Matrix Games Forums

If a unit cannot trace a Line of Communication back to a friendly Supply Source, it may still be able to receive resupply. The level of resupply available to any particular hex is based on the amount of Air Transport Capacity left unused at the end of the previous Turn and the total size of the units in it requiring Airborne Resupply.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Well, I did say it was an opinion, and we know what those are worth. So I took a look at some saves and found this one.

There is a common misconception that hex ownership blocks lines-of-communication. It doesn't. Physical enemy units or their ZOCs are required to block supply lines. In the above case, the friendly owned border is not ringed by enemy units. Supply will pass right through their cordon.

This is surely the same cause in the EA example - Axis units landing in Norway will have lines-of-communication to supply points in Finland.

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

If a unit cannot trace a Line of Communication back to a friendly Supply Source, it may still be able to receive resupply. The level of resupply available to any particular hex is based on the amount of Air Transport Capacity left unused at the end of the previous Turn and the total size of the units in it requiring Airborne Resupply.

While this is true (at least for airborne units), note that it does not manifest itself as supply levels on the map - as in Sp's example. It only affects unit supply levels. Such airborne units may see their Unit supply levels hold or rise, but they will still be rated as "unsupplied".

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
There is a common misconception that hex ownership blocks lines-of-communication. It doesn't. Physical enemy units or their ZOCs are required to block supply lines. In the above case, the friendly owned border is not ringed by enemy units. Supply will pass right through their cordon.

This is surely the same cause in the EA example - Axis units landing in Norway will have lines-of-communication to supply points in Finland.

Common misconception? Based on what? Reality? Boy if this isn't a blockbuster revelation. The sad thing is that while this game is being trustingly played by most people using their common sense of military strategy as one might find taught at West Point, it's being won by, if not the people who understand the gamey, unrealistic ways the game functions, those functions themselves. Essentially this game is a travesty. Nuff said. I'm sick of it.

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I'm sick of it.

Leave it then... and take the bitterness with you

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I'm sick of it.

Leave it then... and take the bitterness with you

They are merely frustrated with how supply is handled. Many feel the same way. Your attitude is the type that prevents 'things' from being improved upon.

"Minimal Supply
Locations not otherwise Supplied, but able to trace a Line of
Communication of any length to any friendly Supply Point are
considered to have Minimal Supply. Units in these locations receive
25% of the maximum possible resupply."

This is one the problems. "Of any length" can be a convoluted thousand kilometer trek. Yet the unit will receive 25% of maximum supply possible. This may not be much but in many cases it should be zero.

Alot has been said on the subject so I'll leave it at that.

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I'm sick of it.

Leave it then... and take the bitterness with you

They are merely frustrated with how supply is handled. Many feel the same way. Your attitude is the type that prevents 'things' from being improved upon.

"Minimal Supply
Locations not otherwise Supplied, but able to trace a Line of
Communication of any length to any friendly Supply Point are
considered to have Minimal Supply. Units in these locations receive
25% of the maximum possible resupply."

This is one the problems. "Of any length" can be a convoluted thousand kilometer trek. Yet the unit will receive 25% of maximum supply possible. This may not be much but in many cases it should be zero.

Alot has been said on the subject so I'll leave it at that.

I can't understand how people with so many reserves about this game continue spending time with it.

The game can, of course, be improved. But only on a constructive way... muttering and blaiming everyboby around doesn't help much.

As Silvanski pointed out, unused air transport might provide supply, but in this case I sucked up all the available transport each turn by dropping those airborne divisions.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Well, I did say it was an opinion, and we know what those are worth. So I took a look at some saves and found this one.

There is a common misconception that hex ownership blocks lines-of-communication. It doesn't. Physical enemy units or their ZOCs are required to block supply lines. In the above case, the friendly owned border is not ringed by enemy units. Supply will pass right through their cordon.

This is surely the same cause in the EA example - Axis units landing in Norway will have lines-of-communication to supply points in Finland.

I knew that, but wasn't thinking of it due to the overall situation (which you can't see in the limited screenshots), which makes no difference. But I think the 3.4 supply rules may eliminate some of this?

For verification I looked at the previously pictured situation and came up with this screen shot. It all wouldn't fit, but the southern area is solid with German units and Alpine terrain. No supply thru Alpine, so I followed the yellow lines north, out of the immediate area and (into the inset) along the Caspian coast north to the Volga to a crossing and onwards to the nearest friendly Soviet units that are in supply. I think I still have to go thru each turn to verify this for myself (to see that supply route was valid for all 8 turns). It certainly explains why in other scenarios I have seen the supply be there on some turns, but not on others, while the situation from my perspective hasn't changed. Also, pbem players may not see this, because most human opponents will pick up on the 'hole' in the lines, while Elmer may not notice it.

ORIGINAL: Sekadegas

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I'm sick of it.

Leave it then... and take the bitterness with you

Tell you what; You give me my fifty bucks back and you can have my game and I will leave you all to enjoy this travesty of a game alone forever. Otherwise STFU.

On the other hand, doesn't keep me from 'blocking' you, LOL!

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I will leave you all to enjoy this travesty of a game alone forever.

I don't feel alone on this game. But I'm sure you do...

ORIGINAL: macgregor

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
There is a common misconception that hex ownership blocks lines-of-communication. It doesn't. Physical enemy units or their ZOCs are required to block supply lines. In the above case, the friendly owned border is not ringed by enemy units. Supply will pass right through their cordon.

This is surely the same cause in the EA example - Axis units landing in Norway will have lines-of-communication to supply points in Finland.

Common misconception? Based on what? Reality? Boy if this isn't a blockbuster revelation. The sad thing is that while this game is being trustingly played by most people using their common sense of military strategy as one might find taught at West Point, it's being won by, if not the people who understand the gamey, unrealistic ways the game functions, those functions themselves. Essentially this game is a travesty. Nuff said. I'm sick of it.

Heh. It is a game.

George: "Hey Bob, what are you doing in Naples?"

Bob: "I have some ammo for ya. Fresh from the factory in London."

George: "London? How the hell did you get past Gerry?!"

Bob: "Well, I left London in me lorrie, caught a boat in Portsmouth, got off in Alexandria. Drove through Damascus, up through Iraq and then took that Baku, Astrakhan, Minsk, Riga route. Terrible roads there mate."

George: "Don't I know it. Criminal it is."

Bob: "Then went through Warsaw, Vienna, Bologna and voila, here I am."

George: "Good thing Albie missed the bridge up the road last night. You never could have made it what with that blockin the line of communication an' all."

Bob: "Bah. Blowed bridges mean nothin'. They don't block anything. Well I'm off now. Got some rations for the guys in Burma."

George: "If you take that road through Sofia you should make it ok."

Bob: "Right. Sofia it is. Cheerio."

I must have bought my first pc ...probably 1995 or 96, and in like 2 years, Operational art of War came out. i remember thinking how much this was the perfect idea for a wargame, and how that idea; creating a simulator for operational warfare, could only develop into a game that could satisfy all my gaming needs. More amazing than what could be developed in 2 years is, while programming software has flourished and computing speeds have grown exponentially -what has not been developed from that original idea in the 12 years since.

I've spent close to 300$ on anxiously awaited software from this series, and gladly spend more if I thought it was going somewhere. I don't know if it's Matrix or Ralph, but this idea of Norm Koger's for a realistic operational simulator I truly believe has been lost on either this company or developer.

The forum regulars are for the most part suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome, or they're getting paid. Yes. I'm making a stand because I truly believe this game will never deliver on it's promise. Kneejerk capo defense will be; 'what promise?' and in that answer is everything I want to know about their commitment to making a realistic operational warfare simulator.

Look at the flip side: Suppose hex ownership blocked supply. Then all you would have to do to cutoff an army group would be to pass a recon company across its rear areas.

The game can't tell the difference between a one-hex wide ribbon of enemy-owned hexes and an entire map full of them. And since it's original intent was never to model strategic sized scenarios, its priority was to handle the former case.

Designers who want to handle strategic-sized subjects must make special care to address issues like this. There are ways to separate Finland from Norway, etc.

In Sp's case, there should be a penalty to the Axis for leaving a gap in their lines. That's a bone-headed mistake that players can easily avoid.

ORIGINAL: Panama

George: "Hey Bob, what are you doing in Naples?"

Bob: "I have some ammo for ya. Fresh from the factory in London."

George: "London? How the hell did you get past Gerry?!"

Bob: "Well, I left London in me lorrie, caught a boat in Portsmouth, got off in Alexandria. Drove through Damascus, up through Iraq and then took that Baku, Astrakhan, Minsk, Riga route. Terrible roads there mate."

George: "Don't I know it. Criminal it is."

Bob: "Then went through Warsaw, Vienna, Bologna and voila, here I am."

George: "Good thing Albie missed the bridge up the road last night. You never could have made it what with that blockin the line of communication an' all."

Bob: "Bah. Blowed bridges mean nothin'. They don't block anything. Well I'm off now. Got some rations for the guys in Burma."

George: "If you take that road through Sofia you should make it ok."

Bob: "Right. Sofia it is. Cheerio."

[&o] I guess I'm not alone after all.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Look at the flip side: Suppose hex ownership blocked supply. Then all you would have to do to cutoff an army group would be to pass a recon company across its rear areas.

The game can't tell the difference between a one-hex wide ribbon of enemy-owned hexes and an entire map full of them. And since it's original intent was never to model strategic sized scenarios, its priority was to handle the former case.

Designers who want to handle strategic-sized subjects must make special care to address issues like this. There are ways to separate Finland from Norway, etc.

In Sp's case, there should be a penalty to the Axis for leaving a gap in their lines. That's a bone-headed mistake that players can easily avoid.

I like you Curtis. You've never taken any cheap shots at me. But I think you'd agree that this is a glaring inaccuracy with reality that I would think in the time under development, should've been fixed by now. Whether I post or not, I wouldn't be surprised to find I am the most active member of this forum. It didn't used to be that way. But when nothing is offered for years; not even hope. People are going to find some other form of entertainment. All I find here is 'The Commitee of Lowering Expectations'. Call me hard-headed. Perhaps a trip to the game store is in order.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Look at the flip side: Suppose hex ownership blocked supply. Then all you would have to do to cutoff an army group would be to pass a recon company across its rear areas.

The game can't tell the difference between a one-hex wide ribbon of enemy-owned hexes and an entire map full of them. And since it's original intent was never to model strategic sized scenarios, its priority was to handle the former case.

Designers who want to handle strategic-sized subjects must make special care to address issues like this. There are ways to separate Finland from Norway, etc.

In Sp's case, there should be a penalty to the Axis for leaving a gap in their lines. That's a bone-headed mistake that players can easily avoid.

Nah, hex ownership is nothing. Need someone there with guns. However, there should be some sort of realistic limit set on what constitutes a LOC. In North Africa it wouldn't be unreasonable to have one a couple hundred kilometers long. In Western Europe that would get the supply convoy mugged. I don't know. Set a length limit on it the same way you do supply and make it author specified.

Ever notice how much foggy logic is necessary for a general purpose wargame engine like this one. One size does not fit all. [:D]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

But I think you'd agree that this is a glaring inaccuracy with reality that I would think in the time under development, should've been fixed by now.

I would not agree. It is unreasonable to expect the game code to have the sophistication necessary to decern whether this that or the other line-of-communication is or is not valid. Designers and players have to do their part.

In the case of an invasion of Norway, there should be border guard units along the Finnish border that would prevent a supply path from Finland to the Norway landings. A strategic-scope scenario is not a trivial undertaking and designers have to use their heads if they hope to succeed at it.

And, if a player is boneheaded enough to leave an isolated enemy a convoluted path through his lines back to their own lines then he deserves what he gets. Remember that "unsupplied" is equivalent to "isolated". It doesn't just mean that the unit receives no supply. It also means that all his losses go to the dead pile. That's not justified if there is a clear path back to friendly lines. Plenty of cases of troops making just such escapes (see Gazala, for example) in real life.

ORIGINAL: Panama

Nah, hex ownership is nothing. Need someone there with guns.

Exactly.

However, there should be some sort of realistic limit set on what constitutes a LOC. In North Africa it wouldn't be unreasonable to have one a couple hundred kilometers long. In Western Europe that would get the supply convoy mugged. I don't know. Set a length limit on it the same way you do supply and make it author specified.

Well, 3.4 will have an exponential supply decay option, where supply could concevably decay all the way to zero at some point. But it would still be "in supply". My favorite wishlist item (5.9), however, would add an intermediate supply state. Then the units might wither away, too.