Hubert Cater
Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
|
Hi Guderian,
I've read through all the posts and I could easily get carried away here and break down every proposal with potential game breaking design and game balance issues, so I'll do my best to try and keep this short.
Essentially it comes down to the idea that whatever changes are potentially made for one area of the map, these can then potentially have a dramatic effect in other parts of the game. Long story short, we have a game that spans much more than North Africa and the rules (in order to keep them as simple/straightforward as possible) need to work for not only North Africa, but also for when the Axis is deep into the USSR, and for when the Allies perform D-Day and so on.
Just a quick example, if an HQ at 3 supply should have much lower distribution supply simply because it is in a pocket, then an HQ at 3 supply (pocket or not as we are just looking at its supply value) on the Eastern Front will also be distributing supply much lower and that might not be desirable for most players especially once they get deep into the USSR. Consider the recent HQ supply linking rules change since v1.04, which was a much more subtle amendment, and how it already seems to have had a significant impact on the potency of the Axis on the Eastern front based on the feedback so far.
This would be the same for captured and isolated towns during D-Day and in this case, in my opinion, the Allies simply would have no chance to survive initial landings. The suggestion that the Axis managed to cutoff an Allied HQ at Bardia should result in an automatic halving of supply would also mean that an Allied HQ that has landed on the French coast at Le-Havre supporting a few other landed units would also have its supply halved as well because technically in game terms it is cutoff as well. Even so, it could be argued that even if an HQ is "cutoff", it doesn't immediately lose its existing supplies and the act of targeting the HQ (as we described above) abstractly conveys the idea of attempting to disrupt and degrade its remaining supply capability... which is fairly modeled in my opinion due to strength being connected to its supply distribution and reinforcement capability, i.e. keep hitting that HQ and it becomes easier to destroy in subsequent turns.
Linking damaged ports to the strength of the adjacent town is a possibility, but then does this mean that London is possibly reduced in strength due to its port being reduced? Do we create exceptions which means more rules? What about coastal towns that are not adjacent to a port?
Now we could add additional features like re-supply by air, factor in the presence of capitals ships and their current dominance or lack thereof, mulberries and so on, and some of these I wouldn't mind seeing such as mulberries, but we are now adding more rules and complications and more micro managing for a game that is often described as a beer and pretzels game with supply rules that are complex enough as it is.
* * *
So what do we currently have that pretty much gets us everything we want?
I would argue that the supply chain rules for towns and cities, from ports and from Capitals and Primary and Secondary sources, works reasonably well enough. For example, a cutoff town that drops to 3 is not really supplying all that much on its own to any units in the same pocket. Same goes for a cutoff city that drops to 5. Units on their own (without an HQ) inside such a pocket normally won't survive for long.
Then we have HQs, and HQs with the investment of logistics in my mind represents the commitment from either side to supply and ensure supply for key units on the map. It can also be argued to represent an array of abstractions, i.e. of the military investments that are key to supply and success, as a D-Day landing would be largely unsuccessful without HQ support and the same goes for North Africa where if either player did not include sufficient HQs for their planning then I strongly believe all of the points above would be non issues as supply would be so low that pockets would be very quickly eliminated without much thought or concern.
* * *
So what is on our radar?
1) Air power and the concentration of air power and any simple and straightforward changes that we can employ to make this feel more "right" in game.
2) Any additional supply rules/changes that get us even closer to what we want without overcomplication. For example, perhaps there are some simple changes that can be implemented to make things feel more natural here for some of the points above that don't break other parts of the game. If we can manage this, and both Bill and I are discussing, then it is something we'll definitely pursue. It is just a question of getting it right and not breaking the game in the process.
A bit of a long response, but hopefully it paints a picture that much of this has been thought of and sorted out in the past and sometimes it is a balance from our end of understanding all the rules and options, as well as sorting out any needed adjustments as suprises crop up here and there.
Hubert
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Supply issue II - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread