How unsupplied units will be handled?

[vveedd]

One more very important stuff for gameplay. About this matter depends strategy and tactics in battle. For example: If you unable movement to units without supply, surrounding enemy units will be profitable tactics. Also linked with this tactic you will gain that players must watch out for front line and flanks which is very realistic. In that way you will avoid very annoying and unrealistic situations when players can with one armor unit (for example) make damage deep behind enemy line.

[IainMcNeil]

Units out of supply will suffer severe penalties, though the effects build up so the longer out of supply the worse it gets.

[firepowerjohan]

Yes. Without supply you get no morale regain but instead lose alot of morale each turn. Furthermore, without supply you cannot reinforce.

[uxbridge]

Many wargames of this scale, board or computer, is haunted by the fact that a unit, however big or small, is represented by one counter occupying one hex. If you want to lock an unsupplied enemy unit that your general advance has passed, you have to use (normally) at least 3 of your own units. A well known tactic is to drop a number of deleted and expendable units, with very active ZoCs, in the wake of a retreat to slow down an opponents march.

Wouldn't it be possible to once and for all get rid of this tactic by having the option to isolate and render such "rearguards" ineffective. When a strong (black) unit encounters a weaker (red) one, it would be nice if it could chose to "isolate" rather than "attack" it. If succesful the defending red unit will lose it's ZoC (I take it that Zone of Control is in the game) and is tied to the black unit. Thus other black units could pass the isolated red units ZoC, leaving it to it's fate. If this turn makes the isolated unit out of supply, it would also be prevented from moving. The only way for the red unit to get away should be to attack the isolating black unit. If it does, it would be fair to assume that the defending black unit is halved, since it is acctually defending a long perimeter, while the red unit can chose the spot for it's breakout.

This way, an advancing army, like the Germans in Russia, don't have to leave a number of strong units in the rear fighting smaller Russians that take time to die and retreats around the rear areas.

[firepowerjohan]

uxbridge. As I understand it, you see a problem of surrounded units being too mobiel and that they in fact can cut off the invaders supply line while being out of supply themselves. This will be prevented in this game, I assure you!


It is time i explain the rules for ZOC penalty.
1) Moving from a hex with enemy ZOC to a hex with enemy ZOC
2) Moving to a hex which is under 2 enemy units ZOC.

Penalty: Satisfying any of the 2 above rules means 2 extra movement points, meaning a clear hex with ZOC penalty cost 1+2=3 MP to move into.


Enemy units out of supply will have movement= 1 or 2 (not decided yet) and combined with the ZOC penalties they will be pretty much unable of breaking out by moving.

[IainMcNeil]

The other thing is that a weak unit that is attacked can be forced to retreat away from the attack, so you can push these units out of the way and then move through the gap created.

[uxbridge]

You mean the old "overrun" rule, where a strong unit can push a weak enemy away during the formers movement?

Is there a difference in the way of attacking? Can one deliberately try to force a unit back rather than trying to give it casualities? "Breakthrough attack" rather than "general attack".

Next question will of course be: can the defending player chose something like "delaying action", "normal stance" or "desperate defence" during his turn? It could be an interesting choice for a player to decide whether a hex should be abandoned or heavily defened if attacked.

[firepowerjohan]

You mean the old "overrun" rule, where a strong unit can push a weak enemy away during the formers movement?

Is there a difference in the way of attacking? Can one deliberately try to force a unit back rather than trying to give it casualities? "Breakthrough attack" rather than "general attack".

Next question will of course be: can the defending player chose something like "delaying action", "normal stance" or "desperate defence" during his turn? It could be an interesting choice for a player to decide whether a hex should be abandoned or heavily defened if attacked.

Not planned initially. We will see on the final version how much workload a game requires (since it is 150x72 hexes) because too much micromanagement could be fun in the first 5 games but be a factor that decides putting the game on the shelf for good. Having 50-80 units could be a pain changing stances and missions but ofcourse there are ways to even abstract that and offer high command orders that affect groups or all units.

I could see stances going together well with missions (air missions for instance) and it will be a different way of dealing with things which could very well be considered in future versions. It all comes down to if this concept is not only deep enough but durable enough. Example of durability is playing chess, because despite the small board and the small number of units, there are very few ppl that master it.

[uxbridge]

Yes, you're quite right about that "too much of the good" danger. I'm a Swede like yourself, presently writing books about WWII as a part time profession, and your project is very thrilling to me. Before writing I was part of a team that designed board war games as a hobby, and I remember many decisions not unlike those we discuss here. Simple with a fast playing pace, or more historical accurate with all the charts, reference cards and rules discussions to follow?

When not writing or playing games, I have a normal job, selling cameras. I have many times noticed that when I show a product, bristling with new features, people just seem to pale and their eyes becomes blank. After a while they no longer listen to what I say. It's just to much for them, and my trying to show them everything just becomes counter-productive. Of course we didn't want this to happen to the game, would we?

I think the worst aspect of the early versions of Hearts of Iron was just to much micro (and a clumsy interface to go with it) and one got tired of it rather quickly. Avoiding that trap is essential, but from what I have read about your game this far, I don't think this risk is too great. But too few options can work the other way too, cause it may lead to the player being frustrated for lack of possibilities. A middle way would probably be the best. If you gave us the possibility to fiddle with "stances", without making it mandatory, people who like a little extra would be happy, while those who dislike it don't have to bother with it.

All in all, if you're planning future releases of the game already, letting us have a go at the first version before we give you all our wish lists might be a good idea. Only with the game in our hands can we finally decide what is good and what needs rethinking.

And by the way, if you want me to shut up for a week or two, just let me know.

[firepowerjohan]

Yes, you're quite right about that "too much of the good" danger. I'm a Swede like yourself, presently writing books about WWII as a part time profession, and your project is very thrilling to me. Before writing I was part of a team that designed board war games as a hobby, and I remember many decisions not unlike those we discuss here. Simple with a fast playing pace, or more historical accurate with all the charts, reference cards and rules discussions to follow?

When not writing or playing games, I have a normal job, selling cameras. I have many times noticed that when I show a product, bristling with new features, people just seem to pale and their eyes becomes blank. After a while they no longer listen to what I say. It's just to much for them, and my trying to show them everything just becomes counter-productive. Of course we didn't want this to happen to the game, would we?

I think the worst aspect of the early versions of Hearts of Iron was just to much micro (and a clumsy interface to go with it) and one got tired of it rather quickly. Avoiding that trap is essential, but from what I have read about your game this far, I don't think this risk is too great. But too few options can work the other way too, cause it may lead to the player being frustrated for lack of possibilities. A middle way would probably be the best. If you gave us the possibility to fiddle with "stances", without making it mandatory, people who like a little extra would be happy, while those who dislike it don't have to bother with it.

All in all, if you're planning future releases of the game already, letting us have a go at the first version before we give you all our wish lists might be a good idea. Only with the game in our hands can we finally decide what is good and what needs rethinking.

And by the way, if you want me to shut up for a week or two, just let me know.

Your ideas are welcome. In fact I could sit and discuss this kinda stuff every day of the week since I love it but then, hmm... I would not have time to finish the game

[uxbridge]

I have the same problem while writing.

[jon_j_rambo]

Very good thread. "Feature Creep" can ruin products...whether it be cameras or games. It can be difficult to describe "what makes a good game in words". The product as a whole needs chemistry for playability. I hope this game is getting tested in early stages for "gaming fun" & not getting bogged down with features.

[Redpossum]

OK, back to the supply issue.

Historical example. The leading german units in Barbarossa had more-or-less outrun their logistical support by the time winter 1941 began. The units converting the russian rail system to german-compatible gauge were just too far behind.

Will the game consider these units to be "out of supply" even though they are not surrounded, and entirely capable of tracing an unobstructed path back to Axis supply centers?

Or will you handle this with a "winter effects" special rule, as many games have in past?

(/me waits for Stalin's Organ to tell me I'm wrong)

[joe98]

The games by SSG handle this by having a counter named a "supply truck" because nobody could come up with a better name.

Anyhow the supply truck projects supply forward. For a unit to be supplied it must be in the supply net.

The supply trucks have little combat value and are easilt destroyed in combat.

A supply source projects supply to the trucks and thye project supply forward. Moving the trucks is an important part of the games.

The system is excellent and would resolve the probelm in the post above.

[Redpossum]

The games by SSG handle this by having a counter named a "supply truck" because nobody could come up with a better name.

Anyhow the supply truck projects supply forward. For a unit to be supplied it must be in the supply net.

The supply trucks have little combat value and are easilt destroyed in combat.

A supply source projects supply to the trucks and thye project supply forward. Moving the trucks is an important part of the games.

The system is excellent and would resolve the probelm in the post above.

MMM, yes and no.

As I said above, in the case of Barbarossa the fundamental problem was incompatible rail gauges. And the stark limit on how far forward the wehrmacht could project supply was how fast they could "repair" the russian rail net.

[SMK-at-work]

Way back in the 70's playing Drag Nach Osten on large paper maps the system had a marker for how far the German rail lines had been pushed forwards.

However AFAIK the difference in rail gauge is not as severe as people make out - the russians and Germans had been trading good for ages, and hte mechanics of shifting goods between the 2 systems were well known. for example the line to Leningrad was fully changed to German guage by December 1941.

Of greatr importance was the quality of the Soviet infrastructure - much of it was simply built, often rail lines were not properly bedded, bridges were lightly built, etc. These problems were more of a problem than the guage because they limited the loadings of trains that could be operated - German planning assumed that they could x-port as much in a train in Russia as they did in Germany, but it was often not possible to do so.

Also like much Axis equipment german loco's could not cope with the cold - Soviet locomotives were built to less precise tolerances and were fine, but superbly engineered German ones froze up!!

See http://www.feldgrau.com/dreichsbahn.html for a description of hte German State Railway efforts in Russia.

[Redpossum]

That's a fascinating page you linked to there, bud.

As far as the markers in DNO, yeah, I remember. SPI's War in the East had those also

[vypuero]

Since you are speaking of supply, will partisans be modeled or will the "units left behind" as the earlier poster fill in for their overall effect?

[IainMcNeil]

We've not got them in at the moment but we would like a way to make the German army feel stretched as it pushed in to Russia - we're just not sure Partisans units are the way to do that. Maybe some abstracted partisan system would work better.

[vveedd]

We've not got them in at the moment but we would like a way to make the German army feel stretched as it pushed in to Russia - we're just not sure Partisans units are the way to do that. Maybe some abstracted partisan system would work better.

I agree. SC2 game has partisan units in Russia only and they are more irritating then usable. But in other parts of Europe, SC2 has much better system ??“ randomizing sabotage effect and this is what I suggest that you use in your game.