Whats next???

[ComradeP]

True, it's an issue with many games, but in my opinion it only really becomes a problem when a battle was decided by superior leadership and not (just) by superior unit quality or clever unit movement. In many wargames, if there even is a leadership statistic or leader counter in the game, the influence of actual combat results is greater than the leader rolls (and the leader's staff is largely absent in any wargame).

Supply and leadership are often abstracted, which makes wargames too combat oriented in some ways. Managing supply and leadership wouldn't be much fun for a large army, not to mention a collection of units the size of an army group, so it's understandable but it can lead to an unbalanced state of affairs for battles that were primarily decided by leaders taking advantage of the gaps in the opponent's knowledge, or his lack of efficiency.

Even when you remove our advantage of always knowing everything, it can be quite startling to realize just how incompetent some historical commanders (and/or their staffs) were.

The average ACW or Napoleonic battle is in many ways more evenly matched (in terms of the chance the defender has of holding the field or staging an organized withdrawal) than a battle like Tannenberg without serious Russian leadership penalties.

[Nitram Draw]

True, it's an issue with many games, but in my opinion it only really becomes a problem when a battle was decided by superior leadership and not (just) by superior unit quality or clever unit movement. In many wargames, if there even is a leadership statistic or leader counter in the game, the influence of actual combat results is greater than the leader rolls (and the leader's staff is largely absent in any wargame).

Supply and leadership are often abstracted, which makes wargames too combat oriented in some ways. Managing supply and leadership wouldn't be much fun for a large army, not to mention a collection of units the size of an army group, so it's understandable but it can lead to an unbalanced state of affairs for battles that were primarily decided by leaders taking advantage of the gaps in the opponent's knowledge, or his lack of efficiency.

Even when you remove our advantage of always knowing everything, it can be quite startling to realize just how incompetent some historical commanders (and/or their staffs) were.

The average ACW or Napoleonic battle is in many ways more evenly matched (in terms of the chance the defender has of holding the field or staging an organized withdrawal) than a battle like Tannenberg without serious Russian leadership penalties.

Would it be possible for units to get benefits/penalties due to the morale of their HQ, like unit morale effects movement and combat? For example for units if your immediate HQ is an A morale then you get X extra movement and X combat benefit. If it was a D then units would get penalties. HQ's could get morale penalties cumlative down the line and therefore a lousy high level command chain could cancel out the benefits of a good division commander for example.

[Liebchen]

the influence of actual combat results is greater than the leader rolls (and the leader's staff is largely absent in any wargame).

How about if formations that were "out of command" were not allowed to move (or had half movement)?

Managing supply and leadership wouldn't be much fun for a large army, not to mention a collection of units the size of an army group...

That's why they have to draft personnel and give them orders in order to ensure that supply lines function.

[Apollo11]

How about if formations that were "out of command" were not allowed to move (or had half movement)?

Or moving randomly or by AI orders.

[ComradeP]

Well, one of the challenges would be that the game abstracts a number of things into a single value, sometimes more than similar wargames.

For example, if you would tie movement rates to being Out of Command, the Soviets would possibly get better movement rates in Moscow '42 because they have a higher global supply level (although worse HQ's overall).

Movement rate bonuses being determined by quality also means that the A quality German vehicle units compensate to a significant extent for the frozen penalty with their quality-related movement bonus.

The supply system is generally a useful tool for balancing, but in this case getting certain results in certain situations is not guaranteed because the system isn't "you're in supply, or you're not" like most wargames, or with an X amount of supply delivered each turn like some, but a roll based on the local supply level. Statistically speaking, it's perfectly possible for units with a supply level in the 30's not to become Low Ammo for a while.

If you want to represent a situation where the terrain historically prevented adequate resupply, like in the forests around Moscow, that becomes difficult to reproduce because the local supply value drops by one-two points per hex (more or less), but doesn't neccesarily decrease dramatically. You can compensate for that to a certain extent by increasing or decreasing supply source supply values/their effective "burst" radius.

Similar to SSG games, where PzG regiments can "drag" the Panzers through some difficult terrain hexes due to how the games handle stack movement, motorized/mechanized units are not necessarily penalized in difficult terrain. To use Moscow '42 as an example again: the Schuetzen units are A quality, and get 28 movement points for a frozen/clear movement cost of 2x7=14 per hex, enough to move 2 clear hexes, whilst dragging their trucks after them, whilst regular infantry moves slower due to being B quality and getting 26 movement points.

Due to the unit quality system, low quality units making a stand in difficult terrain is also more unlikely to happen than in many other wargames. An A quality Panzer division attacking in the woods is going to remove a D quality Rifle division over time, simply because its units will quickly disrupt and the woods only give it some protection against superior German soft attack values. That's mostly caused by the terrain bonuses being lower than in other wargames. For example, in War in the East a woods hex could theoretically (depending on roll) double defensive CV due to the organic terrain fort level.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

As far as adequate supply or not, maybe try the campaign with explicit supply on.

I still think there should be supply units rather than just trucks that disappear. They should be able to return to a supply depot and reload to go out again. They should also be able to pick up and move depots to other locations. They suffer losses and absorb replacements just like other units. If captured trucks become available, thay can add to the chain of supply, bearing in mind that when it suffers damaged trucks from air or the usual breakdowns, they are not repaired or replaced unless you capture more since you most likely don't have the spare parts necessary.

Something like that.

[Strela]

If you want to represent a situation where the terrain historically prevented adequate resupply, like in the forests around Moscow, that becomes difficult to reproduce because the local supply value drops by one point per hex (more or less), but doesn't decrease dramatically. You can compensate for that to a certain extent by increasing or decreasing supply source supply values/their effective "burst" radius.

That's not true. The moment you get away from a road and into heavy terrain supply values drop dramatically. Look a the below image. On a road the supply value is 44, go two hexes into the woods and its 35 (that's a drop of 9 points or 20%) a further two hexes and its 30 (32% drop). I'd call that pretty dramatic, particularly considering the distance the supply had travelled before it got to the woods.




Go back and read the virtual supply truck rules.


David

[ComradeP]

My bad, you're right, I thought for a moment that the maximum drop was 1, but that's just what tends to happen in clear terrain.

There are still few real supply black holes, and due to the ZOC rules, it's often possible to keep the Soviets from racing through forests by ZOC-blocking them, whilst keeping your men in a still reasonable supply state.

Also: although the decrease in your example is 32%, the actual decrease in percentage chance is 14%. The variability in the supply system can currently result in some extremes not influenced by player action. I've seen cases where units with 30-ish supply become Low Ammo virtually immediately, and situations where they didn't. On average, they will be Low Ammo soon, but it's a probability-driven system, not one governed by player action. That isn't a problem per se, but it can lead to odd situations from time to time.

The road network in Moscow '42 is also quite a bit better than I had expected it to be, so aside from the historical Soviet push into the woods northeast of Smolensk, there are few areas where supply is really scarce.

The significant drop also works both ways: moving back a hex or two in the right direction can significantly increase the probability of passing supply checks.

For the Germans, supply is mostly awful in the 2nd Panzer Group area. 3rd and 4th Panzer Group can generally withdraw to an area with a more reliable local supply value fairly quickly. A supply level below 50 won't cut it for a war of attrition, but it's enough to allow you to slow the Soviets down for a while.