New Supply rules

[Birdw]

[&:]I think the change in the supply rules has totally crippled the Axis forces in the USSR. With Soviet cities so low in supplies to begin with the Axis stand no chance. If the new supply rules are to be kept then either the Germans should be allowed more HQ's or the cost of HQ's should be lowered. I liked the old system better. I have won as allies and Axis under the old rules and I don't see the need for the change.

[Erik Rutins]

Have you tried linking more than one HQ? In my experience so far, it mainly means that a broad front advance is less likely - you need to focus in fewer areas of the front and in some places use 2 HQs instead of one.

[crispy131313]

As long as the AI can navigate the new supply rules as efficiently as the previous (which it was OK at only) I am fine with the change.

[Birdw]

I have tried linking the HQ's and it helps one area. What you end up with is huge chunks of territory that has to be defended by units in poor supply situations. It is very easy for the other player the swamp an area where your supply is weak and just overrun and bypass units in that sector. Think about it this way: If you have to concentrate on only 1 area Leningrad, Moscow, or Stalingrad it would be in a best case scenario take 3 years to capture them. Supply in the Southern part of the Eastern Front is horrible anyways there is no way to keep the spearheads supplied due to the changes. You can go 4-6 hexes before the Soviets stop you because they are drawing full supply from their cities and the Axis only has a fraction of the supply even with HQ support. The best the Axis can do is a stalemate on the Eastern Front and that is doubtful as the Soviet juggernaut gets tech and its force pool in play.

[BillRunacre]

Hi birde

I'm currently fighting my way through the USSR in a PBEM game, and there are areas where supply is hard but one thing you could do is to research Logistics as among other things this enables you to increase the number of HQs you can build. Using the Axis Minor HQs is helping too.

Bill

[Birdw]

Bill do you have the ability to look at a game I'm playing? I believe my logistics is at 3 or 4 already. Another unfortunate side effect of the change is that now when units are destroyed they are much likelier to be in low supply thus increasing the cost of rebuilding them. The game as it was incredibly balanced - I've won on both sides but I thought the game was slightly leaning in the Allies favor. This change certainly does change the game way to much in the Allies favor.

As far as building HQ's it is a trade off for units or HQ's. I agree that more HQ's would help but they are too expensive for this change to work the Axis need cheaper HQ's or some set to arrive from the build new units on a certain date. I'd prefer it if you just went back to the old way.

[crispy131313]

research Logistics as among other things this enables you to increase the number of HQs you can build.

[X(] How did I miss this? This is actually a great feature! This is what happens when you just play and never open the manual [:D]

[Sugar]

Some hints for using given supply and HQs: HQs deliver 8 supply, if they receive 3 itself at min.
Other than towns cities (and belonging ports) will run up to 6, with 1 additional point up to max. each turn.

If you place your HQs in those cities or near their ports, the HQ will deliver 10 supply. Usually placing HQs in towns and cities is best, except a freshly conquered ressource. Look at its supply level, and place your HQ not before it regains up to 3 supply.

The HQ-Chain does still work, with the 2. HQ delivering 8 supply itself, if it receives at least 3 supply from the supporting HQ. This supporting HQ should be of worse Command Rating.

Keep in mind that the distance defined by movement costs relates to the receiving units, and don`t place them in areas with less than 5 supply.

[sPzAbt653]

One additional point to the above - HQ can only chain if the first one has at least 5 supply. Therefore, the Allies are at the disadvantage when they make invasions as the best they can get is 3, until they get a port which can get them 5, or a major capital which can get them more then 5. The Axis generally don't have this issue as they are not dependent on amphibious invasions [Sealion is more difficult now, also with the newer limits on transports].

I like the new rules, I felt that the old way was too easy. My only early concern is the computer side, as Mr. Crispy also pointed out.

[Birdw]

I currently have an Infantry in Vyazma (5 supply), armor adjacent to Vyazma (4 supply), and a HQ adjacent to both of them (4 supply), adjacent to my infantry and armor is a Russian Army (supply 7) which is 2 hexes from its supply at Rzhev and no Soviet HQ in sight. So the Soviet Army could kill my armor in (4 supply)even though it is adjacent to a supply city and HQ and I would have then have to replace it at full price.

I humbly submit gentlemen that you have fixed something that wasn't broken.

[Birdw]

If you are invading you have to take a port for any invasion to be successful. I don't see the supply issue being an issue at all considering ports have to be the immediate objective of any invasion. If you don't have a port by the end of the second turn ( 1st turn almost mandatory) at latest it is going to fail anyways.

[Birdw]

How many clear weather turns are there on the Eastern Front in the the Spring and Summer? It is an issue if you have to wait three turns before you can move your HQ to supply an advance. If you are trying to replicate WW1 this new supply rule will do it. Take into account the time for city to recover, linking HQ's, and not being able to reinforce advance units you might as well be marching into Russia in 1812.

[Erik Rutins]

I'm not speaking as a designer - just as a player in this case. For what it's worth though, based on my knowledge of history the new supply rules are significantly more historical for WW2 especially when you get to the peripheral areas that did not have significant rail networks where supporting major drives was very difficult. It's probably worth noting that significant parts of the Russian Front remained pretty static for quite a while after the initial invasion, while offensives tended to focus on only one part of the front.

Strictly in terms of game balance, based on my PBEM experience on both sides, I think this is a good thing as well which players can adapt to, but will help avoid some of the less historical outcomes without detracting from the overall grand strategy. We'll see though - I'm sure if there proves to be a balance issue, Bill and Hubert will be on top of it.

[Birdw]

Erik,

I normally tend to lean historical as well but a player can count on other players attacking on those static fronts. Why you might ask? because all the HQ's and support will be somewhere else. It is much like the tactic employed against Napoleon in 1814. Attack anywhere that Napoleon wasn't. I have another game going against a really good player and he took out the UK in 1940 (darn weather but I digress). It is late 1944 and I still hold Moscow and Stalingrad just fell this year. As the Allied player there are a lot of things that can be done to slow down the Axis advance on the Eastern Front, attack somewhere else, isolate spearheads, attack HQ's whenever possible, keep troops in the build cue until they are needed, ect ect

If we want the game to get more historical then get rid of the tactical nukes that level 3 ground attack aircraft seem to be using. Under the old system you could advance on two of the three sectors on the Eastern Front. The deeper into Russia you went the harder it was to keep momentum - exact historical results without changing anything. I'd love to know the win vs losses of both sides under the old rules I can guarantee it will be closer than under this new rule.

Ok rant over - now going to try and figure out another way to make this game work as the Axis. Happy gaming sir

[Giovanni705]

If I may add my 2 cent. Is it not that victory conditions are incorrect? What if keeping Berlin alive is a kind of small victory by itself... And so on. Doing better than history should be rewarded.

[VigaBrand]

@birde: I don't know with whom you played with 1.03, but the game was far from close balanced at all. If you play a veteran axis player and you didn't had great luck with research dices you should loose as allies. If you play allies against an new axis opponent, you could win. But that works only if veteran allied player plays with fairly new axis player.

So they changed something to balanced the game out. We will see if this is will worked or not.
My suggestion play with somebody two games (each side). If you win both games, it tells you something about player level, if each of you win one game, it could be not in balance or you could excatly say what was the gamechangers (in both games).

[vonik]

Supply is not so relevant as some think .
The most relevant element of this game are the bombers . The Soviet units still evaporate in 2 or 3 hits regardless of their supply or moral status .
A German player who manages correctly his research and keeps his advance still reliably destroys any Soviet defence and Leningrad still falls in 41 .

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

[Guderian1940]

So far in PBEM play the supply rules have slowed the German advance. All I can say that it requires more thought, i.e. HQ chain and placement, concentration, tech buy etc. Before just moving German units forward and killing required little skill. They just overwhelmed. Now both side require some skill and good decisions. Lacking in the previous version. Germans land and air are still deadly just need more thought to use them effectively.

Egypt can still fall but it requires again more thought in doing the job by the Germans rather tan just overrunning anything they see.

So far good.

Time will tell. Only in 41 so far.

[Sugar]

The reason to implement this modified feature was, that the Axis in NA + ME had better supply than the Brits. I never used HQ-Chains in Russia before as Axis-Player, so that`s not an issue.

The difference is connected more to the NA-ME theatre and makes it worth to take Malta and also keep an eye at the partisan situation. A very good decision to implement this new feature imho.

I doubt if someone who is not able to manage the Axis supply situation has understood how supply works in this game.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

The HQ-Chain does still work, with the 2. HQ delivering 8 supply itself, if it receives at least 3 supply from the supporting HQ. This supporting HQ should be of worse Command Rating.

Does the HQ chain only work if the supporting HQ is of worse Command Rating?