Balancing the Game by depot control

Balancing the Game by depot control (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2

Message

guctony -> Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 8:11:36 AM)
I would like to open a discussion over Supply depot control issues. I strongly suggest that all supply depots should have the same option as naval depots. The ability to export or not export. My reasoning is simple by doing so both sides but specially Germans in the early game can manage supply and truck usage more efficiently and most importantly can cope with Sir Robins better. The uncontrolled delivery off supply is wrecking havoc over truck capacity, Specially if you try to create Super depots. Currently super depots are useless and self destructive if they are far away from units. I think best option to be able use this option to stock large amount of supply for faster reorganization. For this to succeed there might be requirement for additional commands for supply Depot. 1) there can be different values for supply depot one for import and the other for export. Like we can make a Depot 4 priority for receiving supply but we should be able to make export level lower. so it can receive supply but forced to stock certain amount. This is great need for Super depots. 2) there can be a limit number to its supply Radius by a command. lets say level 4 export value will make supply transfer to anywhere in the map but level 3 with make it 15 hexes level 2 will make it 10 like so. 3) Alternatively supply depot export levels can correspond to HQ supply level requirements. Like a level 4 export depot can only supply level 4 priority HQ and units. A level 3 depot to supply only priority level 3 HQ and units. 4) it might be interesting to consider that this Import/export option should be limited to Depots 10 to 15 hexes behind enemy line for game balance issues. Once again the reason I am proposing this is to Balance the game. Currently Good Soviet commanders are able to mass incredible reserves by Sir Robin. But I do not agree this should be punished. This is a sound strategy and it shows their capacity. In the End opposing side should cope with enemy tactics and find a way to overcome it. But at the same time this depot issues probably most passive way of balancing this issue.

loki100 -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 9:18:24 AM)
Well you can do all this now. Look at the recent discussions by Carlkay and myself (& HLYA). Its pretty easy to stock up depots that are behind the front and then release that to the front line depots when you want. Super depots remain useful but are very much a matter of choice not necessity. I'm not sure but it seems like you might be mixing up depot-depot freight moves and depot-HQ/unit freight moves?

carlkay58 -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 9:54:29 AM)
The front line supply depots receive and distribute all of the freight they receive. If you have another band of depots with priority of 4 they will grab more freight and not distribute it to the forward depots. This is how you build up supply for offensives. When the offensive kicks off then lower the priority of these depots to 2 or 3 and they will 'flush' their freight forward to the front line depots and beyond. One of the most important tool for maintaining a good supply net is the '8' key showing supply lines. ALL depots supplying front line combat units should be at priority 4. I keep another two or three depots back at 4 also as they build up freight that can be used in keeping the offensives rolling. The next few depots back should be set to 3 to keep as much 'demand' drawing the freight forward. Axis players need to learn the supply net completely in 41 to get a strong start in the war. The Soviets can ramp up during 42 to prepare for 43 and beyond. That is one of the 'anti-Axis' bias in the game - that the Axis need to be up to speed on ALL facets of the game to have a good 41 while the Soviets can learn as they go. Very historical as the Axis had two years of campaigning to learn the system prior to Operation Barbarossa while the Soviets had the Winter War to show them how little they knew or understood the system.

RedJohn -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 11:14:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: carlkay58 Axis players need to learn the supply net completely in 41 to get a strong start in the war. The Soviets can ramp up during 42 to prepare for 43 and beyond. That is one of the 'anti-Axis' bias in the game - that the Axis need to be up to speed on ALL facets of the game to have a good 41 while the Soviets can learn as they go. Very historical as the Axis had two years of campaigning to learn the system prior to Operation Barbarossa while the Soviets had the Winter War to show them how little they knew or understood the system. This is what I believe, too. The Soviets can freely run away in 41 with little loss so long as the preserve the Red Army, as the Axis will inevitably face logistical issues and be forced to halt roughly at their peak during 41 anyway - except the red army hasn't been run over defending cities. Maybe an axis player with a sound understanding of logistics can push further however - and at that point the Soviets run the risk of being run into the steppes, or will just face a wall of level 3 forts with well supplied axis troops. But so far I don't think many AARs have even remotely come close to seeing such a thing, though. The closest I got was in my game against Fracas, but only because he didn't run away as much as he could.

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 12:08:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 Well you can do all this now. Look at the recent discussions by Carlkay and myself (& HLYA). Its pretty easy to stock up depots that are behind the front and then release that to the front line depots when you want. Super depots remain useful but are very much a matter of choice not necessity. I'm not sure but it seems like you might be mixing up depot-depot freight moves and depot-HQ/unit freight moves? Well I am mixed between two that is correct. if you remove the super depots from equation you might be right it is manageable. Accepting that The German will move in controlled manner. Not overrunning front line supply depots too far. But if you push for Early Moscow or non stop forward movement its very easy to fail. Yes I know up to some part it is a design intent so not to let Germans run like a crazy Race Horse. But If you face a Retreating Soviet Leader I feel best solution is to disrupt their time table by aggressive front push. Then comes the necessity of Super depots. Its is imperative to use Super depots to stock Supply but not always to distribute. In my recent game I tried hard to advance by benefit of Super depots the end result is not promising. receiving 22000 tons of supply but then distributing it over 10 to 15 hex distance over a bad terrain. It destroyed German Truck reserve. So at least like port depot export/import options, Depots should have Tab to control. This situation is utterly effecting the winter war for Germans too. Its not clear How to create central supply depots with good reserve for blizzard well behind the front line for German stop lines. Please Don't tell me to make front line depots level 3 and rear ones level 4 for supply stock. It is clear if the front line supply depots run out of supply the units start draw supply from where ever they find. Than again the interdiction on Truck stock will be unbearable.

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 2:13:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: carlkay58 The front line supply depots receive and distribute all of the freight they receive. If you have another band of depots with priority of 4 they will grab more freight and not distribute it to the forward depots. This is how you build up supply for offensives. When the offensive kicks off then lower the priority of these depots to 2 or 3 and they will 'flush' their freight forward to the front line depots and beyond. One of the most important tool for maintaining a good supply net is the '8' key showing supply lines. ALL depots supplying front line combat units should be at priority 4. I keep another two or three depots back at 4 also as they build up freight that can be used in keeping the offensives rolling. The next few depots back should be set to 3 to keep as much 'demand' drawing the freight forward. Axis players need to learn the supply net completely in 41 to get a strong start in the war. The Soviets can ramp up during 42 to prepare for 43 and beyond. That is one of the 'anti-Axis' bias in the game - that the Axis need to be up to speed on ALL facets of the game to have a good 41 while the Soviets can learn as they go. Very historical as the Axis had two years of campaigning to learn the system prior to Operation Barbarossa while the Soviets had the Winter War to show them how little they knew or understood the system. Kindly Note that I am sure it is working this way 100%. But it does not work when you reach Smolensk by Rail repair and your front lines are way far away. Turn 7 I was next to Rzhev [image]local://upfiles/32150/F0667A48AC0642139A2ACA7DFCCB63A7.jpg[/image]

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 2:19:33 PM)
And Turn 8 Super depot kicked in and BOOM here goes the truck reserves. [image]local://upfiles/32150/E8C791158B1B45B783514992268EE717.jpg[/image]

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 2:55:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guctony Well I am mixed between two that is correct. if you remove the super depots from equation you might be right it is manageable. Accepting that The German will move in controlled manner. Not overrunning front line supply depots too far. This is the answer.

Sammy5IsAlive -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 2:55:38 PM)
If you had complete control, where do you want the freight to be going? Which depot do you want filling up and which do you want supplying troops? One thing to remember - if you are a long way away from your closest fully functioning depot it might be worth turning down the supply priority of the relevant HQs for a couple of turns whilst your units regain CPP and your logistics catch up.

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 3:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive If you had complete control, where do you want the freight to be going? Which depot do you want filling up and which do you want supplying troops? One thing to remember - if you are a long way away from your closest fully functioning depot it might be worth turning down the supply priority of the relevant HQs for a couple of turns whilst your units regain CPP and your logistics catch up. Yes perfectly correct. But This is kinda giving a free hand to Soviet player the way they fit to retire and save troops. Currently my concern is about pro-soviet players who can retire in good order to match probable German advance speed based on supply requirements. Currently there is no sound tactic to repond this. My assumption is putting a steady push towards Moskow might change it. But supply system does not approve such a concentrated effort. It seems Hitler was right to divert Guderian from Moscow push.

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 3:22:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive If you had complete control, where do you want the freight to be going? Which depot do you want filling up and which do you want supplying troops? One thing to remember - if you are a long way away from your closest fully functioning depot it might be worth turning down the supply priority of the relevant HQs for a couple of turns whilst your units regain CPP and your logistics catch up. I Beg to say it is not complete control. Its the basic control you should have over your Supply command. I mean ability store supply where ever you want. Can german high command could not order any depot not to distribute supply.

metaphore -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 3:37:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guctony This is kinda giving a free hand to Soviet player the way they fit to retire and save troops. Currently my concern is about pro-soviet players who can retire in good order to match probable German advance speed based on supply requirements. Currently there is no sound tactic to repond this. My assumption is putting a steady push towards Moskow might change it. But supply system does not approve such a concentrated effort. It seems Hitler was right to divert Guderian from Moscow push. Very good point here: if an experienced Soviet player is perfectly aware of built in limitation for the German advance, there will be no way to push them off balance unless they will make some kind of unforced mistake. And this will cause the game to become boring pretty fast as nobody will really commit.

Sammy5IsAlive -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 3:46:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guctony quote: ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive If you had complete control, where do you want the freight to be going? Which depot do you want filling up and which do you want supplying troops? One thing to remember - if you are a long way away from your closest fully functioning depot it might be worth turning down the supply priority of the relevant HQs for a couple of turns whilst your units regain CPP and your logistics catch up. I Beg to say it is not complete control. Its the basic control you should have over your Supply command. I mean ability store supply where ever you want. Can german high command could not order any depot not to distribute supply. Sorry - wires crossed I think maybe. What I was getting at was trying to work out what your 'ideal' supply goals were in order to try and make suggestions about how you could try and achieve that using the current system. As above in terms of depot -> unit supply I think the system looks at it from the other way round to what you are saying. So rather than telling a depot how much supply to distribute you are telling HQs how much supply to seek. That's what I was talking about in my previous post - if you want to reduce/stop the flow of supply from depots to units (for example because the distance is too great and you want to preserve trucks) the solution is to reduce the HQ supply priority. [Edit - the rail line to that northeasternmost depot is going through V-L and not Smolensk isn't it.]

loki100 -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 3:51:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guctony And Turn 8 Super depot kicked in and BOOM here goes the truck reserves. ... well yes, you have 30+ MP supply traces and haven't bothered to hook in the rail net east of Staraya Russa and are supplying what looks like 2 Pzr As 15+ hexes from what I guess is Smolensk. So that is suicidal and its not what myself or Carlkay are describing. remember you have tools to control demand too, its your choice how much freight those distant HQs go looking for. I now set all the infantry corps to pri #1 and the Pzrs to #2 precisely to control this. And no, there is no hard limit but if you go wandering off east of Lake Ilmen in late August this game will punish you, especially if you haven't nailed down the supporting infrastructure. The old WiTE1 fantasy move of driving down the east of the Volkhov really isn't a good idea

GibsonPete -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 6:54:04 PM)
As posted in the feature request... You should use the FBDs to build your redundant rail net. Next, depots on 2 and higher level railyards will provide the freight you need. FYI, I have come to believe Super depots are a red herring. Next, set unit priorities to the lowest level and watch everyone get what they need verses what they want. Make a supply web instead of a supply thread and observe what happens. Loki100, HYLA and others knows what they are doing... try it and be amazed.

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 7:09:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive quote: ORIGINAL: guctony quote: ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive If you had complete control, where do you want the freight to be going? Which depot do you want filling up and which do you want supplying troops? One thing to remember - if you are a long way away from your closest fully functioning depot it might be worth turning down the supply priority of the relevant HQs for a couple of turns whilst your units regain CPP and your logistics catch up. I Beg to say it is not complete control. Its the basic control you should have over your Supply command. I mean ability store supply where ever you want. Can german high command could not order any depot not to distribute supply. Sorry - wires crossed I think maybe. What I was getting at was trying to work out what your 'ideal' supply goals were in order to try and make suggestions about how you could try and achieve that using the current system. As above in terms of depot -> unit supply I think the system looks at it from the other way round to what you are saying. So rather than telling a depot how much supply to distribute you are telling HQs how much supply to seek. That's what I was talking about in my previous post - if you want to reduce/stop the flow of supply from depots to units (for example because the distance is too great and you want to preserve trucks) the solution is to reduce the HQ supply priority. [Edit - the rail line to that northeasternmost depot is going through V-L and not Smolensk isn't it.] Thank you for the suggestion it will be very useful in my next game and I will try to implement in my current game. But kindly do consider that my view on this system of controlling supply flow between front line depots and reserve depots is more like tweaking the game engine rather than managing the supply situation. I mean By essence is it really different in methodology from WITE forced supply order to HQ's. I get it I can achieve what I need by lowering supply priorities of Armies and tweaking depot supply priorities. But the same exact result can be achieved by just having one extra control over Supply depot. Like giving priority over how much supply to receive is it not logical to control how much supply a depot can distribute. I don't think the net result will be different and it will not give Germans any additional ability to move forward faster or refill German panzer units faster. It will control the wastage of trucks and supply. it will minimize micro-control requirements etc. The question is . Will German Army group commanders individually dictate their supply requirements of each army and corp or they control the flow of supply from the source '' Depots'' And once again I am not criticizing anything regarding the current game decisions. I waited this game for so long. I will play whichever the case but at the same time some simple life improvement can make it more enjoyable for intermediate players.

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 7:45:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 quote: ORIGINAL: guctony And Turn 8 Super depot kicked in and BOOM here goes the truck reserves. ... well yes, you have 30+ MP supply traces and haven't bothered to hook in the rail net east of Staraya Russa and are supplying what looks like 2 Pzr As 15+ hexes from what I guess is Smolensk. So that is suicidal and its not what myself or Carlkay are describing. remember you have tools to control demand too, its your choice how much freight those distant HQs go looking for. I now set all the infantry corps to pri #1 and the Pzrs to #2 precisely to control this. And no, there is no hard limit but if you go wandering off east of Lake Ilmen in late August this game will punish you, especially if you haven't nailed down the supporting infrastructure. The old WiTE1 fantasy move of driving down the east of the Volkhov really isn't a good idea Well I do get what you mean and truly respect the amount of explanation and stress you put in the proper way of handling the supply situation. And I accept that there is intricate law of physics sewed inside the current supply system so not to repeat cases of WITE flying Panzer armies. But please Hear me out. First of all if we prefer to play against a Human opponent its a distinct choice. The idea is not to repeat WWII version two. It is to be competitive against another sentinel being in terms of strategic decision making and coping with his strategies. In do respect if my opponent is above average or pro it is even more important to give him different strategic game play so both sides enjoy and develop their game and come up with a new understanding. I might loose the game but at least I can try to be creative and improve my game play. Having said that currently what I believe or testing is to find a way to cope with a orderly retreating Soviet opponent. And my first experimental strategy is the Rommel way. Like his sufferings in logistics and overall strategic understanding I am trying to push forward as much as possible. Now the issue is Soviets has the means of sustained orderly retreat But Germans have limited forward supply capacity beyond their supply system limitations to disorganize Soviet orderly retreat. If this is the case how can we be competitive against this case. It seems All we can do is just play along and wait for the winter slugfest. Having said all above I do better understand what my real question is.... The Question: is there only one way to handle supply situation and limit the forward movement by supply limitations. Or is there a way to Play Rommel by intricately damaging supply situation everywhere but to create a continues forward push juggernaut reaching Moscow vicinity before Rain. If there is non it meant the war is already lost and there is no player balance to a orderly retreating Soviet player. Once again I am not arguing and feeling discomfort against such a Soviet player for doing the logical strategical thinking.

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 7:59:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GibsonPete As posted in the feature request... You should use the FBDs to build your redundant rail net. Next, depots on 2 and higher level railyards will provide the freight you need. FYI, I have come to believe Super depots are a red herring. Next, set unit priorities to the lowest level and watch everyone get what they need verses what they want. Make a supply web instead of a supply thread and observe what happens. Loki100, HYLA and others knows what they are doing... try it and be amazed. I surely agree that others know what they are doing. But in do respect this is the orthodox way fighting in East front. I do feel the Super depots need one final touch. I do consider super depot are not for forced supply distribution but for fast supply stock creation one tier behind frontline supply depots. What simply avoiding this one single command rather than managing everything else. That is the capacity to control supply distribution other than supply demand. Yes now I know I made a mistake by creating a super depot in my case (see screen shot) probably my mobility would be much better without utilizing super depot. I learn by my mistakes rather than reading that is easier to remember. And in game we should not be afraid to make mistakes so next time we play better. I certainly feel that supply system should be able to forced beyond its capacity with a tit for tat. I mean pushing to the limits should make you suffer somewhere else. But not like this. It seem we bond to move in regular intervals. Next time I will try to control truck demand by limiting supply requirement from Army and Corps. but I dont think it will make a big difference.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 8:01:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guctony Next time I will try to control truck demand by limiting supply requirement from Army and Corps. but I dont think it will make a big difference. It makes a "HUGE" difference.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 8:05:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guctony If there is non it meant the war is already lost and there is no player balance to a orderly retreating Soviet player. Once again I am not arguing and feeling discomfort against such a Soviet player for doing the logical strategical thinking. You are free to do an orderly withdraw with the Soviets against me as a good test of this. There will come a breaking point where the Soviets can't do it, then what? Lets find out :)

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 8:17:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: guctony Next time I will try to control truck demand by limiting supply requirement from Army and Corps. but I dont think it will make a big difference. It makes a "HUGE" difference. Respectfully I think It will not make too much difference in my above attached Screen shot. I have already out of my supply boundary distance and there is no way to bring rail line more forward in turn 6/7. to reach Smolensk in turn 6/7 required combination of 2 FBD and remaining RAD units under a Corp HQ. And not to mention if I had drop the supply priority below 4 for advancing armies I could have not keep up the assault moving on. Regardless I think I should not complain to much as I was able to keep attacking and moving forward for 12 consecutive turns. Some of the failure is more because of my inept Leadership in managing my Attacks. But its not logical for any Army General to send 20.000 trucks to death ride just because of utilizing super depot at the far end of the supply chain. I mean if voluntarily done no issues. Anyway I have to work on my learning curves regarding supply.

HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 8:20:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guctony quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: guctony Next time I will try to control truck demand by limiting supply requirement from Army and Corps. but I dont think it will make a big difference. It makes a "HUGE" difference. Respectfully I think It will not make too much difference in my above attached Screen shot. I have already out of my supply boundary distance and there is no way to bring rail line more forward in turn 6/7. to reach Smolensk in turn 6/7 required combination of 2 FBD and remaining RAD units under a Corp HQ. And not to mention if I had drop the supply priority below 4 for advancing armies I could have not keep up the assault moving on. Regardless I think I should not complain to much as I was able to keep attacking and moving forward for 12 consecutive turns. Some of the failure is more because of my inept Leadership in managing my Attacks. But its not logical for any Army General to send 20.000 trucks to death ride just because of utilizing super depot at the far end of the supply chain. I mean if voluntarily done no issues. Anyway I have to work on my learning curves regarding supply. :-)

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 8:33:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: guctony quote: ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain quote: ORIGINAL: guctony Next time I will try to control truck demand by limiting supply requirement from Army and Corps. but I dont think it will make a big difference. It makes a "HUGE" difference. Respectfully I think It will not make too much difference in my above attached Screen shot. I have already out of my supply boundary distance and there is no way to bring rail line more forward in turn 6/7. to reach Smolensk in turn 6/7 required combination of 2 FBD and remaining RAD units under a Corp HQ. And not to mention if I had drop the supply priority below 4 for advancing armies I could have not keep up the assault moving on. Regardless I think I should not complain to much as I was able to keep attacking and moving forward for 12 consecutive turns. Some of the failure is more because of my inept Leadership in managing my Attacks. But its not logical for any Army General to send 20.000 trucks to death ride just because of utilizing super depot at the far end of the supply chain. I mean if voluntarily done no issues. Anyway I have to work on my learning curves regarding supply. :-) [&o]

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 8:50:31 PM)
By the way I would like to make another analogy. Consider Ardennes operation. To my knowledge there was more supply and fuel on the eastern side of the Rhine River than west site. If my long time ago historical readings correct there was limitation by high command to transfer more fuel to west side. I am to be corrected. Now its completely a different case but probably there is way to create this situation in a fictional Ardennes scenario other than lowering supply demand by armies or lowering priorities of depots on west side of river. Now let me say Come on how come any corps or Army commander can lower their supply requirement in such a case including the front line depots. Only logical or illogical way in essence is to drop supply export priority levels on depots on the East side of the river. this will clearly mimic High Command intervention. Any maybe in any far future update this supply priority levels should be Hard coded to scenario data to mimic historical realities better.

Sammy5IsAlive -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/15/2021 10:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guctony quote: ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive quote: ORIGINAL: guctony quote: ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive If you had complete control, where do you want the freight to be going? Which depot do you want filling up and which do you want supplying troops? One thing to remember - if you are a long way away from your closest fully functioning depot it might be worth turning down the supply priority of the relevant HQs for a couple of turns whilst your units regain CPP and your logistics catch up. I Beg to say it is not complete control. Its the basic control you should have over your Supply command. I mean ability store supply where ever you want. Can german high command could not order any depot not to distribute supply. Sorry - wires crossed I think maybe. What I was getting at was trying to work out what your 'ideal' supply goals were in order to try and make suggestions about how you could try and achieve that using the current system. As above in terms of depot -> unit supply I think the system looks at it from the other way round to what you are saying. So rather than telling a depot how much supply to distribute you are telling HQs how much supply to seek. That's what I was talking about in my previous post - if you want to reduce/stop the flow of supply from depots to units (for example because the distance is too great and you want to preserve trucks) the solution is to reduce the HQ supply priority. [Edit - the rail line to that northeasternmost depot is going through V-L and not Smolensk isn't it.] Thank you for the suggestion it will be very useful in my next game and I will try to implement in my current game. But kindly do consider that my view on this system of controlling supply flow between front line depots and reserve depots is more like tweaking the game engine rather than managing the supply situation. I mean By essence is it really different in methodology from WITE forced supply order to HQ's. I get it I can achieve what I need by lowering supply priorities of Armies and tweaking depot supply priorities. But the same exact result can be achieved by just having one extra control over Supply depot. Like giving priority over how much supply to receive is it not logical to control how much supply a depot can distribute. I don't think the net result will be different and it will not give Germans any additional ability to move forward faster or refill German panzer units faster. It will control the wastage of trucks and supply. it will minimize micro-control requirements etc. The question is . Will German Army group commanders individually dictate their supply requirements of each army and corp or they control the flow of supply from the source '' Depots'' And once again I am not criticizing anything regarding the current game decisions. I waited this game for so long. I will play whichever the case but at the same time some simple life improvement can make it more enjoyable for intermediate players. My personal view is that setting the HQ supply priorities really doesn't involve a lot of micro management. Remember that when you set a priority for a HQ that priority is set for all its subordinate HQs. So in your example, to essentially 'switch off' Smolensk all you would need to do would be to set the priorities for AGC and PG4 to [1]. So just 2 actions. If you wanted you could then go down to a Corps level and set higher priorities for any HQs that were closer to the depot. [Edit - will come back to some of the subsequent posts - just nipping out for a bit]

Sammy5IsAlive -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/16/2021 12:22:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guctony quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 quote: ORIGINAL: guctony And Turn 8 Super depot kicked in and BOOM here goes the truck reserves. ... well yes, you have 30+ MP supply traces and haven't bothered to hook in the rail net east of Staraya Russa and are supplying what looks like 2 Pzr As 15+ hexes from what I guess is Smolensk. So that is suicidal and its not what myself or Carlkay are describing. remember you have tools to control demand too, its your choice how much freight those distant HQs go looking for. I now set all the infantry corps to pri #1 and the Pzrs to #2 precisely to control this. And no, there is no hard limit but if you go wandering off east of Lake Ilmen in late August this game will punish you, especially if you haven't nailed down the supporting infrastructure. The old WiTE1 fantasy move of driving down the east of the Volkhov really isn't a good idea Well I do get what you mean and truly respect the amount of explanation and stress you put in the proper way of handling the supply situation. And I accept that there is intricate law of physics sewed inside the current supply system so not to repeat cases of WITE flying Panzer armies. But please Hear me out. First of all if we prefer to play against a Human opponent its a distinct choice. The idea is not to repeat WWII version two. It is to be competitive against another sentinel being in terms of strategic decision making and coping with his strategies. In do respect if my opponent is above average or pro it is even more important to give him different strategic game play so both sides enjoy and develop their game and come up with a new understanding. I might loose the game but at least I can try to be creative and improve my game play. Having said that currently what I believe or testing is to find a way to cope with a orderly retreating Soviet opponent. And my first experimental strategy is the Rommel way. Like his sufferings in logistics and overall strategic understanding I am trying to push forward as much as possible. Now the issue is Soviets has the means of sustained orderly retreat But Germans have limited forward supply capacity beyond their supply system limitations to disorganize Soviet orderly retreat. If this is the case how can we be competitive against this case. It seems All we can do is just play along and wait for the winter slugfest. Having said all above I do better understand what my real question is.... The Question: is there only one way to handle supply situation and limit the forward movement by supply limitations. Or is there a way to Play Rommel by intricately damaging supply situation everywhere but to create a continues forward push juggernaut reaching Moscow vicinity before Rain. If there is non it meant the war is already lost and there is no player balance to a orderly retreating Soviet player. Once again I am not arguing and feeling discomfort against such a Soviet player for doing the logical strategical thinking. In terms of the game design as regards the victory system I think the answer to that question is that a Soviet player who retreats quickly is protecting themselves against the risk of a 1941 sudden death loss at the cost of giving up enough time bonuses that they are at a greater risk of losing via a late 1942 victory check or by failing to meet the victory check at the end of 1944. So a decision that looks good in the short term has negative consequences in the long term. A Soviet player who wants to win on the game's terms (as opposed to hoping for a Axis resignation when they haven't won the game in 1941) can't afford to give up too much ground too quickly. Disclaimer #1 - I'm not sure where the game balance is in reality in terms of making the above valid. My suspicion is that the recent balance has been maybe a bit too punishing on all but the best Axis players and that it's a little too easy for a 'retreating' Soviet player to build up a big enough army that they can cause enough carnage over the 41/42 winter to make the rest of the game irrelevant. I do think that the changes to Assault Fronts and to the combat model (which in my limited experience seems to have made the German Panzer Divs a bit more resilient defensively and a bit more potent offensively) will help with that. I agree with what HLYA has been saying about there being a lot of 'spare' potential in the Axis forces that will be better used as Axis players become more experienced. Time will tell on those points. Disclaimer #2 - as above the current victory design is such that if players are roughly equal the game will reach the end of 42 at least and will often go on till 1944. I think it is fair to say that there is a demographic of players who don't want to play such an extended campaign and would prefer a more 'volatile' victory system that is more geared towards the outcome of the Barbarossa offensive and the subsequent Soviet winter counter offensive. In time I think it may be worth offering a campaign with lower sudden victory/sudden loss thresholds in 1941 so that that initial 6-7 months is on more of a knife-edge and you get much more early outcomes either way. I've not gone into the editor at all - are those adjustments to the VP system possible in the editor or are they 'hard-coded' and requiring a new campaign from the Devs?

GibsonPete -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/16/2021 2:11:43 AM)
guctony; "Anyway I have to work on my learning curves regarding supply." You and I both. I hope that you will continue to experiment and share the results. I am not a deep thinker but I am capable of adapting. If you find a better way of getting to Moscow I will thank you and steal it for my game. The Axis learning curve is high compared to the Soviet and that is what I like about this game. Q:"Will (would) German Army group commanders individually dictate their supply requirements of each army and corps or they control the flow of supply from the source '' Depots'" I can relate from my personal experience with the U.S. Army that at the Army and Corps command level the bosses rarely concerned themselves with trying to control freight delivery or transport. It is amazing what does not get reported to the public. Roll on roll off ships breaking down with a regiments worth of equipment, tank transporters blowing out tires because the sun came up, rations spoiling because a lack of proper storage, wrong ammunition being delivered because it looked right, or training anti tank missiles found in a units basic issue. When it comes to logistics it is not only the game that gets it wrong. I hope that you come up with your Rommel in the East solution. I know it is out there. Perhaps the departure of non productive units that consume supplies, or a new method of rail repair/routes or depot build up and release or something the community has not considered. Good luck.

DeletedUser44 -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/16/2021 3:10:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedJohn quote: ORIGINAL: carlkay58 Axis players need to learn the supply net completely in 41 to get a strong start in the war. The Soviets can ramp up during 42 to prepare for 43 and beyond. That is one of the 'anti-Axis' bias in the game - that the Axis need to be up to speed on ALL facets of the game to have a good 41 while the Soviets can learn as they go. Very historical as the Axis had two years of campaigning to learn the system prior to Operation Barbarossa while the Soviets had the Winter War to show them how little they knew or understood the system. This is what I believe, too. The Soviets can freely run away in 41 with little loss so long as the preserve the Red Army... This is a little bit off topic, but oh well.... One of the things that was removed from WiTE2 involved the destruction of Soviet factories if overrun. quote: This is fully automated. Only those factories that were historically moved can move, they will evacuate at the historical date or earlier at a cost in productivity if the player decides to do this manually. If the Axis player captures a city with a factory that can be evacuated it will be automatically moved (at a cost of more damage and delay in returning it to production). In contrast, in WiTE, I believe they were outright destroyed. I would not want to outright lose a factory and would stand and doggedly fight to buy more time to get them relocated. But if all I have to worry about is auto-relocation and 'some delay' in them coming back online. That is nothing to really worry over. IMO, this removed one of the incentives for the Soviet to stand and fight. (... as well as having to carefully manage their rail usage... or risk the permanent loss of a factory)

AlbertN -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/16/2021 4:08:06 AM)
I sung that song since a while but in general I've been told that 'it's forcing the Soviets to play the way the Axis player wants'. Good thing on the 'Soviets have no reason to stay and fight' (Til they've Moscow at their back) I am not anymore the only (or one of the few) voices.

guctony -> RE: Balancing the Game by depot control (10/16/2021 6:24:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive quote: ORIGINAL: guctony quote: ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive quote: ORIGINAL: guctony quote: ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive If you had complete control, where do you want the freight to be going? Which depot do you want filling up and which do you want supplying troops? One thing to remember - if you are a long way away from your closest fully functioning depot it might be worth turning down the supply priority of the relevant HQs for a couple of turns whilst your units regain CPP and your logistics catch up. I Beg to say it is not complete control. Its the basic control you should have over your Supply command. I mean ability store supply where ever you want. Can german high command could not order any depot not to distribute supply. Sorry - wires crossed I think maybe. What I was getting at was trying to work out what your 'ideal' supply goals were in order to try and make suggestions about how you could try and achieve that using the current system. As above in terms of depot -> unit supply I think the system looks at it from the other way round to what you are saying. So rather than telling a depot how much supply to distribute you are telling HQs how much supply to seek. That's what I was talking about in my previous post - if you want to reduce/stop the flow of supply from depots to units (for example because the distance is too great and you want to preserve trucks) the solution is to reduce the HQ supply priority. [Edit - the rail line to that northeasternmost depot is going through V-L and not Smolensk isn't it.] Thank you for the suggestion it will be very useful in my next game and I will try to implement in my current game. But kindly do consider that my view on this system of controlling supply flow between front line depots and reserve depots is more like tweaking the game engine rather than managing the supply situation. I mean By essence is it really different in methodology from WITE forced supply order to HQ's. I get it I can achieve what I need by lowering supply priorities of Armies and tweaking depot supply priorities. But the same exact result can be achieved by just having one extra control over Supply depot. Like giving priority over how much supply to receive is it not logical to control how much supply a depot can distribute. I don't think the net result will be different and it will not give Germans any additional ability to move forward faster or refill German panzer units faster. It will control the wastage of trucks and supply. it will minimize micro-control requirements etc. The question is . Will German Army group commanders individually dictate their supply requirements of each army and corp or they control the flow of supply from the source '' Depots'' And once again I am not criticizing anything regarding the current game decisions. I waited this game for so long. I will play whichever the case but at the same time some simple life improvement can make it more enjoyable for intermediate players. My personal view is that setting the HQ supply priorities really doesn't involve a lot of micro management. Remember that when you set a priority for a HQ that priority is set for all its subordinate HQs. So in your example, to essentially 'switch off' Smolensk all you would need to do would be to set the priorities for AGC and PG4 to [1]. So just 2 actions. If you wanted you could then go down to a Corps level and set higher priorities for any HQs that were closer to the depot. [Edit - will come back to some of the subsequent posts - just nipping out for a bit] Well probably you are right. But the end does not justify the means. Lets call my mad Dash forward as Rommel run. and it is imperative to keep forward impulse active all the time that means keeping forward elements at 4 priority all the time to be able to keep Rommel running. My problem is Case specific. See the attached image above. I have overrun the available supply line and depended on super depot for keep pushing forward where it suddenly abused truck delivery system to unexpected levels. The problem is at this stage dropping supply priorities from forward units is really a consistent method to do it regularly?. I mean will it always give the same result. Or let me put in another way lets say I have active super depot and it has received 20000 tons of ferry and I want to deliver around 6500 tons and keep the rest in depot. How will I know drooping the supply request levels from 4 to 3 or 2 will make sure the specific amount of supply will be withheld. Currently its like a gamble. There is no means to calculate. Maybe playing long enough and making some excel chart will make it more predictable. Maybe such a chart will make life easier. But the thing is If there is supply distribution control on depots its no longer and best estimate case. and that's what I am trying to advocate. Just a quality of life upgrade. By the way by dropping delivery level of supply is to enable a more controlled destruction of Truck reserves not to control flow of supply. Currently my problem is that our game is a server game so I have no possibility to test it again and again the same case to come up with what is the optimum set up. But regardless I feel I cannot drop supply demand priorities of units that will kill my offensive push. I am just looking for a away for extended destruction period of the Truck reserve. Its totally reasonable to pay a price for Rommel Run in terms of Truck losses. That's a trade of for Rommel Run.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.140625