Raf, you asked in another thread to enumerate those changes that make the learning curve of the game tough. This is one. Supply. It's truly elegant in its application, indeed. It's also lacking some means for the player to understand and blend its operation with their play. AGEOD has truly taken logistics in gaming to the next level. It took me awhile to understand its nuances and in the meantime I stewed about it as a new player. This could be ameliorated with a thoughtful approach to reporting that offered both understanding to the underinitiated, glee to the bean counting grognards like me and ease of correcting spotted deficiencies to the developers. I understand this may be no easy "cut and tried" task to consider.
When the computer code is moving with lightning speed to resolve multiple conflicting supply needs, including the a depot's/wagon's/unit's need for "end of turn minimal supply retention" it can provide aggravating confusion for the player to sort out, given what they can see. The player can't see in-between turn processings where the supply is going.
I have seen situations where a large unit, next to a known supply depot with seemingly adequate supply, goes unsupplied. It takes a lot of deductive detective work to discover that during processing there were numerous OTHER supply needs that overran the depots capacity of existing supply and left the large unit partially unsupplied even tho depot resupply filled the depot right back up. Quite simply the depot started (visibly) with a large amount of supply and the player next sees (visibly) the depot beginning the new turn with a similar amount while, in the interim machinations, an adjacent unit goes unsupplied.
Let me illustrate.
Depot A has 500 supply at the end of a turn. In a region next to depot A, the 5th Destitute Army needs 100 supply to keep from starving. It looks like all is well. But "other needs down the line" including higher priority supply wagons, or in surrounding areas (including the depots requirement to keep some supply for itself) cause much of the 500 supply to be already spoken for at other locations, ie....there is more supply need than supply in the local or semi local areas. The 5th Destitutes get little and starts to starve when it looked like all was well at turn end. The player is left cursing the system saying "but there was more than enough supply for the 5th right there next door.......and there still is, see????".
Depot A, meanwhile, invisible to the player, drains to alternate destinations and refills invisible to the player.
Result?
Depot A, visibly to the player, ends turn with 500 supply, and visibly begins the next turn with 500 supply and the 5th Destitute gets little or none and starts to starve.
The player ends up scratchin their head cursing the game system as what seemed as obvious "supply-covered units" go begging. Closer investigation by the player, which often, in the emotional angst that follows is lacking, would show that the concentration of need in a locale is heavier than what the system could possibly provide ALL destintions.
In my experience I find this happens in two situations most often. One is a player who overloads a given portion of the supply grid.....say the USA in the Eastern corridor with half his entire army in a small area of concentration. The other is at the "outside of the supply circle grid". If one thinks of the supply grid as a circle and there is an excessive concentration of forces just "outside the circle" near an outside locus, the forces can get undersupplied while the circle, seemingly, has plenty. It takes watchfulness AND UNDERSTANDING to craft a correct player response.
Newer players, not used to AGEOD's elegant but rather intricate supply considerations, I would think, might curse the system and, their being used to games that only emphasize the tactical genius of R.E. Lee, give up on investigating what could have happened and maybe, move back to older more simplistic models.
A simple but thorough report/compilation of some thoughtful construction could provide the player with understanding that could lead to overcoming the frustration inherent in not understanding and blaming the game system as faulty. Logistics is NOT an easy subject. Yet I find the logistical system you have provided as quite elegant and provides a multifaceted rich fabric over the top of an already elegant tactical/strategic blend WHEN UNDERSTOOD.
And still, it hurts to mis-guess as a player and watch your troops starve.
Perhaps it would be a good tool to consider in addressing any changes for AACW II. Along with the already considerable interest in refining battle reports, that Caccio invented a work in progress tool for, this might prove a key that proves worthy of us grognards investing again in a second edition. You would have to weigh the energy required versus the economic dollar return to the company. Seems to me the dollar return could be quite positive.
Sequels offer increased enjoyment but possibly to a smaller circle of buyers. This issue seems to require a low cost beta team effort approach that taps into the considerable appetites and energies of AGEOD's admittedly larger than normal following.
Still please be aware, this game system is elegantly crafted and please know that criticism of this facet is only an effort of constructive and expansive admiration not derision nor detraction from its creators and current devotees' level of commitment to its much appreciated ongoing refinement.
In what way does the supply overlay filter fall short of being what you need?
)
