Result of the supply cut

User avatar
Prettyhill
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu 16 Feb 2012 11:52
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Contact:

Re: Result of the supply cut

Postby Prettyhill » Fri 29 Nov 2013 10:39

hammerfist wrote:Eugen's original intention to induce players to establish supply lines,

Spoiler : :
by means of cutting available number of supply trucks per deck and deck number,

warped in its effect by making the overall game more static.

Lack of mobile supply, and buff in FOBs resulted in the following unfavorable results.



1. Increased penalty to maneuvering tatics


While Eugen intended to make players establish supply lines, its measures promoted exactly the opposite

Without adequate number of trucks, it is almost impossible to establish a constant supply line.



Even in defensive positions, where supply lines are short, it is very hard to supply them constantly,

because some trucks have to remain near defending units. This alone takes more than half a card of trucks!

With meager number of readily available trucks, both the defender and the attacker faces a much longer

time gap between supply, faced with status of depleted ammo and fuel. Trucks are too slow to arrive in time.



This actually brings more penalty to attacker who is risking points that could have otherwise been used to maintain

fortified position, in high-risk high-return tactical maneuvering. With longer supply lines, and more demand in fuel,

shells, repair, and high grade ammunition(missiles), they run out of supply much, much faster. It is a matter of time before

any spearhead forces' maneuver ends in a dull confrontation with the defender's army, who have economized

supply lines and use of fuel, ready to counterattack the already exhausted attacker.



This results in a more static game, somehow resembling WW1 era fronts. What only differs is that, this time, lack of mobile supply

at hand takes the place of the lack of instantaneous communication and coordination of attack in WW1. Nobody would want that!



2. Increased difficulty in supporting missile based AAs


With longer terms between supply, missile based, and even some autocannon based AAs with high ROF keeps running out of ammo.

As stated in previous topics, those in need of no supply(Airspam users) gains an advantage combined with buffed bombers!!

It is also hard to repair such AA units which are otherwise priority targets for artillery and bombing.




3. Farewell to mobile heavy artillery and rocket artillery tactics


Users who loves maneuvering heavy or medium propelled artillery cannot supply the cannons in time, as all supply trucks'

capacity to supply is likely saturated by the demands of the frontline troops.


For fear of counter battery and bombing, many supply trucks are essential in sustaining and making the best use of

MOBILE ARTY's MOBILITY
(Why of course, that the reason they're self propelled!!), and now, it is impossible!!!

Few barrages and everything runs dry for about 5 or full 10 minutes!! It is frustrating.


Supply is a bigger challenge to heavy mlrs users(Smerch, MLRS) where reloading time itself is long.

Huge ammo consumption of rocket launchers, coupled with bigger ROE used to force users to maneuver them

as close as possible to the enemy to unleash an effective barrage. Now with less trucks, utilizing the power of

such heavy rockets is out of the question. When close to FOB, larger ROE results in an ineffective barrage.

When supplied by trucks, after displaying an impressive barrage, they all become useless forever, because of too

large a gap in supply time and fast depletion of meager supply brought to them.


When considering the opportunity cost for the supply used for rockets and cannons,

it is much better to fix all of them to FOB.

This doesn't seem tactical. Presenting vulnerable artillery to easily predictable area cannot be tactical.

Enlarged FOB on the other hand promotes artillery trolling and spam, wiping out any possibility for arty spam

users to ever think of launching an effective attack.



Therefore, Eugen's measure had the result of grounding artillery to FOBs, without giving options for players

to make use of their mobility.




4. FOB itself becomes the liability

With meager number of trucks, good player could still maneuver them from danger.

FOB CANNOT. Being a fixed target, a well placed strike disables a swopping 16000L of fuel.

Without them, no defense or attack can take place.



I cannot think of an instantaneous solution to make users to take care of their supply lines,

while eliminating the problems mention at the same time.

However, the result of the supply nerf is straightforward.

More Arty spam, More Air spam, Grounded artillery, Less tactical maneuver.


I look forward to hearing any ideas to overcome such side effects of this patch


And yet we managed to mount large late game combined arms assaults on Open range in WEE. It is not that hard to manage supplies. I am glad that they have reduced the possibility to teleport in near infinite amounts of supplies from mid-map spawns on many maps.
"Am i really discussing wargames here with people who have never heard of Fistful of TOWs? I guess that explains why no one has a clue as to what a wargame is then." -Sharky Ward

Elder Forest
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat 14 Apr 2012 23:36
Contact:

Re: Result of the supply cut

Postby Elder Forest » Sat 30 Nov 2013 01:08

Eugen should increase vehicle autonomy to counter-balance the reduction in overall supply as fuel now runs out too quickly relative to the capability of the available supply line.

Ammo and repairs are fine, its just fuel that is the issue.

User avatar
trotskygrad
General
Posts: 6444
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 16:09
Location: две тысячи лет война
Contact:

Re: Result of the supply cut

Postby trotskygrad » Sat 30 Nov 2013 01:25

Elder Forest wrote:Eugen should increase vehicle autonomy to counter-balance the reduction in overall supply as fuel now runs out too quickly relative to the capability of the available supply line.

Ammo and repairs are fine, its just fuel that is the issue.


+1

across the board 50% or 33% addition would be amazing and promote tactics.
NEXT TIME I SEE A DAMN FLAMEWAR INVOLVING DARTH-LAMPSHADE, FROSTPOOKY, LONERIFLE, FADE2GRAY, TROTSKYGRAD AND/OR ANYONE INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THEM I'M GOING TO HAND OUT BANS TO ANYONE USING ANYTHING LOOKING REMOTELY LIKE AN AD-HOMINEM

User avatar
spyker92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1358
Joined: Fri 31 May 2013 08:14
Contact:

Re: Result of the supply cut

Postby spyker92 » Sat 30 Nov 2013 01:29

Elder Forest wrote:Eugen should increase vehicle autonomy to counter-balance the reduction in overall supply as fuel now runs out too quickly relative to the capability of the available supply line.

Ammo and repairs are fine, its just fuel that is the issue.


uh... no. Only with units with ludicrously low autonomy is this a problem. Having to refuel units on occasion as you push forward is completely understandable. It actually makes autonomy vaguely important on the larger maps. Or in the event of a major break through. It encourages you to properly prepare for an offensive, my ensuring most of your units are not only fixed up, but have fuel.

The logistics squeeze hurts, I don't argue that. But this (ie: autonomy) is not the argument to use against it. There needs to be a greater variety of supply units for all factions, not a unrealistic autonomy increase.

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Result of the supply cut

Postby DoktorvonWer » Sat 30 Nov 2013 01:36

I disagree entirely.

Manoeuvre tactics are better encouraged, as it is now much harder to maintain an impenetrable static defence of ATGMs and AA that are constantly re-supplied, and because of the change in spawn locations, this synergises well with the removal of the ability to fast-reinforce any sector at any time.
Image

nubbymcnubnub
Corporal
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu 19 Sep 2013 10:15
Contact:

Re: Result of the supply cut

Postby nubbymcnubnub » Sat 30 Nov 2013 06:32

I'm going to copy paste this from the other thread:

For those of you saying you're not having supply problems, I want to know what games you're playing. I play almost exclusively Total Destruction 60 minutes, and supply is often a problem now, so are you guys playing 20 minute games?

Anyway, one of the ideas I had to help for people such as myself who enjoy playing longer games is scaling availability for supply trucks. We'll use HEMTTs as an example, in a 20 minute game 4 HEMTTs (50%) per card is fine, but if the time was set to 40 minutes it would increase to 6 HEMTTs (75%), and at 60 minutes or no time limit it would increase back to the original 8 HEMTTs (100%). (Increasing the amount of cards available again would probably help here, especially since countries like East Germany have literally only 2 supply truck cards now).

Another reason I heard this change was for was the people who used empty supply trucks as ATGM fodder and recon. A solution for that would be to either:
A. Increase the cost per truck (5-10 points across the board would probably be good).
or
B. Increase the amount of points given for the destruction of the truck, but not it's cost. Example: An HEMTT costs 35 points to bring in, but when it is destroyed it is worth 70 points (x2 cost). This can be adjusted to whatever is considered reasonable, I merely use x2 as an example. (This change would greatly help Destruction, not so much Conquest).

Other ideas I have come up with include (obviously revert the supply truck change):
1. Increasing the supply per FOB to 20-25k - More incentive to use the FOB and create a supply line while allowing those of us who do not want to be tied down to a FOB to continue to use trucks with a slight disadvantage (trade overall supply for mobility).
2. Giving players 1 FOB for free and allowing them to still get more through activation points.
3. Give 2 FOBs per card (no increase in availability in Cat B or C).

The supply trucks of someone without a FOB are just as vulnerable as a player who took a FOB, they still need to pay points every time they bring up a new truck instead of reusing an old one, they still need to make sure there is a clear path from the reinforcement point to the front, they're just opting to not be immobile at the cost of spending more points. Seriously, look at the points being spent by players who weren't using FOBs (prepatch):
FOB - 75 points, 10,000 supply, 1 per card, ~134 supply per point
HEMTT - 35 points each, 1500 supply per truck, 8 trucks per card, 12,000 supply per card, 280 points per card, ~43 supply per point
M35 Cargo - 10 points, 500 per truck, 24 trucks, 12,000 supply, 240 points per card, ~50 supply per point
URAL 3750- 15 points, 750 per truck, 16 trucks, 12,000 supply, 240 points per card, ~50 supply per point

They are paying for their playstyle and mobility.

I understand they want FOBs to be a mechanic that is used, but it should not be forced on players who do not want to be tied down like that. You should always be promoting more options and playstyles, not forcing the same one on every player, that is how a game becomes stale and people stop playing.

User avatar
f4llout
Warrant Officer
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 16:57

Re: Result of the supply cut

Postby f4llout » Sat 30 Nov 2013 23:07

Similar propositions as the above should also apply to 10v10 games.

UnfriendlyFire
Master Sergeant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 15:05
Contact:

Re: Result of the supply cut

Postby UnfriendlyFire » Sat 30 Nov 2013 23:27

DoktorvonWer wrote:I disagree entirely.

Manoeuvre tactics are better encouraged, as it is now much harder to maintain an impenetrable static defence of ATGMs and AA that are constantly re-supplied, and because of the change in spawn locations, this synergises well with the removal of the ability to fast-reinforce any sector at any time.


But you can't maneuver when your AA is constantly short on ammo, and advancing without AA support is suicidal. Not to mention repairs eat up supply rapidly, and even more if you're using tanks with ATGMS (PACT).

Now instead of getting a wall of ATGMs and AA, I'm facing air spam and arty spam (6 Pions at the FOB). Neither is fun to deal with.

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Result of the supply cut

Postby DoktorvonWer » Sat 30 Nov 2013 23:29

UnfriendlyFire wrote:
DoktorvonWer wrote:I disagree entirely.

Manoeuvre tactics are better encouraged, as it is now much harder to maintain an impenetrable static defence of ATGMs and AA that are constantly re-supplied, and because of the change in spawn locations, this synergises well with the removal of the ability to fast-reinforce any sector at any time.


But you can't maneuver when your AA is constantly short on ammo, and advancing without AA support is suicidal. Not to mention repairs eat up supply rapidly, and even more if you're using tanks with ATGMS (PACT).

Now instead of getting a wall of ATGMs and AA, I'm facing air spam and arty spam (6 Pions at the FOB). Neither is fun to deal with.


Most decks have so much AA coverage it doesn't matter. With the ranges involved compared to the map sizes, unless you're playing UK or certain similar minors, you can saturate any area with relative ease.

I am seeing more arty spam, but air spam isn't a problem unless you're utterly unprepared.
Image

User avatar
rPoXoTauJIo
Master Sergeant
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue 30 Jul 2013 08:56
Location: Belarus, Minsk
Contact:

Re: Result of the supply cut

Postby rPoXoTauJIo » Sun 1 Dec 2013 00:02

IMO, supplies system good as is now. People should care about fuel consumption of units and be scared that they may loose supply vehicles.

And plz supply heli for minors :mrgreen:
Image

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests