deeper Supply questions

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Duedman

I was referring to an older topic where Hubert asked for examples when a mechanic to choose the boosted HQ would be beneficial.
And this clearly is one.
I would have liked the Hungarian HQ at Saratov (which is on the screenshot) to boost the one east of Kamyschin.

I don't believe I've ever disagreed it could or would be beneficial, and to clarify, it's just a matter of implementation considering when supply is calculated, which is before the turn, and to have it intuitive for the player so that they would understand why their selected HQ for boosting will not provide a boost until the next turn, and then when units have been moved, may not provide a boost at all depending on the new disposition. Then what to do in those cases, e.g. have the engine auto select an HQ for boosting again since the desired HQ did not work, and then how to explain that to players so they understand this and so that they don't think it is a bug and so on.

I had spent some time thinking about it but wasn't able to come up with a good solution just yet, unfortunately.

[Taxman66]

How about just selecting it as a HQ option during your turn, however it doesn't go into effect until the start of your next turn. That is, your current turn still provides chaining/supply as determined at the start of your turn.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Taxman66,

That is pretty much the way to do it, however, from experience, many players will not understand why it has not yet gone into effect and will think something is not working. Then we have to still be able to show what the current pairings are, intuitively, as well as what the next turn pairings will be, also intuitively to the player.

Then there is that secondary issue where if you've moved your units, HQs around enough after making your desired choice of pairings, there is that possibility it will not actually be valid on the next turn, e.g. HQs will have moved maybe too far, or the supply has dropped making the pairings invalid etc.

What to do in those cases, what to default to, and how to convey all of that and why this has all happened to the player as well is a bit of a challenge so that they will not think something is broken either.

Honestly trying to figure all of that out so that it is entirely foolproof and not in any way leading to us having to answer the same question and explain the mechanics of it all, likely repeatedly, is something I'm just trying to avoid as we seem to have enough of those as is. Thus the current auto mechanism (for now) etc.

Hubert

[Taxman66]

If you do another iteration of this game, and wish to keep the same supply mechanics I strongly suggest considering my suggestion of using a new unit (supply depot) as a forward supply point only (i.e. no HQ morale/readiness support to units).

[Elessar2]

One option would be to have a "redo supply" button, which will only affect units which haven't done anything yet that turn. This would also help to get supply of air units which failed to attach to an HQ their proper boosts.

[Hubert Cater]

Yeah I could maybe see that, sort of an advanced 'Supply Phase' option where you can adjust supply before you start moving any units, e.g. set your HQ pairings then click recalculate supply, end phase and then you can start playing your turn normally.

It would be a departure from the current setup as we have no phases in game, but in a technical sense it could work and it would eliminate all of the above listed issues and concerns.

Something to think about and I'll make a note, but can't promise anything since as mentioned we are nearing the end of the development cycle on these games as we look to eventually move forward on newer things.

[Duedman]

I still dont see the reasoning why it cannot just be done the same way as assigning units to HQs. Yes, it would only count in the next turn. But why do you think, that would confuse ppl? Just name it accordingly?
It would be a lot easier to implement than the "supply-phase-system".

I do very often just pray that a movement of a HQ during a siege, with many HQs involved, will not screw up everything. Because it occasionally just does! And you can not undo the HQ turn! Because to check, whats going to change supplywise you have to finalize the HQ turn. And then you are stuck with the results.

Adding to the picture above, there the HQ in Saratov needs to supply the HQ east of Stalingrad ..... but just doesn't I have another Screenshot.
I'll put it here again, because I can not find the thread where you asked for such examples

The HQ in Rennes supports Portiers. So the northern frontline stays at 4 Supply (which is a lot worse than 5 - you know the rules).
It is the end of the turn after heavy fighting. 3 Units, 2 of them US with long sea transport in danger of full wipe. This game went on for more than a month and is on a knifes edge.
I would have loved to change the boost towards the British HQ...




Sidenote: US HQ in the middle is Str. 7.
Cities: Rennes 5, Portiers 5, Tours 2, Le Mans 1

The system of supplyboosting HQs + chaining them is super awesome. Just a bit more control for the player would really be nice.

[Elessar2]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Something to think about and I'll make a note, but can't promise anything since as mentioned we are nearing the end of the development cycle on these games as we look to eventually move forward on newer things.

Note the WitP AE devs have recently decided to push one final patch out. Would be nice if the Final versions of this set of titles would remedy any of these loose ends, even as you look to the next level. [One on topic for this thread would be for air units to get first priority on auto attachments.]

[Hubert Cater]

I'm not really sure if we'll ever do a final patch... or at least an official one as such, any time soon. Reason being is that as there are still a lot of players playing the game, and we are still very happy to continually provide fixes for the game as needed.

Additionally there are still quite a few items on our list for the game, which we are also happy to implement when warranted, it's just a matter of winding down new features, or significant overhauls as we move our time and efforts towards eventual future products.

[bfcj]

Well I learned something from this thread, as I am one of those who only thought he understood supply chaining. And why my strat bombing of cities did nothing to slow the Axis overrun of my defense of Egypt. I'm not sure I have a valid opinion on what is best, only that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many others only think they understand it. Thanks Duedman.