Strategic Command v1.03.02 Beta available (includes updated UI)

[sPzAbt653]

HQ Chaining- New Rules for 1.03.02

Up to Nov. 41 of a new game with the new version, and I've been watching the HQ's Chains. I've got one in England for Sealion, but no good examples there as the Axis Resources are no higher than 3, and if I read the new rules correctly, an HQ needs to be at 5 or better to chain.

Below is the Axis invasion of Egypt. The two insets near the top are for the nearest Resources [Mersa Matruh, and El Alamein], the lower insets are for the HQ's they are closest to. I'm not seeing any chaining at all [not just for this one shot, but the whole time that I have had multiple HQ's in Africa]. What I see is - Matruh at 5, and Alamien at 1. Italian 10º Armata at 4(8) because it is one hex from Matruh, German 12th Army at 3(8) because it is two hexes from Matruh, and German Pz.A Afrika at 1(5) because it sits on Alamein. No chaining at all that I can see. Although I've read the new rules several times, they have yet to sink in, but I think at a minimum the Pz.A Afrika should be higher than 1(5). Right or wrong ?

[Hubert Cater]

As far as I can tell this looks like it is working correctly.

The new rule requires all potential HQs that could link supply to another HQ as having a minimum supply of 5 themselves. In your screenshot none of the HQs have a supply value of 5, they are at 4, 3 and 1 going from left to right. The second distribution supply value, i.e. the one in brackets is higher but this is not the value the rule is looking for. It is considering the supply the HQ is receiving itself only.

So if let's say you moved the 12th Army HQ (Germany) and put it in Mersa Matruh, this HQ would then have a supply of 5. Then since PA Afrika HQ at El Alamein is at 1, which is < 3 (also required under the new rules), PA Afrika HQ would be boosted to 5 since the distribution supply of 12th Army HQ (Germany) would be 8 at Mersa Matruh and the distance from Mersa Matruh to El Alamein would provide a supply value of 4 to the PA Afrika HQ.

Now PA Afrika HQ would have a supply of 5 and a distribution supply of 8.

Hope this makes sense!
Hubert

[sPzAbt653]

It makes perfect sense, and it is confusing, I think it used to be easier to see, but it did take time the original way also, so I'll get the hang of it.

Qualifiers = 5 or more to link, less than 3 to be linked, right ?

I'm a little worried about getting to Perm, I think that might be the most difficult place to reach using two HQ's, the old chain would be:
Kirov = 5, two hexes away the first HQ at 3[8], second HQ five hexes further to also be at 3[8], which would put a unit on the road adjacent to Perm at 3, anywhere else less. I am working on getting there to see how the new way looks, and I'll post a shot of it. [:)]

Working thru the desert as the Axis, and also did a Sealion, both are now more difficult and slower, which should be a good thing. Sealion also more difficult with the Sea Capacity changes, but again seems like a good thing.

[sPzAbt653]

And just came across a good HQ Link, so might as well post it.

If I got this correct, PA Afrika starts with 2, which qualifies for a link as it is at less than 3. Ar Ruftah is at 5, therefore 12th Army located there is at 5, which boosts PA Afrika to 5[8]. 12th Army's Supply Value of [8] has no bearing on HQ links.

If PA Afrika was at 3, it would not qualify for a link.

[sPzAbt653]

Here is one that looks to be working as intended, but is one of the cases that causes some confusion. Split screen showing the same situation, except in the bottom half I have moved the 2.Panzer Army HQ one hex further away from Vyazma, which puts it at 2 initial supply, which qualifies it for a link with 9th Army HQ, which boosts it from 3(8) to 5(8). It is working as advertised, but doesn't seem to make sense [moving it further away gets better results].
I am up to July 1943 and in Africa and Russia the overall results of the new Link Rules has been to slow things down a little, which I think is good because the earlier Link Rules did seem a bit charitable [in my opinion].

[crispy131313]

Could there be a swap unit button added to the drop down list (or maybe even the menu bar)? Essentially the button just needs to "hold shift" for you while you swap a unit. Playing with 1 hand (holding a sleeping child in one arm for example) is 100% do-able except for the swap unit function.

Cruise/Forced March is also difficult without using shift as well, but i'm less concerned about it.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi sPzAbt653,

It may initially seem counterintuitive but there is some logic to it because the idea is to provide additional supply to those HQs that need it. In the old system this wasn't the case and it just gave higher distribution supply than what would be logical as the first HQ would actually have less distribution supply than the second HQ it linked to.

With this new system, it only makes sense to provide additional supply to a second HQ with supply < 3 so that its distribution supply can actually be increased, i.e. from 5 to 8.

For example, if the second HQ had a supply > 3 then it wouldn't need to be linked as an HQ with supply >= 3 and <= 5 will already have a distribution supply of 8. An HQ with a supply value > 5 will have a distribution supply value of 10, i.e. the full amount so it definitely doesn't need to be linked and won't gain from being linked. So the only case where it makes sense to boost an HQ is if it is < 3 because an HQ with a supply value < 3 will have a distribution supply value of 5. But boosting a second linked HQ to from supply 2 to 5 puts it in that >= 3 and <= 5 supply category and then the distribution supply level of 8.

The above is a mouthful but hopefully it makes sense!
Hubert

[sPzAbt653]

Yes, it certainly is a mouthful. Part of the confusion for me was getting the old method out of my head, which was difficult.

Is there any practical difference between a HQ at 4(8) or 3(8) and a HQ at 5(8) ?

If it hasn't been considered already, perhaps an addition to the 'Set Mode' right click menu for HQ's - to 'Assign HQ' for linkage. This would remove the automatic linkages and put linking in the hands of the player. A HQ at 5 or greater base supply would be eligible to assign one HQ with 2 or less base supply to itself. The current automatic assignment is ok, but this addition would be nice in cases when there are multiple HQ's in a small area.

[sPzAbt653]

Perm Test, after the first turn jump off from the Kirov area:

[sPzAbt653]

Sorry for the huge screen shots, but I wanted to get the whole area in as much detail as reasonable.

For this test I moved the 4.Panzer Army HQ one hex towards Perm each turn. The results were good and supply was never an issue for the spearheads [it was low, but never zero].

Below is a shot after Perm was captured, so Perm's supply level of 6 has an effect on the supply grid, but not on the 4.Panzer Army. When I moved it one more hex toward Perm it expectedly lost its link to the HQ at Kirov.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Hi Bill - I started a new game [1.03.02, Axis Human vs. Allies Computer, 653H] and I got a message about France abandoning positions in the Med. I poked around and saw there is no Guard Script for Algiers [there is for Tunis and Damascus]. I looked in the 1939 Campaign and saw the same, so if you think it is ok, I added this one below the Guard Script for 'France Guard - Syria'. To make sure it is ok, I could restart and test, or run a hotseat, but it doesn't concern me enough.

{
#NAME= France Guard - Algiers
#POPUP=
#FLAG= 1
#TYPE= 2
#COUNTRY_ID= 40
#TRIGGER= 0
#LEVEL= 0
; Set global variable condition to always trigger (dummy value)
#GV= 1[1,100]
; Set link value to always trigger (dummy value)
#LINK= 0[0]
#LENGTH= 1
#HOLD= 0
#ADD_HQ= 0
#GOAL_POSITION= 152,113
#DATE= 1939/09/01
#STEAL= 0
; Set friendly positions:
; 1st Line - Damascus
#FRIENDLY_POSITION= 152,113
; Set variable conditions:
; 1st Line - France politically aligned with Allies and not surrendered
#VARIABLE_CONDITION= 40 [2] [100] [0]
; Set tactical conditions:
; 1st Line - Paris not tactically threatened (dummy condition)
#TACTICAL_CONDITION= 151,84 [3]
; Set dummy activate position (no units at position 0,0)
#ACTIVATE_POSITION= 0,0 [0,0] [0,0] [0]
; Set dummy cancel position (single neutral unit at position 0,0). This is not possible as no
; unit can occupy tile 0,0 so event will not be cancelled due to #CONDITION_POSITION
#CANCEL_POSITION= 0,0 [0,0] [1,1] [0]
}

Hi

Algiers being vacated isn't a trigger for any Italian Mobilization as the French force in Algiers would be expected to be sent to the mainland just as it was in 1914.

The messages do reference the position abandoned, so if you run it again then it should show what has been abandoned, and you can always turn off fog of war to see.

[sPzAbt653]

Algiers being vacated isn't a trigger

Well, I thought I checked everything before posting about it, lol. But now I can't remember if I checked Tunis and Damascus with FoW off, so it will have to wait til next time. Thanks Bill !

[gingerbread]

It's probably the new morale loss event. The guard script is a good idea.

;REMOVE1941
{
#NAME= France - Positions In The Mediterranean Are Abandoned
#POPUP= French National Morale Falls As Positions In The Mediterranean Are Abandoned
#IMAGE=
#SOUND=
#FLAG= 1
#TYPE= 2
#AI= 0
#LEVEL= 0
; Set global variable condition to always trigger (dummy value)
#GV= 1[1,100]
; Set link value to always trigger (dummy value)
#LINK= 0[0]
#COUNTRY_ID= 40
#TRIGGER= 100
; Set how many NM points should be gained or lost over X turns
#NM_UPDOWN= -500
#NM_TURNS= 1
#DATE= 1939/09/01
#OBJECTIVE_TEXT_POSITION=
; Set alignment position and controller's political alignment:
; Paris is in Allied hands
#ALIGNMENT_POSITION= 151,84 [2]
; Set variable conditions:
; 1st Line - Italy politically aligned with the Axis but not fully mobilized
#VARIABLE_CONDITION= 59 [1] [0] [0]
; 2nd Line - France politically aligned with the Allies and not surrendered
#VARIABLE_CONDITION= 40 [2] [100] [0]
; France abandons Tunis
#CONDITION_POSITION= 167,112 [5,5] [0,0] [2] [0]
; France abandons Damascus
#CONDITION_POSITION= 218,119 [5,5] [0,0] [2] [0]
; France abandons Algiers
#CONDITION_POSITION= 152,113 [5,5] [0,0] [2] [0]
}

[sPzAbt653]

That's what it was ! I knew I saw something somewhere, thanks for finding it [&o]

[BillRunacre]

Ah yes, Perhaps I should remove Algiers from there, thanks!