Update v1.16.03

[Taxman66]

How is it determined which HQ is getting boosted? If 2 HQs are sitting on 3 supply hexes, how is it determined which will provide 6 and which provides 8?
Can it be manually changed?

How many HQs can a HQ boost? (This is just to confirm what appears by your answer to be a single 1 way boost that can't be chained)

Can a HQ receiving a boost provide one to a 3rd HQ, and so forth? (This is just to confirm what appears by your answer to be a single 1 way boost that can't be chained)

Can co-operating Major power HQs (e.g. US & UK or GE & IT) boost each other?

Can a minor HQ boost a co-operating Major power HQ, or vice versa (e.g. Canadian HQ & US HQ or Romanian HQ & Italian HQ)?

Can non co-operating Minor HQs boost each other (e.g. Romanian & Hungarian HQs)?

----
Am I wrong or is this making Supply easier in many (not all) cases? Frex: The long stretch between Trans-Jordan and Iraq.

[Hubert Cater]

How is it determined which HQ is getting boosted? If 2 HQs are sitting on 3 supply hexes, how is it determined which will provide 6 and which provides 8?
Can it be manually changed?

I believe in this case the engine will attempt to have the lower rated HQ boost the higher rated one. If they are the same then it would be random. No it cannot be changed manually as this is all automatically handled.

How many HQs can a HQ boost? (This is just to confirm what appears by your answer to be a single 1 way boost that can't be chained)

Just one HQ

Can a HQ receiving a boost provide one to a 3rd HQ, and so forth? (This is just to confirm what appears by your answer to be a single 1 way boost that can't be chained)

No

Can co-operating Major power HQs (e.g. US & UK or GE & IT) boost each other?

Yes

Can a minor HQ boost a co-operating Major power HQ, or vice versa (e.g. Canadian HQ & US HQ or Romanian HQ & Italian HQ)?

Yes, so long as they are cooperative this should be the case

Can non co-operating Minor HQs boost each other (e.g. Romanian & Hungarian HQs)?

No

[The Land]

So a worked example - could also be done with pictures

An Italian HQ is on a 5-value resource on the North African coast. The Italian HQ has an effective supply of 8.

A German HQ is in the next hex. This has a "raw" supply value of 4 from the resource. The German HQ is boosted to 5, because of the Italian HQ, and now gives effective supply of 8.

The German HQ can move further away from the Italian HQ, and is still boosted, so long as it is in a position to receive any supply from the Italian HQ.

If the original resource loses 1 or 2 Supply points (down to 3 or 4) due to e.g. strategic bombing, then the Italian HQ now has effective supply of 6. This reduces the distance at which the German HQ will receive boosting and if the German HQ is now out of the reach of the Italian HQ then the German HQ will revert to its natural supply level (very likely 0 (3)).

If the original resource loses 3 Supply points down to 2, then the Italian HQ now has effective supply of 5. Regardless of the location of the German HQ, it can no longer be boosted by the Italian HQ. If the German HQ is next to the resource, it will be 1(5). If it is any further away it will be 0(3).

Is that all correct?

Also, can an HQ provide a boost when its own supply value is down to an amphibious landing?

[Cataphract88]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Hi Cataphract88,

Sorry to hear about the trouble, could you tell me what your desktop resolution is? Also could you tell me if you are running with scaling, i.e. 125% scaling for your screen as well?

This info can be found in your Display Settings section, and here is an article that has some info on how to access this on your PC:

https://www.thurrott.com/windows/window ... ay-scaling

Hubert

Hi Hubert,

My desktop resolution is 1920 x 1200, and scaling is 150%.

Hope this helps.

[Taxman66]

I would bet the scaling is the problem.

[Taxman66]

I believe in this case the engine will attempt to have the lower rated HQ boost the higher rated one. If they are the same then it would be random. No it cannot be changed manually as this is all automatically handled.

That could be tactically... challenging.
We will have to be careful when advancing (and possibly retreating) to keep in mind which HQ is the booster and which the boostie.
Also have to keep in mind what might happen if a 3rd (or more HQ) comes into range. Things can get screwy or at least hard to figure out.

If/since there is no way to manually pick booster/boostie;
Would it be possible to add boosting information to either the hover text, and/or the unit information box at the bottom of the UI?
Something along the lines of:
"Boosting Eisenhower"
"Receiving boost from Patton

-----
Observations for fellow gamers to be aware of:

Be careful the Next Turn Supply function/calculator may not be accurate as while it could/might take into account current Booster/Boostie status, if that status changes by introduction of additional HQ within range it could be wrong.
For example, You are relying on HQ#1 to boost HQ#2, but HQ#1 might suddenly switch to boosting a 3rd HQ that just comes into range (or if it's own booster/boostie status changes by moving a 4th HQ). This might deprive HQ#2 of a boost.

I also presume that Booster/Boostie status could also possibly flip-flop between turns.
For example: If HQ#1 is higher rated but further in the back (say linked with air units), and HQ#2 is more forward (linked to ground units). Due to Supply values HQ#1 is currently boosting HQ#2.
HQ#2 might suddenly reverse status with HQ#1
Possibly due to movement; or the change in intrinsic supply if it is increased by a nearby supply source repairing/getting damaged; or by damage to one HQ or the other.

[Sugar]

In SC WW1 Breakthrough you needed 1 supply to provide 8 and 6 to provide 10. Done.

[Cataphract88]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I would bet the scaling is the problem.

Then you would be right, Taxman!

What I did to resolve the problem (for anybody else in the same boat) was to change the scaling to 100%, turn the game on, turn it off, change the scaling back to 150% and turn the game back on again.

Now it works as it should again - case closed (or so I hope). [:)]

[Cameraeye]

Can we upgrade with games currently in progress?

[Taxman66]

yes

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: The Land

So a worked example - could also be done with pictures

An Italian HQ is on a 5-value resource on the North African coast. The Italian HQ has an effective supply of 8.

A German HQ is in the next hex. This has a "raw" supply value of 4 from the resource. The German HQ is boosted to 5, because of the Italian HQ, and now gives effective supply of 8.

The German HQ can move further away from the Italian HQ, and is still boosted, so long as it is in a position to receive any supply from the Italian HQ.

Correct

If the original resource loses 1 or 2 Supply points (down to 3 or 4) due to e.g. strategic bombing, then the Italian HQ now has effective supply of 6. This reduces the distance at which the German HQ will receive boosting and if the German HQ is now out of the reach of the Italian HQ then the German HQ will revert to its natural supply level (very likely 0 (3)).

Correct

If the original resource loses 3 Supply points down to 2, then the Italian HQ now has effective supply of 5. Regardless of the location of the German HQ, it can no longer be boosted by the Italian HQ. If the German HQ is next to the resource, it will be 1(5). If it is any further away it will be 0(3).

Is that all correct?

Indeed, correct

Also, can an HQ provide a boost when its own supply value is down to an amphibious landing?

Potentially yes as there is no restriction on the source of supply, it is just a matter of general functionality for the boosting rules.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I believe in this case the engine will attempt to have the lower rated HQ boost the higher rated one. If they are the same then it would be random. No it cannot be changed manually as this is all automatically handled.

That could be tactically... challenging.
We will have to be careful when advancing (and possibly retreating) to keep in mind which HQ is the booster and which the boostie.
Also have to keep in mind what might happen if a 3rd (or more HQ) comes into range. Things can get screwy or at least hard to figure out.

If/since there is no way to manually pick booster/boostie;
Would it be possible to add boosting information to either the hover text, and/or the unit information box at the bottom of the UI?
Something along the lines of:
"Boosting Eisenhower"
"Receiving boost from Patton

-----
Observations for fellow gamers to be aware of:

Be careful the Next Turn Supply function/calculator may not be accurate as while it could/might take into account current Booster/Boostie status, if that status changes by introduction of additional HQ within range it could be wrong.
For example, You are relying on HQ#1 to boost HQ#2, but HQ#1 might suddenly switch to boosting a 3rd HQ that just comes into range (or if it's own booster/boostie status changes by moving a 4th HQ). This might deprive HQ#2 of a boost.

I also presume that Booster/Boostie status could also possibly flip-flop between turns.
For example: If HQ#1 is higher rated but further in the back (say linked with air units), and HQ#2 is more forward (linked to ground units). Due to Supply values HQ#1 is currently boosting HQ#2.
HQ#2 might suddenly reverse status with HQ#1
Possibly due to movement; or the change in intrinsic supply if it is increased by a nearby supply source repairing/getting damaged; or by damage to one HQ or the other.

The general idea here was to provide a simple mechanism to intuitively boost supply without the need for further micromanagement. Of course when there are multiple HQs and a dynamic front it can potentially become a bit more complex if you ultimately want things to be exact, and understandably so, and I guess it comes down to whether or not we want to go down that road. It's always a careful balance between having some additional functionality that is nice to have built in, versus then adding in fine tuned control which can lead to additional management.

Perhaps as an option or as mentioned above more intuitive highlights so that a player at least knows an HQ is being boosted and by whom in a move obvious way. Something to think about for sure.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I believe in this case the engine will attempt to have the lower rated HQ boost the higher rated one. If they are the same then it would be random. No it cannot be changed manually as this is all automatically handled.

That could be tactically... challenging.
We will have to be careful when advancing (and possibly retreating) to keep in mind which HQ is the booster and which the boostie.
Also have to keep in mind what might happen if a 3rd (or more HQ) comes into range. Things can get screwy or at least hard to figure out.

If/since there is no way to manually pick booster/boostie;
Would it be possible to add boosting information to either the hover text, and/or the unit information box at the bottom of the UI?
Something along the lines of:
"Boosting Eisenhower"
"Receiving boost from Patton

-----
Observations for fellow gamers to be aware of:

Be careful the Next Turn Supply function/calculator may not be accurate as while it could/might take into account current Booster/Boostie status, if that status changes by introduction of additional HQ within range it could be wrong.
For example, You are relying on HQ#1 to boost HQ#2, but HQ#1 might suddenly switch to boosting a 3rd HQ that just comes into range (or if it's own booster/boostie status changes by moving a 4th HQ). This might deprive HQ#2 of a boost.

I also presume that Booster/Boostie status could also possibly flip-flop between turns.
For example: If HQ#1 is higher rated but further in the back (say linked with air units), and HQ#2 is more forward (linked to ground units). Due to Supply values HQ#1 is currently boosting HQ#2.
HQ#2 might suddenly reverse status with HQ#1
Possibly due to movement; or the change in intrinsic supply if it is increased by a nearby supply source repairing/getting damaged; or by damage to one HQ or the other.

The general idea here was to provide a simple mechanism to intuitively boost supply without the need for further micromanagement. Of course when there are multiple HQs and a dynamic front it can potentially become a bit more complex if you ultimately want things to be exact, and understandably so, and I guess it comes down to whether or not we want to go down that road. It's always a careful balance between having some additional functionality that is nice to have built in, versus then adding in fine tuned control which can lead to additional management.

Perhaps as an option or as mentioned above more intuitive highlights so that a player at least knows an HQ is being boosted and by whom in a move obvious way. Something to think about for sure.

Please - some sort of visual and/or textual indicator of which HQ is boosting which would be enormously helpful!

[Sugar]

The general idea here was to provide a simple mechanism to intuitively boost supply without the need for further micromanagement. Of course when there are multiple HQs and a dynamic front it can potentially become a bit more complex if you ultimately want things to be exact, and understandably so, and I guess it comes down to whether or not we want to go down that road. It's always a careful balance between having some additional functionality that is nice to have built in, versus then adding in fine tuned control which can lead to additional management.

Especially considering the separate treatment of air units, which usually will be attached to the "first" HQ, this change will probably lead to more of a guessing. Compare this mechanic to WWI Breakthrough: 1 supply required to provide 8, 6 to provide 10 supply; very forgiving especially for new players, and with a completely workable supply prediction.

If you compare the theatres, in which these new rules will lead to issues, only one side will be affected negatively: North Africa and Middle East same issues for both sides, Russia with "Scorched Earth" will only affect the Axis; Allied landings in France won`t be affected very much due to the improved supply of landing units and no Scorched Earth (in fact landing units will mostly have better supply than defending units); and China for WaW also one sided for the Japanese. And of course every player will feel the need to apply at least 2 HQs on every theatre.

Attachements of air units to the "first" HQ will lead to reduced supply, unless the newly occupied town reaches 5 supply, which under bad circumstances can take 5 turns. And you better pray as Axis that no strat. bomber will ever occurr on the russian front, otherwise bombing the supply source will have devastating outcomes.

[Hubert Cater]

To go back to some of the logic behind the changes, and especially supply as much has changed over time since the original WiE release, the initial inspiration for the changes were that the Axis generally had too much supply, and especially in the USSR, where they could press forward at maximum supply via HQ linking/boosting, giving little chance to the Soviet player to ever mount a reasonable comeback. A tipping point was rare in the earlier versions of the release.

Thus the change from WWI Breakthrough: 1 supply required to provide 8, 6 to provide 10 supply, to what we have now.

Generally speaking, the mechanism for how HQs are linked for boosting has not changed at all, i.e. a low supply HQ can be boosted by another HQ etc., just the supply rules and what constitutes the minimum thresholds and so on.

With that in mind, once we amended the supply distribution chart, it then made sense to change some of the thresholds. For example, if a previously boosted HQ was at one time able to distribute 10 supply (which was found to be too high as mentioned above), and we wanted to lower it to 8, then we just needed to make sure all the other values continued to make sense.

This is why at one time we lowered HQ distribution supply to 5 for any HQ with its own supply < 3, and why an HQ to be boosted needed to have a supply < 5, as otherwise it made no sense when considering we wanted to lower distribution supply of a boosted HQ and so on.

So what did this get us for War in Europe?

Earlier on it much improved the situation in the USSR, resulted in North Africa and the Middle East feeling more realistic as the Axis arguably had a bit of an edge there as well due to higher supply and seemingly much improved the balance of the game overall, including when we take into account the attachment rules/changes for air units as well.

However, due to some of the perceived issues with World at War, as well as continued concerns regarding pockets still having seemingly higher supply than what would be expected, and because we would like to have consistent rules between both games, we've made a few further changes. Key being these ones here:

- HQ supply = 0 will have a distribution supply value of 3 (previously it was 5).
- HQ supply 1 or 2 will have a distribution supply value of 5.
- HQ supply 3 or 4 will have a distribution supply value of 6 (previously it was 8).

The first change helps to deal with out of supply pockets making them easier to destroy, while the last change helps to address higher than expected supply on overstretched advances. To compensate we did make adjustments for HQs that have recently amphibiously landed which mimics mulberry supply, and scorched earth was amended for War in Europe to slightly lower the impact.

Essentially we didn't want it to have any change on the overall balance of War in Europe (despite some supply changes for both sides) while at the same time it could greatly address the perceived issues in World at War.

As Sugar has mentioned, for War in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East should for the most part feel the same as there will be supply issues for both sides, in the USSR the Axis player will feel a bit of a supply distribution difference but this is compensated by reduced effects from scorched earth and should more or less be mitigated so long as HQ boosting is still employed. While D-Day, Torch or Italian landings by the Allies will potentially be more effective with the HQ mulberry supply effect.

For World at War, Axis supply in the USSR will be a bit more challenging under the new supply rules, which is what we were after, and Japanese supply in China should be more challenging as well as we were definitely after this there too. The Strategic Bomber strategy in the USSR will also be less effective since we made a change to the cooperative status of the USSR in World at War and amended cooperative supply to now a max value of 3.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[Taxman66]

While D-Day, Torch or Italian landings by the Allies will potentially be more effective with the HQ mulberry supply effect.

Note this is an observation, not (yet) a complaint:

The 'Mulberry' change also makes Sea Lion a lot easier as well.

[Hubert Cater]

Definitely fair enough as it can potentially go both ways as you've noted. It's another necessary change since once we reduced HQ supply in a pocket, we needed an adjustment for Amphibious landings as otherwise any HQ that lands and doesn't immediately connect to a captured resource, would have reduced supply from previous builds, and essentially be in a trapped pocket as well, i.e. game logic wise, which would be a significant penalty. It's an improvement of supply, but we also felt an improvement for game play as well in order to be able to simulate Mulberry type effects for landings.

One other area it will help is in the Pacific theater for Allied island hopping and landings in the World at War game, but we will also be making a change in a future patch whereby a unit that has been loaded onto an Amphibious Transport will no longer be able to unload on the same turn... which helps to address one of the exploits that makes Sealion a little bit easier than it should be for those that take advantage of this.

[Taxman66]

I seem to recall making that suggestion some time ago

[witpaemail]

Dont know if it was because of starting the game in .02 and updating to .03 or just a bug in .03, but Rommel didnt appear with the Afrika corps.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: witpaemail

Dont know if it was because of starting the game in .02 and updating to .03 or just a bug in .03, but Rommel didnt appear with the Afrika corps.

That does sound odd, particularly as I haven't touched any scripts related to the Afrika Korps in sometime. Did the Decision fire?

It would be good to know if anyone else experiences this.