Supply

[Mancspartan]

Hiya Guys

Happy New Year to you all, lets hope its a good one

Im trying to work out how supply works, and I`m struggling with it. So I have a couple of questions if you dont mind.

i) Some of my units aren`t attached to a HQ - can I attach them, and if so how?

ii) I see the HQ can be given a setting of manual - what does this mean/do?

iii) Are HQ`s more effective if placed in a town, so they have the advantage of moving supplies along roads, as oppose to being placed in the middle of nowhere?

iv) Does the terrain (eg mountains, rivers etc.) between the HQ and the unit play a part in the supply of that unit?

Thanks gentlemen.

Cheers

[Ivanov]

Hi Rob, good to see you in the New Year

Basiacally HQ attachments and supply are two different issues, however HQs have big importancance in strenghtening the supply lines.

If it comes to the HQ attachments, there are three modes: auto ( default ), manual and auto assist. You can change the mode by right clicking on your HQ unit and selecting the most appropiate one. In the auto mode, game engine will attach the units randomly, but their number is limited for each HQ, so it may happen as in your game, that some units will remain uncommanded. The best option is to select "auto assist" mode for the HQs and then attach the units to it, by first right clicking on the HQ and then right clicking on the unit. In this way you can attach and detach units to each HQ. This is quite essential for the game, because it gives you a possibility of selecting units that need support during the upcoming turn ( for example the units that you want to use for th attack or you expect to be attacked ). Additionaly, in the "auto assist" mode, the HQ will automatically give a support to your uncommanded units if attacked ( but only if the number of units attached to the HQ, does not exeed 5 units I think in the big campaigns and more in the small scenarios ).

Supply is a more complex issue. Basically I recommend you to get familiar with the "S" key. If you press it, you'll see the prediction of the supply values for each tile during the upcomming turn, so you can plan your movements accordingly. Cities are the supply bases but the HQs can strenghten their supply values. You can do it by placing HQ units in the cities or in the vivinity of them. Strategic bombers or rail guns can affect the stength of objects as supply bases and that can be quite crucial if it comes to reducing the combat effecitvenes of the enemy units.

Anyway I strongly recommend you to look into the games manual, that you can find in the games folder and dig a bit deeper into both subjects in question. The manual provides not only explanation, but also valuable examples, that may be useful for you.

[Ivanov]

The best option is to select "auto assist" mode for the HQs and then attach the units to it, by first right clicking on the HQ and then right clicking on the unit. In this way you can attach and detach units to each HQ.

I'm sorry - you need to left click on the HQ and then right click on the unit and select attach or detach.

[Mancspartan]

Hiya Ivanov

Thanks very much for that reply, much appreciated.

Cheers

Rob

[Glabro]

But how do HQs grant supply to other HQs? So far I've been unable to achieve this. (No, not just with out of supply HQs)

[Pacestick]

Everything you need to know about how supply works is on page 33-35 of the manual. In brief, a HQ relays supply to units under command. The closer to the HQ a unit is, the higher its supply which in turn effects its readiness/morale. HQs which cannot trace back to a supply source, have a supply value of five which mean the units under their command will have supply values of less than five and reduced combat effectiveness. HQs which can trace back to a supply source less than six have a supply value of eight, if the source is six or greater, the HQs supply value will be ten. HQs can also relay supply to other HQs. This happens automatically and any friendly HQ of any nationality(I think) can relay supply. A possible example of where/why you would form a relay chain is as follows: the nearest supply source to units in contact with the enemy are greater than five hexes which means if you leave their HQ on the supply source, the supply actually received by the units will be low in turn effecting their combat capability. You can overcome this by moving the commanding HQ closer to the units it commands and placing another friendly HQ on the supply source. This way you can ensure the commanding HQ supply value will be at least eight.

Supply values reduce with distance from the supply source(whether city or HQ) except when traced over a road according to the manual.

You do not have to do anything to relay supply, it just happens as a consequence of having the HQs in range of each other and the supply source.

All the above is as clear as mud but if you have a bit of a play with your HQs and the "s" key before and after moving them it becomes pretty obvious.

Hope all this helps

[Glabro]

That's what I thought too about HQ supply relay, it just doesn't work for me. I've counted the tiles over and over again, but the relayed HQ always gets a supply value of 5 at least if I have a HQ with a supply value of 8 relaying. There is something there that we don't know as I've been frustrated time and again over this, and I'm surprised many of you don't seem to have been.

Do you need a HQ with a supply of 10 to be able to relay or what?

Don't tell me what is it in theory, tell me how it works for you in practise.

[SeaMonkey]

If the supply relayed drops below 1, then you'll only get 5 from any HQ, essentially it is out of supply. For an 8 supply, the relayed value to the HQ occupying tile has to be 1 or above(counting terrain effects), if the relayed supply value is 8 or more to the HQ tile then you'll get 10.

This is where it really helps to use HQs in a chain that doesn't drop below 1 supply. I saw another thread somewhere asking about using an HQ networked supply chain. You can check this by finding a 10 supply source and moving multiple HQs(use at least 3) into its proximity(make sure there are no other supply sources in range). Now move the HQs in unison to varying movement costs away from each other, select the "S" key and observe the supply value overlay.

[Glabro]

What I mean is this. My selected HQ is out of supply. Why? It was out of supply before the French unit garrisoned the town, by the way. It's basically made it impossible for me to do any offensives.

[acrashb]

Let's see the screenshot with Supply showing ("S" key). Mountains will have something to do with it.

[Glabro]

Sure,

Are you really telling me I'm the only one affected by this problem? This is the latest patch, by the way. Logically everyone should be affected the same way...

[lettowvorbeck]

I just never think of it when I'm playing :-( Now, I will.

[Glabro]

I assume the intention is not to allow relayed HQs to get a better supply level than the relayer, but somehow it's bugging and not giving me even the normal supply of eight.

Can't really continue with Gallipoli like this.

[Bill101]

From looking at your screenshot, due to the hills and mountains that are for the most part between the HQ at 8 and the one you're wanting to supply, the supply will have to follow the route that goes directly south of the HQ at 8, then east and finally north east.

But the problem is that the supply from that HQ is decreasing by more than 1 on most tiles, due to the rough terrain. That's why it's dropped from 8 to 6 by just going one tile south (as that tile is hilly). From there it will follow the road to the other HQ, but it would have fallen below 5 before reaching the other HQ.

Distance and terrain are the two factors here, and there is a direct relation between the Action Points needed to enter a tile, and the supply lost as a result of passing through that tile.

I hope this makes sense?

[Glabro]

But how is that a problem, Bill? Isn't the relayed HQ supposed to go up to Supply 8 if the relayed supply value is 1 or higher?

The way you're saying it sound like relaying supply to another HQ simply doesn't work by design, but the manual says otherwise. The entire point here is about relaying (for me at least), I understand normal supply perfectly well.

To be crystal clear since there is a lot of confusion: I was under the impression that if you have an in-supply HQ (supply 8), it can make another HQ become supply 8 (as long as the combined movement cost to enter the tile with the otherwise out of supply HQ is seven or less) as well even if that other HQ is not in range of any other supply sources besides the other HQ with supply 8. If the relaying HQ has a supply value of 10, the relayed HQ can also have a value of ten if the combined move cost is four or less (since supply 6+ results in supply 10 for the HQs).

Apparently I'm mistaken, and you cannot relay supply from HQ to HQ this way.

[Bill101]

Hi Glabro

Sorry for the delay in replying. The section on page 34 in the manual about HQs going to supply 8 relates to if they are receiving supply of 1-5 from a resource.

HQs aren't as efficient at passing on supply to other HQs, and consequently their resupply range is relatively short, i.e. if the easternmost HQ were a bit closer to the one in supply 8 then it would have boosted its supply, but it is just out of range to do so.

Bill

[Hubert Cater]

Just to add think of the assignment of HQ supply values as two separate phases.

The first phase of HQ supply values is calculated relative to its distance from a resource as shown in the table on page 34.

Generally this will leave an HQ with a supply value of 10, 8 or 5.

The second phase which is where we describe HQ linking is simply a way to boost the supply value given to an HQ from phase one and the way it works is the same way that HQs give supply to all land units, i.e. supply is calculated as distance from supply source, i.e. whether it is from a resource or from an HQ.

* * *

So in the screenshot attachment you've provided on the top of page 2, the HQ at 8 and the HQ at 5 show the situation perfectly after *Phase 1* of the HQ supply calculations.

In other words the HQ1 at 8, according to the table is receiving a supply of 1-5 from the resource. The HQ2 at 5 is receiving 0 supply from the resource so it receives a minimum supply value of 5.

For *Phase 2* since the HQ1 is 4 tiles away from the HQ2 (if you include the terrain costs) the HQ1 cannot increase the supply of the HQ2, i.e. 8 - 4 = 4 which is less than the value of 5 that HQ2 already has.

Hopefully this helps to clarify the issue,

Hubert

[Glabro]

Aha, now I get it. HQs get boosted to 8 or 10 only if the supply comes from a resource, I see.

Therefore linking does not even work. Because as far as I understood it, HQ2 in the picture offers no supply increases to the troops since everyone is still using the supply value from HQ1. So the only use for the Phase 2 supply for HQ2 is for its own movement purposes.

Perhaps this merits a change?

But as many have said before, the whole supply model needs a rethink for future games. Most games require you to link supply to a major supply source (capital or staging area) and most cities and towns are powerless to do anything but relay supply.

But let's wait and see, I don't think you can do anything about it for the current engine.

[Hubert Cater]

I think it comes down to how we define the linking and the idea was that you could link a few HQs together to increase their normal supply as shown in Phase 2.

As for HQ2 not supplying any units this is not exactly true as the unit directly below HQ2 is receiving supply from HQ2 as otherwise if HQ2 was not there it would have a supply value of 3 instead of 4.

All that being said I think what many were looking for was for HQ2 to also get a supply value from HQ1 based on the table on page 34. In this case the outcome would be for HQ2 to also have a supply value of 8.

I'll have to look into that as that might have some side issues as supply being too good for situations like when Germany pushes deep into the USSR for WWII games but at the same time I can see how it might be more applicable for these smaller campaigns and so on.

For the idea that supply in most games require you to link to a major supply source such as a capital or staging area, is this not what we already have in place as supply would be reduced if the capital or other major supply source is cutoff?

I only ask as this discussion does come up quite often and I'm always interested in any possible improvements on what I might be missing.

Thanks,

Hubert

[SeaMonkey]

I think the kicker here is the definition of supply source. A resource is different from a relaying source(linked HQ) as Bill stated above. The resource is part of the infrastructure, a linking HQ is a temporary(mobile) supply dump and therefor needs a relayed supply from a resource(1 -5) or a linked HQ>=5 to realize a supply of 8 to be transfered to combat units in the field.

HQs, in the essence of providing supply, represent an extension of the logistical system and not a permanent part of the infrastructure like ports and towns/cities do. In wartime, temporary supply dumps are set up in the proximity of front line units, the base dumps feed the smaller, vicinity dumps and obviously don't possess the resources of distribution a more permanent location can offer, hence the inefficiency.

Works for me!

[Glabro]

I think the kicker here is the definition of supply source.

You hit the nail on the head there. What is a supply source, and what is a relaying resource? Historically, not nearly every major city (let alone a minor one, or "town" as it were) was one. As German supply sources for the world wars, I would count the Ruhr (Essen if you want one city), Berlin and Breslau.

The Russians would count Petro/Leningrad, Moscow, Kharkov, the Caucasus (Grozny), when pushed far back in WW2 they'd use Stalingrad, Baku, Yekaterinburg etc.

I think this is a very important consideration for the future. You can't just have every resource be a supply source if you want to model WW1 or WW2, however they can be supply depots / relays like HQs.

In this way the current model would work well if you simply added supply calculation to ACTUAL supply sources as mentioned above. A cut-off resource would not provide income, either - so cut-off resources dropping to 0 is a good idea.

Furthermore, units should start taking damage when out of supply. I'd say a random damage of 3 (2-4 actually) might be good for totally out of supply units at the end of the owning player's turn. Units partially OOS (for example, by being on a supply relay before it drops to 0 (count unit supply first) or other reasons it's just partially OOS could take only 1 (0-2) damage in the same fashion.

HQs shouldn't get any supply either if they have 0 supply. They should just work as a relay, along with their all-important leadership bonus.

I'd also determine units that are only in supply through a (non-supply source) port to be in limited supply, and make them pay for doing actions...make reinforcements cost double at least if even allowed.

Naturally, events and actions should enable you to open new supply sources at a cost, for example, the Allied Beachheads, Antwerp (demonstrates the supply source theory well - this is why Wacht am Rhein was launched, to cut a bunch of Americans out of supply with a surprise attack.), Munich for Germany are examples (in addition to the Soviet ones in WW2), so either players could activate new supply sources at cost from the specific resources' right click menus or events would allow them to be opened (though in this case you'd really need to be able to revisit that decision later at the war map menu if you say no, something that should be allowed for many other events too).

Perhaps supply sources would also yield plunder in MPPs to the enemy if captured? That'd further explain why you don't establish supply sources close to the front, it's costly and risky and could potentially help the enemy establish one there too.

The mechanic where captured supply relays (towns, resources) slowly build up from 0 to full value is a good one for simulating "outrunning your supply chain" as happened in Barbarossa already, so that's a strength of the system.

But imagine the strategic depth added if we were to seriously model supply sources - we would start thinking of offensives and defenses in strategic terms, not just in local terms, and sweeping advances just to cut the enemy off supply enter play. Currently it just does not happen, or only on a very small operative scale.

The game can only benefit from it.

[Hubert Cater]

You hit the nail on the head there. What is a supply source, and what is a relaying resource? Historically, not nearly every major city (let alone a minor one, or "town" as it were) was one. As German supply sources for the world wars, I would count the Ruhr (Essen if you want one city), Berlin and Breslau.

The Russians would count Petro/Leningrad, Moscow, Kharkov, the Caucasus (Grozny), when pushed far back in WW2 they'd use Stalingrad, Baku, Yekaterinburg etc.

I think this is a very important consideration for the future. You can't just have every resource be a supply source if you want to model WW1 or WW2, however they can be supply depots / relays like HQs.

In some ways this is how the current model works where the primary supply source is let's say the capital and the remaining connected resources are relaying resources that will drop in value if the capital is cut off.

If major supply is only from the capital and if the rest are more like depots would this not make decent supply values throughout the map very difficult to achieve, or at least more so than is currently modeled?

In this way the current model would work well if you simply added supply calculation to ACTUAL supply sources as mentioned above. A cut-off resource would not provide income, either - so cut-off resources dropping to 0 is a good idea.

One problem that keeps me at least from making this type of change, and this is not to suggest that the current model is perfect, but if this were the case then areas like North Africa and/or initial landings from D-Day would mean that all those units would have 0 supply unless we create alternative supply rules for situations like this as well.

Furthermore, units should start taking damage when out of supply. I'd say a random damage of 3 (2-4 actually) might be good for totally out of supply units at the end of the owning player's turn. Units partially OOS (for example, by being on a supply relay before it drops to 0 (count unit supply first) or other reasons it's just partially OOS could take only 1 (0-2) damage in the same fashion.

This is a tricky one as a general rule as some units may just be far from a decent supply source, again such as a unit in the longer stretches between cities/towns in North Africa and so on.

HQs shouldn't get any supply either if they have 0 supply. They should just work as a relay, along with their all-important leadership bonus.

Then HQs landed from amphibious assaults would not be able to provide any supply until they can connect to a town and again in stretches away from a low supply source such as a town with supply 5 an HQ could easily drop to 0 as soon as it is outside of range.

I can understand in some situations how this is desired but I'm still hesitant as there would be other situations where this is less so.

[Glabro]

In some ways this is how the current model works where the primary supply source is let's say the capital and the remaining connected resources are relaying resources that will drop in value if the capital is cut off.

I haven't seen this happen. Do you mean that if a capital is captured, the other resources drop in value?

In any case, that's not nearly enough.

If major supply is only from the capital and if the rest are more like depots would this not make decent supply values throughout the map very difficult to achieve, or at least more so than is currently modeled?

Yes! This is the idea. That is, if the enemy cuts your supply lines. Isn't this as it should be? And I didn't say that just capitals would be supply sources. I gave examples and reasons (and if I didn't, I can give more) why not every city or town can be a supply source, but a relayer? That's ok.

Or did we have a misunderstanding? I didn't say that only the capital and few others would be "supply 10" while the others would be "supply 6 or 5" or something like that. No, cities like Warsaw etc. can still of course be supply 10, but as RELAYERS so normal supply can be achieved just like in the current game - the point being, if Warsaw, for example, would be cut off from its supply lines (no land / sea connection to a proper supply source) - it can't relay and would be treated as 0 for supply purposes! Possibly some sort of supply rules for partially OOS situations could apply - for example, to simulate looting and plundering the city to help the troops survive the out of supply situation better - but it'd be best if this had a cost - the resource would be severely damaged at least, and possibly have a NM cost if done to your own city, and this would only mitigate OOS damage, but still wouldn't allow reinforcements, decent readiness (no ammo supplies or any other materiel except scavenged food really).

One problem that keeps me at least from making this type of change, and this is not to suggest that the current model is perfect, but if this were the case then areas like North Africa and/or initial landings from D-Day would mean that all those units would have 0 supply unless we create alternative supply rules for situations like this as well.

You could trace supply through a sea route with a port as normal, but under such limited supply it might be costlier to move, operate and especially reinforce! This reflects war in North Africa well in my mind. Supply was critical there.

As for major invasions like D-Day, those would obviously enable you to open new supply sources at the "beachead" ports or towns so you could operate fully without the possible above "limited supply" hindrances . Like I said, either through an event or maybe certain resources are flagged as "supply capable" for either side (enabling you to upgrade it to a supply source from the right click menu at a cost).

Failing that, you'd simply ignore the "limited supply" idea and institute other rules for seaborne supply tracing, if any.

This is a tricky one as a general rule as some units may just be far from a decent supply source, again such as a unit in the longer stretches between cities/towns in North Africa and so on.

In those instances the HQs are all-important as relayers. But you're saying that there'd be instances where it'd be hard to supply units at all even with HQs? In that case we'd need a) either more towns in between a revision of the supply relay distances vs. the map scale c) buildable supply depots (HQs could build static supply relay depots to solve a LOT of supply issues) or d) Allow HQs to relay supply to other HQs fully as in phase 1 supply calculation from a resource (this should be imho in anyway) and chain HQs for extended operations like that. Ideally you could build cheap and cheerful HQs with low ratings (even 1 or 0) whose main purpose is to relay supply and (possibly evenbuild depots as before), solving a lot of problems.

Then HQs landed from amphibious assaults would not be able to provide any supply until they can connect to a town and again in stretches away from a low supply source such as a town with supply 5 an HQ could easily drop to 0 as soon as it is outside of range.

Didn't you realistically need to capture a port to stay in supply (and I mean actually survive, not just "remain in the occupied territory with limited movement and low combat value")? Were the invasion beachheads of Normandy and Sicily enough for supply and for how long? Perhaps this'd be a good example of where to use expensive limited supply rules, or some other ways to "prepare / gear up" for an out of supply situation - beachead rules, or even better, something that could work universally - pay up beforehand to load HQ units with "supply points" at an expense to enable that HQ to provide the kind of "supply 5" it can currently do for free and for as long as you want. Sounds like a good solution to me. The points would be automatically deducted by one when the HQ finds itself out of supply unless it's tagged as "not to expend supply points".

I can understand in some situations how this is desired but I'm still hesitant as there would be other situations where this is less so.

It's your game, but I'd wish you took a good, long thinking of this issue as it is one of the keys to improving the series by a whole lot!

That's all we can ask for.

If you haven't yet tried them, I recommend board games like Paths of Glory and Europe Engulfed etc. to see how they model supply and how critical and surprisingly fun element such supply rules are.

[Hubert Cater]

I haven't seen this happen. Do you mean that if a capital is captured, the other resources drop in value?

In any case, that's not nearly enough.

From memory the supply would be cut in half, i.e. all connected resources to the capital in let's say in Germany would drop to 5 from 10.

One reason why this might not have been immediately apparent is that many countries are listed to have secondary supply sources.

For example in the 1939 Storm Over Europe campaign, Germany has Berlin, Konigsberg, Munich and Dusseldorf all acting as primary supply sources.

Yes! This is the idea. That is, if the enemy cuts your supply lines. Isn't this as it should be? And I didn't say that just capitals would be supply sources.

You did mention more than just capitals as supply sources, I'm just trying to understand the potential model in simplest terms which is why I was looking at the most basic example such as a single supply source capital and going from there.

I'm actually very interested in this discussion and not to exclude what else you've written here for now, but what I would suggest is that we continue it but with a basic model of changes and building from there. I only suggest this as there are many different possibilities to introduce unforeseen downsides and I have to keep in mind that any proposed changes need to work in a generic way for all maps and campaign types.

In that vein, what I would suggest, and if you are up for it, would be that since I am looking at it from a programming point of view as well, that I ask you a series of questions and with each answer we move forward to the more complicated situations.

I'll write my first question in the next post.

[Hubert Cater]

If using the 1939 Storm Over Europe campaign as a point of reference for this discussion, the basic desire is if let's say in a situation for when Germany invades the USSR and Minsk is surrounded and completely cutoff from a friendly resource chain back to Moscow, then instead of dropping to a supply value of 5 from 10, it should drop to 0. Additionally any HQs caught behind in this pocket should also drop to 0 supply instead of the minimum default of 5.

The immediate impact of this type of change would be on a D-Day situation where if let's say the Allies land in Normandy and on their first turn only capture Caen.

Caen would have a supply value of 0, and the HQs that under the current rules act as a sort of mulberry supply source, that have also landed in that pocket would also have a supply value of 0 under these proposed changes. Essentially all units in that pocket, and without any further changes, would have a supply value of 0 until Paris is recaptured.

Question #1

How would you address this type of situation?