Supply of surrounded resources

[apec]

How many units must be adjacent to a resource/city to reduce its supply value? It was stated that 2 units are enough but the manual says that 4 units must be close, see below from pag. 44 of the manual.

" Any resource except for a Capital of Fortress that has 4 or more enemy units adjacent to it will have their resource strength reduced by 1 point per turn until it reaches 0. "

[sPzAbt653]

This part in the same paragraph also needs to be updated:

deterioration happens in both friendly and enemy turns,

[apec]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

This part in the same paragraph also needs to be updated:

deterioration happens in both friendly and enemy turns,

Thanks. So the manual is wrong and 2 adjacent units are enough to deteriorate the resource strenght.

[sPzAbt653]

Yes, 2 will do now. That was a change in the last Beta stage, because we were all crying that 4 was to difficult [;)]

Note that this also works on ports - if you have 2 naval units next to a port, the port will go down 1 point each turn.

And stress that this doesn't work on Capitals or Industrial Centers.

[apec]

Thank you for the hints sPzAbt653.
Yes, it makes sense, 4 units in 8 adjacent tiles is easier than 4 units in 6 adjacent hexes [:)]

regards,

[elmo3]

Maybe this rule needs to be changed to exclude minor country capitals? I've had Belgrade surrounded with 5 units for several turns and can't kill the corps in there. Supply never goes down so they just keep rebuilding the unit trapped in there. Feels unrealistic.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Maybe this rule needs to be changed to exclude minor country capitals? I've had Belgrade surrounded with 5 units for several turns and can't kill the corps in there. Supply never goes down so they just keep rebuilding the unit trapped in there. Feels unrealistic.

The whole idea that a "city" can supply a modern corps or army is a bit silly. I this sort of abstraction I would prefer to see that a units adjacent to 5 or 6 units would automatically start to deteriorate. I have had a lone German corp stuck 10 hexes behind the Russian lines and I am just leaving it there surrounded by my unupgraded corps but i cannot kill it.

[Goodmongo]

Units in cities can and did hold out for very long periods of time. If you really want to kill it bring in an artillery unit or a bomber or two. They die fast to these.

[Patrat]

The Americans took so many losses reducing Brest that they just laid siege to Saint Nazire and Lorient and both were held by German forces till the end of the war.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Patrat

The Americans took so many losses reducing Brest that they just laid siege to Saint Nazire and Lorient and both were held by German forces till the end of the war.

Clearly they could hold out but that, and some German enclaves in the east, were largely bypassed to die on the vine not really under continual assault from major forces - not sure how St Nazaire would reinforce lost men for example. The idea that an isolated city can continually reload half an infantry army is hard to grasp.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: ILCK

...The idea that an isolated city can continually reload half an infantry army is hard to grasp.

Exactly. There has to be some way to effect attrition. I've been bombing and attacking Belgrade for several turns but unless I kill the unit in one turn it will just keep rebuilding forever. They would be down to women and children manning the barricades at this point. Some sort of fix for this is needed IMHO.

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Exactly. There has to be some way to effect attrition. I've been bombing and attacking Belgrade for several turns but unless I kill the unit in one turn it will just keep rebuilding forever. They would be down to women and children manning the barricades at this point. Some sort of fix for this is needed IMHO.

I disagree wholeheartedly. See the problem is you equate strength of 10 meaning full man power. That is the basic flaw in your whole point. It doesn't represent man power because man power is not even in the game.

[Hartmann]

I overlooked the "except for a capital" condition and thus was scratching my head when my two lone units (a corps and a garrison) near Baghdad wouldn't achieve anything against a well entrenched garrison. Just when I was about to get a headquarter or tac bomber over there, Iraq decided to surrender just so anyway ...

[itkotw2000]

Yes, this sort of "every town is a supplied fort" could be changed, or maybe reduce the supply for encircled cities to 1 supply (I think that would be a good first step). And units should not be able to reinforce while encircled. There needs to be some sort of attrition or wearing down for units that are constantly fighting, but "out of supply". As of now, a unit "in supply" has no chance 1 on 1 against a unit "out of supply" in a cut off town, no matter how long you attack.

Historically, very few totally surrounded towns held out for very long. Especially with the unit sizes we are using, corps and armies. It is hard to forage for an modern, army sized unit. When people think of surrounded cities, they often think of Leningrad that was sieged for 872 days. But Leningrad was a huge city, fortified ahead of time, and was supplied over Lake Ladoga. Or we could look at the capture of a city like Minsk. Doing a quick search I see Minsk was "occupied" around June 26. Considering the Germans started the invasion on June 22, that is some good progress. The Germans were not sieging every city for weeks or months.

I would say that if a city has fortifications built, it should last longer that an unfortified city. If the game wants to represent fortified cities, they need to build fortifications.

Changing this would be a hard pill to swallow, because the AI relies on "every town is a fort", and if we changed it, the game would become easier. We would have to balance that out in another way.

As for the a units strength not taking into account some sort of man power, that is just wrong, or it shows the state of the game. If you build a unit with 10 strength and it is reduced to 1 strength, and then it is "reinforced" to 10 strength (the in-game term is "reinforce"). It would be reasonable to assume that raising a unit up to its exact previous fighting strength involves additional manpower. The strength number does not factor combat readiness, morale, experience, or unit upgrades, we already have separate numbers for those.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

I disagree wholeheartedly. See the problem is you equate strength of 10 meaning full man power. That is the basic flaw in your whole point. It doesn't represent man power because man power is not even in the game.

Nonsense. Of course manpower is represented in the game. It's certainly not the only factor representing the "strength" of a unit but it is an integral part of it.

My point was that a minor country capital should not be able to keep reinforcing a surrounded unit indefinitely. Just my opinion and obviously you disagree but saying manpower is not represented in the game is just wrong.

Edit - I guess if Hubert feels this is working the way he wants then don't bother attacking any capital or fortress unless you are guaranteed of destroying the unit defending it in one turn.

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Nonsense. Of course manpower is represented in the game.

Then why the thread "Are we going to see manpower in the game at some point?" Either they are wrong or you are.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Then why the thread "Are we going to see manpower in the game at some point?" Either they are wrong or you are.

Who do you think is flying the aircraft, driving the tanks, etc, etc? Manpower, soldiers, or whatever you want to call it. There is no specific tracking of rifles either. So you do not think they are in the game then? Sheesh.

[BillRunacre]

Hi

I just want to clarify a few things in case they have some bearing on the situations being described.

In terms of units occupying a Minor Capital that is cut-off from a friendly Major or Industrial Center/Primary Supply Center then unless there is a HQ present too, it will have a maximum supply value of 5 which will enable it to reinforce to no more than 8.

If the Minor Capital is actually surrounded on all six sides by your units then the maximum strength it can reinforce to will be 5.

Unless you are advancing in great strength, my advice is to cut the Minor Capital's rail connections with enemy Capitals/Industrial/Primary Supply Centers in one turn, and attack it in the next turn with the maximum number of units available when its supply will have been reduced.

If you are able to surround the Minor Capital then the fact that its occupant can only reinforce to 5 will greatly help in any subsequent attack, and generally HQ supported attackers preceded by Medium and/or Tactical Bombers should finish it off pretty quickly.

[elmo3]

Thanks for the clarification Bill. In my game I had Belgrade surrounded with units on only 5 sides so the defending corp kept rebuilding to 8.

[Hartmann]

Are there any special rules regarding "secondary supply sources" too? I'm just having a hard time taking Rhodes (per strategic advice to impress Turkey). It's hard even though I have five ships up there, three surrounding their port. It seems to me that the supply in the city only went down once I bombarded both the port and the city - waiting did nothing (I was hoping that blockading the port would affect the city, but no). After heavy bombardmend the port now has supply 0 and the city supply 1. Last round I had the garrison down to 2, but it reinforced back to 5. Now it's down to 3 again - let's see what it will do next turn ...