Guess the Supply level of the Italian Tanks in Tobruk

[EarlyDoors]

Hi Guys

I have a challenge for you, I'm going to describe a situation with screenshots and then ask for your opinion

So, I am Allies PBEM++
I am attacking Tobruk - here is the layout of Units

December 1942 - Attack Tobruk

I want to reduce supply so by using the US Strategic bombers in Crete and UK Strategic Bombers around Cairo plus Naval bombardment and blockade, this is the state of the resources at the end of the turn

Reduce those Resources to zero

There are 2 Italian HQs with the one distributing to Tobruk highlighted

HQs

So my question is simple

Next turn, what will be the supply level of the Italian Tanks at Tobruk?

[Marcinos1985]

I will take a guess, with some explanation.
Benghazi is at zero, as is port, so HQ there will generate 3 supply.
This 3 supply will be passed to 2nd HQ - bc there is a road nad Benghazi s Secondary supply center, someone pls correct me.
2nd HQ will be boosted, so 3+3 - it generates 6 supply.
This 6 supply is transfered via road to tobruk and tanks are at 6 supply. Correct?

If it is, then Italy is obviously producing ammo out of thin air, worthy skill in WW2.
Jokes aside, I understand your frustration, in one of my tournament games I was on the receving end and got pushed back to Egypt.

You are not asking for advice, but still I can't resist. [:'(]
Only 'quick' solution I see is to bomb the 2nd HQ with everything you have. Your TAC is unimproved, so it probably will have hard time to hit, but STRB and carrier can do the work. Unless ITA has AA lvl 2 or something.
Slower solution is to sweep 8HP army and try to attack 2nd HQ, garrison shouldn't hold out more than a turn.
Lack of 2nd HQ near tobruk hurts you a lot unfortunately. Have you considered amphib landing on a hex west of Tobruk?

[EarlyDoors]

Correct first time Marcinos1985

The tanks have supply 6

tanks supply 6

Ok, so I have been misunderstanding supply all the time - i thought that supply dropped by 1 for every hex away from the HQ - are you saying that all units along the road receive the same supply as the HQ?

I did not know this - does it matter whether it is metalled road or not?

edit:checked the manual #
§The supply benefit of resources decreases with distance by 1 per hex in clear terrain.
§The rate of decrease will be greater in non-clear terrain, as such terrain is an impediment to good supply. For example, placing units in large forests, mountains or marshes, unless they are close to a nearby supply source, will generally be a bad move.
§Roads negate the effect of terrain on supply, so keeping units on or near roads is recommended


Whats the betting I never read as far as point 3!

Ok, so for future play - I need to cut the roads!!!

[EarlyDoors]

ok now i know that supply is passed intact from resources / hq along a road lets take a look at this scenario (from a different game but didn't have to be)

UK have captured Benghazi and its giving out supply 2

The HQ is taking that supply and now distributing 5

O-Connor distributes 5

And that is passed all the way along the road, right?

Wrong!
WDF one hex along the road receives 4

NZ corps 2 hexes away receives 3

And so on and so on...


Why are they not receiving 5?

[Cpuncher]

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

§Roads negate the effect of terrain on supply, so keeping units on or near roads is recommended

I think you misunderstood. It really is saying roads negate the effect of "non-clear" terrain (or when terrain had an effect, other than distance), but not distance. Anything 1 hex down the road would still be 1 less supply, no matter what road.

Marcinos was correct with his answer, but wrong with his analysis. On the next turn, Benghazi would grow to 1, which give the HQ there to generate 5 supply, which means that HQ could boost any HQ that's within 4 supply distance to generate 8 supply. The 2nd HQ was only 3 supply distance away, that's why it is generating 8 supply, passing to the Tank in Tobruk that's 2 supply distance away, to give it 6 supply.

The new HQ boosting rule is a bit over-tuned. Now it's impossible to shut down enemy supply when he has 2 HQs close enough to each other. Stat Bombers are still useful in reducing MPPs and training your HQ. Yes I found Strat Bombers are the best tool to train your Allied HQ. Give him 2 Strat Bombers to command, and he is gaining .40 level per turn. And you will get a 3 star HQ very quickly. 3 star HQs are extremely effective in combating the Elite German units.

Get your level 5 US Strat Bombers as early as you can. For one they look super cool! Send them out without escorts and they can shred those German level 3 interceptors to pieces, since you can double chit your H Bomb research and he can only single chit Figher. This way you generate double exp for your HQ. If your US HQ is commanding 3 Strat Bombers at the same time, you can generate 1.2 level exp for your HQ per turn! So every 2 and half turns you can build a brand new HQ into a 3 star one!

[EarlyDoors]

Hi CPuncher - thx for the reply

Ok so my understanding was kinda correct apart from this HQ boosting thing

which means that HQ could boost any HQ that's within 4 supply distance to generate 8 supply. The 2nd HQ was only 3 supply distance away, that's why it is generating 8 supply, passing to the Tank in Tobruk that's 2 supply distance away, to give it 6 supply.

The new HQ boosting rule is a bit over-tuned.

Is this a new rule? To my mind the second HQ is taking in a 2 and so should be returning a 5

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4582548&mpage=1&key=supply&#4587760

[Cpuncher]

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

Is this a new rule? To my mind the second HQ is taking in a 2 and so should be returning a 5

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4582548&mpage=1&key=supply�

I believe the boosted HQ has nothing to do with what supply it's actually receiving. It's either boosted, if he meets the requirements to be boosted, or he is not. If he is, he will distribute 8 no matter what. If he isn't, then he would have to use local supply. In this case, Tubrok is actually having 5 local supply due to the port. So if the second HQ was not boosted, he would have a local supply of 3 which means he can distribute 6. The tank in Tobruk would have a supply of 5 if he was not receiving anything from the HQ.

Your linked supply table is outdated. All I know for a strength 10 HQ, if the local supply is 0, he distributes 3, 1 or 2=>5, 3 or 4=>6, 5=>8, 6 and above=>10.

[EarlyDoors]

Thanks CPuncher

I have found the discussion in this this topic

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4766433&mpage=1&key=boost&#4766510

so a 1 strength resource can get boosted to 8 by a booster HQ

I think this absolutely stinks as it provides the same outcome as if all surrounding resources where at 5

It also has the same effect in the Russian Winter, whereby all booster HQs continually output 8

crazy decision to implement this change IMHO

[Marcinos1985]

On the next turn, Benghazi would grow to 1, which give the HQ there to generate 5 supply, which means that HQ could boost any HQ that's within 4 supply distance to generate 8 supply.

Are you sure about that? I thought it would grow to 1 on next Allied turn, not Axis.
Omg, if it’s true I was wrong for so long...

[Hubert Cater]

For some background on this, there were some Multiplayer concerns where an Allied strategy in North Africa had developed with little to no effective counter for the Axis side. Allied players would bring Strategic Bombers to NA and reduce all Axis supply sources, and combined with the Malta effect, would result in a complete paralysis of any possible Axis offensives.

To counter this, somewhat, we amended the rule so that as long as the Axis side had a second HQ in good strength, the Axis side could maintain a supply value of 8 in most cases.

It just helped to balance things out and have it a lot less one sided, e.g. the Axis require at least 2 HQs, and they need to keep their HQs in good strength in order to be effective (some investment still required by the Axis), but on the flip side, the Allies can still use a supply reduction strategy and can still be effective if they reduce the supply sources as well as the boosted HQ.

There were also still some concerns for Axis supply as they get deeper into the USSR, and this helped address that as well.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

On the next turn, Benghazi would grow to 1, which give the HQ there to generate 5 supply, which means that HQ could boost any HQ that's within 4 supply distance to generate 8 supply.

Are you sure about that? I thought it would grow to 1 on next Allied turn, not Axis.
Omg, if it’s true I was wrong for so long...

I believe this is correct, Benghazi will grow to 1 on the next Axis turn.

[EarlyDoors]

Hi Hubert - thanks for the reply

I feel its gone too far in favour of the Axis who have far more HQs, whereas the Allies can barely afford to reposition the single UK strategic bomber, let alone purchase more.
As previously stated, there is now no difference (with a booster HQ) between resources outputting 1 or 5

Please consider either
~ grading HQ output more gradually rather than in steps
~ booster HQ output should be more dependent upon input

[LoneRunner]

I can understand the need to play balance by reducing the impact of strategic bombers. However allowing a boosted HQ to distribute more supply than the booster HQ is illogical.

The rule should be changed such that the supply distributed by a boosted HQ can not exceed the supply distributed by the booster HQ.

Using that rule, an HQ would distribute 5 supply if it were boosted by an HQ sitting on a level 1 local supply.

[pjg100]

ORIGINAL: LoneRunner


I can understand the need to play balance by reducing the impact of strategic bombers. However allowing a boosted HQ to distribute more supply than the booster HQ is illogical.

The rule should be changed such that the supply distributed by a boosted HQ can not exceed the supply distributed by the booster HQ.

Using that rule, an HQ would distribute 5 supply if it were boosted by an HQ sitting on a level 1 local supply.

I think this would kill Axis supply in NA and Russia.

[Cpuncher]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

On the next turn, Benghazi would grow to 1, which give the HQ there to generate 5 supply, which means that HQ could boost any HQ that's within 4 supply distance to generate 8 supply.

Are you sure about that? I thought it would grow to 1 on next Allied turn, not Axis.
Omg, if it’s true I was wrong for so long...

I believe this is correct, Benghazi will grow to 1 on the next Axis turn.

Thanks Hubert for confirming this.

And to Marcinos and the rest of you multiplayer enthusiasts, this is what I know:

1. All your resources that is to grow will grow before your turn, after opponent turn. All his will grow before his turn, after yours. So if you just reduced something to 0 by bombing or ship attacking, it will be 1 when he plays.

2. All your resources that is to decrease due to opponent effort (2 ground units next to a city or 2 ships next to a port) will decrease before his turn, after your turn. Vice versa. So if you just put 2 something next to his resource, it won't reduce when he plays. It will only reduce when the next time you play. So the turn you moved 2 ships to his level 5 port won't stop his unit from being transported away using that port. You have to attack the port to 4 or lower.

3. The next turn supply prediction is for the next turn you play, not the coming turn when your opponent plays. So be very careful with this. Since the prediction is based on your resources grow on your turn, which won't happen on the coming turn that is his, your unit you thought that may receive 5 supply on the prediction may very well only has 3 actually, on his turn, since your resource hasn't grown yet (see point 1). I will say it again, be very careful with this. I only came to know this recently.

I can say for sure even many veteran players don't know all these.

[Marcinos1985]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

For some background on this, there were some Multiplayer concerns where an Allied strategy in North Africa had developed with little to no effective counter for the Axis side. Allied players would bring Strategic Bombers to NA and reduce all Axis supply sources, and combined with the Malta effect, would result in a complete paralysis of any possible Axis offensives.

To counter this, somewhat, we amended the rule so that as long as the Axis side had a second HQ in good strength, the Axis side could maintain a supply value of 8 in most cases.

It just helped to balance things out and have it a lot less one sided, e.g. the Axis require at least 2 HQs, and they need to keep their HQs in good strength in order to be effective (some investment still required by the Axis), but on the flip side, the Allies can still use a supply reduction strategy and can still be effective if they reduce the supply sources as well as the boosted HQ.

There were also still some concerns for Axis supply as they get deeper into the USSR, and this helped address that as well.

Thank you for reply. TBH, I didn't play before 1.05 (1.05 changed things, right?) and I may be a little biased. But if situation was that bad, now it got turned around 180 degrees. As screen posted by EarlyDoors shows, all Italian ports and cities are totally razed, no brick standing, but thanks to 2 HQ's they may generate 8 supply. 8 is a lot, you may reinforce freely and keep the morale up. But how on earth could you do it, if everything is burnt to ground? At the same time, it renders Malta effect useless.
We may of course argue, that Axis has to make a significant investment. Yes, of course. But they already have plenty of HQ's, in contrary to Allies, they just have to ship them and reinforce them. And when they do it, they will steamroll, unless Allies rush them beforehand.
In Russia it's the same case. In recent AAR of Fafnir vs Cpuncher there is situation, where USSR retreated deeply, and Germans just leapfrogged to them with good supply at once (was it 6?). It means that scorched earth settings are quite irrelevant, if Germany and minors bring 2 HQ's close to the front.
There are of course balance reasons, so it is not desirable to emulate logistical situation in USSR as IRL, but as stated several times, now the situation is skewed much in Axis favour. Really, 8 out of thin air is a lot.

By accident, there is similar thread in WiE forum [:)]
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4891174

[Marcinos1985]

3. The next turn supply prediction is for the next turn you play, not the coming turn when your opponent plays. So be very careful with this. Since the prediction is based on your resources grow on your turn, which won't happen on the coming turn that is his, your unit you thought that may receive 5 supply on the prediction may very well only has 3 actually, on his turn, since your resource hasn't grown yet on his turn. I will say it again, be very careful with this. I only came to know this recently.

Ups, was wrong with this one too
Is there a possibility to check what will be your supply at opponents turn?

[Cpuncher]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

Is there a possibility to check what will be your supply at opponents turn?

Not really. But most of the prediction will be valid. You just need to take an extra look and manually take out the effects of any resource growth.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors
As previously stated, there is now no difference (with a booster HQ) between resources outputting 1 or 5

This is true when HQs are linked together to provide boosting from one to the other, however, this is also dependent upon the strengths of the HQs as well. Reducing the strengths of the HQs will then also lower the supply they can provide, e.g. a boosted HQ at full strength can provide 8 supply, however if it is reduced to 5 strength then that is halved and subsequently drops to 4 supply and so on.

Again the goal is to provide a side with some mechanism to deal with low supply situations, e.g. the HQ boosting mechanism (which can be helpful in North Africa or deep into the USSR), but still give the opposing side a method to counter it at the same time.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: LoneRunner
I can understand the need to play balance by reducing the impact of strategic bombers. However allowing a boosted HQ to distribute more supply than the booster HQ is illogical.

We definitely hear this, but at the same time this is essentially the whole point of the HQ supply boosting mechanism, e.g. if it were to provide the same distribution supply then there really isn't many cases where a linked HQ would even be necessary as a mechanism as in most cases the distribution would be either very similar or identical to the parent HQ etc.