ORIGINAL: Michael T
Do you guys really understand how HQBU works? When you do it all attached units get 99% fuel, ammo and supplies. The HQ itself also gets loaded up with extra fuel. Depending on how many units are attached this could be between 1000 to 2000 tons give or take. This extra fuel is then made available to whatever
units are attached in a logistics phase 2 turns later. The terms chaining and muling are related as I see it. There are elements of each in both so called methods.
If you BU a HQ that only has one or even no units attached it will cost less AP's and have less extra fuel assigned to it (and expend less trucks naturally). BU a HQ with 5 units and it will cost much more in AP's and trucks but it will have a huge stock pile of gas.
The said HQ can move up to its allowance with all this gas (because it will still have extra trucks assigned to it) and it will refuel any units attached to it within 5 hexes next logistics phase. The players can naturally change the attached units.
I don't see any problem with this because it is a game. And as such many things are abstracted. Including supply. When I look at a HQ I see C&C plus a supply infrastructure. Some games seperate this. Not WITE. Perhaps this is the difficult part for players to accept. A HQ loaded up with extra gas is simply a commander creating an adhoc temporary mobile supply dump. These exist in many other games. They are the norm in operational wargaming.
Perhaps people would be happier if we had a little truck unit created every time we did a HQ BU rather than assign the trucks to a HQ. But the end result would be the same.
Nice. I think so too, in principle this is no magic "oops, 2000t of supplies beamed to the middle of nowhere", but you have to use the trucks to really transport the stuff. In principle nothing that couldn't be done in real world. The use of HQs to just act as a storage and transport is very limited I find, though. You can gain some extra 20 MPs or so, but pay dearly in trucks, loose some 2% overall supply on the whole front for a long time, plus you waste some say 60 AP just for de- and reattaching units. Not to mention the overload penalty of the other HQs during that time. Who ever wants to do it, it is a good way to prevent him using APs and valuable trucks more impactful...
It is more sensible to try to keep a pressure on the enemy, in "Forrest style" so to say. Or was it Jackson who said that: Once you have the enemy running, never let up until he is destroyed? So patiently staggering the HQ build-ups of a Panzergroup at a critical time seems to do much more to gain a faster pace than anything else, and is also very sound.
It seems to just to be a tid bit to efficient, especially since the defender can never react to such fast and deep movement bursts. Maybe it shouldn't be an auto 100% refill at all times, but undergo some friction to reduce the cap like so many other factors in-game?
The problem I have with this is that HQs recieve a lot of MPs. So if you buildup an HQ one turn you can move that HQ an incredible distance (particularly as the Axis) the second turn before attaching units to it. You can therefore effectively move a lot of supply and gas a long way from your railheads. ... I would have no problem if the game included mobile supply dumps (in fact it is too bad that it doesn't). But I would have a problem if those mobile supply dumps recieved 50 mps per turn.
That is one of the catches with the supply system, which also then blends as problems into the HQ build-up. But I think here is the true origin of the problem, since the idea of HQ build-up, or prioritizing supply, or well-conceived stocking of a certain amount of supplies is within reason. HQ have their organic transport, e.g. 250 trucks for a Germans Corps level HQ. I am not sure whether this only represents trucks used for tasks other then dissipating supply, but I assume so since this truck level doesn't seem to change with the number of attached units (i.e. true supply amount to be moved) nor with the size of stocks that need to be moved together with the HQ. I guess both of the latter are covered with the more abstracted truck pool. However, this makes moving fully stocked HQs on the 2nd turn quite easy. Maybe the movement range of HQs should also be a function of its properties, but then there would need to be a way to assign extra trucks?
On the other hand, the latter might mean that the amount of trucks required to be payed for HQB might be on the low side? Surely the designers have also for this done a very solid assessment and used reasonable averages? Generally, though, it presently just seems that supply, fuel etc generally reach units to easily in all the possible mechanisms. More like under peace conditions. For example, since there are no small dumps, storage facilities for larger front depots, or rear depots, no real trains or supply columns of any kind, also important things like interdiction and partisans reducing supply and replacement transfer efficiency are only taken into account in a very abstracted way. This is one factor that would cause friction in the supply chain. Perhaps factors like these have been a little underestimated, allowing very effective supply tracing, and therefore an op-tempo that can be generally surprisingly fast for extended periods?
When playing Axis, and knowing the logistics tricks a bit, it feels like going a little to fast. The best experience, which felt most related to the original happening, I had when not using HQ build-up and limiting rail repair for AGN and AGC on the first 3 turns. Especially in the North, where the 66% reduction in RailRep cost already speeds up things significantly. What I miss in turn, though, is some aggressive counterattacking by AI. It plays most conservative, which of course in hindsight is right and best for a challenging gaming experience, but would be neat if you could switch it to historical tactics as well.
< Message edited by janh -- 11/30/2011 8:33:21 AM >