Supply system broken? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series


Bozo_the_Clown -> Supply system broken? (6/15/2020 11:56:55 PM)

In my opinion the supply system is broken. I am on turn 62 and all my units have between 30 and 50% supplies no matter if they are on rail or near a city. Most units, however, are swimming in fuel.

I have reduced reserved rail to 5% quite a while ago. It makes no difference.

The units in the screenshot are doing better than most other units. Most units are below 50% supplies and above 90% fuel. I have 208k trucks and need 119k.


Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/16/2020 12:52:59 AM)

And here is the bigger supply picture


Bitburger -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/16/2020 1:03:51 AM)

Me too, turn 60 against model, i got 30% supply. put the entire airforce into reserve and only got 45% this turn. I think it's my armament production, but it cost 50 ap to lower armament production to 75% this turn to find out.
Have a game with Tyronnec too, it's Jan 42 and similiar army size but supply is fine at 100% in that game.
Things go sideways in summer of 42...


Bitburger -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/16/2020 1:38:56 AM)

Seems saving too many armaments factories is bad now.. Will take another two turns and 100 ap to reduce production down to minimum 25% to find out. Can't just rail the factories west anymore, and reserve rail is at 0% too. No need to save vehicle factories anymore too, that's next for production reduction, as soon as there is ap to do so. Not sure if anything else can be done after that


eskuche -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/16/2020 2:29:54 AM)

Do units use substantially more supplies than before? Like how fuel doubled in v1.12.x?

Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/16/2020 3:09:36 AM)

It's supply shortage for sure. I forgot to account for fort building.

However, this is poor game design in my opinion. Nobody in his clear mind would spend 100 AP to prevent cities from building pointless city fortifications. And then another 100 AP to prevent units from building forts. 200 AP to free up 13500 supplies. [:D]

These need to be free.


Edited to update wrong calculations

eskuche -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/16/2020 3:19:55 AM)

Yes there is a supply shortage. I don't think that 15,000 more fort building should be the cause of a 70,000 per turn supply production shortage. That's why I'm asking (based on everyone's experiences with previous versions, or perhaps someone can check) if units are consuming substantially more while the production is the same. Also it's weird that 300,000 is locked up in cities but not free for use? Is this supply that was dragged to cities by train but is inaccessible?

Edit: bad english at night

redrum68 -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/16/2020 4:05:51 AM)

Yeah, I don't think armament production or fort building is the main issue. I think ground and air units are just consuming more supplies with the new system as your supply NEED shows 149k which is way more than the 13k used for armaments or the ~15k for fort building.

BrianG -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/16/2020 12:11:39 PM)

and the hq do have that toe increase july 42 , which for me took the Army hq's down to 80% TOE.

Also units which move are just having issues refueling even if they get back onto a rr supply line. Some tank corp mp just are soo low, and in spots which make no game sense.

I still think you need all the production and armaments one can get, its a long war.

Maybe Russian AP should be increased to 100 per turn for 1942

Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/16/2020 1:52:51 PM)

I genuinely dislike that I have to spend AP to change settings that don't make sense in the first place. Lock the system down for the first two turns so that the Russians can't move entire armies north and then let the player freely decide what the percentages should be. At this point in my game I don't want any city fortifications because the German player has long ago seized all offensive operations. Why should I pay 100 AP to accomplish that? It's just too restrictive.

redrum68 -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/16/2020 7:44:49 PM)

@Bitburger - I think you are mixing up games. Do you have a screenshot of the production for the turn 60 game? The second screenshot you posted is from turn 21.

56ajax -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/16/2020 11:54:39 PM)

@redrum68 - well spotted sir!

Bitburger -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/17/2020 12:51:26 AM)

your right, swapped in the correct screen. have to agree with bozo, the situation can probably be mitigated by harsh production and fort building changes, but the russians can't afford to spend such high amounts of ap to do so.

eskuche -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/17/2020 2:36:44 AM)

You should be able to prioritize saving all 232 HI, which is 127,900 including lend lease in 1942 and 151,300 supply in 1943. After tossing most of vehicles and some arms, you should be able to be just about even after taking down fort production.

Bitburger -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/17/2020 3:47:05 AM)

Good german players aren't going to allow the Russians to save all 232 Hi, surely that wasn't the intention of the patch to make it a need to do so.

Telemecus -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/17/2020 4:08:06 AM)

You are certainly going to lose the industry in Minsk. Especially if it cannot be evacuated until turn 3.

If you are tossing arms that means longer for the red army 2.0 to be built - probably too late for blizzard or summer 42. And although the early indication is the Soviet side will not need as many vehicles this has not been pay tested in the late game. In v1.11.03 you certainly needed every vehicle you could get and if this is still true in v1.12 late game that is a real problem.

So even if you did throw out other factory evacaution to get enough heavy industry, the medicine could be worse than the supply problem to begin with.

eskuche -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/17/2020 4:25:43 AM)

I accounted for the 4 HI in Minsk being lost for 232! Otherwise, the other potentially vulnerable ones are Kiev and in Ukraine, so definitely player-dependent. Arms need to be kept to some degree that is for sure. Perhaps it can be useful to cycle large arms factories occasionally. For example, Rostov arms can be moved north vertically early then transferred back down to be taken in 1942?

redrum68 -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/17/2020 5:07:54 AM)

Actually in v1.12 with the amount of rail cap for factory evac, it probably is possible to save 232 HI even against a good Axis player with losing fairly low amounts of ARM factories (which given the current supply NEED, you probably can't afford to evac too many ARM factories anyways).

Though even then in 1942 with ideally saving 232 HI, which is 127,900 supplies per turn, that's gonna be tough to then supply a 6M men army and air force. I mean looking at Bitburger's game, he has 198 HI producing 103k supplies and 41k of those are used for ARMs/planes/ground production leaving only around 60k for supplying forces and building forts. Even adding in 25k more for the HI that wasn't evacuated that still only 85k which still seems low given his NEED is showing 149k.

Bitburger -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/17/2020 5:11:47 AM)

That will work yes. But should it? did the russians put factories on rails just to prevent production? Not saving vehicles, not saving armaments, just to make the game work again?
Make production adjustments free of ap cost.

Bitburger -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/19/2020 2:42:33 AM)

This is turn 30 jan '42, against tyronec, my army is only a little smaller than the screens i posted earlier of a game at turn 60. My supply need is nearly a third in this game and supply is at 100% with the airforce on the field, not in reserve. Can someone explain why? This game seems normal to me, the other has gone wrong somehow. or am i just missing something obvious.


Bitburger -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/19/2020 2:46:21 AM)



eskuche -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/19/2020 2:47:03 AM)

Your supply rail need is HALF what's needed in the other game, so no surprise there. The question is why is that so. Are your units chronically deficient?

Bitburger -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/19/2020 3:00:10 AM)

that's what i am asking, why is it so much lower? Deficient in what way?

Bitburger -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/19/2020 3:03:45 AM)

deficient in which way? Attacking in blizzard, rather than defending in summer, so i don't think i'm burning more supplies. Toe vs ideal toe are similiar.

redrum68 -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/19/2020 3:04:44 AM)

Wow that seems really low supply need even compared to the start of the game in 41. My guess looking at this screenshots is low air force movement and usage and appears low fort building.

eskuche -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/19/2020 3:10:49 AM)

We've been discussing this in discord, but we think it's not whether your planes are on-field per se but whether their airbases have moved thus necessitating additional rail movement of supplies and fuel from previous stockpiles to new ones. You'll notice another difference: only 60,000 supply is FREE. That means the rest is inaccessible, but I don't really know what that means currently. It could be that they are in previous town stockpiles but are now cut off from the rail system. It's turn 60 so I assume you're running away and thus might have some rail cut off.

Bitburger -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/19/2020 3:24:39 AM)

The stockpile of supply vs the supply free is much different. So i am leaving supply behind as i pullback? Can i do anything to fix that?

joelmar -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/19/2020 3:35:13 AM)


were both of these games started in the same version?

Bitburger -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/19/2020 3:56:29 AM)

No, i started game with Model1950 with first beta of 1.12. With Tyronec, we started with 1.12.04. Both games are on 05 since it was released. But problems with supply i first noticed with .05 .

joelmar -> RE: Supply system broken? (6/19/2020 4:44:24 AM)

Ok, interesting. I was thinking maybe the game against Model might have started under 1.11.03. But there were also many changes between 1.12.00 and 1.12.03, maybe something that happened in those patches could cause that? Those differences simply don't make sense at first sight.

When you say you first noticed with .05, do you mean that you simply didn't notice the problem before, or if you know for sure the problem didn't exist before, like when you were playing in version .03?

Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI