deeper Supply questions

[Hubert Cater]

No problem at all, this is sometimes a good exercise to just remind us why something might be the way it is, or to have a better understanding on possible alternatives, and the pros and cons.

Discussions are always a good thing [:)]

[Elessar2]

As a scenario designer I'd like to see more things moved into the editor from the dreaded "Hard Coded Zone" and this would certainly be one such example. I don't see much difficulty (I could be wrong) in putting some toggles for the above factors into the Advanced Campaign Data menu, right next to the Resource Supply Calculation toggle (seems to be plenty of room in the bottom right).

So Duedman you do have allies out here, and I would tend to agree that 7 hexes for full boost is a few too many.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Elessar2
As a scenario designer I'd like to see more things moved into the editor from the dreaded "Hard Coded Zone" and this would certainly be one such example. I don't see much difficulty (I could be wrong) in putting some toggles for the above factors into the Advanced Campaign Data menu, right next to the Resource Supply Calculation toggle (seems to be plenty of room in the bottom right).

Agreed, having more things accessible would be great, it unfortunately always comes down to, at this point in the development cycle, to time and resources and where to maximize our focus.

So Duedman you do have allies out here, and I would tend to agree that 7 hexes for full boost is a few too many.

I can certainly see in some cases how it might feel that way, I would just want to reinforce that all cases and original reasons for the current implementation be considered as well.

For example, and as I mentioned already above, we did introduce this mechanism to help address concerns going as far back as SC2, and that the Axis needed some way to help themselves with low supply. Additionally we've had feedback come our way that deep pushes and sweeping encirclements are already very difficult to do, and I suspect the proposed change will make things that much harder. Thus my concerns on how it will play out for Barbarossa and so on.

For example, if we take a look at this setup below, and if we go with "general supply table", where an HQ acts like a town/city, your boosted HQ (and subsequent units dependent on this HQ) can only go so far from its parent HQ in order to maximize supply. This is all I mean by it will potentially in many cases start to feel just like the default supply rules where in order to maximize supply all HQs need to be near or on their supply source, e.g. it might not be all that different from needing to be close to a town, if you need to be close to a parent HQ that is maximized by being in that same town.



The parent HQ at Orel will have a maximized supply distribution of 8, which means that any boosted HQ, marked in red, can only be at most 3 hexes away for maximum supply to also provide a distribution of 8. The Tank marked in blue can at most have a supply value of 4. I believe, unless I counted wrong, no matter where the boosted HQ is moved, that Tank will never have a supply value greater than 4.

However, under the current system, players can push that boosted HQ further east to support that outflanking attempt (if desired) and get that Tank up to as high as supply 7.

Again, I could be wrong, but it just feels like you'll have much more difficulty in creating that blitzkrieg like feel on a more open front like the USSR if you take away or reduce that risk/reward on extended supply lines via the current HQ boosting mechanism that provides for some extended range.

[Duedman]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater
Again, I could be wrong, but it just feels like you'll have much more difficulty in creating that blitzkrieg like feel on a more open front like the USSR if you take away or reduce that risk/reward on extended supply lines via the current HQ boosting mechanism that provides for some extended range.

On the contrary I think that the risk/reward of blitzkrieg and encirclements is far greater with more limited supply.
It needs a lot of just practicing and trial and error to pull it of. But then it is really not easy to defend against even with "my" rules.

For the most encirclements, Paras are a must tho. And usuably force march. March to a hex which autocaptures a neutral hex. Then forcemarch there and autocapture another free hex. Then forcemarch there. At the very end of forcemarching, bring in the Paras.
Very low or even no supply for the forward encircling troops is not the end of the world. Ideally you need to kill the enemy HQ(s) during your flanking move. And use the German Wunderwaffe Strategic Bomber to reduce their supply. And without HQ, with low supply and general lesser russian techlevel the encircled troops are as bad as or even worse than your least supplied encircling troops. So not much happens to your extremely low supplied forward troops.
And then the hammer strikes the anvil.

What you also need is patience. Might sound weird in a blitzkrieg but if you see the opportunity for a major encirclement, it is best not to strike prematurely. Have enough Airforce at hand to eliminate the lynchpin you might have spotted. Have the the troops repaired and the Paras ready (but do not show them!!).
Impatience leads to an open encirclement and THEN your forward troops are in trouble.

The nicest encirclement I ever did with "my" rules was the one below. Had I only known, that the second HQ could go far more north haha.

[Hubert Cater]

Fair enough, and I guess my feeling is that players will be on average less likely to try outflanking, if they will be arguably less effective when their forward units will have no possibility other than low supply. For me that is the risk/reward that I almost feel we'll be taking away, e.g. pushing the limits of a longer supply line with a potentially rewarding payoff, while risking being pinched and/or cut off.

There is also the matter of North Africa, having units at best at 4 supply when in the worst case supply situation and with a parent/boosted HQ will change things, e.g. no upgrades, operational movement and limited reinforcement.

Again, those could be rectified, possibly, with amended supply effects such as the Malta effect, but at this point with the game as balanced as it is, I'd still be hesitant to make wholesale changes without really understanding any new issues that might come out with a 'fix'.

Especially if the changes also then require their own set of special rules to make sure it still works, e.g. still capping a boosted HQ at 8, and/or whatever else might be needed to ensure North Africa still works and so on. Just meaning I wouldn't want it to then end up not far off from what we have now, a special mechanism that is a bit different but still with considerations to understand/ensure how it all works etc.

One thing that could be tried is to play/simulate this proposal with the current setup and rules and see how it plays out. For example, keep your boosted HQ within 3 hexes of a parent HQ when the original supply source is max 5 or less, and maybe use HQs with strength 8 in North Africa for the boosted HQ as that will ensure the maximum adjacent supply of a friendly unit will max out at 4 (when the worst case supply situations arise) as the max distribution of the boosted HQ will drop from 6 to 5.

Something like that as I would be interested to see how not only North Africa and the Soviet Union play out, including Barbarossa, but also things like D-Day, and even Allied landings in Italy/Sicily etc.

[Duedman]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater
One thing that could be tried is to play/simulate this proposal with the current setup and rules and see how it plays out. For example, keep your boosted HQ within 3 hexes of a parent HQ when the original supply source is max 5 or less, and maybe use HQs with strength 8 in North Africa for the boosted HQ as that will ensure the maximum adjacent supply of a friendly unit will max out at 4 (when the worst case supply situations arise) as the max distribution of the boosted HQ will drop from 6 to 5.

Something like that as I would be interested to see how not only North Africa and the Soviet Union play out, including Barbarossa, but also things like D-Day, and even Allied landings in Italy/Sicily etc.

I unintentionally simulated just that for 20+ Multiplayer matches. And it went very well. (Until I ran into Gilber lol)
But I see that Beginners might struggle.
I think there should be a developer tutorial on youtube about the current rules. Because as I said, as a new player you watch this stuff. And youtube got it wrong. The whole German community, which I think increased significantly due to a Lets Play from 2 quite popular youtubers, still plays it with "my" rules. Because they did.
The initial youtube link I posted is from a guy I consider the most skilled german player I've seen so far.
And he is wondering about why his HQ still got 8. Saying something along the lines of "Hmm, there must be some special rule at play here"

The general supply table + HQ chaining just seems to make so much sense. Special rule: HQ boost to a maximum of 8. Done.
At this point you think u understood the game and are ready to play.
Until you discover, that if the supply originates from a parent HQ....well then a 1 is as good as a 5! Confusing!

And on North Africa again: Imho it is not the supply that kills Axis. After the Afrika Korps arrives you got 2 HQs which help to get the 8 supply quite often.
If Allies do not completely prevent reinforcements (1-2 AA Guns are enough for quite a while), it is not that hard to hold your ground or even make some progress.
But if Allies are preventing Subs from entering the Med (by just blocking the 2 Gibraltar hexes) in combination with bombing the 2 ports in the very first turn possible ... then you are in trouble and supply is the least of your issues.
I am right now in the first match, where my opponent (guess who) does this with dedication. It is only a matter of time until his numerical advantage will prevail. I dont even want to spawn the Africa Korps lol.

But I digress!
Maybe there could be just an ingame option for "harder supply rules"?

[Taxman66]

I know something that would help would be a visual indication of 'parent' and 'supported' HQ.
I also know it's more involved than it appears given that status can change as you move HQs around.
However, it should be possible given that the computer can already determine changes vis a vis checking the next turn's supply situation by using the 'S' key (2nd pressing of said key).

---
Perhaps a future version of the game could use a new 'Supply Depot' unit. Said unit would act as a child/supported HQ only for purposes of generating supply and does not support/boost specific units.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Duedman
I unintentionally simulated just that for 20+ Multiplayer matches. And it went very well. (Until I ran into Gilber lol)

Hey Duedman,

All I can suggest here is that whereas the USSR might be more forgiving, likely you were benefiting in North Africa from the current rules without perhaps fully realizing it. Perhaps in the USSR at times as well since HQs are auto assigned a parent / boost relationship.

As mentioned, you maybe rarely faced, if at all, a max 'boosted HQ' situation with a supply distribution of 5 leading to only 4 supply for your adjacent units. That is what going to a "supply table" rule would result in when the worst supply effects are to be felt by the Axis in North Africa.

From past discussions on this, and remembering there was an issue where Allied players would employ a Strategic Bomber strategy on North Africa coupled with the Malta effect, it was problematic and resulted in a single sure fire strategy for the Allies to use every time in North Africa.

Again, I get it, "supply table" rule only is more intuitive, but if there were problems before with players feeling that it was too hard to encircle units, or that a Strategic bombing strategy in North Africa was a theater killer, e.g. if the Axis have no effective counter, then anything that leads us back in that direction is going to be once again problematic. Which of course we always try and avoid.

Generally we are always in favour of improving and simplifying the game, but at the same time, tend to want to avoid going back towards something that will simply re-raise earlier concerns or produce some other unintended consequences that will have an impact in game. Which is why we tend to want to really think upon things and of course have these discussions.

All I can say for now is we will continue to think about it.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66
I know something that would help would be a visual indication of 'parent' and 'supported' HQ.

This is currently in game, e.g. if you click on an HQ, and it has a parent, the parent HQ will be highlighted with a yellow hex outline.

[Taxman66]

It would be nice to see it intrinsically, without having to click on an HQ.
Or maybe an game option to turn an intrinsic display on/off.

[Hubert Cater]

It would be nice to see it intrinsically, without having to click on an HQ.
Or maybe an game option to turn an intrinsic display on/off.

I've considered it before, just never thought of a good way to represent it intrinsically that would look good, e.g. would there be a constant line from one HQ to the other etc.

Mind you I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about it, but it did cross my mind at one point and then I just figured since you need to click on an HQ to see attachments, e.g. it is also not intrinsic, it in my mind didn't feel out of place to essentially have the same mechanism for the parent/boost relationship.

[Taxman66]

A few options off the top of my head:

1a)
There's a bit of room to the left of the HQ flag. How about using the letters P (Parent/Primary) and S (Supported/Secondary) and left 'blank' (i.e. as currently displayed to indicate not involved in a chain).
The letters P & S could then be color coded (i.e. matching) to indicate pairings. 5 or 6 different color combinations should be more than enough.

1b)
Similar to 1a) but draw a color matching border (say around the outside of the counter or perhaps around the interior flag of the counter).
Note: I don't think indicating Primary/Supported is absolutely necessary as it should be relatively easy to determine such just by looking at their positioning.

1c)
As 1b) but use a color matching status dot/circle on the HQs; Or perhaps 2 different symbols (say ^ for Primary and + for supported)

2)
HQs only use 2 of the 3 Upgrade slots (AA & Mobility), perhaps that extra slot could be used. If it has to be numeric and matching color to the 2 in use, then this is probably not a good idea.

[Duedman]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

1a)
There's a bit of room to the left of the HQ flag. How about using the letters P (Parent/Primary) and S (Supported/Secondary) and left 'blank' (i.e. as currently displayed to indicate not involved in a chain).
The letters P & S could then be color coded (i.e. matching) to indicate pairings. 5 or 6 different color combinations should be more than enough.

I like this idea. Absolutely great would be, if this would dynamicly change while you move a HQ but are still able to undo the move.
For example if you have a Parent HQ in Saratov and 2 other HQs. You threaten Kubitschyev and Stalingrad. The Allied does not know where to concentrate is defenses. But I'm scared as hell to move one of the 2 other HQs once the one, where you actually plan to attack has good support.
Because if I do, it might switch who gets the boost. And I cannot undo.

If I could choose (even by trial and undo with the indications suggested above) I could even switch the angle of my attack.

(Granted this was only a real concern with my imaginary reduced supply rules. As it is a second Parent HQ right next to Saratov with 5 base supply would also do the trick)


Still the suggestion of indicated colourcoded P/S symbols sounds very appealing to me.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66
A few options off the top of my head:

1a)
There's a bit of room to the left of the HQ flag. How about using the letters P (Parent/Primary) and S (Supported/Secondary) and left 'blank' (i.e. as currently displayed to indicate not involved in a chain).
The letters P & S could then be color coded (i.e. matching) to indicate pairings. 5 or 6 different color combinations should be more than enough.

1b)
Similar to 1a) but draw a color matching border (say around the outside of the counter or perhaps around the interior flag of the counter).
Note: I don't think indicating Primary/Supported is absolutely necessary as it should be relatively easy to determine such just by looking at their positioning.

1c)
As 1b) but use a color matching status dot/circle on the HQs; Or perhaps 2 different symbols (say ^ for Primary and + for supported)

2)
HQs only use 2 of the 3 Upgrade slots (AA & Mobility), perhaps that extra slot could be used. If it has to be numeric and matching color to the 2 in use, then this is probably not a good idea.

Using the third slot is potentially problematic if modders end up using that third slot, and interior flag colour only works on NATO counters, e.g. we'd need something else for 3D units etc.

I think symbols would be along the right track, using letters is something we moved away from for SC3 due to multiple localizations, e.g. the game being in English, German, Spanish and French, and wanted to use a more universal system to represent things like Intercept, Escort and so on and thus the colour coded dots/circles there.

So colour coded symbols would be more consistent with that, and definitely you'd need a unique symbol for Parent and a unique symbol for Support.

Problem is there are only so many colours that stand out as significantly different in game, and with colour blinded players we'd have to pick the most optimal ones as the relationship between two different HQs, and how to differentiate between other sets of pairs is critical here.

Some good ideas though and something to think about for sure.

[Taxman66]

How many chains are active at one time, in my games usually not that many. Black, White, Red, Green maybe Yellow/Gold.
I guess you could repeat/cycle back if that is preferable to adding ones that may blend.

As for symbols I just had the idea of:
Star for Primary (signifying command)
Pennant for Supported (signifying forward position?)

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks and more good ideas, however I'm a little weary of too many colours and then potential look of clutter on the map as well. It has me thinking of something similar but a bit different, and sort of a compromise.

One thing I like is the current under unit hex outline effect, blends well with the map and other elements, e.g. the ones we use for HQ attachment highlights and so on, and maybe a double hex outline for support units, one colour (which ever I find works best) and a single hex outline, another colour for the parent HQ. It would be the same colour combination for all parent/support HQs, and this at least gives you a quick indication of parent/support relationships in play when scanning the map.

Then if you wish to know which parent is the parent of a particular child, you simply mouse hover over the child and it reinforces/brightens the specific highlight of the parent. It could work both ways, e.g. mouse hover over a parent to see a reinforced/brighter highlight of the child. No need to actually click on the HQs etc.

Something like this, e.g. not exactly what you are after, but pretty close and likely much better than what is currently in place.

This is just off the top of my head, and not sure if or when I would have the chance to implement it, but that is my current thinking as it removes the need to ensure there are enough colours and just the right colours and that it doesn't then place way too many colours on the map where it starts to look like too much distracting feedback etc.

It also continues to work with either NATO, 3D and any other customized units etc as the highlights are under the units. Picking symbols as you suggest works too but then we have to think about where to place them on the unit, where it best works for NATO, 3D units as well as for potentially modded graphics as well. Under the units usually helps to remove any of those potential concerns and is just quicker to implement as there is less experimenting involved to get things just right.

[Duedman]

In another thread you asked for examples, why the mechanic to automatically determine chained HQs does not always work.
I got one for you. I wanted the HQ next to Kamyschin get the boost. But it just would not work.
This also shows why I think 1(8) might be too much.

[Taxman66]

It's clear that HQ can't get a boost.
Boost chains can only involve 2 HQs.
There is only 1 HQ (pictured) on a supply giving source, though there must be one off screen to the North.
The in the town west of Stalingrad is supplying/supprting the HQ north of it.
The one off screen must be supplying the HQ at the top of the picture and not the one SE of Kamyschin.

As I explained in an earlier post you don't get to choose which HQ gets the boost when there are mulitples to choose from. In this case I presume the HQ at the top of the picture has a higher command ranking than the one near Kamyschin.

[Duedman]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66
As I explained in an earlier post you don't get to choose which HQ gets the boost when there are mulitples to choose from. In this case I presume the HQ at the top of the picture has a higher command ranking than the one near Kamyschin.

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.

[archmache]

Whatever ends up happening if we can choose what HQ gets boosted and by whom - like having a toggle for auto assign or manual for the units - would help a bunch. This may be too much micro but it is annoying when the hq doesn't get a boost when you want it.

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

It's clear that HQ can't get a boost.
Boost chains can only involve 2 HQs.
There is only 1 HQ (pictured) on a supply giving source, though there must be one off screen to the North.
The in the town west of Stalingrad is supplying/supprting the HQ north of it.
The one off screen must be supplying the HQ at the top of the picture and not the one SE of Kamyschin.

As I explained in an earlier post you don't get to choose which HQ gets the boost when there are mulitples to choose from. In this case I presume the HQ at the top of the picture has a higher command ranking than the one near Kamyschin.