Guess the Supply level of the Italian Tanks in Tobruk

[Marcinos1985]

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.

That's perfectly understandable and desirable from balance standpoint. The question is - should 2nd HQ distribute 8 supply, which is really a lot. Especially in situation like from EarlyDoors game.

At the same time, it is not that easy to counter. You can either try to bomb it, but enemy can bring fighters/AA guns and this gets sketchy quickly. You may also make somekind of paratroop drop, but Allies don't have them for a long time. What else, especially if HQ is surrounded by units? In the situation above, Allies would be on low supply, like 1-2, if they pushed deeper into desert.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985
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.

Just taking another quick look and the port at Tobruk is at strength 5, so this would actually provide 5 supply to the Italian tank at Tobruk and as a result the Italian HQ one hex north of Cyrenaica would also then be at 3 supply providing a distribution supply of 6. This is all without the bonus of HQ linking and boosting which then pushes it to 8.

In this case here the boosting just pushes it 2 supply points higher, at one time boosting would have pushed it to 10 and was reduced to 8 a little while ago as 10 did indeed feel too high.

As mentioned above, the Malta effect is still in play, especially if there is only one HQ being used, and with the mechanism to provide extra supply in low situations via a second HQ, the other side can still counter by also targeting the HQs to reduce overall supply. Here a combination of the Malta effect and targeting the HQs can still be effective overall.

Is it a bit out of thin air? Sure, and we can argue the placement of the extra HQ models some effort of bringing extra supply and stockpiling etc., but the alternatives which would be to eliminate or limit the boosting are not ideal either. Without supply boosting the Axis would literally have no chance in North Africa or deep into the USSR, and that is not what we would want either.

Is it perfect? Maybe not and we are listening and keeping things in mind as we try and get it as close to agreeable as possible for all situations and all possible exploits and pros and cons.

[Marcinos1985]

Just taking another quick look and the port at Tobruk is at strength 5, so this would actually provide 5 supply to the Italian tank at Tobruk

I think in one of the screens above there is US ship next to Tobruk, to block supply, that's probably why this port was left untouched.

I generally agree with you, I just think this mechanism is a little too generous in terms of supply generation. And in effect makes a RL logistical hellhole into quite plausible conditions. [:)]

[EarlyDoors]

Hi, yes the port is blockaded by Light Cruiser and Recon unit

[Cpuncher]

Could I ask Hubert to agree to a slight tuning? Like giving Boosted HQs to only distribute 7, or require it to receive 2 from the boosting HQ to be boosted? I think 7 is reasonably workable for the Axis in NA and Russia. Number of HQs in NA or Russia is never a problem for the Axis. Also reducing HQ strength is often very costly and only impacts the Axis turn, and not possible in Russia. In NA the Allies are not likely to have lots of Tac Bombers, so at most you can reduce a couple strength of his HQ, which he will reinforce to full 10 on his turn. Thus on your turn, when things matter more, Axis units are back to ample supply again even though you spent quite a lot of your bombers on previous turn. You likely have to reinforce your Bombers and Fighters before you can attack his HQ again. Then weather in NA kicks in often enough. So basically, in Russia no one would be able to reduce Axis HQ strength, while in NA, no one could really do it either, unless the Allies invest 3 Tac Bombers and 3 Fighter there, if the Axis has 1 or 2 German Fighters commanded by a German HQ there.

I think it's better to make the game so when the Afrika Korps go to NA it's 50-50 for either side, and if they don't, Allies would win NA easily. Right now if the Afrika Korps or similar German forces are committed I think it's at least 80% for them to win NA, between 2 equally good players.

Also I wonder what the odds are for Scorched Earth not happening when you capture a town. I think my last game the Axis captured way too many towns in Russia "intact". Also is there a difference whether battles happened in the town before the capture, vs it was undefended? I thought so but I don't know the exact difference in odds.

[LoneRunner]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Thank you for your answer Hubert. I can see your point.

I appreciate you explaining your position and being willing to work with gamers. I'm new to Slitherine and I've never seen this level of cooperation with a publisher. So refreshing. I'm impressed. Is this level of support typical for Slitherine games?

Lone

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Cpuncher

Also I wonder what the odds are for Scorched Earth not happening when you capture a town. I think my last game the Axis captured way too many towns in Russia "intact". Also is there a difference whether battles happened in the town before the capture, vs it was undefended? I thought so but I don't know the exact difference in odds.

If scorched earth is turned on for a country, as it is for the USSR, then it should happen every time the resource is captured, and this is regardless of whether or not the resource was defended by a unit.

However, there is some randomization as to the actual effect which might be why the resource is sometimes in a fairly decent state when captured, and sometimes not.

[Cpuncher]

Thanks Bill, for the answer.

What would be the range/odds of the randomization? So in USSR, for a level 10 city captured with a 60% (or is it 80%?) scorched earth, is there still a decent chance for it to be level 6, or even higher?

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

Hi, yes the port is blockaded by Light Cruiser and Recon unit

Ah yes of course, apologies for missing that.

[LoneRunner]

ORIGINAL: Cpuncher

Could I ask Hubert to agree to a slight tuning? Like giving Boosted HQs to only distribute 7, or require it to receive 2 from the boosting HQ to be boosted? I think 7 is reasonably workable for the Axis in NA and Russia. Number of HQs in NA or Russia is never a problem for the Axis. Also reducing HQ strength is often very costly and only impacts the Axis turn, and not possible in Russia. In NA the Allies are not likely to have lots of Tac Bombers, so at most you can reduce a couple strength of his HQ, which he will reinforce to full 10 on his turn. Thus on your turn, when things matter more, Axis units are back to ample supply again even though you spent quite a lot of your bombers on previous turn. You likely have to reinforce your Bombers and Fighters before you can attack his HQ again. Then weather in NA kicks in often enough. So basically, in Russia no one would be able to reduce Axis HQ strength, while in NA, no one could really do it either, unless the Allies invest 3 Tac Bombers and 3 Fighter there, if the Axis has 1 or 2 German Fighters commanded by a German HQ there.

I think it's better to make the game so when the Afrika Korps go to NA it's 50-50 for either side, and if they don't, Allies would win NA easily. Right now if the Afrika Korps or similar German forces are committed I think it's at least 80% for them to win NA, between 2 equally good players.

I think the original intent of boosted HQs was to extend supply range not to boost supply points. Extending the supply range by 8 hexes is a huge benefit. Adding extra supply points onto the boost has changed the game where super panzer units can kill units 10 hexes away from the German lines and still be in 5+ supply. Is that really where we want to go?

Historically, German armies were restricted by supply limitations in both Russia and North Africa. Perhaps more by supply problems than by the Russian and British forces. But, yes, sticking strictly to history could reduce the excitement and enjoyment of the game.

I can understand the need to play balance Germany's options in NA and Russia. The game is more fun if the Axis and Allies have lots of open options. I think Cpuncher's suggestion of boosting supply to 7 points rather than 8 points and requiring the parent HQ to have 2 supply in order to boost another HQ is a good compromise.
Lone

[Taifun]

I think Cpuncher's suggestion of boosting supply to 7 points rather than 8 points and requiring the parent HQ to have 2 supply in order to boost another HQ is a good compromise.
Lone

I agree with them.
Concerning the scorched earth rules this was discussed earlier:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4858305

The rules were updated and from my experience the towns and cities in the USSR are now captured level 3-4 90% and level 5 10% on the time.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Cpuncher

Thanks Bill, for the answer.

What would be the range/odds of the randomization? So in USSR, for a level 10 city captured with a 60% (or is it 80%?) scorched earth, is there still a decent chance for it to be level 6, or even higher?

A city or capital will lose 60-80% of its strength, so it should ordinarily take a turn or two to reach 6 after capture.

Towns will lose 30-70% so it is more possible for them to be in reasonable strength quickly, although as their maximum strength is 8 at best they should be at strength 5 when captured, but generally they will be at lower strength than that.

However, the settings used to be more generous as the above were only implemented in January this year, so in the unlikely event that your game was started before then then different and less punishing settings would apply.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Cpuncher

Could I ask Hubert to agree to a slight tuning? Like giving Boosted HQs to only distribute 7, or require it to receive 2 from the boosting HQ to be boosted? I think 7 is reasonably workable for the Axis in NA and Russia. Number of HQs in NA or Russia is never a problem for the Axis. Also reducing HQ strength is often very costly and only impacts the Axis turn, and not possible in Russia. In NA the Allies are not likely to have lots of Tac Bombers, so at most you can reduce a couple strength of his HQ, which he will reinforce to full 10 on his turn. Thus on your turn, when things matter more, Axis units are back to ample supply again even though you spent quite a lot of your bombers on previous turn. You likely have to reinforce your Bombers and Fighters before you can attack his HQ again. Then weather in NA kicks in often enough. So basically, in Russia no one would be able to reduce Axis HQ strength, while in NA, no one could really do it either, unless the Allies invest 3 Tac Bombers and 3 Fighter there, if the Axis has 1 or 2 German Fighters commanded by a German HQ there.

I think it's better to make the game so when the Afrika Korps go to NA it's 50-50 for either side, and if they don't, Allies would win NA easily. Right now if the Afrika Korps or similar German forces are committed I think it's at least 80% for them to win NA, between 2 equally good players.

Also I wonder what the odds are for Scorched Earth not happening when you capture a town. I think my last game the Axis captured way too many towns in Russia "intact". Also is there a difference whether battles happened in the town before the capture, vs it was undefended? I thought so but I don't know the exact difference in odds.

Thanks for the feedback and suggestion here and for now I can say we are definitely reviewing and thinking about it. We want to take a little bit of time to try and ensure we don't fix one thing just to introduce more problems somewhere else in the game. Tends to happen and even though it is sometimes impossible to know until we have everyone playing the game with any new changes, we'd still like to avoid it if at all possible.

Going to 7 is a possibility but we'd have to make sure that this would indeed work in the USSR. Only because at one time it was 10 and dropping it to 8 raised some flags by those that argued it made things much more challenging.

We are looking at a few other options as well and will try and do our best to see what works and what doesn't for any possible change in the next update.

[Hubert Cater]

Thank you for your answer Hubert. I can see your point.

I appreciate you explaining your position and being willing to work with gamers. I'm new to Slitherine and I've never seen this level of cooperation with a publisher. So refreshing. I'm impressed. Is this level of support typical for Slitherine games?

Lone

I can't speak for other developers but thank you and much appreciated [8D]

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: LoneRunner

I think the original intent of boosted HQs was to extend supply range not to boost supply points. Extending the supply range by 8 hexes is a huge benefit. Adding extra supply points onto the boost has changed the game where super panzer units can kill units 10 hexes away from the German lines and still be in 5+ supply. Is that really where we want to go?

Historically, German armies were restricted by supply limitations in both Russia and North Africa. Perhaps more by supply problems than by the Russian and British forces. But, yes, sticking strictly to history could reduce the excitement and enjoyment of the game.

I can understand the need to play balance Germany's options in NA and Russia. The game is more fun if the Axis and Allies have lots of open options. I think Cpuncher's suggestion of boosting supply to 7 points rather than 8 points and requiring the parent HQ to have 2 supply in order to boost another HQ is a good compromise.
Lone

The supply boosting mechanism has been in the game for quite some time now, going back to the older SC2 titles, but as time moves on, maps change, tactics change, players find new ways to play, exploits, we adapt and modify on our end as needed.

As mentioned, 7 might work or it could be too low for the Axis deep in the USSR when they are facing off against supply level 10 home USSR units. 2 might work but it too might be too low if we consider the original concerns of the Strategic Bomber strategy in North Africa.

We'll have to study this a bit on our end before we rush to any new conclusions.

[EarlyDoors]

Thanks for the interaction Hubert

I never realised that HQ boosting was anymore than an HQ taking in supply from another HQ and outputting it according to standard rules -

if the local supply is 0, he distributes 3, 1 or 2=>5, 3 or 4=>6, 5=>8, 6 and above=>10

I'm sure this would work for the Axis (maybe they would need to protect resources more, for instance i never see Axis opponents use resource AA on campaign, probably because they have air superiority).

FWIW, moving UK strategic bomber to cairo involves foregoing bombing campaign in Europe until late 42.

I only ever play Allies and my PBEM++ record is 3-10 which i suspect is a fair representation of likelihood of Allied success.
Atm, opponents, forego the 3 army drive on USSR in favour of boosted HQ drives on Cairo, Moscow and Caucasus, and are unstoppable. (The Russian winter does not effect frontline troops).

I guess the final thing I'd like to say is the default balance of the game should be as IRL where the Axis struggled for supply in NA and USSR, which is not how it feels now.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks EarlyDoors, and as game balance is a tricky one to get just right, sometimes the only way to get a better picture is to have a mirrored game against your opponents, e.g. if you lose as Allies and also as Axis it tells us one thing, if you lose as Allies and win as Axis it tells us something else and so on.

Then you need dozens of games this as well to be able to throw out the extreme cases on either end of the win/loss columns.

I just suggest this as from what I understand right now the game is fairly close to balanced based on competitive results and other reports we've seen so I still fall back on we have to be careful of every change we make going forward.

[EarlyDoors]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

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.

Is there any effect from the strength of a source HQ?
For example, assuming a full strength boosted HQ, would its supply output be the same from
~ a strength 10 source HQ sitting on a level 5 resource
as
~ a strength 1 source HQ sitting on a level 1 resource

?

if so, this seems unrealisitic

[Hubert Cater]

At the moment it doesn't take into account the strength of the source HQ when considering boosting. It's definitely not wrong to think that is unrealistic, I do see the point there, I guess it just comes down to how many more rules do we want to consider.

It's potentially a tricky one because a boosted HQ goes to 5 supply in order receive any real benefit of boosted supply. Anything less is in most cases not really beneficial, e.g. no real point, and anything more is too much.

So a sliding scale of boost amount based on the strength of a source HQ is not likely to be that helpful and the downside is it leads to additional complexity for players to consider. The other option is to maybe think just boost or no boost, on or off, depending on the source HQ strength. That might be more practical but still another rule to keep track of, either way, something to think about on our end.

That being said, we are still thinking about things overall in reference to this thread and running some tests as we speak.

[EarlyDoors]

ORIGINAL: LoneRunner

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.

I have a tendency to place an HQ on a resource as I feel it distributes maximum supply from there. I now see that many Axis players push 2 linked HQs out into wilderness where a source HQ maybe generates 0(3) and a boosted HQ generates 8!!

I agree with Lone Runner that by capping the boosted HQ at a maximum of the source would encourage more realistic supply chains and would extend the range of the source HQ by 4 hexes, which I assume was the designers original intention.