Slitherine

(First – excuse me for my bad English, I hope that what I wrote is understandable enough).
I think that the logistics system of PG/PzC was interesting, but somewhat week and there is a possibility to improve it so we can have more historical situations with breakthroughs, capturing supply hubs and enveloping operations that make sense. I think that it can be improved without adding much complexity, at least, from user`s side of things. And it would be good to build upon what is already existing in the game: tracking of fuel/ammo and using re-supply actions to refill them.
This is may ideas for improvement, but I think it will good to discuss not only them, but the hole topic of logistics in the (future) game: what can be improved.

1) To add an actual “price” (in prestige points - because right now they are the only "strategic" resource in the game) to the re-suppling action, so that every time that we refill ammo or fuel points, we pay some amount of prestige for each point of fuel or ammo. That way it will no longer be a free action. The amount should not be too big, maybe something like 1-4 points for each unit of fuel and ammo (if the prices are relatively the same). The first supply of ammo and fuel (that all the unit begin scenario with) should be free. Only subsequent refills will be "payed" with prestige points.
This will give additional dimension to the supply management and tie it to the game`s resource – prestige. This change will tie together purchasing of the unit and all actions for sustaining it in battle, to one resource. In some sense this will include in the game the cost to maintain unit`s battle readiness.
It will add additional level of decisions when and with what unit to attack or move, because attacking and moving will no longer be entirely free action (from resource point of view).

2) To add (2.1) a different amount of spending of ammo/fuel for different types of units and (2.2) spending of fuel/ammo to be not on the scale of whole unit, but per strength points still left in it, so that a 10-strenght unit will spend ammo/fuel usage multiplied by 10 (strength of unit) and 3-strenght unit only will multiply ammo/fuel usage by 3. Light vehicles, artillery pieces or planes should use smaller amount of ammo/fuel units per strength point, then heavier ones. This will demand including of additional parameter for the two types of supplies - fuel usage and ammo usage. And to trace the amount of fuel/supplies left in the unit`s reserves (or to lose some fuel and ammo points when unit sustain casualties).
To give an example: let`s say, that we have unit of Pz II and it have fuel usage of 1, a unit of Pz IV and it have fuel usage of 2, and a unit of Tiger II and it have a fuel usage of 4. If the first unit make 5 movements, that will require 50 unit of fuel (10 (current strength) * 1 (fuel usage) * 5 (movements)). The second unit (Pz IV) will spend 100 fuel for the same distance (10 (current strength) * 2 (fuel usage) * 5 (movements)) and third will require 200 fuel for the same distance (10 (current strength) * 4 (fuel usage) * 5 (movements)).
The same case will be with usage of ammo. Artillery units will require more ammo points per fire/battle action than the rest and the amount will be determined with the parameter “ammo usage”. So if we have light gun (such as 3,7 cm PaK), the field gun (such as 7,5 cm PaK) and heavy howitzer, such as 15 cm FH, the first can have ammo usage of 1, the second – of 2, and third – of 10. In that example one attack with first unit will cost only 10 units of ammo, with second – 20 and with third – 100.
REASONING (behind it): that will synergies with the first idea. Right now (in Panzer Corps or the Panzer General) there is no additional burden for using many heavy types of units, besides original spending for purchasing them (and replacing battlefield casualties), because they require basically the same amount of fuel/ammo (and because fuel and ammo do not cost you anything). In the game there is no maintenance cost besides replacing lost strength points and the better and heavier is equipment, usually it sustain less casualties. With this addition to the game, lighter and medium types of units will actually cost (in prestige points) a lot less to use than heavier ones, which will somewhat address the problem with cores of only heavy (and “best” units) and will be rather realistic (in historical terms).

3) To add a new class of units – supply (rear) units. The rules for supply will have to change so that the supply action (refill of fuel or ammo) will be possible only when the unit in question is close enough to friendly supply unit. The supply units will act like supply bases, so supplying will be possible only in some range of their current position. Probably it will be good to include some additional rules for supply range so that at some distance of the supply unit it is possible to resupply only with limited amount of fuel/ammo units.
The situation can be further improved if in the scenario maps there is a way to designate some of the roads and city hexes as supply routes and hubs (different for each side). In order for supply action to be available the unit will have to be adjacent to such hex – maybe next to supply road hex and in some distance to supply hub (maybe 2-3 hexes away). The only other way to resupply will be through supply unit.
That way it will be possible to cut an enemy force from their supply bases and will add additional element of "hunt" for its supply units.
In order to be interesting to own and use supply units they will have to be able to do some types of actions of their one (non combat actions). Not to attack, of course, bur actions, that can be linked to their function in the game. Probably it will be good for supply units to be able to switch between stationary and move modes. In the first they will have greater range of resupplying, but not be able to move and in the second mode they will be able to move, but with limited ability to provide supply (maybe only to adjacent units). For their active action they will be able to resupply one unit (so that the unit in question do not lose her active action that turn).
The supply units will have to be vulnerable so that they have to stay at some distance from the enemy and will have to be protected. I think that it will be good if anytime the enemy attacks supply unit with ground combat unit, it will have to gain some prestige points (representing the plundering of enemy supplies).

TL;DR.
I want to play war game, but not a game on management of ammunition and service of military equipment.

I totally agree that logistics actually plays a very important role in wars. They are the base of any successful strategy. Also, the logistics system need to be improved in PzC2.
However, because of the main feature of PzC -simplicity, I think the logistic system should be kept simple. Your first two suggestion make sense for me, but I they may not be appropriate for PzC.
Regarding the supply unit you mentioned, I think it should not only be a single unit, but the whole logistic system in the map, which including track, station, road, dirt road, city and port. This will introduce another dimension to the game play, bring more depth to the game, and make some terrains more meaningful, especially track and station.

I would just take a close look at Unity of Command, it had the best supply system (IMO) that I've ever seen in a war-game. The other option is Hearts of Iron IV, which, while very complex, is extremely effective at its use of the UI to show where the bottlenecks are and what needs to be improved. Other than that, I think that vassilpeev's suggestions are also valid. In particular, I would recommend a kind of hybrid of Unity of Command and Order of Battle when it comes to the supply situation. Each square would have a hex similar to UoC, but there would also be a supply consumed by each unit, like in Order of Battle. If the supply consumed by the unit is greater than the supply availability on that hex, the unit would suffer attrition. If the supply on the hex is more than 1 less than the supply consumed by the unit, that unit would suffer even greater attrition. This way, choosing units would be a balancing act between how much supply they use and how good they are.

I think you're expecting too much from the new production.
Remember this game is called "Panzer Corps 2", so it will be almost the same game but with changed/improved graphics.
There will be no supply system here.

To naturesheva:

I too think, that any changes should be based on what we already have in the game and it should be simple. Exactly because of this I made these suggestions. But why you think they are not appropriate for PzC? IMHO they actually do not change almost anything on the player side of things. The only real change, that will be visible will be payment in prestige points for supplying actions. The other things can be easily hided under the hood (not visible in the main interface). Instead of viewing fuel/ammo consumption and the current pool of fuel and ammo points, the interface can hide all of that and show only maximum and current available moves and combat actions, so the situation will be almost as it is now. The change will happen under the hood as the game engine will be calculating different cost for one movement point (in fuel points) and one combat (in ammo points) for different types of units and show you only the cost for all that, without showing intermediate calculations. It will work the same way as now works cost for refilling lost strength points for units.
As for resupplying action - it can work the same way as working now - with one button for refiling to max and maybe addition of two more buttons for +1/+5 movement/combats (calculated to appropriate amount of fuel/ammo) for situations when you don't want to pay the full cost (to maximum). And with tooltip as it is now with restoring of strength points (showing how much will be restored and at what cost).
As for calculating remaining supplies per strength points - this is not necessity strictly speaking - proposed changes can easily work without it, as they are working now. You will have pool of movement/combats (fuel/ammo) always for a full unit, disregardful of it current strength. And it can work that way and be simple enough.

Regarding supply connections and hubs - I totally agree, but because of conception of simplicity of the game I`m not sure that this can happen and because of this my proposition was simplistic regarding this aspect.

--------

To Age:

I agree that in Unity of Command the supply system is very good. But I do not think something like in HoI (or, for that matter - like in Advanced Tactics) is needed - these are different games with strategic layer and production. But I think that PG-series (and PzC) have their own "kind-of-supply-system" and it is better to upgrade it, instead of taking for other games. This game is much more tactical in its approach and it is working well with having (rather simplistic, but working) system with each unit having its own supply pool to rely on. This is good, because it permits units to be independent of supply bases for some time, which is fine and even necessary. This is my criticism for supply system in Order of battle - is is simple (which is good), but is not very good for simulating maneuver warfare with big mechanized and motorized forces, because they have some temporary independence from contact with supply routes and its system do not support this. PzC system support this already, but it just need to have the other element - the need to be in contact with your supply rear echelon units (and to trace routes to your operational supply sources) when you want to refill your`s unit reserves. So it will be good to have some simple system in place for tracing supply routes in the scenario map and your units to have been in contact with her every time when they use resupply actions.

-----

To kondi754

You maybe right, but one can hope . I think that the game may remain simple in its approach, but there will (I hope) be changes beyond graphics and cosmetics. Like in original 5-star series - there were interesting changes between PG and PGII (and even PG3 - which have some interesting ideas, but they were not very good implemented IMHO (and it was shame that the story ended there).

personally, i think some sort of an operational line or frontage should be beneficial in PC2. It could determine replenishment and repair percentage, so unit that is cut off deep in enemy territory wont be able to replenish itself in single turn even if there is no opposing unit in the vicinity.