Supply Rules Seriously Flawed

[ran2327]

I am enjoying the new version of PG2 except for two areas: Supply and in-turn replacements. In this post I want to discuss the supply aspect.

Under the current automatic fuel & ammo rules, (including the auto- return of aircraft to base) supply, for all intents and purposes, has been eliminated as a factor in fighting each scenario/campaign. Since in real warfare, logistics is at or near the top consideration in planning and fighting a battle, to not have it as a realistic part of the game is like the old westerns where the cowboy is able to shoot a dozen bullets from his six-shooter without reloading.

If I remember correctly (having not play it in years), in PG1 an individual unit had to be outside an enemy ZOC and spend a turn resupplying. This alone, in my opinion, completely changed the way individual battles were fought (whether to fight or resupply, hold a hex or not, aircraft returning to base or not, etc.). This made the game much more challenging for sure.

Now, I don't even concern myself about supply. Even encirclements have little impact on supply. Of the dozens of encirclements encounter I have only experienced one instance where the encircled unit ran out of ammo. As far as auto-return of aircraft, ammo/fuel considerations are superfluous, since they NEVER run out of either. It also eliminates the occasional opportunity to attack a ground unit with more than one aircraft in any given turn.

In sum, auto-supply inserts a large chunk of unrealism into PG2 (as I fire off my 7 shots from my six-shooter).

[Horseman]

I am enjoying the new version of PG2 except for two areas: Supply and in-turn replacements. In this post I want to discuss the supply aspect.

Under the current automatic fuel & ammo rules, (including the auto- return of aircraft to base) supply, for all intents and purposes, has been eliminated as a factor in fighting each scenario/campaign. Since in real warfare, logistics is at or near the top consideration in planning and fighting a battle, to not have it as a realistic part of the game is like the old westerns where the cowboy is able to shoot a dozen bullets from his six-shooter without reloading.

If I remember correctly (having not play it in years), in PG1 an individual unit had to be outside an enemy ZOC and spend a turn resupplying. This alone, in my opinion, completely changed the way individual battles were fought (whether to fight or resupply, hold a hex or not, aircraft returning to base or not, etc.). This made the game much more challenging for sure.

Now, I don't even concern myself about supply. Even encirclements have little impact on supply. Of the dozens of encirclements encounter I have only experienced one instance where the encircled unit ran out of ammo. As far as auto-return of aircraft, ammo/fuel considerations are superfluous, since they NEVER run out of either. It also eliminates the occasional opportunity to attack a ground unit with more than one aircraft in any given turn.

In sum, auto-supply inserts a large chunk of unrealism into PG2 (as I fire off my 7 shots from my six-shooter).

To be honest I like the new supply mechanic. In PC1 and PG you occasionally had to make the choice to either attack with your last ammo or hold and resupply, it didn't happen often. And reality wise, a unit that short on ammo would never make the choice to use the last of it to "finish off" that damaged enemy whilst there was still other enemy formations close by. No in reality they'd hunker down/try and fall back and conserve as much as possible until resupply.

In reality, units very rarely ran out of ammo on the front line unless the supply chain was compromised and I think this is well modelled in game with the new supply rules. You still have to make choices regarding ammo count - how many overruns do you do? Do you drain the last of your ammo and leave yourself vulnerable? Or do you hold one back and still risk being attacked more than once? Also you can overwhelm an enemies ammo count by just attacking it lots in one turn, this will likely force it to fall back and/or surrender. Again this is realistically modelling a units supply chain being temporarily overwhelmed with heavy/constant fighting in a short space of time.

As for planes - Well unlike ground troops they were hard to pin down until their ammo was spent. They'd generally run for home long before their guns were dry. The ammo mechanic here does a reasonable job of stopping one fighter providing protection to 6 bombers or ground units being swarmed by enemy air units. They can engage several enemy but are then done.

The one place I 100% agree with you comes with the good old fashioned armoured thrust. How often were Panzers forced to hold and wait for the supply trucks to catch up?! They had to be careful not to over extend and the old supply mechanic modelled this aspect much better (IMO)

In a perfect world there would be a mix of the two mechanics to produce the desired effect. But PC2 is also a "beer and pretzels" wargame and I'm not sure how much more complicated I'd want to make it. And with that in mind if I had to pick which mechanic I prefer to use to keep it straight forward then I'd choose the PC2 one every time. It better fits (again IMO) as a blanket rule.

EDIT: Forgot to say welcome to the forums. Interesting/thought provoking first post.

[Catacol]

I am enjoying the new version of PG2 except for two areas: Supply and in-turn replacements. In this post I want to discuss the supply aspect.

Under the current automatic fuel & ammo rules, (including the auto- return of aircraft to base) supply, for all intents and purposes, has been eliminated as a factor in fighting each scenario/campaign. Since in real warfare, logistics is at or near the top consideration in planning and fighting a battle, to not have it as a realistic part of the game is like the old westerns where the cowboy is able to shoot a dozen bullets from his six-shooter without reloading.

If I remember correctly (having not play it in years), in PG1 an individual unit had to be outside an enemy ZOC and spend a turn resupplying. This alone, in my opinion, completely changed the way individual battles were fought (whether to fight or resupply, hold a hex or not, aircraft returning to base or not, etc.). This made the game much more challenging for sure.

Now, I don't even concern myself about supply. Even encirclements have little impact on supply. Of the dozens of encirclements encounter I have only experienced one instance where the encircled unit ran out of ammo. As far as auto-return of aircraft, ammo/fuel considerations are superfluous, since they NEVER run out of either. It also eliminates the occasional opportunity to attack a ground unit with more than one aircraft in any given turn.

In sum, auto-supply inserts a large chunk of unrealism into PG2 (as I fire off my 7 shots from my six-shooter).

Looking at the way the scenario editor is setup - not fully working yet - I'd suggest that future patches are going to bring supply issues in some shape or form back in. There are supply totals within the editor that wouldn't be there if there wasn't an intent to include them.

Broadly speaking I agree with you. Fighting some large multiplayer battles at the moment the fact that every tank has as much fuel as it wants, and every gun gets a full ammo restock each turn is beginning to turn tight games into a prestige grind...as each player attempts to cause more damage to the other until the rate of replacements cannot keep up and the army starts to break. That's fine from a Montgomery/El Alamein kind of perspective, but if winning can only be achieved this way then it runs the risk of becoming monotonous. Adding in supply issues, eg the inability to keep every unit well supplied in conditions that leave it too far from a supply line, or perhaps low ammo because combat has been extensive, adds more avenues to securing a victory.

The supply model in Strategic Command did a decent job of this by keeping it simple - but impactive. I have no experience of PC1 as this is my first foray into this series - but I hope we will have supply activated, or at least have it as an option to be activated. Horseman likes it as is - fine. Those that want the added complexity - let them have it. Everyone a winner!

[gokkel]

I always play with the negative trait affecting supply and I do notice the limitations on some units a lot (while on others it doesn't matter still). Tanks frequently run out of ammo because of overrun, Scout cars constantly run out of fuel. Also bad weather makes things a lot worse. I especially remember Kuybyshev, where a lot of my artillery was out of fuel and ammunition the whole time as well.

Without that trait I can see how the supply mechanic seems to barely play a role. Clearly encirclement is meant to interact with it, but at least the way I play the game encirclements don't happen often and long enough.

[crisse88]

I think it makes sense that supply should become a stronger aspect in the game.

For an instance, right now I play the multiplayer map of Tobruk as the attacker. One thing I quickly realised was that it didnt make much sense to hold the cities you had from the start. They are supposed to be major supply hub(s) for your army, but in reality they are almost useless unless you use the cities as a line of defense or their airports.

So what ends up happening is that your army moves like a swarm that doesnt care to get cut off from your main territory. That is not realistic either.

[Horseman]

I am enjoying the new version of PG2 except for two areas: Supply and in-turn replacements. In this post I want to discuss the supply aspect.

Under the current automatic fuel & ammo rules, (including the auto- return of aircraft to base) supply, for all intents and purposes, has been eliminated as a factor in fighting each scenario/campaign. Since in real warfare, logistics is at or near the top consideration in planning and fighting a battle, to not have it as a realistic part of the game is like the old westerns where the cowboy is able to shoot a dozen bullets from his six-shooter without reloading.

If I remember correctly (having not play it in years), in PG1 an individual unit had to be outside an enemy ZOC and spend a turn resupplying. This alone, in my opinion, completely changed the way individual battles were fought (whether to fight or resupply, hold a hex or not, aircraft returning to base or not, etc.). This made the game much more challenging for sure.

Now, I don't even concern myself about supply. Even encirclements have little impact on supply. Of the dozens of encirclements encounter I have only experienced one instance where the encircled unit ran out of ammo. As far as auto-return of aircraft, ammo/fuel considerations are superfluous, since they NEVER run out of either. It also eliminates the occasional opportunity to attack a ground unit with more than one aircraft in any given turn.

In sum, auto-supply inserts a large chunk of unrealism into PG2 (as I fire off my 7 shots from my six-shooter).

Looking at the way the scenario editor is setup - not fully working yet - I'd suggest that future patches are going to bring supply issues in some shape or form back in. There are supply totals within the editor that wouldn't be there if there wasn't an intent to include them.

Broadly speaking I agree with you. Fighting some large multiplayer battles at the moment the fact that every tank has as much fuel as it wants, and every gun gets a full ammo restock each turn is beginning to turn tight games into a prestige grind...as each player attempts to cause more damage to the other until the rate of replacements cannot keep up and the army starts to break. That's fine from a Montgomery/El Alamein kind of perspective, but if winning can only be achieved this way then it runs the risk of becoming monotonous. Adding in supply issues, eg the inability to keep every unit well supplied in conditions that leave it too far from a supply line, or perhaps low ammo because combat has been extensive, adds more avenues to securing a victory.

The supply model in Strategic Command did a decent job of this by keeping it simple - but impactive. I have no experience of PC1 as this is my first foray into this series - but I hope we will have supply activated, or at least have it as an option to be activated. Horseman likes it as is - fine. Those that want the added complexity - let them have it. Everyone a winner!

100% spot on with your last comment!

More choice is always good. To be honest I'd like to see a combination of the supply mechanics from both PC games.

Or what would be ideal I think would be a mechanic where the auto supply only provides full resupply when close enough to a supply source. Then the further you move away from a supply source you see that auto supply drop.

As an example:
Say you need to be within 10 hexes of a supply source to receive full supply. If over 10 hexes but still within 20 maybe you get 75% and so on as you get further away. This would have the added benefit of making supply hexes something worth fighting over and would represent major supply nodes.

Another option could be to do something similar to OOB (yes I've finally given it a bit of a go) where each supply source can only support so many units before you start to see a degraded auto replenishment,

[PoorOldSpike]

In PC2 our units can trace supply to ANY hex along the 4 map edges (even the enemy edge) which is just plain crazy.
It's been mentioned by people in the forum before, I don't know if a future update will change it but it certainly needs to be addressed by making only the FRIENDLY edge hexes a source of supply, eg in Barbarossa the West edge for the Germans and the East Edge for the Russians.

[Retributarr]

"PoorOldSpike" Posting:
Need to submit a query!... "Needs a FIX": ---"Ask the head of Panzer Corps 2 your questions"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PoorOldSpike"_Quote:
In PC2 our units can trace supply to ANY hex along the 4 map edges (even the enemy edge) which is just plain crazy.
{Supply} "certainly needs to be addressed by making only the FRIENDLY edge hexes a source of supply, eg in Barbarossa the West edge for the Germans and the East Edge for the Russians".

[Rood]

All 4 map edges as a supply point is indeed madness. Two sides should be more than fine and this should be dependent on the map/scenario (though the east and west sides would probably standard). I'd even like supply points on the edge of the map (on roads or towns) much more. So if you can cut of a road you can also cut of supplies, but maybe less severe than a full encirclement.
This is a significant change though, would probably mean a full rework of the current supply modelling and that means it has impact on the AI as well.

In regards to the automatic supply, in PzC 1 when you reinforced a unit you would also supply it again, so I did not use the supply much in PzC 1.

If it would be added as an option most scenarios would have to be balanced a bit in regards to the turn limit as the game would likely be slower paced. Also for SP, it does affect the player more than the AI since the AI units tend to be destroyed before they run out of supplies...at least that's my goal .

[Catacol]

As an example:
Say you need to be within 10 hexes of a supply source to receive full supply. If over 10 hexes but still within 20 maybe you get 75% and so on as you get further away. This would have the added benefit of making supply hexes something worth fighting over and would represent major supply nodes.

That was the Strategic Command solution with terrain type/roads/rail also playing a role. Worked well I think. Not sure if the PC game engine can factor a calculation like that in - don't know enough of the guts of the code....but it would improve things and give scenario designers another tool.

[vica]

it's pretty serious

[Blade0]

In sum, auto-supply inserts a large chunk of unrealism into PG2 (as I fire off my 7 shots from my six-shooter).

I would like to argue. Comparing to PG, this new supply mechanism is a great improvement.
Let us accept the fact that a game is no perfect simulation. That is not the goal, to count every round in a tank, and keep track of every shot it made, along with every ammo truck and ammo type in the boxes and and depot on the map with the laborers who carry them to the tank for loading. (BTW, did you bring those 75mm Panzergrenade-s? No? Just our luck...)
I think it is more fun this way. In normal cases, you don't have to worry about ammo or fuel to run out, as your supply chain (not modeled in the game) automatically refills the next time the crew boards the vehicle next day. (They need sleep too...)
Exceptions are too many targets (artillery runs out of ammo while supporting, or a tank on a rampage - serious problem with higher caliber tanks!), or encirclement when you just don't have supplies to refill.
So no, I really don't want the "supply" button to return. Let the support staff concentrate on logistics, and the fighting staff on fighting.

[Schlack]

Is there a potential balance issue with limiting supply to specific hexes or similar? Just take and hold the supply hex and you've won.

[nexusno2000]

PC1 supply rules sucked.

PC2 supply rules have the POTENTIAL to be much better, but is marred by some bad design choices:

- all or nothing implementation, compounded by encirclements adding acc penalty, init penalty AND suppression*
- unlimited paths, except impassable terrain
- inability to trace through friendly-occupied hexes (without a perk)

* further complicated by how in-scenario replacements and recovery of suppression works

[janscas]

+1

Yep, ammo / fuel is not a problem any more in PzC2. I also feel this like a simplification in the strategy of the game.

[Blade0]

Is there a potential balance issue with limiting supply to specific hexes or similar? Just take and hold the supply hex and you've won.

Well, strictly speaking, it is working exactly like that. If your unit stands on a hex that is connected to a friendly supply hex by any accessible way, then you get supply. If you are not (you haven't captured any yet, like on the Conquest of America map), or you have lost it, then you are encircled. Which sucks. Which sucks a bit more than it is realistic, I should agree with @nexusno2000. Denying supply, reinforcements, and recovery from suppression would be pain enough, no need for additional debuffs and additional suppression.

I also agree that diminishing supply would be more realistic by the distance (move points needed to get there is a very good measure). But then the player needs some means to actually extend supply - supply depots, mobile supplies carried - which is again possible, but questionable if that detail will make it a better game to play or not.
You know what? I would surely want to try and see.

[nexusno2000]

Is there a potential balance issue with limiting supply to specific hexes or similar? Just take and hold the supply hex and you've won.

Well, strictly speaking, it is working exactly like that. If your unit stands on a hex that is connected to a friendly supply hex by any accessible way, then you get supply. If you are not (you haven't captured any yet, like on the Conquest of America map), or you have lost it, then you are encircled. Which sucks. Which sucks a bit more than it is realistic, I should agree with @nexusno2000. Denying supply, reinforcements, and recovery from suppression would be pain enough, no need for additional debuffs and additional suppression.

I also agree that diminishing supply would be more realistic by the distance (move points needed to get there is a very good measure). But then the player needs some means to actually extend supply - supply depots, mobile supplies carried - which is again possible, but questionable if that detail will make it a better game to play or not.
You know what? I would surely want to try and see.

This is an important consideration: why does logistics become too complex? I want a touch more, but I don't want it to become a chore...

[Mordan]

If I remember correctly (having not play it in years), in PG1 an individual unit had to be outside an enemy ZOC and spend a turn resupplying. This alone, in my opinion, completely changed the way individual battles were fought (whether to fight or resupply, hold a hex or not, aircraft returning to base or not, etc.). This made the game much more challenging for sure.

This exactly.

PC1 is like that. You had to resupply. ZOC diminished supply. Weather diminished supply. It was way way better than PC2. I bought PC2 but stopped playing completely. Zero fun in it. Just checking the forum sometimes.

[Retributarr]

["nexusno2000"/quote:]
This is an important consideration: why does logistics become too complex? I want a touch more, but I don't want it to become a chore...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes!!!"... "Exactly!!!"...Lets not 'Forget'... the "K.I.S.S.-Principle!"
[Keep-It-Simple-Stupid!.]

[Blade0]

This is an important consideration: why does logistics become too complex? I want a touch more, but I don't want it to become a chore...

Well, we could try a bit more complex approach - supply diminished by several factors (weather, distance from the source of supply, being in enemy ZoC), but keep it automatic, no more stopping every 3 turns just to resupply.
Let's say that instead of supply units and warehouses we could assume that every settlement you control "amplifies" the supply if it is in supply itself. So we don't need to micro it separately.