From: Bedfordshire UK
I don't care much for 'having units appear' based on a circumstance. Clearly the main issue is that the Germans started to fail logistically when at the end of long supply lines they had the same problem in Africa. In both cases 'reinforcements' can make the situation worse (what good is an extra 200 tanks with no gas and no ammo) Very difficult to model however. While not modifiable in any way that I know of a decreasing effectiveness based on the distance from a MSS over a threshold of say 30 or 40 hexes might do the trick.
Just boosting the USSR effectiveness a bit may help a bit with balance. Also I think there is a setting which puts the minimum possible effectiveness, which could be set to 5% instead of 1% ( I am not sure where the setting is off the top of my head however...)
Supply has been an issue since v1.0, with captured cities providing the invaders with too much supply, too early. Historically, mechanised advances seemed to run out of steam after about 200 miles, so like the idea of a threshold based on range from an MSS, except that as the front advances, after a time delay, the MSS should move forward, or delay when captured cities can provide supply (too quick at present). Rail repair also affects this, I am working with a longer delay on rail repair (reducing the probability odds for repair and extending the time to 5 turns), but there is not enough rail damage during an advance, so rail becomes too effective, too quickly, for the invader. We will see what the latest supply situation is going to be, when v1.04 is issued.
The other feature of mechanised advances is the loss of vehicles caused by the wear and tear of the march, such units should suffer a loss of strength points after several hexes of movement.
Reading 'Death Traps', Belton Y. Cooper, division maintenance battalion, US 3rd Armored Division - 1944/45, describing the 200 mile advance to close the Ruhr pocket and that an armoured task force moving 30/40 miles (a ToF hex size) a day, would lose 15/20 tanks out of 50, with maintenance problems. Most of these vehicles would quickly be back in the line, but would be out of action for at least some part of the move. The longer the move goes on, the more losses will accrue, until a halt allows the maintenance organisation to restore the unit to strength. Despite whatever other limitations they had, US vehicles were renowned as well built and reliable, with large stocks of spares, the situation for other nations could be even worse.
German vehicles suffered a high rate of breakdown (up to 50%) during the advance into Austria at 'Anschluss', against no opposition, performance got better in action, but still with a multitude of models and a spares nightmare. This impinges on the 'divisions are useless' and the 'Soviets are nerfed' issues, as armoured units are arriving, after long advances, with too much strength. A single division would find it difficult to defend 30 miles of front against a rested and prepared enemy, but against a unit at low strength after a significant advance, it could impose some delay, or stop the advance. Dug-in divisions could be quite useful as beach defence and rear defence lines, experimenting with longer entrenchment times in the 'const' file, to see if the bonus reflects the Soviet talent for digging deep.
Soviet vehicles suffered huge maintenance problems in 1941, 8th Mech Corps on SW Front, having stops every 15 mins on the march just to keep the AFVs going, obviously an extreme case, but losses on the move are inevitable.
So propose a % loss of strength points for armoured and mechanised units, for each hex passed, with strength being restored during turns where they do not move.
< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 2/6/2013 9:49:20 AM >
"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me