Raiding but not losing supply?

[Christolos]

So I'm raiding off the coast of Canada (raiding hatched hexes) with a German CA and a U-boat...and I don't seem to be losing supply. It's been 3 turns now, and each unit still has supply level 10. Is this WAD?


C

[crispy131313]

I don’t see a convoy you are blockading not raiding

[Xsillione]

Blockading a port with the marked hexes is free. Can do lots of damage, esp if you block the convoy source (knocking out the convoy until it is repaired up to five), but you are perfectly known to the other side, so they can easily (in theory) take you out. Of course if you rule the waves or playing against the AI, it can be free and unlimited "raid", but against the AI stop using it or accept the semi exploit, and if you rule the waves, you could do normal raid or even landing.

[Christolos]

Thanks Xsillione,

I would like to know the reasoning behind why raiding such hatched hexes are free of requiring supply being used up. Wouldn't it be more realistic and less of a potential exploit if it did.

Bill or Hubert?

C

[Numdydar]

If you are a known naval force sitting outside of a port, unless someone chases you off, there is nothing to attack as ships are either avoiding the area or sitting at dock. Your ships are likely not using much fuel either since you are just 'hanging around'. Any stores can easily be replaced as well.

So it makes sense to me anyway

[Mercutio]

To be fair, any naval vessel will use supplies IRL while doing almost nothing. They wouldn't just sit there. Circle? Sure. Also they are using food and water. Personally I feel naval vessels should use a minimum of .5 supply a turn, but I doubt the game handles that. Also moving takes fuel, but that is not accounted for that I can tell.

I doubt a ship of that time could go all the way around the world and never stop for fuel and provisions.

Heck, at least lose readiness for being tired of being at sea?

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Christolos

Thanks Xsillione,

I would like to know the reasoning behind why raiding such hatched hexes are free of requiring supply being used up. Wouldn't it be more realistic and less of a potential exploit if it did.

Bill or Hubert?

C

No specific reasoning to be honest as one is game engine driven, i.e. raiding a convoy has a very specific mechanism in place that takes into account assigning experience and supply reduction etc., whereas blockading as shown in this example is a script driven event that is triggered due to the subs being located there. Essentially we use similar events to trigger similar results in other parts of the game and it could be a completely different unit type all together and on land and so on.

We could in theory expand how the event functions to also similarly apply experience and supply losses but I'd have to have a think on how to make it work for different types of events (perhaps for some events we wouldn't want this) since as mentioned this is event driven.

However, I'm not sure it would necessarily be ideal game play wise. For example, when raiding an actual convoy, raiders need to be on the move in order to avoid detection, and the cat and mouse game ensues. In game play terms, there is in my opinion a stronger argument to be made for the experience gains and supply losses under this scenario.

On the other hand, for blockades, the subs positioning themselves there are much more vulnerable as they are known positions (i.e. positions to blockade as well as positions to eventually escape from) and in theory much easier to defend against as there is no hiding for the 'raider' as there would be when regular convoy raiding across an expanse of ocean.

Reducing supply (despite adding in modest experience gains) might dissuade players from even trying blockading as the risks could then potentially outweigh the rewards.

I'm just thinking out loud here and I'm not necessarily 100% sure on this, but those are my initial and quick thoughts.

[crispy131313]

ORIGINAL: Mercutio

To be fair, any naval vessel will use supplies IRL while doing almost nothing. They wouldn't just sit there. Circle? Sure. Also they are using food and water. Personally I feel naval vessels should use a minimum of .5 supply a turn, but I doubt the game handles that. Also moving takes fuel, but that is not accounted for that I can tell.

I doubt a ship of that time could go all the way around the world and never stop for fuel and provisions.

Heck, at least lose readiness for being tired of being at sea?

Didn't surface raiders also have supply/fuel vessels that would accompany, one example I can think of would be Altmark and Graf Spee, obviously these vessels like Altmark aren't represented in the game and shouldn't be. I think losing supply during actual convoy raiding activity and/or encounters with enemy ships is sufficient right now IMO and supply more of an abstract of naval combat ability, abstracting provisions into the naval game would be a mistake I think requiring too much supply micromanagement.

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

ORIGINAL: Christolos

Thanks Xsillione,

I would like to know the reasoning behind why raiding such hatched hexes are free of requiring supply being used up. Wouldn't it be more realistic and less of a potential exploit if it did.

Bill or Hubert?

C

No specific reasoning to be honest as one is game engine driven, i.e. raiding a convoy has a very specific mechanism in place that takes into account assigning experience and supply reduction etc., whereas blockading as shown in this example is a script driven event that is triggered due to the subs being located there. Essentially we use similar events to trigger similar results in other parts of the game and it could be a completely different unit type all together and on land and so on.

We could in theory expand how the event functions to also similarly apply experience and supply losses but I'd have to have a think on how to make it work for different types of events (perhaps for some events we wouldn't want this) since as mentioned this is event driven.

However, I'm not sure it would necessarily be ideal game play wise. For example, when raiding an actual convoy, raiders need to be on the move in order to avoid detection, and the cat and mouse game ensues. In game play terms, there is in my opinion a stronger argument to be made for the experience gains and supply losses under this scenario.

On the other hand, for blockades, the subs positioning themselves there are much more vulnerable as they are known positions (i.e. positions to blockade as well as positions to eventually escape from) and in theory much easier to defend against as there is no hiding for the 'raider' as there would be when regular convoy raiding across an expanse of ocean.

Reducing supply (despite adding in modest experience gains) might dissuade players from even trying blockading as the risks could then potentially outweigh the rewards.

I'm just thinking out loud here and I'm not necessarily 100% sure on this, but those are my initial and quick thoughts.

Thanks Hubert.
You refer to subs blockading, but surface ships can do the same, right?

Also, for subs to blockade (placed on hatched squares outside of ports), do they need to be in hunting mode or can they do this in silent mode?

C

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Christolos,

Off hand I don't remember all of the events, and you are probably right that some are for any unit, and others for maybe just subs. Whichever it is, just the unit is required to be located there for the event to fire and it would not be checking for raid or hunt mode etc.

Hubert

[BillRunacre]

Any naval unit can blockade a port or raid by being placed on one of the cross hatched hexes, and the mode of the vessel doesn't matter here. Their mere presence in this location is enough to upset local trade and shipping.