Matrix Games Forums

Is the following situation intended or not?:

A blockaded port generates 0 supply.
A blockaded port next to a home country city (even if it is a Secondary Supply source) also generates 0 supply.
A ship that spawns in such a port starts with 0 supply.

Seems a bit harsh.

It makes perfect sense for a blockaded port that is not on the home country mainland (e.g. Malta, Gibraltar, Rhodes, etc...) to
not be able to provide supply from abroad; and works fine in conjunction with land and air units which can get some supply from the city/town associated with the port.

But a ship in a home country port, shouldn't be starved due to a blockading ship/sub.

Supply is simply a function of the current supply the unit may receive, so if that port is the only port in the area within range of supplying the ship, then yes it is possible for a ship in that port to have 0 supply. I see what you are referring to but this then goes into special rules that need to be considered and applied to the supply calculation routines.

Is this from a recent purchase and placement off of the P/Q or something similar to that? If this is the case, then this might be a bug as naval units arrive off of the P/Q should arrive at a value of 10 supply whereas land units arrive at 0 and then have their supply calculated accordingly at the end of the turn.

It was the Russian Barbarossa naval unit deployment.
Though I imagine it might also apply to units off the p/q.

The Russian BB Marat deployed at the Lenningrad port with 0 supply because a U-boat was pre-positioned to block both those ports. The russian sub deployed off port at full supply, and I'm not sure about the CL because it was destroyed on the turn it deployed.

Marat deployed with 0. I kept it in the port and it was still 0 on my next turn. 3rd turn I ran through the Uboat to get to Narva port where it got back to 10 supply, but by then its morale and readiness were shot to hell.

I understand how and adjacent naval unit would prevent a port from receiving supply from other ports, but not how it prevents the port from being supplied from land. A port at 0 supply as a result of attacks makes more sense, as you could argue that extensive damage could prevent ported ships from "docking".

Neither seems to apply to your situation. How does the sub start with 10 but the BB with 0? You were robbed!

Thanks for the further feedback and these are scripted unit events and because they arrive when Barbarossa strikes, all these units arrive with 0 supply, including the sub. The reason for this is since readiness is tied into strength and supply, starting them off with 0 supply ensures their readiness is low and that they will be vulnerable to attack upon their immediate arrival. If they survive then they have the chance to have their supply increased by the following turn as well as their readiness and morale as well.

My guess is that the sub had a supply path to the Narva port as it arrived outside of the ports at Leningrad, i.e. the supply calculation rules allowed it to jump up to 10 supply by the time of the start of your turn.

In terms of how ports provide supply, the general rule is that naval units don't even have to fully return to port to jump back up to full supply as there are distance ranges that as long as the naval unit is within it will automatically boost the naval unit back to a higher level supply if it was previously at a very low supply value.

Allowing a port at 0 strength to still provide maximum supply would affect how all naval units get resupplied (as a game mechanic) and unless we start introducing special rules and then possibly down the path of even more supply rules, which while they may be more logical, we tend to be wary of because more rules simply means more rules to keep track of and remember depending on the various situations.

So the question I tend to ask myself in these situations is would it make sense to have a 0 strength port provide normal supply to naval units in a general sense, or should it be that only naval units in a port at 0 strength could provide possible max supply, but then only those that are not on an island like Malta etc.? We should also consider the counter point of whether or not there should be some reward for an opponent that reduces your port to 0 in that perhaps it should not be an effective supply port and so on.

In the end my gut would tell me that perhaps the simplest solution to the above is to just keep things as they are or perhaps make a single exception to naval units in that they arrive at a minimum supply of 3 or perhaps even 5 so that in your situation they arrive with some supply but the tradeoff will be that they will be harder to destroy in this type of surprise attack setting that was Barbarossa which penalizes the Axis player a little bit, and especially so if they've already reduced your port to 0, i.e. the incentive for doing so and taking that early risk will be lower.

Is there an easy way to distinguish between a home country port versus an overseas port?...

Actually there is.

Here is a suggestion:

Blockade works as it currently does for any port with a value of 5 or lower.

A port with a value of 6 or greater that is blockaded can only supply units in the port hex itself.

This will almost only affect naval units, as land and air units will draw supply from the associated city instead. In some situations land hexes that could draw supply from the port instead of the associated city (because they start 1 hex away from the associated city) will have be reduced because they will have to draw from said city instead of the 'closer' port.

If I recall my history weren't the guns of the Marat (and perhaps some of support ships) pulled off to be used as Artillery in the defense of Lenningrad?

That would mean she wasnt seriously attacked (and on the other side ever likely left port for operations).

I'd have to research to be sure. But that would be a neat DE to remove the Marat for an Arty at Lenningrad.

It would have to be a costal artilley unit but where would it be placed? It’s a good potential DE.

Why would it have to be costal?

Because the ships were shore batteries and were not mobile artillery.

On that subject (well sort of), katyushas were mobile artillery. It seems to me that they should be allowed to move before firing.

[8D]

How strong is that coastal gun though, will it be more of a detriment to the defense of the city? A work around may be to give the unit defense bonuses when in a city. To my knowledge the existing coastal guns are not placed in cities so it would work. Is that a DE event in 653N?

It's not a DE, here is my reasoning from the 653N notes:

Soviet Navy:
The Soviet Navy was of very minor importance during WWII. Imposing in numbers with 3 battleships, 7 cruisers, 59 destroyers and 218 submarines, its standard of equipment, training and efficiency was very low. The navy's main use was as a reserve of manpower, providing almost 500,000 sailors and officers for Naval and Marine Infantry formations. Their Battleships were used as floating artillery batteries in the Leningrad and Sevastopol areas, and are therefore represented by Coastal Batteries at these two locations.
Some Soviet Naval Units are available for build [Subs and a Destroyer unit] and the player may decide to spend the necessary MPP's to build them or not.

How strong is that coastal gun though, will it be more of a detriment to the defense of the city?

I feel that it is strong enough as it is difficult to defeat unless Leningrad is cut off completely. I could be wrong but no one else has mentioned so I'm not totally sure.

I feel that it is strong enough as it is difficult to defeat unless Leningrad is cut off completely.

Which isn't to achieve without placing units in swamps. The worst thing could happen to an attacker is being bombarded in swamps.