Supplies

[Todd Treadway]

One of the features of Gary Grigsby's World at War that I really liked was the supply model. The consumption of supplies and having to plan ahead for their use is really simple in that game, but adds a lot to the experience in that game (playing Axis & Allies might even be my preference if the supply simulation wasn't in that game). By forcing a power to expend resources when it is taking actions, it can effectively limit the forces and employment in a fun way (possibly even preventing some gamey activity).

Any thoughts from anyone on whether such a supply system might work with SC?

[Retributar]

Supply was always crucial in any Real-War,...so it would be great if it was depicted in SC2!.

Some...might consider it Micro-Managing, but i would like to see it as a switch-on or switch-off option!.

I consider Supply as an integral component in any WW2 Simulation...so i would elect to have it switched on!.

[Edwin P.]

Don't HQ units function as supply centers?

You decide which units to supply through the placement and building of HQ units.

[Retributar]

True Edwin P. ... but if there are no supplies from the main supply pool...then, some HQ's would not be able to get the supplies that they require to supply the units they are caring for!.

[Blashy]

I personally hated the World at War supply model. It was too much micro managing.

The HQ model in SC2 is fine and you also have cities that affect supply, you'll feel it when you're in Russia with partisans and the soviet winter.

You want to take Brest as allies? Bomb the city to 0 supply and the moral and readiness of troops will be affected, making it easier to take.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Blashy:

..

The HQ model in SC2 is fine ...

How do you know?

[Lars]

It's just different. Supply is reflected in both the MPP cost for purchase and reinforcement, and through HQ's affecting readiness.

System works fine for me. No muss, no fuss.

[Edwin P.]

I like the supply model of SC1 for a WWII European Game. From my point of view it offers a good balance between realism and playability.

If I was designing an operational level scenario or an American Civil War scenario I might want something different. Such as? Such as a model that traced supply along a road or rail network and emphasized the importance of controlling major road arteries for both supply and movement.

Or even the use of activation chits for units.

This is where you use an activation chit to ensure that a unit/units move or you can rely on an initiative roll - aka SPI/Decision Game's Civil War where you had to roll a HQ unit's leadership rating or less to move the units unit its command. Some generals like Grant and Lee had high leadership ratings and their units always moved, others like George B. McClellan had low leadership ratings and one would often be unable to move units under his command.

I would like to see an American Civil War game using the SC2 system with Road & Railroad tiles and a more robust leadership system.

[ March 15, 2006, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[John C]

Conceptually, I wouldn't have minded having HQs have an on/off toggle for "active". Each active HQ would cost some number of MPPs to represent the cost of maintaining high levels of supply and those active HQs would add readiness to associated units within range. Inactive HQs would not cost MPP but would also not give a bonus. Active status stays the same from turn to turn unless changed by the player and is represented by a green/red indicator on the HQ unit.

In the way, players might have to make some decisions about how much to invest in keeping units at full readiness. Activate that HQ in France? Do you think D-Day is near? Or are you better off waiting and using those MPPs to try and get one more inf unit build? Active fighting on multiple fronts? That'll cost you!

[SeaMonkey]

We have discussed this item before and although I like the model that WaW displays, it can be a bit burdensome at times.

However, there are some good ideas here and we all know that in the interest of realism, the use and co-ordination of logistics is vital, even at this SC2 scale.

I have always thought of the HQ role as being the organizing and distribution center and not the origin point of supplies, so the toggle support on and off feature is good.

If we get into this more detailed SC supply feature we will have to ask questions about expenditure of MPPs for naval and air actions, both significant at this scale. But do we penalize subs as well as capital ships?

And then there are the discrepancies between attack and defense, does one use MPPs and the other not. What about movement, excepting the operational type, allow only one tile movement range without MPP use...definitions...definitions?

I believe that the game engine could track most of these ambiguities without to much additional player micromanagement, but can our cluttered little minds handle it all?

There is already much more to contemplate. I say let's wait and see.

[ March 15, 2006, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blashy:

..

The HQ model in SC2 is fine ...

How do you know? </font>

[rleete]

Originally posted by John C:

Conceptually, I wouldn't have minded having HQs have an on/off toggle for "active".

An excellent idea. Maybe something for a patch?

(Hubert, you didn't think we'd let you get any rest, did you?)

[Lars]

Perhaps a small nominal MPP cost when you attack with a unit? Say 1 for a Corps, 2 for a Army, 3 for a Tank, etc.

Really don't want to have to plan on figuring out all my attacks to that extent though (Let's see, gonna need 23 MPP for the Eastern Front, 10 MPP for the West, and 8 MPP for the Med…).

I like it the way it is. Whatever you guys come up with it better be transparent as hell. I hate figuring out logistics. Every game I've ever played with such a system you just end up budgeting more than needed in order to not get caught short (read that as wasted MPP's).

At this level I expect the staff pukes to do it for me.

[StefMan]

Reading more on what you people are discussing gives me a headache just thinking about the micro management it would require.

SC2 is more basic and I love it for that. If it were like other wargames, I would not be playing it.

Amen

[Yogi]

Seems that supply can be very simple. Many old board wargames just required that there be an unobstructed line (no units or zones of control) to a supply source (city). This require no micro management, yet means you do have to maintain supply lines. Simple enough yet important enough for any game.

[Colin I]

The unbroken supply line was fine - though it started to go wrong in some later SPI games where they started to demand you counted hexes to determine supply validity. The net result was realising half you vanguard was out of supply 3 turns too late.

The other great but simply supply mechanism from board games was Afrika Korps (AH) where a small number of supply dumps existed as counters. These could be moved and had to be expended to attack. The fact that these were very limited in number, in combination with the rapid movement and that they could be captured added a lot of excitement. Also, think it was realistic to that situation.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Colin I:

The unbroken supply line was fine - though it started to go wrong in some later SPI games where they started to demand you counted hexes to determine supply validity. The net result was realising half you vanguard was out of supply 3 turns too late.

The other great but simply supply mechanism from board games was Afrika Korps (AH) where a small number of supply dumps existed as counters. These could be moved and had to be expended to attack. The fact that these were very limited in number, in combination with the rapid movement and that they could be captured added a lot of excitement. Also, think it was realistic to that situation.

I agree Colin. Reference the supply line, I would think while we often had a hard time checking and may have missed it for a few turns (or the whole game) there would be a way for the computer to auto check it.

[Justanotherwargamer]

Simple is good, extreme detail belongs to the operational down to tactical scale games.

It costs resources to execute military operations generally speaking. Over a spac of time supplies WILL get through if they can at all.

Third Reich simulated it well enough. It costs X amount of resources to commit to operations on a front on a turn. It cost X amount of resources on each front.

That's good enough for me. SC manages funds in the same easy way TR does. You pay for what you wish to do. Build things, research, politics, military operations, strategic warfare. That's the limit of my interest for grand strategy. I don't want to be counting hexes, not relevant to grand strategy. If I have a supply line fine, doesn't matter if it's 5 spaces or 6.

But I did like how with TR the player had to actually think about their operations as they were an expense. It cuts down on the mindless aHistorical would never have happened lunacy.

Removed from the game the rampant silliness that is possible with basic SC.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Colin I:

The unbroken supply line was fine - though it started to go wrong in some later SPI games where they started to demand you counted hexes to determine supply validity. The net result was realising half you vanguard was out of supply 3 turns too late.

The other great but simply supply mechanism from board games was Afrika Korps (AH) where a small number of supply dumps existed as counters. These could be moved and had to be expended to attack. The fact that these were very limited in number, in combination with the rapid movement and that they could be captured added a lot of excitement. Also, think it was realistic to that situation.

Seems like a description of SC2.

1- HQs are supply, they can't attack but they do need to move with troops to provide supply.

2- If you get encircled in a city your supply drops harshly.

Very similar.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I gather you are pretty new here .

I am one of the fortunate to be beta testing the game.

Yep, SC2 has not been on my radar screen until it became apparent that CMC was going to be a while longer.

Originally posted by Blashy:

Reading more on what you people are discussing gives me a headache just thinking about the micro management it would require :eek: .

SC2 is more basic and I love it for that. If it were like other wargames, I would not be playing it.

Yea there's a place for both, I liked the original SC but it never really hooked me, but I am hopful this one has enough added spice to amke it good and tasty.

[Todd Treadway]

Blashy, I'm not arguing that the HQ system is bad. I like it, as a matter of fact. Clash of Steel used a similar system, and it was fine also.

But, having an HQ unit bonus and using the supply benefits of the HQ unit do not fully address the issue. The fact is that going on offensives costs lots of resources while sitting still uses a lot less. Why not keep the HQ system as it is, but simply add on another layer that would make a person pay for using all those armies he has paid for?

The system in World at War was very simple. You build supply units and your combat units use them up as they perform actions. In the basic game you didn't worry about where your supply units were, it was just a pool used as needed. In the advanced game you had to make sure the supply was where you needed it. After playing it once, the advanced supply rules were easy, and added LOTS to the experience. As a matter of fact, the supply system to that game was the main reason I liked it. BTW, I'm not interested in logistics normally, but that game proved to me that the concept can add tremendously to the experience. The game has many other flaws, but I really liked that aspect.

[Lars]

But it's already in there in the form of replacement cost.

You can attack till your unit is all used up OR re-supply it.

Sometimes a simple elegant system is just too simple for the grogs.

[SeaMonkey]

I have to agree with Todd here and Lars makes a good point also. I've been playing WaW for awhile and it does force the player to plan accordingly for offensive and defensive operations when the advanced supply feature is chosen.

Now there are no HQs in WaW, so there is a valid argument that they do perform that task in SC. Their deployment synonymous with logistical maintenance. Thing is WaW turns are set at 3 months, seasonal, and SC2 has variable capability. To institute a supply feature may be complicated for the designer and possibly not applicable to all potential SC scenarios.

With the SC2 editor having such enormous range of creation, time and space, a consistent supply feature for all occasions seems dubious at best.

Better this is addressed as an "optional" feature presently and later after the game mechanics are more familiar we can elaborate.

[GrognardFortyPlus]

Clash of Steel had (has) the best strategic level supply model I've ever seen in a strategic game. Period.

I was dissapointed SC1's model didn't measure up to it. I hope SC2's model at least makes it in the ballpark.

[TaoJah]

If SC2 becomes micro-mangaing supply, then they better have an on/off button, because I'll be damned if I'm gonne mico-manage that aspect.

The system with the headquarters worked just fine, IMHO : not too complicated and yet costly in terms of MMPs, it's perfect.

Well, perfect except when you're attacking Russia as the Germans with Scorched Earth, I never figured out how to keep the units in supply all the way to the Ural, lol.