Osinovets

[tomeck48]

Playing the Axis in 1941, mud turn. I've got Leningrad cut off but it's still supplied through Osinovets. We are facing each other across the Neva. I sent the bombers against the port and got it reduced 4%. Is it possible to destroy the port with air power? Suppose I get it to 50% reduced, how much does that affect the Soviet Supply situation in the pocket? In the meantime I'm transferring pioneers and heavy arty to 18th Army. Model is there too, in I Korps.

[No idea]

Dont bother. Destroying a relatively big port is impossible. On top of that, as long as it isnt completely destroyed (100% damage, altough I am not sure, perhaps 50% damage is enough to make it stop working) all supplies needed will get through. Yes, I know it is absurd, but the naval part of the game (naval supply included) was never among their priorities. Supply throughput doenst exist in the game. Fortunately, that seems to be changed in wite 2

[chaos45]

it can be bombed out as you should be able to bomb it twice per turn...however the soviets can make this bombing campaign very costly and may stop it with enough AA and fighter support.

[tomeck48]

Got it. I'll use the Stuka's to support the ground attack. Thanks guys.

[Crackaces]

see my AAR They crossed over the boarder on page 2 .. I have isolated Osinovits .. 66 2/3% started bombing on turn 4 ..isolated turn 13

tm.asp?m=4360475

NOTE: The Soviets will now put airbases ful of fighters and flak .. it is quite controversial if this can be done on the latest patch ..

[thedoctorking]

The reason Crackaces was able to do it was because our air commander decided to withdraw the entire Red Air Force to national reserve. So Crackaces' unescorted Ju87's were able to punish the place without even needing fighter escorts. Once I got control of the air force, they weren't able to play around so much.

[morvael]

I trust your air force commander was put under arrest, given to military tribunal and promptly shot.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I trust your air force commander was put under arrest, given to military tribunal and promptly shot.

I think he may claim for defamation. As will the families of the dead German bomber pilots shot down by fighters while doing the job! [:D]

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: No idea
On top of that, as long as it isnt completely destroyed (100% damage, altough I am not sure, perhaps 50% damage is enough to make it stop working) all supplies needed will get through. Yes, I know it is absurd, but the naval part of the game (naval supply included) was never among their priorities. Supply throughput doenst exist in the game.

Yes, the problem is you need a full rewrite of supply system (like they did in WitW/WitE2) to introduce throughput. You can't simply add it on top (which would be quite simple) when the core assumption of existing supply system is that every unit or city is supplied via single best (lowest cost) path, like in a boardgame. With throughput you have to be able to handle multiple higher cost paths leading into a single destination via different routes, to utilize all available throughput.

That said in the next patch every port on path will increase MP cost of supply path (as it was meant to do), more so if the port is smaller, less so if the port is bigger. So bombing a port should result in some increase of MP cost and reduction of supply efficiency even without fully closing the port. However, the penalties from MP cost kick in only after 25 MP, and the route of Osinovets - Kobona will cost you less (so unless there will be a rework of MP to rail penalty there will be little change). But at least it will now make sense to bomb ports on both sides of Ladoga.

[morvael]

If you were given choice, which kind of formula for MP penalty you would prefer?

[No idea]

A. Basically because you (or your enemy) starts to feel the bombing earlier. With blue you need 25% port damaged before feeling anything (if I have correctly undrstood what both axis mean)

[morvael]

Yeah, but it results in supply being worse in the previously good segment and bad segment, while being better in the middle segment. That could alter balance a lot, as the gap between good and middle is smaller now.

On the other hand shape of B looks artificial - why have most radical drop at the start, easing off in the distance?

Maybe the drop should simply be linear?

edit: this is not port supply penalty, this is MP to railhead penalty.

[chaos45]

Line A makes the most sense...also even logically as up to 5-7 MP/hexes you suffer no penalties. Also makes the wooded wastelands of northern Russia harder to operate in for the Germans in the early game as all those woods will reduce supply more quickly as historical.

[morvael]

But which shape makes the most sense? Maybe one like this?

[No idea]

That makes the most sense. As I see things, when you start having troubles to carry all things needed to your troops you first start not carrying the less useful (for combat) items (that piano your corps commnader wanted, the new uniforms for the rearguard guys...), and the last things you wont be sending will be ammo and fuel (plus food and medicines, I hope). So, being not that far away should give slight penalties, but the farther you are the penalties increase dramatically. That is what your curve says to me.

Or you could just make it simpler and go for a linear drop

[chaos45]

amount of trucks also impacts the amount of supply received correct?

like my understanding as example- Railhead to Army Group to Army to Corps to unit.....so as long as all units in that chain have 100% trucks if no penalty is 5 MP then you get a total supply chain extension of 20 MP from Railhead to line unit with no penalty.

So more of a drop off after that should happen as you already have a long supply chain of HQs/trucks before any issues.

[morvael]

Truck shortage can kick in, but is separate from distance to railhead penalty.

[chaos45]

IDK I think more supply penalties are needed but that's my take on the game at current. As I have mentioned before you can go back into the history of the game and see the Germans are more well supplied and faster now than they have been in most patch series in at least the last 5 or so years lol.

This would also help to slow the soviet advances in late 43/44 which ppl feel are to fast as well, and give the German player an incentive to retreat to buy some time via supply vs soviets in the late game....as well maybe allow the soviets to survive 1941/42 with enough industry/manpower to play the full game out lol.

[morvael]

I'm already afraid German players will not like the balance of the next patch, why kick them where it hurts the most again? [:)]

[chaos45]

Looking forward to seeing the patch notes lol. Me and HLYA talk about stuff still....one recent message I sent him was the fact that July and August of 1944 the germans lost around 3,000+ Tanks/AFV in each of those months. As I was reading a like 500 page paper on bagration and the guy writing in talked losses on both the east and west and compared them.

Just find that interesting as I dont think you will ever see those kind of German losses in 1 month of WITE.....now in WITE terms/real life I feel many of those 3-4k tanks lost in each of those months on the eastern front were actually destroyed but reported as damaged tanks the Germans liked to keep on their records until forced to surrender the massive tank graveyard/"repair" yards they had in the east.