Matrix Games Forums

I made a quick and simple Supply Distribution chart for HQs to help me predict supply on a different hex without having to actually move the HQ.



Link to the PDF

First determine the raw underlying supply of the hex where you want to move the HQ. This is not the value that is shown by the "S" hotkey (those values take into account the HQ's current distribution -- you need the value of the hex itself without the current HQ influence). You can see an example of the raw hex value in the red box at top right image of the PDF. Notice how this is different than what you see with the "S" hotkey. To determine this raw value of a hex that's near the HQ, without actually moving it, you need to count hexes from the nearest supply source (this can be another HQ!). Remember that supply decrements by 1 point per hex in clear terrain. Mountains and other negative terrain can make the supply value decrease more than this, so take that into consideration. You can use the "S" hotkey of the current distribution overlay to identify double-drops in supply between adjacent hexes, and help you determine where negative terrain actually lies.

After determining the raw supply value of a hex, cross reference it with the strength value of the HQ itself. The number you get will be the amount of supply provided starting with the HQ's own hex next turn when you move him to that location. Green denotes maximum supply possible, while yellow and red represent steps down from this max.

I hope this helps take some of the black voodoo magic out of anticipating HQ supply before you actually move the HQ.

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I have updated the chart to reflect all changes since the game's manual was written. This includes testing every single combination of HQ Strength to Supply possible, by using a custom scenario.

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I believe once a supply level falls below 3 the 10 strength HQ will only provide a supply of 5.

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

I believe once a supply level falls below 3 the 10 strength HQ will only provide a supply of 5.

Unless they modified it in an undocumented patch change, page 161 of the WaW manual shows the minimum supply distribution value for a strength 9-10 HQ with zero supply is 5. The last sentence on page 161 sets up the chart on page 162 which shows that a strength 10 HQ provides 8 distribution if its supply is at least 1-5. That whole section of the manual is very, very confusing at first read.

That's exactly why I made this chart.

Just because its written don't make it so!

Model it in the game, then tell me I'm wrong.[:)]

See Below

7.25.4 page 160 first asterick

They really need to fix the manual. Section 7.25.6 directly contradicts the bullet points on the previous page. Also in one part of the manual it says that the Logistics skill will increase these numbers by +1/lvl, but in another section about Logistics, this is completely omitted.

This line in particular is all sorts of bogus (pg 161):

Final Supply Distribution Value cannot however fall below the HQ’s
Minimum Supply Value, and this can be increased by researching Logistics.

Updating the manual every time a change is made is obviously not a reasonable request. It is up to the players to keep on top of the What's New document, which the developer's are very good about updating. Check yours for the v1.11 from Jan. 2018 for the HQ rules.

I painstakingly created a bare-bones custom scenario and tested each and every possible combination of strength/supply for an HQ. I have updated the original post with this info.

tl;dr: just throw the manual away

Thanks Kornstalx!
I find the supply rules tricky to keep up with so your matrix should help.
Any thoughts of doing a similar “dummy” for linked HQ’s..?

Supplies during wartime were "tricky" IRL! Come to think of it, supply side logistics can be that way in present day and no one is even trying to interdict.

Keeping manuals up-to-date is not an unreasonable request. As a software engineer myself, any changes to an application we build, we also update the documentation accordingly. Granted, "small" updates might simply provide updates via "release notes", but major updates (version changes) the manual / documentation is updated to reflect the actual state of the software.

Its not only good practice for the sake of the customer, but also for the software engineers themselves as often the documentation is referred back to when researching an issue and or bringing a junior engineer up to speed on the project / application.

Keeping manuals up-to-date is not an unreasonable request. As a software engineer myself

When I suggested for another game to keep the pdf version of it's manual constantly updated, for release when any official patch/update or full release, this is the answer I got:
If a manual were updated with every change, we'd all have to read the entire manual every time it changed in order to hope to notice any changes. You can't ask people to re-read the entire manual for patch releases.

Well you could color code the changes but after a few major patches the manual would be a mess with different colored additions and strikeouts.

Plus I'd much rather the developers spend their time fixing issues and creating new content (like a bigger map [:)]) versus spending time updating manuals.

In fairness, we do attempt to continually update the manual with changes as the game develops, but it could happen where some changes have been missed in the manual. We are only human and I'm sure this is on Bill's radar to inspect further.

Thanks,
Hubert

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

In fairness, we do attempt to continually update the manual with changes as the game develops, but it could happen where some changes have been missed in the manual. We are only human and I'm sure this is on Bill's radar to inspect further.

Thanks,
Hubert

If I didn't knew you any better, I'd think you just blamed Bill

Just kidding, just kidding!



To the OP: thanks a lot!!!

Too funny and not at all, this has been a crazy week and Bill was knee deep in campaign work and I just wanted to post a quick reply for him (us) as Bill covers the Manual as well.

Hi everyone

I've been reviewing this and I must admit that I'm struggling to see where the Manual is incorrect.

7.25.4 HQ Supply covers the normal rules for HQ supply distribution, and it ends with a paragraph explaining that a low strength HQ is further penalized in its supply distributing abilities, as per the next section 7.25.5 The Supply Value of Low Strength HQs

Perhaps it is just that sections 7.25.4 through to 7.25.6 are potentially confusing as they can't be taken in isolation?


I can see that 9.9.8. Logistics is missing a mention of Logistics increasing HQ’s minimum supply values by 1 per level.

I think the last sentence in 7.25.5 is where that section of the manual became muddled for me:

Final Supply Distribution Value cannot however fall below the HQ’s
Minimum Supply Value, and this can be increased by researching Logistics.

Since I couldn't find where the Minimum Supply Value was referenced before that sentence, I assumed it was setting up the next two tables in 7.25.6. But the second sentence in 7.25.6, after the first chart...

If an HQ has access to a supply source of value 1-5, then its Minimum
Supply Value will be as follows:

... implies that a Strength 10 HQ with a supply of 2 will give off 8 supply, based on the next chart. I believe that might be a typo and should say "If an HQ has access to a supply source of value 3-5, then its Minimum". Honestly I just think that whole section is very confusing and it's probably my fault for reading it 10,000 times but coming to different conclusions each time. Something just wasn't adding up. And the boat is still out about the Logistics thing; I don't know if it actually affects these values or not.

In the end it was just easier to make a test scenario and map out the results, hence the graph

Thanks for explaining that, I'll have a think about the text, and yes, your graph looks great! [:)]