WWI Stock Scenario

[Baron]

Is it me or are the supply rules different in this game? In one game the Russian sent an HQ and 4 or 5 Corps into Austria where they were promptly cut off from Russia. Because they hold an Austrian city they seem to be able to resupply and reinforce just as if they were back in Russia. In another game I see the same thing happening with French forces advancing into Germany.

If the supply rules changed then I believe it to be a mistake. When a countries morale drops eliminating these pockets becomes darn near impossible. The fact that the troops in the pocket reinforce better than the Austrian and German troops is what bothers me the most.

[Hubert Cater]

As far as I know supply rules have not changed and the only thing I can think of is perhaps a different/higher 'Occupational Efficiency' setting for the captured resources than you were expecting?

For example, and IIRC, capturing a German city would provide a supply of 8 if it were connected and 5 if it were disconnected. With an HQ on a city with supply level of 5, this would mean the HQ would provide 8 supply etc.

[Baron]

That must be what is happening. It is gauling to say the least though to see a Russian Army(HQ and 2 or 3 Corps) in Austria, cut off from its own country, having better supply than the Austrians in their own country. I could see this is they had a connection from the enemy city they occupied to one of their own cities but not if they were cut off from home.

It reminds me of several old board games where supply could be traced to a city that had a connection to a major city in a units home country. I'm just showing my age is all I'm not sure something like that is even possible in this system. Thanks for your quick reply as usual Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

In most cases Austrians would still have a better supply than a cutoff Russian Army, would they not?

For example, if supply was also drawn from an Austrian city then it would be at 10 as opposed to a cutoff and occupied Austrian city which would be at 5.

Granted HQs also have their own rules at determining maximum supply and as mentioned an HQ citing in the city that is cutoff and occupied could get to 8 but I would argue that this is still less than the Austrians in a similar situation.

[Baron]

It was not my experience that this was the case. My point is that even if an HQ is sitting on a 5 city that is cut off from its home country the HQ should not get the HQ benefit taking to a supply level of 8 as in your example.

Due to the topography it was difficult to reinforce my Austrian forces yet the cut off Russians could reinforce to full strength. If they have a supply line "home" then I think that is fine but certainly not when they are cut off from their home country. Breaking through into Germany from France the same thing is possible. Even though the Germans cut the French advance off the French could fully reinforce even though they didn't have a direct line of supply home.

A simple solution perhaps would be that is a unit including HQ's can not trace a line of supply to a city in their home country they can never have a supply level greater than 5.

Just a suggestion and I don't know if it is possible but it would certainly be more inline historically and would prevent some "gamey" situations.

[Hubert Cater]

This is a tricky one because of situations like North Africa where supply might then be too low if it is required to always be connected to a city in their home country.

Thoughts?

[wlape3]

One thing that seems missing from the game is the concept of LOC or "line of communication", i.e. can you trace a path free of enemy units/control back to the home country. Many board games use this to differentiate between units which are surrounded and OOS and those which are OOS but not surrounded. This has a parallel in real life where German units were cut off from supply during the battle for Narvik and almost voluntarily interned themselves in Sweden but for the Allies withdrawing.

If a unit is in supply but cannot trace a LOC back to the homeland then I believe it is appropriate to limit the amount and type of reinforcement which is available. For instance, no new units and maybe a limit of 5 for the level of strength which can be rebuilt. Another solution would be to cause unit morale and readiness to drop faster in this situation rather than in normal combat.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi wlape3,

I think for the most part we do already have this in place as areas that cannot trace a line back to a primary supply position, like a home capital or a resource that is designated as a supply resource will have lowered supply and as a result, lowered readiness and morale.

They will also have lowered maximum reinforcement but granted they will be able to reinforce somewhat so long as supply > 0.

If we eliminate reinforcement or as previously suggested limit them to a max supply of 5 I suspect it will cause some other issues and perhaps it is just a matter of lesser evils.

The situation Baron highlights I'll admit does not feel right but at the moment, and we've had some discussion on this internally today, I still can't think of a better solution that does not either overcomplicate the supply rules (by requiring more rules) or potentially cause issues in other areas.

For example, if we limit max supply to 5 for a unit that cannot trace back a LOC, then what about Allied units landing in France for D-Day, or US units landing in North Africa, or even as mentioned the Germans/Italians just fighting the UK in North Africa.

For these situations, having an HQ that can get to a supply value of 8 is beneficial whereas in Baron's situation it is perhaps not.

Believe me I can see the points and I guess I am just still in favour of rules that are simple to understand yet resolves most if not all issues.

[SeaMonkey]

A real dilemma for SC, as groups of units inconjunction with an HQ can hold out forever even though completely cut off. One problem is the inherent recovery rule for ports & towns/cities. In essence they never drop to zero for the supply consideration although they have been bombed to zero the preceding turn. That means in places where it rains (Burma) all the time it's totally impossible to run the enemy out of supplies, not to mention the terrain combat defense bonuses they can draw off of.

IMO there needs to be a degradation feature, as well as the rejuvenation feature for supply. If a supply source is cut off, no LoC, then it should immediately go to zero, except for an HQ which replicates a logistical supply dump. When units are cut off they should start to degrade from their previous level of supply per attack/defense unless also they have an HQ in proximity which can supply them for a period of time as they draw from the "logistical dump".

Let's say an HQ and units land or are cut off, next turn the HQ goes to 5 supply and the units, using the same terrain tools for calculating supply presently, have the appropriate supply level, max 4 if they are adjacent to HQ and in AP 1 terrain. Now every turn the HQ supply dump will degrade one unless it is resupplied by a captured port that has an established LoC or a friendly naval vessel sits adjacent to it in a sea tile, representing naval transport support. The enemy is free to destroy the naval transport or cut off the port returning the HQ to the degradation cycle.

For a unit cut off alone without logistical support(an HQ), whatever supply it had at the previous supply determination is what it has and every defense of its position, or attack, degrades its supply immediately one per combat, incuding air and naval bombardment, in addition to the one per turn degradation without combat. Once they go to zero they should be easily dispersed and no longer exist. This will stop units like high experience air, etc., and HQs holding out forever in rugged terrain under constant attack which is totally unrealistic.

[Baron]

In situations like N. Africa or getting ashore in Europe a port with a supply level of 5 or greater could be used as a substitute to another city. This would make taking Malta a must and having control of the seas a priority before an invasion. It also makes landings in areas without multiple ports more dangerous.

[Rabelesius]

I agree. In my current WWI game, I feel like digging out those Russians from their towns with a spoon even though they are surrounded for months.

[Bill101]

The Russians can normally be ousted fairly easily if you use some heavy artillery, stocking up your shells to give them a burst all at once.

Once the Russians' entrenchment is at zero, your German infantry supported by good HQs like Hindenburg and Mackensen should be able to attack and destroy them.

Another thing you can do is to buy Bombers and Airships, as with some research invested in them they can reduce the supply value of the resources the Russians are holding. Rail Guns can also do this, and they don't need any research.

I am assuming that the Russians don't have HQs supporting them? If so then this will be harder, but generally the Germans have an advantage over the Russians as their troops are better.

[Rabelesius]

yes, the importance of artillery only dawns on me now...:-)

thanks for the tips...I am using them now.