New Supply rules

[Sugar]

Ah sorry, I didn`t want to confuse anybody; that shouldn`t matter any longer, since both of the HQs will deliver 8 supply, if the first receives 3 at least and the second receives 3 as well from the first.

But earlier this was the case, so you could put the better HQ directly behind the frontline to produce 10 supply, while the worse one only produced 8.

[sPzAbt653]

if the first receives 3 at least

I think you meant 5 at least. I think an HQ needs to be at 5 or more to chain.
Differences in Command Rating I am not sure about yet. testing is difficult as there are different results depending on the situations.

[Sugar]

Of course you`re right, schwere Panzer-Abteilung 653. This is Hubert`s statement to the changes in 1.04:

They do, it is just that the rules have changed slightly as per the following:

- HQs can now only be linked if the first HQ has a supply value >= 5, raised from a previous threshold of >= 3.
- the HQ to be linked must have a supply value < 3 and is now automatically boosted to a supply value of 5 which caps its distribution supply at 8. Previously linked HQs could have a maximum distribution supply level of 10.

[Birdw]

What is the maximum level of supply a captured Soviet city?

[sPzAbt653]

That would depend on the type, and if it is connected to Germany. Most will be at 5 if connected to Germany, some [like Dnepro.] will be at 6, a few [like Leningrad] will go to 8. [Going from memory, I am not currently in Russia, yet].

[Amicofritz]

"In a PBEM my german opponent must have had some Lucky breakthroughs so that end 42 he had fighters 4, tanks 4 and bombers 3 . I had fighters 2, bombers 1 and tanks 2 .The Red Army was simply slaughtered by the bomber&tank combo all over the place and supply didn't matter at all."

What Vonik says.
With two fairly equal players, Axis is steamrolling the USSR. Staling., Lening. and Moskva fall in 42 or 43. One of the problems is the cumulative effects of experience and research; newly produced Soviet units are helpless against German tanks with say 3 to 4 in Exp., coupled with 4 research level in 43. And you cannot gang up on them, such is the game system. German tanks tend to be invulnerable come 43, and even earlier.
I have played loads of East Front games, but cannot remember a game more skewed towards the Axis side. Too bad, such a great game otherwise.
Let's hope there will be more adjustements, I'm afraid the new supply rules will not suffice.

[VigaBrand]

Good news is, experience is limited to 3, so you will never ever face a german tank with exp 4. Did you play a mod?

[Birdw]

[:)] The problem you described above has everything to do with research hits and nothing to do with supply. Changing the supply rules in that scenario would be like buying a new radiator because you have a flat tire. Its apples to oranges. Time will tell how these things play out and I'm sure there will be plenty of changes to come.

[wie201]

Gosh, I hate to bring up a very simple board wargame from 1969, but I do have a small point.

Barbarossa, by SPI in 1969, got a lot wrong compared with mechanics today. No shame, just wargaming was still very much in infancy compared to today. But it did do one thing better than others at the time. Supply.

As I recall, supply was given out, not bought. And you could make a full 1941 offensive much like the Axis did in 1941. But after that, your supply units were much more limited. The Axis HAD to choose a sector, North, Central, or South. They could not run rodshod over the whole front the entire war.

The same rules applied to the Soviets. A full frontal assault was not possible until later in the war, but front-wide attacks were easily possible later.

I thought then and think now that that was and is a more accurate approach - in-line with reality. I always choose historical truths to game balance just for the sake of game balance as I want to learn from a game, not just play one.

I have no problem with different levels of a game, (reality vs. gamesmanship), but I would not get shed of accuracy for a wargame - one that hopes to demonstrates the realities of WW2 in a difficult scale and, by my book, gets better and better at every iteration.

Just my 2 cents!

[BillRunacre]

Great thread everyone and I am keeping my eye out for feedback on balance and other features now and over coming weeks as you all get more experience with 1.04. I'm also playing some PBEM which is very useful in giving me some up to date experience too.

I don't at this moment want to rush into any decisions but will be thinking about everything you post, so please keep it coming. [:)]

[Amicofritz]

Sorry, meant tech level.

[Amicofritz]

Sorry, I meant tech level 4.

[xriz]

I was thinking about this problem too.

What if Engineer units could speed up repairing supply nodes, cites. Like with making fortifications, in set mode, if on a Supply Hex, would get "fix infrastructure" option. The action would repair the supply at 1.5 supply a turn rather than 1 per turn. You could also make it that only a certain minimum strength Engineer unit, like 8, could perform this option.

In addition, the unit could add another 1 or 2 supply points over the Supply Hex's base supply. Another "set Mode" option, "increase infrastructure" and 30-40 days for the action of 1 increase, unit must be full strength, 10.

This gives the Engineer unit some other uses and somewhat historical.

[Birdw]

xriz,

That is a great idea. I think it would be fairly easy to implement as well. If a engineers supply is 5=> then it bumps the supply value of its hex by 1. So a 5 would be come a six. That six would count as a HQ for supply purposes for all units tracing supply back to that HQ. It would only increase supply by 1 down range but given the scale of this game that's all engineers were likely to accomplish given the time that turns represent.

I remember in Desert Shield as we were getting ready to go into Kuwait the Seabees were working 24x7 working on a piece of the MSR that was probably only about 20 miles long around Kibrit. It doesn't sound like much but it made a huge difference. I have 25 years in the military transportation field so I feel that I have some qualification in thinking this is a good idea.

[sPzAbt653]

I don't think that Engineers repairing Resources is necessary, but I say that because Chaining makes it easy to get good supply anywhere there is a 5 rated resource. Waiting a couple turns for a resource to repair seems ok, especially because they are all over the place. The eastern part of Russia is probably the sparcest area for resources, but as long as you have one at 5, you can have another HQ up to 7 hexes away and still get 8, and from that location you will get 5 at TEN hexes from the nearest resource with 5, and you will still have 1 at FOURTEEN hexes away from the nearest resource with 5. Historically, I think it was much more difficult than that.

[Guderian1940]

Maybe a silly question but does the supply rules apply to all scenarios? Doesn't seem to slow down Barbarossa scenario.

[BillRunacre]

They do, and I've been playing the Barbarossa scenario and found it does slow you down. Not much at first of course, but later on. I've had to invest in more HQs and make full use of the Axis Minor ones too.

[Guderian1940]

I am playing the Russians (Barbarossa PBEM) and see that although Moscow and Leningrad seem to be toast by November. However there was a big slowdown at that time and saved them a few more turns. Summer 42 will be a bear I am sure.

Supply does have a big impact in the 39 scenario as you are usually not as strong as the Germans compared to the Barbarossa scenario.

It does not mean the Germans cannot win or beat Russia but more than just overrun rinse and repeat.

Supply in NA is very different and the Germans need more then overrun rinse and repeat as well. Again as the Germans you need to add more resources to defeat the Allies. Still possible. You need to apply strategy and operations much more.

So far many updates are for the better. Both German and Allies.