Supply Truck mechanic need input.

[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.

Could you please post a screenshot of your frontline? With MorningDew, we are trying to compare where we are.

[ComadrejaKorp]

I never disbanded them, but I like this change, the more options the better.

I did not take screenshots and the game has progressed, I will count how many Rifles have been transformed and I will let you know.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

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? May 1942?

OK the conversion has restarted when the frontline was stabilized. Is there a rule like the Rifle Corps must not move the turn before its conversion? I wonder.

[ncc1701e]

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

I still have corps in February 1942.

[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.

So, how is your winter? Mine starts to be difficult. Effectiveness is dropping. I hope to see few Soviet attacks from my opponent soon.

[AlvaroSousa]

It is just a formula. There is no set date.

To address the comment about about +100% cost -33% less effect... The double cost was 100% required because of it's effectiveness with armor. There is zero reason to spend it on infantry when the firepower you gain from armor is twice as much.

So I see it as armor was half the cost it should have been and now it is accurate.

It's like paying the same price for a cheap battery or an excellent battery. You will always pay the same price for the excellent battery.
But when there is a price differential then you have to choose based on need.

This beta will be for a while to make sure this mechanic is correct.

[ncc1701e]

All right will wait to see when the formula ends

[ComadrejaKorp]

Finally I was able to advance a lot and my opponent gave up the game.
As it was a mirror game, we continue in the one that I am Ally, it is February 1943, after resisting 2 campaigns I have 6 tanks supported by the Lutwaffe 1 hex from Moscow, its fall seems inevitable when the first clear turn arrives, but the Russian economy is good and I can counterattack, very exciting.
I still have a lot of Rifle Corps.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

It is just a formula. There is no set date.

To address the comment about about +100% cost -33% less effect... The double cost was 100% required because of it's effectiveness with armor. There is zero reason to spend it on infantry when the firepower you gain from armor is twice as much.

So I see it as armor was half the cost it should have been and now it is accurate.

It's like paying the same price for a cheap battery or an excellent battery. You will always pay the same price for the excellent battery.
But when there is a price differential then you have to choose based on need.

This beta will be for a while to make sure this mechanic is correct.

You are absolutely right Alvaro that Players used supply trucks primarily on Armour. But, of course, that was historically the units that received supply priority in the War itself for the very reasons you mentioned. Supply priority was always given to the mobile units.When supply was short in North Africa which units do you think received the bulk of supply (oil, ammunition, etc) that was available; the armour/mechanized units, of course. The same is true of Russia and Normandy. But even if you are correct that the cost for armour and air should be 2X that of infantry (and I can see where armour should cost more, just not sure about 2X), why double the cost for armour and air, why not halve it for infantry? And why the double whammy of also reducing its effectiveness by 50%. Personally I just think this was too drastic a measure (similar to the drastic cuts made to air units effectiveness), but we will have to wait and see.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

It is just a formula. There is no set date.

To address the comment about about +100% cost -33% less effect... The double cost was 100% required because of it's effectiveness with armor. There is zero reason to spend it on infantry when the firepower you gain from armor is twice as much.

So I see it as armor was half the cost it should have been and now it is accurate.

It's like paying the same price for a cheap battery or an excellent battery. You will always pay the same price for the excellent battery.
But when there is a price differential then you have to choose based on need.

This beta will be for a while to make sure this mechanic is correct.

You are absolutely right Alvaro that Players used supply trucks primarily on Armour. But, of course, that was historically the units that received supply priority in the War itself for the very reasons you mentioned. Supply priority was always given to the mobile units.When supply was short in North Africa which units do you think received the bulk of supply (oil, ammunition, etc) that was available; the armour/mechanized units, of course. The same is true of Russia and Normandy. But even if you are correct that the cost for armour and air should be 2X that of infantry (and I can see where armour should cost more, just not sure about 2X), why double the cost for armour and air, why not halve it for infantry? And why the double whammy of also reducing its effectiveness by 50%. Personally I just think this was too drastic a measure (similar to the too drastic cuts made to air units effectiveness), but we will have to wait and see.

[squatter]

Another thing that amplifies the usefulness of supply trucks is that they don't require manpower.

In a current PBEM I ran out of manpower for Germany in 1943 and haven't been able to spend production on anything else apart from supply trucks for several months. Germany now has 600 supply trucks, with another 200 in the production line. This is clearly absurd, but the way manpower and production interplay meant it was the only option.

Perhaps supply trucks should require temporary manpower and/or logistics - 1MP for 10 trucks, say - which is returned to the national pool when spent. This would prevent supply trucks being an infinite resource.

[Jeff_Ahl]

ORIGINAL: squatter

Another thing that amplifies the usefulness of supply trucks is that they don't require manpower.

In a current PBEM I ran out of manpower for Germany in 1943 and haven't been able to spend production on anything else apart from supply trucks for several months. Germany now has 600 supply trucks, with another 200 in the production line. This is clearly absurd, but the way manpower and production interplay meant it was the only option.

Perhaps supply trucks should require temporary manpower and/or logistics - 1MP for 10 trucks, say - which is returned to the national pool when spent. This would prevent supply trucks being an infinite resource.

+1