Supply Truck mechanic need input.

[AlvaroSousa]

It's July and you are next to Paris. It's fine.

You can't expect historical results vs an aware Allied player. They won't make the same foolish mistakes as history did.

[ncc1701e]

This is not my point. This screenshot was taken before the new supply trucks rule. My opponent sillyflower is very good at defending France. Supply trucks were heavily used to achieve this July result.
Now, with this modification, I don't think I will be able to achieve the same result. sillyflower is not taking beta patches. But I will see once the patch is out.

The game now clearly favors defense imo.

I can progress in Russia, right now, because the Red Army based experience is at 30% and the initial corps are at 20%.
Not sure the French corps at 40% or 50% experience and the UK corps at 50% experience will allow me to do the same.

[AlvaroSousa]

The supply trucks had a snowballing effect. In a small campaign vs minor powers it didn't really matter.

But in Russia it is a game breaker.

[ncc1701e]

Understood but if German player stalls in front of France, it is also a problem.

@WraithMagus - do you have the latest 10U7? I would like to do a mirror game with you to test this.
Meanwhile with @MorningDew, we are near Septembre 1941 in Russia. Mirror game too, we will see how the first winter goes.

[stjeand]

Sadly I will need more experience vs players to give a good assessment.

I can say in my first dozen games against the AI I never used a single supply truck. Never even built them. This was against Uber computers also...
But they have some really weird defense plans especially Russia if you wait till 1942...they still have all their weak units.

Many players will upgrade over that time.


But being honest...I do not like supply trucks at all. I understand that Alvaro was going for...basically a quick up of the units efficiency for the start of the battle but they would still need a rest not long into battle.

Having 200 supply trucks would be logistically impossible for any country to manage.
I do understand trying to keep the mechanics easy though.

Option...
SO...if there was a limit on the trucks...say 1 or 2% of your base logistics...
What if there was another setting for units, like Garrison...but called Rest or OnLeave.
In this mode it would allow the unit to recover more efficiency perhaps 100% more but at a loss of say 50% attack and defense during time in that mode as well as you have to be behind the front lines by X hexes and if that is interfered with it would change what you efficiency you gain as units would have to be called back up rather than resting in case of attack.

Not sure how easy this would be to code or even if possible...

Just another thought.

[AlvaroSousa]

I thought about all configurations. A limitation only means more micromanagement of players to do the same thing. Like if I said limit is 40 trucks they would just set aside 120pp a turn and fill back in scale what they used. Same result more micromanagement.

The solution was cost and lowering it's benefit by 1%. That is what the math says.

By nature this will force a strategic decision... buy trucks or buy units?

The Russian front should be filled with Germany and Russian units... not have a handful all using supply trucks.
It's better for the A.I., better for the players.

I won't make major changes to the system at this point.

WP2 I will probably do something different with them that makes it less of a chore to use them.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

The supply trucks had a snowballing effect. In a small campaign vs minor powers it didn't really matter.

But in Russia it is a game breaker.

Why do you say it is a gamebreaker in Russia? I have never had any difficulty as the Russians stopping the Axis and I assume my opponent was making liberal use of supply trucks. Of course, so was I as the Russians.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I thought about all configurations. A limitation only means more micromanagement of players to do the same thing. Like if I said limit is 40 trucks they would just set aside 120pp a turn and fill back in scale what they used. Same result more micromanagement.

The solution was cost and lowering it's benefit by 1%. That is what the math says.

By nature this will force a strategic decision... buy trucks or buy units?

The Russian front should be filled with Germany and Russian units... not have a handful all using supply trucks.
It's better for the A.I., better for the players.

I won't make major changes to the system at this point.

WP2 I will probably do something different with them that makes it less of a chore to use them.

With respect, as the game exists now the strategic decision is to buy trucks or buy units or buy some of both. I believe there is a good balance between the two. I probably make as much or more use of supply trucks as anybody, but I still spend far more of my production on purchasing, replacing and upgrading units than I do on supply trucks. Supply trucks are vital to sustain any advance, but you have to have the units to use them on too. I would estimate that roughly 20% or less of my Axis production (less for the Allies) is spent on supply trucks with the balance spent on units. I note that in the 1941 Scenario the Germans start with 250 supply trucks, I have never had more than 150 and that was very rare. I would say that with the present system the Russian Front is filled with German and Russian units with some supply trucks used by both. At least that is my experience.

In any event, with the proposed nerfing of supply trucks I think the strategic decision will be obvious that building units is the only real choice. As the Axis and Russians I will probably build very few supply trucks. The only exception will be the Western Allies who (because port supply is also nerfed) will need to build some to compensate. If this is what you want to have happen then I suppose you will get your wish, but don't pretend that there will any longer be a balance between choosing whether to build supply trucks or units.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

The solution was cost and lowering it's benefit by 1%. That is what the math says.

Lowering it's benefit by 2% not 1%:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

So in this weeks beta we are trying the following.

Armor, mech, air units will cost double supply trucks to use... 2 trucks per 10 strength
Infantry will still be 1 truck per 10 strength.
Effectiveness recovery reduced from 6% to 4%

[AlvaroSousa]

My mistake. 2%.

Now that the Bug Front is quiet I am going to run my own tests on this change.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

The solution was cost and lowering it's benefit by 1%. That is what the math says.

Lowering it's benefit by 2% not 1%:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

So in this weeks beta we are trying the following.

Armor, mech, air units will cost double supply trucks to use... 2 trucks per 10 strength
Infantry will still be 1 truck per 10 strength.
Effectiveness recovery reduced from 6% to 4%

I (and I suspect everyone else) used supply trucks almost exclusively on armour, mech, air and paras. So the effect of this will be to increase the cost by 100% while reducing the benefit by 33%. With respect, that is not a minor tweak; it is a significant change in the usefulness of supply trucks. Like I said, I don't think too many people will be buying very many supply trucks anymore. Buy them to beef up your paras to 100% so they can drop, for invasion troops so they can have full OPs on the turn after invasion and the Allies need them after they invade mainland Europe. Otherwise just build units.

[ncc1701e]

I am not yet in the blizzard but I suspect trucks will be useful for Axis units to support Soviet winter.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

I am not yet in the blizzard but I suspect trucks will be useful for Axis units to support Soviet winter.

True, but what would be more useful spending the production points on, supply trucks to increase a few units effectiveness by 4% each, or purchasing a brand new infantry unit that will come on the map with 100% effectiveness and can than be railed to the danger spot? When supply trucks increased effectiveness by 6% I thought it was a bit of a toss up. Now I think the edge goes to building the new unit. Especially since infantry only take 60 days to build and supply trucks take 90 days.

[ComadrejaKorp]

In my first Barbarrossa as Axis in Beta and it has worked well, with approx 200 trucks I managed to finish a successful campaign but taking tanks and aviation to the limit, I will tell you if I survive in winter.

We will have to continue testing, but it seems that with this change the pace of the war slows down a bit and / or casualties increase (this is now not a problem due to the new manpower reinforcements), it seems the right way to extend the games further from 43.

Now they are really a luxury item, before, when the turn began they were used in all aircraft and armored vehicles, now you must choose carefully where you spend them.
I think the change is good, but I will have to try it more times to be sure.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

I am not yet in the blizzard but I suspect trucks will be useful for Axis units to support Soviet winter.

True, but what would be more useful spending the production points on, supply trucks to increase a few units effectiveness by 4% each, or purchasing a brand new infantry unit that will come on the map with 100% effectiveness and can than be railed to the danger spot? When supply trucks increased effectiveness by 6% I thought it was a bit of a toss up. Now I think the edge goes to building the new unit. Especially since infantry only take 60 days to build and supply trucks take 90 days.

Very true.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

In my first Barbarrossa as Axis in Beta and it has worked well, with approx 200 trucks I managed to finish a successful campaign but taking tanks and aviation to the limit, I will tell you if I survive in winter.

We will have to continue testing, but it seems that with this change the pace of the war slows down a bit and / or casualties increase (this is now not a problem due to the new manpower reinforcements), it seems the right way to extend the games further from 43.

Now they are really a luxury item, before, when the turn began they were used in all aircraft and armored vehicles, now you must choose carefully where you spend them.
I think the change is good, but I will have to try it more times to be sure.

Ok then, I guess I will have to wait to see. Maybe I am being too pessimistic.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

In my first Barbarrossa as Axis in Beta and it has worked well, with approx 200 trucks I managed to finish a successful campaign but taking tanks and aviation to the limit, I will tell you if I survive in winter.

We will have to continue testing, but it seems that with this change the pace of the war slows down a bit and / or casualties increase (this is now not a problem due to the new manpower reinforcements), it seems the right way to extend the games further from 43.

Now they are really a luxury item, before, when the turn began they were used in all aircraft and armored vehicles, now you must choose carefully where you spend them.
I think the change is good, but I will have to try it more times to be sure.

Same here, around 200 trucks when I start Barbarossa and I have nothing left now. We are in September 1941. The campaign's pace has been slowed down but this is obliging to take care of logistics more carefully.

Roads to Leningrad. [:)]

[ncc1701e]

I also find that the corps to army conversion seems to work nicely. Plenty of losses and the conversion is done faster than with few losses.

[ComadrejaKorp]

The issue of the conversion of the armies I suppose that with practice it will be more useful, or perhaps later in time. Currently in my games they continue to work individually as Rifle Corps, as they become randomly, it is difficult to join two in a front with Axis pressing, and more difficult for them to have the same specialty and the same tech year (so as not to lose pp)

I don't remember what the intention of this change was, I suppose they are a little stronger than the Rifle Corps and can be put together to form an Army.

Maybe I have missed something?

[ncc1701e]

The intent was to speed up the formation of armies. Before rifle corps were disbanded for building new armies after 60 days. Now, they are remaining on the map if you have time to save them for merging them together in full armies. Nice addition imo. Rifle corps are no more wasted.

Strangely enough, the process now seems to be stuck in my game. I have no more conversion since a lot of turns. I will monitor this.

EDIT: Alvaro, did you establish a date after which all corps must be converted? Something like May 1942 or December 1942?