Supply

[Glabro]

Great, Hubert! Since you can tell that I've quite a bit of game designer in me, I'll give you three solutions for the price of one. And from my part at least, everyone who is interested can give this a thought and post their own answers, but to make it clear, let's clearly headline each answer in bold like this:

Answer #1

Solution 1 (not mutually exclusive):

"Beachhead" (or another, better name) naval unit that represents everything the invasion needs to live on until they capture a port (including artificial harbours like Mulberries). Supply value of 5 or 6 (since it occupies a naval tile, the max. supply is 4 or 5 respectively. Hq supply counted as in phase 2.

Solution 2:

Purchasable supply points for the HQ. Similar to the "upgrade screen" for units, this would let HQs "upgrade" to carry supply points (represented by the little numbers on the base just like upgrade levels for units) that it would expend each turn it's in an out of supply situation unless set not to do so.

Solution 3:

A HQ unit can build a "supply depot" on its tile while it is in proper supply that will act as a limited supply source. If placed on a coastal tile it will effectively count as a beachhead and thus as a less effective port.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for playing along Glabro and I agree if anyone else has some thoughts of their own please don't hesitate to add them in

I appreciate the responses, clear and concise, and this helps to make things easier to examine as we go along.

That being said what I always try and do on my end before I include any change is to look at the pros and cons and to weigh that against what we already have in place and if it makes it 1) any better/realistic and 2) significantly different than what currently exists.

Also I always try and keep it as simple as possible whenever applicable.

Just off the top of my head I would say that when looking at the proposed solutions I would argue that it immediately adds a bit of complexity on top of the existing rules.

For example, Solution 1 requires a new unit that needs to be placed/maneuvered into position. This might not be that big a deal in some parts of the game map but may be more difficult to achieve in others and adds an additional task to an amphibious landing that could be problematic when the map is cluttered enough to begin with.

Then thinking about Solution 2 and 3 begs me to ask why not just keep HQs as they are with a minimum supply value of 5?

Don't get me wrong they are realistic suggestions but with the idea of looking for an improvement over the current model I would argue it pretty much achieve the same end result without any extra tasks for the player as it is all automatically handled by the game engine.

Granted, keeping the default HQ value at 5 would not be desired if you wanted all units in let's say a Minsk pocket to be at 0, i.e. including an HQ, but at the same time there are likely to be situations in game for when an HQ is just out of reach of a low valued resource where it would be preferable to have them at supply 5 rather than 0 as suggested.

For some examples of that, consider a German advance from Smolensk to Bryansk, or from Gomel to Bryansk.

Just a little half way from either Smolensk or Gomel and an HQ would be reduced to 0 supply as it is more than 4 tiles away from either of those supply sources.

This could also be a problem for some of the smaller mini campaigns where having an HQ at a default minimum level of 5 immediately solves many of the different scale issues for pretty much any sized map.

I guess in the end for me, what I could see as an option would be to keep the default level of supply for HQs at 5, seems to be the simplest solution for quite a few potential issues as described above but continuing to work with the idea that recently captured towns like Caen or a cutoff pocket like Minsk would have those resources reduced to 0.

In the case of Caen, it could be argued that it would regain supply as soon as it can be connected to a port, i.e. such as the D-Day landings having been expanded to include Cherbourg.

But then it could be argued that the port at Cherbourg would have to include a friendly line of tiles back to UK ports in England. Is this something to consider as well? It makes a lot of sense but then it requires a whole new level of supply consideration which will now include zones of control at sea and so on. This might be desired or not but it is something to consider as well.

Thoughts?

[Kommandant]

Question #1

How would you address this type of situation?

I will enter in this debate, if it is acceptable

I have a different approach to the supply system than Glabro has, but first i will add one observation to Glabro's answer. Beachhead initial supply should have a boost from Amphibious Tech.

Now my idea has a base, which looks like much as Glabro’s aproach, so i will develop it as i answer your questions.

Solution:

You described 2, rather different situations, yes a complicated supply scenario in both, but for a solution there is a different approach to both.

Minsk situation:

Here is a pocket situation, something very powerful to destroy armies. When the Germans totally cut off the Russians the allies HQs and Misk supply should immediately drop to 5+(infra tech/2) every allie turn the supply from the Russians should drop 2. To make an example, using the Russians with 0 at infra tech, at allied turn 1 when Germany cuts off Minks, the city and the HQs will drop their supply to 5. At allied turn 2 the supply drops to 3, at allied turn 4 the supply drops to 1 and so on.

This balance the game, as a pocket will have a chance to break free, make the infra tech very interesting to the players and is historically accurate.

D-day situation:

Here is a landing, dangerous and a very risky situation. When the allies land in normandy they will do with a total supply of 5+amphibious tech and with the decay of 2 per turn. Therefore, the allies HQ can land with a total of 5 or even 10 and have the decay per turn. But, to make thing very interesting the allies can build an air link with the HQs transforming the decay of 2 into a decay of 1 per turn. When Caen falls to the allies the total supply of Caen is 0 because it's not connected to a supply source. After Cherbourg fall, the allies have a clean connection to the supply source, because the ports of Cherbourg have a connection to ports in England with a supply source, London. When the allies have control over Cherbourg and its port the total supply of the resources, like cities/towns, will have a total supply of 5 and no decay, because the flow of supply is not 100%.

This is an interesting idea, as it makes amphibious a difficult task forcing the player to be prepared and gives the defensive side a chance to pull back the enemies into the sea. It also makes amphibious tech more interesting to players, manly to UK and USA and is more historically accurate.

Notes:

The infra tech only get's to work when setting the city, town, HQ supply are cut off, and have no effect on the supply decay, the same way amphibious tech has only effect in the initial landing of HQs and have no effect in the decay. Also the idea of air link can be seen historically in Stalingrad, when the 6th German army was stuck in a pocket and the Germans used bomber to send supply, not very efficient but it worked to keep them longer in the fight.

Air link:

The air link would be a special mission for bomber and would use the bomber turn and it could be intercepted, or hit by AA.

[Glabro]

Keeping HQs at a minimum level of 5 basically does away with any supply considerations truly from being severe.

There are no costs to keeping a HQ at 5 as is, and it can stay there indefinitely.

You can even reinforce units indefinitely to a certain level with such a supply level! (I think 7, if you have supply value of 4).

While I appreciate it's already an improvement to require a HQ in amphibious invasions (which is an expense in its own right, and alleviates the problems with gamey invasions like you can do against the Turks) the bigger issues of being out of supply in the regular land war will be much lessened.

HOWEVER added to this special out of supply penalties for cut off troops only supported by out of supply HQs: they can't reinforce AND they suffer damage (0-2 damage, normally 1 per turn, similar to the Austrian desertion script if you hand over Trento and Trieste to Italy, somewhat similar but stronger and far more common than "storms" for ships - out of supply tiles are "storms" for land units!) - I think we'll have a relatively simple solution that could do the job.

Alternatively you might want only the HQs take damage (probably a bit more, like 1-3 damage, avg. 2) as they're "eaten up", in this out of supply situation maintaining the supply of 5, this puts an effective deadline for the troops as well. That is, if we agree that totally out of supply units would start taking damage.

As for the "totally out of supply" vs exceeded supply lines, that's easy enough to differentiate as you can trace a supply line for them: they just suffer the normal (current) effects of being out of supply, while those actually cut off by the enemy are the ones that truly suffer.

[SeaMonkey]

Hubert, the biggest issue with the HQ minimum 5 is that if it occupies a cutoff, bombed down town/city/port(which always recovers 1 per turn) the HQ has a minimum supply of 8, enabling reinforcing of cut off units to full strength, even over strength with elite reinforcements. How real is that?

You mentioned the ZoC connection, both land and sea, the last unit to pass through maintains that connection until an unfriendly exerts its control(passing through) and then the forward friendlies are cutoff.

Here's the suggestion: HQs establishing a beachhead and are connected by sea with friendly ZoCs to a friendly port maintain their 5, representing continuous sealift transport of supplies. Don't forget many landing type vessels can provide supply across the beaches, LSTs, LCTs, etc. This could be tied to amphib teched in some manner.

For land situations where units are cutoff with HQ in the vicinity of a supply source, ie. the "Minsk" pocket, the supply resource has to become 0 or we get the HQ bonus to 8. At resource = 0, HQ supply is immediately 5 and now becomes subjected to degradation, 2 has been mentioned. I believe because SC turns are varied in length it should be up to the designer (I know...complications) to set the erosion level of supply per turn.......and what about enemy bombing?

Further, obviously there should be a mechanism for air supply as it was, again subject to the designer, but it could work sort of like the "recon" mission does. For example, a bomber within range can drop supplies at 1 per mission to the HQ who coordinates the distribution to the combat units in the pocket thereby providing longevity to the cutoff units, at least for awhile, subject to interception just like the sea mission.

The main conclusion here is to have some device where cutoff units that remain cutoff, even with an HQ, can eventually be attrited to surrendering, ie exterminated.

[lettowvorbeck]

Agreed, Sea Monkey. I am especially with you on the first point. The reinforcing of cut off units to full strength has gotta go. I would like to see a max 5 (to represent limited reorg instead of true reinforcement) or something like that in those situations.

[Peter Palchinsky]

Very interesting discussions on this thread today. Another aspect that seems unrealistic is when a unit conducts an amphib assault (or parachutes in) and is at 10 supply, but then drops to zero supply the next turn if it doesn't have a supply source. Maybe this is fine for some players, but what commander keeps his job after using up all his supplies? The drop in supply should be incremental as said by others. This would happen in all situations where units are cut off from a supply source.

[Ivanov]

Answer # 1

I generally agree with Glabro's concept as it seems to be more realistic and accurate than the current supply model, but from the oter hand I understand Hubert's concern that the changes suggested would make the game too complex, especially for the new players.

The thing that bothers me most in the supply as it is now, is the fact that the units that are completely cut off and surrounded in small towns, can have their supply value indefinitely at 5 and due to that it's extremely difficult to destory them. I'd suggest to make a new rule, that if a unit is completely surrounded by the enemy zones of control, then that kind of unit shouldn't be able to trace any supply, even it it's sitting on a captured or friendly town. The rule wouldn't apply if there would be a friendly unit on a adjecent tile and that unit could trace a supply line to a friendly source. Of course that line cannot be interrupted by the enemy zone of control. Stalingrad was actualy able to survive precisely because it was not completely cut off. From the other hand, some key cities could be set as main supply source just like the capital ( I hope that it can be done, because I have no idea how it would look from the programist point of view ). In case of the Soviet Union that would be for example Leningrad, Khrakov, Stalingrad - basically the big cites with important military industry. There are well known stories of T34s in Stalingrad and KV's in Leningrad leaving the factories and heading directly to the frontline... So cutting off those cities wouldn't affect their supply value, unless bombed or shelled by rail guns. If setting those cities as a main supply source would require them to have a production value of 20MMPs, that wouldn't be a problem either. Basically Stalingrad or Leningrad were more important military production centres than Moscow was... To offset this we could limit to zero the industrial production of the newly conquered places like Lwow, Wilno or Riga. Anyway, they shoudn't provide any MMPs neither to the Soviets nor to the Germans.

So from my point of view, for the sake of the playability, I'd leave the current supply model as it is and implement some less dramatic changes. The most important of them would be the one about the units being cut off in small towns, and then I'd set some cities in each country as the main supply/industiral bases, so they would be able to survive even if completely surrounded. I'd leave the HQs as the supply sources, because I have always seen them as kind of supply depots. The main problem are not groups of units with a HQ support being cut off, because it practically never happenes. The main issue are single units being cut off in the small towns.

Ps.Can something be done in order increase to 10 the supply value of the the British naval bases in the Med, because right now the Royal Navy in the theatre cannot reinforce it's damaged ships to the full strenght?

[Glabro]

So, to summarize my simplified proposition:

1. Implement the Supply Source cities as posted above: Essen, Breslau, Stalingrad, Leningrad...and the capitals.

2. Normal resources cut off provide 0 MPP and 0 supply. The value is shown in parentheses. (The resource does not go to 0 because when supply is restored it works normally).

3. Units cut off from a major supply source cannot reinforce AND if at 0 supply suffer attrition at the end of their owning turn (really should be dependent on the time of the year and length of turn; summer turns avg. 3 pts, fall 5, winter 7 - if not possible, use the average - a fall turn would represent them going a month without any food or other supplies!)

4. HQs cut off from major supply (not just out of range) still provide supply 5, but suffer attrition (number TBD, 2, 3 or 4 avg. per turn, again, would depend whether it can be seasonal).

5. (optional) Non-HQ units can be set to scavenge. If on top of a city/town type resource the resource will suffer the attrition instead of the unit. Has a NM cost if it's an owned city.

[Hubert Cater]

Gentlemen, thanks for all the feedback and especially the detailed thoughts.

That being said I do think however that the idea of supply needs to be brought back to its most simplest form in order to fully appreciate the potential consequences as well as additional complexities that will arise if we will be able to solve the problem of how to deal with a cut off unit/resource.

Again forgive me for starting this all over again but I think it is necessary and hopefully with my description below you'll understand why.

* * *

PROBLEM

I think it is safe to say that this discussion was primarily inspired by the problem of how to deal with German cavalry units that were running around behind the lines in Russia in let's say the 1914 Call to Arms campaign. Similar to that it leads to the same idea of how to deal with a surrounded resource such as Minsk by the Germans during the initial stages of Barbarossa.

DISCUSSION

What I'd suggest at this point then is for me to lay out exactly how supply currently works and then with that foundation demonstrate how even just a small change to the current model, i.e. in order to deal with the idea of what to do with a unit/resource caught behind enemy lines, will require quite a few new supply rules and/or solutions that currently do not exist.

CURRENT SUPPLY MODEL

The way supply is currently calculated, and let's just use capitals for this discussion for now to keep things simple, is that it will start with each Major's capital as a primary supply source and then search out from there for all connected resources via rail tiles. Those that are connected to a capital will receive their maximum strength values and in turn their maximum supply.

For example, if we look at France at the start of the 1939 Storm Over Europe campaign all connected cities to France via rail will have a strength of 10 and all connected towns will have a strength of 5 (this is the max for towns).

Now because the colony of Algeria is not connected to Paris and/or cannot trace a line to any other major capital those resources are considered 'cutoff'. They are then given the default minimum of 5 for any city/town/port.

In terms of cutting supply off to connected cities/towns such as those that are in France, all you have to do is to bomb any of the relaying hubs/resources to a value < 5 and if a resource cannot trace a better line of supply then it to will considered 'cutoff' and drop to the default minimum which is 5.

Occupied resources can also have a lowered default value which is set by the occupational efficiency value. For example, when German occupies France the maximum occupational efficiency for resources will be 8. In previous releases of European Theater campaigns, the maximum occupational efficiency of the USSR would have been 5.

* * *

PROPOSAL

Forgetting about HQs and rules of attrition or supply by air and so on for now, the most basic supply model change on the table right now is to have resources that are 'cutoff' from the supply line drop to a value of 0.

RESULTS/POTENTIAL PROBLEMS

While on the surface the following may initially appear to be unique and very different situations, the consequences of just this one change will result in the following, i.e. assuming we maintain the rest of the current supply model described above. Again some of these will be desired but some will not but to the game engine each situation would be considered indistinguishable and essentially viewed as cutoff resources.

1) Verdun is completely surrounded. This would result in Verdun now having a resource strength of 0.

2) Verdun is not surrounded, i.e. a line of tiles could be traced back to Paris, but all relay hubs to Verdun are < 5. This would result in Verdun being considered cutoff by the game engine and now having a resource strength of 0.

3) All cities, towns and ports in French controlled Algeria and Tunis would be considered cutoff. This would result in all of them having a strength of 0.

4) A surrendered France is occupied by the Germans and the Allies have just landed at Caen. Caen would be considered cutoff. This would result in Caen having a strength of 0.

5) UK control of Gibraltar and Malta would be considered cutoff. This would result in them having a strength of 0.

6) UK control of Egypt would be considered cutoff. This would result in them having a strength of 0.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

1) This is desired.

2) This could be the desired effect but if not then we would need a special rule in place to handle this type of situation.

3) The simplest solution would be as previously suggested to add a new rule where control of a port provides supply to the adjacent city/town. I would then suggest to keep the default value for ports that are considered cutoff at 5 and this would result in the neighbouring city/town also having a supply value of 5. This could handle Algiers nicely but then what to do with Orleansville 3 tiles away. Does Algiers relay supply to Orleansville because of the port at Algiers? If so does it only relay because of the road? If it is because of the road then any town that sits on its own without a connection via rail or road would be considered cutoff and set to 0. This may or may not be desirable but this will come up as even just looking at the GOLD maps, Fort Lamay is on its own in Africa. Also, if we consider relaying via roads then the idea that resources can be cutoff by the destruction of railhubs may no longer apply. In this case it might not be desirable but if so then we might perhaps need maximum relaying values via road, let's say 5, and maximum via rail, keep the current 10, and so on. Essentially a new set of rules will be required to deal with this issue #3.

4) This could be desirable and the idea of gaining control of a port as described in #3 above is more critical. Again relaying rules would have to be in place and it could benefit from how we handle HQs but I'd prefer to leave HQs out of the discussion for now just so we can get a better handle on how to deal with resources first.

5) Control of ports would resolve this if it is introduced as a new rule.

6) My solution for this one would be to have minor capitals that are cutoff act as a primary supply source but instead of starting at strength 10, they start at strength 5. Then the regular search out from there would apply. However, we'd still need to resolve the relay rule of how roads and rail are to be handled since if it was to be handled by rail alone then Sidi Barrani would be considered cutoff and have a value of 0.

If everyone is for the most part in agreement with the above or after some further discussion, I'd then move on to how to handle HQs as well as any additional potential rules.

Thoughts?

[SeaMonkey]

On board with solution 6). Roads and rails are obviously part of the supply net, with rails being more effective, generally. I would think, with reference to the SC scale, that clear(movement cost =1) tiles could be thought of as having a secondary path for relay also, although unseen as a map depiction. Not trying to complicate, just trying to encapsulate all deductions for relay aspects.

[Glabro]

Hubert,

1) Correct, this is desired in general, but I would give a special supply consideration for the fortresses: it can remain in supply, but be subject to attrition ( about 1-2 pt?) each turn. This would in effect let the garrison of the fortress to remain supplied and fighting capable for much longer. However, this would only apply to the garrison occupying that tile, not to any adjacent tiles, nor can this rule benefit HQs, only fighting land units.

2) In this case I'd say to apply rule if garrisoned 1) BUT with a minimum of supply 5. Or alternatively if there is no fortress rule, then the current system (dropping to 5) is very adequate.

3-5) Port supply tracing resolves this. Whether or not a "limited supply" model is implemented where reinforcing and movement is harder / slower / more expensive is another question.

6) Also, certain minor nation capitals (especially "alternative" ones) should only work for the minor nations involved and possibly their immediate allies (Serbia / Montenegro)

[Bill101]

I’ve been following this thread with interest as the question of supply has been on my mind for some time.

I do think that supply has come up more in the WWI game than before because the power of the defensive is more than in WWII games where a Tank Group and some Tactical Bombers can generally destroy any cut off units that aren’t in good supply.

I’m all for simple ideas that can be readily grasped by players, including myself, and it is also important that the penalties for low supply are understandable, with any unintended negative consequences avoided as much as possible.

Anyway, here are a few ideas that I thought I'd throw into the mix.

Idea 1

This idea would be a quick fix to the problem of cut off units being able to reinforce to strength 8, pending the implementation of more comprehensive changes.

The idea is to set the minimum supply value of resources like towns to 4 (i.e. they will be at 5 if connected by rail to a supply source, but 4 if not).

At the same time, the minimum requirement for operating by rail/transports would have to be lowered to 4, so that all such places can still load and unload transports or trains.

The effect of this would be to lower the maximum reinforcement value of a cut off unit without a HQ to 7, less if it is actually outside the resource or the resource is damaged. This would make it easier to destroy.

One problem is that this would mean that supply in all those minors that did hold out well during WWI would be lower than currently, i.e. Serbia's resources would be at four, as would Greece and Egypt. This could be a problem.

Idea 2

I like the suggestions relating to the zone of control having an impact on resource supply.

Therefore, how about leaving everything else as it is, but introducing a new rule:

The presence of 3 enemy land units adjacent to a friendly resource will reduce that resource's strength, and therefore its supply value, by 1 per turn.

The presence of 4 or more enemy land units adjacent to a friendly resource will reduce that resource's strength by 2 per turn.

I'm really thinking of an automated SUPPLY script, built into the engine.

Idea 3

This idea is the biggest change in mind, though its foundations lie in the current supply model.

The idea is to change the current Supply Centers that we have in the game. Just to clarify that I’m talking about the concept of Supply Centers as outlined in the manual, rather than using this phrase as a catch all to describe all sources of supply.

Currently Supply Centers only work for Majors and provide supply at a value of 10.

Instead of just having one type of Supply Center as currently, there would be two: Major and Minor Supply Centers.

A Major could supply a maximum of 10 and a Minor up to a maximum of 5.

All Capitals of Majors would automatically be Major Supply Centers worth 10, all Capitals of Minors would automatically be Minor Supply Centers worth 5.

Alternative Capitals would become Supply Centers on becoming the capital.

Anywhere not connected to either type of Supply Center could perhaps have a maximum value of 3.

A lot of Supply Centers would have to be set around the map, including places like Malta and Gibraltar, but this change would mean that any units in a resource that isn’t a Supply Center would have very low supply unless supported by a HQ, and would be able to reinforce to only a maximum of 6.

The difference between a maximum reinforcement value of 6 and 8 (as currently) is quite dramatic, as the former was the maximum value that Axis units cut off in the USSR in earlier games in the SC series had. Such units rarely lasted long!

So, the rule would be: lose your Supply Centers, and unless you've got a connection to a friendly country, then all your resources fall to a maximum supply of 3. Cut off units won’t generally survive for long at that supply level.

[Glabro]

Well, if you're now talking about relatively minor updates you can implement in a nearby patch for the game(s), I suppose any of them are an improvement, though I don't see how 2) could apply, a resource on the front lines would automatically start dropping in value (3 units adjacent with corner contact). But I guess if resources in supply "regenerate" 1 point per turn, it will work out ok. Shows a minor disturbance by the front, but gets serious when you're cut off and surrounded.

The more detailed changes, I can understand if those are reserved for later updates or titles.

[SeaMonkey]

I like it Bill, real close to what I'm thinking, just one problem comes to mind. A unit in a resource with an HQ, like in Burma, where it rains(limited air attacks), cut off and being attacked by enemy units which can't get good supply because of the terrain, even with HQs supporting, can never reduce the defending units as they keep reinforcing. This is solved if eventually the resource goes to 0, no supply.

So for Hubert's "PROPOSAL", the answer is yes....eventually.

I think what we're all talking about here is a supply net, that's connected, meaning continuous friendly tiles, whether land or sea, uninterrupted by enemy ZoCs.

Where does it begin? For majors, in the home country a group of linked resources, designated "primary" at 10 supply. For minors, the capital city and ports/towns that are linked to a friendly major, the minor capital being able to stand on its own at 5 supply and designated "secondary"(this could include fortresses).

How does the net radiate? Rail links provide 8 supply to secondaries, roads and clear tiles(movement cost 1) and sea transmit 5 supply. No down linked primary or secondary can have more supply than its weakest link.

What happens when a primary or secondary is cut off? Immediately, the supply levels goes to 4 and is subject to attrition until the link is re-established. Combat and/or turns cause attrition and eventually if the supply link remains closed, supply = 0.

[SeaMonkey]

Everyone, think about this sentence, "No down linked primary or secondary can have more supply than its weakest link". Add to that, "other than the capital". Do you see how this works to simulate a blockade or an area supply denial?

Imagine one or more "primary" or "secondary" linked to a major/minor capital that can stand on its own 10 / 5 supply. If you have a minor capital at 5, linked to a town/port it also is at 5, from either the capital link or a sea link to a friendly major. Cut off the sea link(blockade) its still at 5, but if you bomb the capital down to a lower supply it becomes the weakest and only link, then the town/port also goes to what the capital's supply is, ie. the weakest link.

Think of a set of primaries connected by rail and one is the major capital, all are at 10 supply. If you reduce the capital to something less than 10 supply but not the other two, they remained linked with 10 because they provide an alternative supply support to each other not depending upon the capital. But if the capital and all other primaries are reduced to something less than 10 and there is no alternative link to something higher for the remaining untouched primary, it goes to the supply level of all the other reduced primaries as it can't stand on its own.

What this simulates is the dependency of area resource interaction of people, factories, natural minerals, etc to produce goods and services and distribute them.

[Ivanov]

Gentlemen,

I am sorry if I'll repeat earlier suggestions made by some of you. I just simply didn't have time to write this post before and the discussion has been in progress.

So this is how I would address the issues mentioned by Hubert:

1-2.

Basically I think that the fortresses could be an exception from the "cut off" rule. While Verdun wasn't totaly cut off from the supply, I am thinking here of the siege of Przemysl. It has been moreless surrounded during six long months, so it's a clear statement that the fortresses were able to survive on their own during prolonged period of time. I would suggest for them a slow decline of supply . Let's say 1-2 points per month, so they could be eventually "starved" if no rescue attempt was made.

3,6.

Why Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli and Cairo cannot be set to be a 5 point strenght capitals, like it was done in the SC2 Blitzkrieg?

4.

The best solution would be to have a mobile port units but if that's too complicated to introduce according to the existing rules, then I don't see a problem if the units in Caen were out of the supply. Anyway, whenever I plan an invasion, the primary target for the first strike is always a port, so the reinforcements can be transported cheaply instead of having to load them into the expensive amphibious transports. From my experience, if an invasion fails to capture some port quickly, then it's nearly always doomed to fail. The Americans captured Cherbourg after 16 days from the initial landings, so that would be the second turn, if we translate it into the games language.

5.

If there were special rules about the fortresses and they could trace the supply by the sea, then that wouldn't be a problem.

Maybe Bill was asking for something simmilar, but I think that part of the problem origins in the fact that the supply has to be traced back to the capital. Why each major country cannot have few main supply sources? In this case it would be easier to trace back the supply line, but the supply value of a town or resource should definitely drop to zero if totaly surrounder by the enemy's ZOC. I'm not sure, if having few main supply sources for each major country, that would act like the present capitals, would be possible to easily introduce into the current model, and due to that I am not insiting on it...

Ps. I think that the maximum occupational efficiency 5 for the USSR resources/cities, was a really good idea and I think that it should be reconsidered as a another improvement of the SOE campaign

[Hubert Cater]

I’ve been following this thread with interest as the question of supply has been on my mind for some time.

Thanks Bill and I like 2) and 3) quite a bit as I think there are elements there to build upon which reminded me of some other thoughts I had regarding supply as well which was to possibly restrict supply from ports for land units whenever an enemy naval unit is adjacent the supply port being relied upon.

There are a few others but I want to think about them some more and send you some thoughts later today by email.

[Hubert Cater]

I like it Bill, real close to what I'm thinking, just one problem comes to mind. A unit in a resource with an HQ, like in Burma, where it rains(limited air attacks), cut off and being attacked by enemy units which can't get good supply because of the terrain, even with HQs supporting, can never reduce the defending units as they keep reinforcing. This is solved if eventually the resource goes to 0, no supply.

So for Hubert's "PROPOSAL", the answer is yes....eventually.

I think what we're all talking about here is a supply net, that's connected, meaning continuous friendly tiles, whether land or sea, uninterrupted by enemy ZoCs.

Where does it begin? For majors, in the home country a group of linked resources, designated "primary" at 10 supply. For minors, the capital city and ports/towns that are linked to a friendly major, the minor capital being able to stand on its own at 5 supply and designated "secondary"(this could include fortresses).

How does the net radiate? Rail links provide 8 supply to secondaries, roads and clear tiles(movement cost 1) and sea transmit 5 supply. No down linked primary or secondary can have more supply than its weakest link.

What happens when a primary or secondary is cut off? Immediately, the supply levels goes to 4 and is subject to attrition until the link is re-established. Combat and/or turns cause attrition and eventually if the supply link remains closed, supply = 0.

Thanks for the input as well here Seamonkey and I was wondering if you would be up to elaborate a bit more by using the issues I listed in the last post in order to describe how your proposal would handle those situations and what the expected values would be and so on.

It will really help me to better understand what I would be looking at here.

[Hubert Cater]

Everyone, think about this sentence, "No down linked primary or secondary can have more supply than its weakest link". Add to that, "other than the capital". Do you see how this works to simulate a blockade or an area supply denial?

Imagine one or more "primary" or "secondary" linked to a major/minor capital that can stand on its own 10 / 5 supply. If you have a minor capital at 5, linked to a town/port it also is at 5, from either the capital link or a sea link to a friendly major. Cut off the sea link(blockade) its still at 5, but if you bomb the capital down to a lower supply it becomes the weakest and only link, then the town/port also goes to what the capital's supply is, ie. the weakest link.

Think of a set of primaries connected by rail and one is the major capital, all are at 10 supply. If you reduce the capital to something less than 10 supply but not the other two, they remained linked with 10 because they provide an alternative supply support to each other not depending upon the capital. But if the capital and all other primaries are reduced to something less than 10 and there is no alternative link to something higher for the remaining untouched primary, it goes to the supply level of all the other reduced primaries as it can't stand on its own.

What this simulates is the dependency of area resource interaction of people, factories, natural minerals, etc to produce goods and services and distribute them.

If we were to exclude the minor capitals portion for now, and I only ask this to better understand your proposal, is this not what we pretty much have in place right now, i.e. if the primary supply is cut or bombed then it would ripple throughout the supply chain? If the secondary supply sources, which we do have in game, are still in effect then it would not cause the supply chain ripple as is already the case in game.

I'm just not 100% sure what is different here other than in game currently it just drops the supply chain to 5 and your proposal would have it drop to 0?

[Hubert Cater]

Gentlemen,

I am sorry if I'll repeat earlier suggestions made by some of you. I just simply didn't have time to write this post before and the discussion has been in progress.

So this is how I would address the issues mentioned by Hubert:

1-2.

Basically I think that the fortresses could be an exception from the "cut off" rule. While Verdun wasn't totaly cut off from the supply, I am thinking here of the siege of Przemysl. It has been moreless surrounded during six long months, so it's a clear statement that the fortresses were able to survive on their own during prolonged period of time. I would suggest for them a slow decline of supply . Let's say 1-2 points per month, so they could be eventually "starved" if no rescue attempt was made.

3,6.

Why Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli and Cairo cannot be set to be a 5 point strenght capitals, like it was done in the SC2 Blitzkrieg?

4.

The best solution would be to have a mobile port units but if that's too complicated to introduce according to the existing rules, then I don't see a problem if the units in Caen were out of the supply. Anyway, whenever I plan an invasion, the primary target for the first strike is always a port, so the reinforcements can be transported cheaply instead of having to load them into the expensive amphibious transports. From my experience, if an invasion fails to capture some port quickly, then it's nearly always doomed to fail. The Americans captured Cherbourg after 16 days from the initial landings, so that would be the second turn, if we translate it into the games language.

5.

If there were special rules about the fortresses and they could trace the supply by the sea, then that wouldn't be a problem.

Maybe Bill was asking for something simmilar, but I think that part of the problem origins in the fact that the supply has to be traced back to the capital. Why each major country cannot have few main supply sources? In this case it would be easier to trace back the supply line, but the supply value of a town or resource should definitely drop to zero if totaly surrounder by the enemy's ZOC. I'm not sure, if having few main supply sources for each major country, that would act like the present capitals, would be possible to easily introduce into the current model, and due to that I am not insiting on it...

Ps. I think that the maximum occupational efficiency 5 for the USSR resources/cities, was a really good idea and I think that it should be reconsidered as a another improvement of the SOE campaign

Thanks for your input and to answer your questions regarding Algiers and Tunis I would just say that the reason they are without capitals is really secondary to the discussion as I would argue this is just an example of what could happen on the map, i.e. there may be areas on the map that do not have a connection to any type of capital or other primary supply source, such as what we see in North Africa or on islands in Global and so on. The idea is that this type of situation would have to be addressed one way or the other in supply terms/rules.

Beyond that, the reason they were changed from Blitzkrieg was only to better model the idea that once they became independent they would gain capitals etc.

Also, countries can be set to have more than one supply source, it doesn't just have to be the capital and countries like Germany and the USSR have more than one supply and industrial production source on the map, I just wanted to keep the idea of supply in my posts at its most basic level to better understand what happens for the various cutoff areas before we address the issues with additional special rules and/or secondary supply sources.

For example, secondary supply sources would not solve the problem in French North Africa under the current supply system as secondary supply sources are always at 10. Bill's suggestion of having minor secondary supply sources could be used to solve the French North Africa problem without having to create a special rule for ports and so on.

Regarding the drop back to 5 for occupational efficiency in the USSR, we did try it but with towns maxing out at 5 and the combination of the bigger map as well as Partisans the supply problem made it severely limiting for the Axis invader. Essentially movement stalled very quickly as soon as you were 4 tiles past an occupied city, which is not much in the SOE campaign, and all supply could get quickly knocked down with Partisan strikes.

Unfortunately it just didn't feel right under testing and so we had to use the higher value of 80%.

[SeaMonkey]

Yes, Hubert, your right, I'm trying to incorporate most of the principles of supply that you've already developed and again if the minor capitals are excluded then yes it pretty much leaves things as they are.

I'm trying to develop this logistical net concept based on reality where there is usually a central organizing body(the capital), a government, to coordinate the economic infrastructure of a country. Since in SC when the capital falls the country usually surrenders, I want the capital to be able to stand on its own as a last bastion of the society, but it(the capital) also is an intricate part of the infrastructure of distribution.

In the case of a small(minor) country, "the net", will not be so large that an enemy major will be able to erode all the supply centers(secondaries), but as the major goes about that attrition it will have to carve up and isolate the secondaries from one another or they will continue to mutually support each other, ie "the weakest link".

For a major country being conquered it will be more difficult as the primaries are more numerous, mutually supporting, and have a better infrastructure(10 supply), but the same strategy of carving up the supply centers will work, either singly or in small groups.

And yes, eventually, they(supply centers) both primaries and secondaries will go to 0 supply as the SC inherent ability to recover 1 per turn is dependent upon that mutual support mechanism of being connected.

Does that explain it to you in more detail? Obviously this is a work in progress as I'm trying to use my SC knowledge to develop this viable "communication, logistical, net" in a most considerate scheme with the present system. Over the years, as SC has become more complicated and I'm a little older, it takes a lot of contemplation to examine all the possibilities incorporating such procedures into the system. Obviously there can be many drawbacks and unintended consequences so every avenue has to be examined.

I'm glad we are addressing it, the entire community is needed for this. It represents the foundation of SC.

I'll get back to you about the application of this system with your previous post. I need to think about it some more and I'm at work with multiple distractions.

[SeaMonkey]

OK Hubert, to address your "Results/potential problems"

1.Verdun surrounded: If designated as secondary with "capital status"(cs) then it stands on its own at 5 supply.

2. Verdun connected to Paris by rail = 8 supply, if Paris >=8. If all Verdun connections are < 5 then Verdun is 5 if cs, or if not cs, Verdun can be at the highest supply of the other connections.

3. Algiers & Tunis are cut off....doesn't matter they are 5 supply, they have cs.

4. Caen occupied by Allied invasion starts the 1 supply recovery per turn if connected(to the rest of the Allied net), the Allied HQ is the supply source of 5 until Caen recovers to 1 and then the HQ has 8 supply(as currently).

5. Gibraltar & Malta, same as Algeria/Tunisia, to start with cs, so at 5, stand on their own.

6. Egypt, same as the answer for the above, "cs" they have 5.

In other words, a "capital status" designated "secondary" is the heart of each individual countries' supply net, has supply 5. Capital status for a "primary" is 10 supply, CS allows for them to "stand on their own", no need for a connection, but if they have none they cannot recover 1 supply per turn.

The recovery process depends on the "net" connection, this will be a new SC rule.

[Glabro]

If we were to exclude the minor capitals portion for now, and I only ask this to better understand your proposal, is this not what we pretty much have in place right now, i.e. if the primary supply is cut or bombed then it would ripple throughout the supply chain? If the secondary supply sources, which we do have in game, are still in effect then it would not cause the supply chain ripple as is already the case in game.

I'm just not 100% sure what is different here other than in game currently it just drops the supply chain to 5 and your proposal would have it drop to 0?

What is a "secondary supply source" in the game currently? All major cities? If yes, the entire point is that we need to exclude all but those that historically were supply centers, and potentially add the choice for the player to expand somehow at cost.

And really, if you attack a resource and using the zocs cut it off from the capital, it really drops to 5? I have to keep an eye for it. For me, it simply doesn't work (or then again all of those I remember are "secondary supply sources" making the point somewhat moot.

[SeaMonkey]

Glabro, the players have a mechanism to expand the supply source by using HQs. When everyone is comfortable with our supply scenario we can talk about the consequences of not being connected to the "net" and how HQs are used as mobile extenders of the "net".

Then there will be discussions of how the net erodes automatically and at the hands of enemy actions.