to the front lines.

No offense Hellen_slith, but I'm going with sPzAbt653 for now on the supply thing. Based on his number of posts, he has been playing this game for a LONG time. I'm not saying I think you're wrong, it just seems that he has a lot of time invested in this game.

[sPzAbt653]

Well, we all can be wrong at times, but since the only reason that I am here is because I found much needed help when I joined this Forum, so I feel it's returning the favor. Therefore, I only try to post what I am fairly surely positive of, otherwise it is of no help. However, sometimes memory does fail [;)]

[Lobster]

There are reasons not to dig in. If you have artillery units that you want to have on high supply the next turn then don't dig them in. Digging them in could cause them to use supply by supporting units. If I'm planning to go on the offensive in an area and I want to be sure my artillery has the highest supply possible I will leave them mobile. If I'm on the defense I will sometimes conduct limited attacks just to use up my opponents artillery supply level.

Also:
§§ Defending – The unit is deployed to defend
the location. There are defensive and supply
advantages for this deployment.

[demyansk]

Good point Lobster, great game

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

There are reasons not to dig in. If you have artillery units that you want to have on high supply the next turn then don't dig them in. Digging them in could cause them to use supply by supporting units. If I'm planning to go on the offensive in an area and I want to be sure my artillery has the highest supply possible I will leave them mobile. If I'm on the defense I will sometimes conduct limited attacks just to use up my opponents artillery supply level.

Also:
§§ Defending – The unit is deployed to defend
the location. There are defensive and supply
advantages for this deployment.

My guess is that the supply "advantage" referred to there for digging in is that the unit tends to not move in that deployment.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Also:
§§ Defending – The unit is deployed to defend
the location. There are defensive and supply
advantages for this deployment.

My guess is that the supply "advantage" referred to there for digging in is that the unit tends to not move in that deployment.

But movement's use of supply is already mentioned. You are the one who can see the code. All we can see is the manual. [;)]

"Manuel, relay instructions." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxZGYjU1PRc

[Hellen_slith]

I was simply misremembering "Transport Asset Sharing":

"Units that do not move and are not assigned a Local or Tactical Reserve status will temporarily lend a portion of their transport assets (equipment with a transport capability, such as trucks, horse teams, etc.) to their parent Formation (and possibly to others depending upon the Formation Support Level) to aid in distributing Supply to other units."

I had forgotten that Transport Asset Sharing is not dependent upon digging in.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Also:
§§ Defending – The unit is deployed to defend
the location. There are defensive and supply
advantages for this deployment.

My guess is that the supply "advantage" referred to there for digging in is that the unit tends to not move in that deployment.

But movement's use of supply is already mentioned. You are the one who can see the code. All we can see is the manual. [;)]

"Manuel, relay instructions." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxZGYjU1PRc

That's what I meant: It gets the No Movement advantage.

And you're fully powered to test this out yourself. If you move a unit, then dig it in, does it get a supply boost? Or does it have to wait until next turn to get one?

[Lobster]

§§ Defending – The unit is deployed to defend
the location. There are defensive and supply
advantages for this deployment.

§§ Not Moving – The unit is deployed to defend
the location. There are defensive and supply
advantages for this deployment.

So, once again the manual obfuscates things by using explanations that are not explanations at all but smoke to make things more difficult to understand. Why even include the ditty about Defending when the boost for supply when not moving is already explained in another place? It is entirely unnecessary and just makes things more confusing by implying that there is another layer of supply enhancement available by digging in. The manual is full of bull carp like this.

Wanna see how a manual should be written? Look at Simulations Publications manuals. If a rule references an earlier or later rule that earlier or later rule is referenced to reduce ambiguities. Today manuals are just slapped together because, basically, no on cares to make them right.

[Lobster]

Also, note that movement recovery is done twice
for each side (start of each player-turn).

So, with the new turn rules supply is determined in between each player's phase. Movement is also recovered. Does this mean that if player one digs in during his player turn, when supply is determined in Player twos portion of the turn Player One gets a supply bonus for having not moved even though he moved and used supply in the same time increment Player Two did?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

§§ Defending – The unit is deployed to defend
the location. There are defensive and supply
advantages for this deployment.

§§ Not Moving – The unit is deployed to defend
the location. There are defensive and supply
advantages for this deployment.

So, once again the manual obfuscates things by using explanations that are not explanations at all but smoke to make things more difficult to understand. Why even include the ditty about Defending when the boost for supply when not moving is already explained in another place? It is entirely unnecessary and just makes things more confusing by implying that there is another layer of supply enhancement available by digging in. The manual is full of bull carp like this.

Wanna see how a manual should be written? Look at Simulations Publications manuals. If a rule references an earlier or later rule that earlier or later rule is referenced to reduce ambiguities. Today manuals are just slapped together because, basically, no on cares to make them right.

Did you do any tests?

[Lobster]

Tests? Isn't there a manual that tells us how things work? Isn't that what a manual does? There shouldn't have to be any tests. Here's what we do. Throw out the manual. Don't even include one. Let everyone test everything to try and see how it works. [;)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Tests? Isn't there a manual that tells us how things work? Isn't that what a manual does? There shouldn't have to be any tests. Here's what we do. Throw out the manual. Don't even include one. Let everyone test everything to try and see how it works. [;)]

OK, I guess we'll just have to wait and see if Ole Norm makes an appearance here. I'm sure he'll remember and explain it to us.

[Lobster]

§§ Defending – The unit is deployed to defend
the location. There are defensive advantages
for this deployment.

Takes away the ambiguities. The manual is full of things that could use a little clarification.

Do you really think all new players are going to bother to test anything? Some of them won't even know there's a Matrix website. They'll just go play something that does a better job of explaining how things work in the game like GG WitE.

[Lobster]

BTW, when will interdiction's opportunity bombardment be fixed and when will an explanation about it be put in the manual? Doing a search for 'opportunity' in the manual gets about six or seven hits, none of them about interdiction or bombardment.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Do you really think all new players are going to bother to test anything?

How about a member of the Development Team testing a few things?

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Do you really think all new players are going to bother to test anything?

How about a member of the Development Team testing a few things?

[:D]

All I did was drag the inadequacies of the manual out. I know how it works. You know how it works. But someone reading that portion of the manual would get the idea that somehow being [D] gives a layer of extra supply that just isn't there. And the only thing you can come up with is for people to test it even though they might not have any idea how the game actually functions. The manual is there for a reason and it isn't to sow confusion though sometimes it seems that way. Instead of people testing things why not fix the manual so it's clear. Some of that confusing stuff has been in there since 1998. This is one of them.

§§ Defending – The unit is deployed to defend
the location. There are defensive and supply
advantages for this deployment.