Zero Supplies: Exploit?

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

We all know the "tactic": Produce zero supplies while not at war. Is at an exploit?

I think that it is because:

1) It wasn't the programmers' original intent

a. The differing countries have different strengths and weaknesses, and this wasn't taken into account.

2) It does not effect all countries equally

a. Countries with larger armies are helped more (USSR)

b. Countries in less danger of being attacked are helped more (Axis, USSR, USA)

 

[cfeedback]

Originally posted by Mr.Bigglesworth
We all know the "tactic": Produce zero supplies while not at war. Is at an exploit?

I think that it is because:

1) It wasn't the programmers' original intent

a. The differing countries have different strengths and weaknesses, and this wasn't taken into account.

2) It does not effect all countries equally

a. Countries with larger armies are helped more (USSR)

b. Countries in less danger of being attacked are helped more (Axis, USSR, USA)

1. It might not have been the intent, but if even the AI countries do it I think it could be a valid tactic. Perhaps it will improve in 1.05.

2. Lots of things don't effect all countries equally...this is war not Monopoly.

2b. True, but there's a risk involved...ask a US player about the dangers of an Axis DOW in 36.

I think it's an exploit but a minor one...supply cost is relatively small and having your troops at 0 org is a definite downside.

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Re: Re: Zero Supplies: Exploit?

Originally posted by cfeedback
1. It might not have been the intent, but if even the AI countries do it I think it could be a valid tactic.

The AI was given the ability to do it because players were doing it, and the programmers thought that it would be the easiest fix to the problem of players doing it. Besides, AI has little to no effect on big MP games. In MP games if nobody does it, it's all fair.

Originally posted by cfeedback
2. Lots of things don't effect all countries equally...this is war not Monopoly.

But those things were actual design decisions, and each were taken into account when designing the game and balancing it out. The supply issue was not, it skews the balance. All is fair in love and war, but this isn't war, it's a video game. So it's closer to monopoly.

Originally posted by cfeedback
2b. True, but there's a risk involved...ask a US player about the dangers of an Axis DOW in 36.

OK, so USA might be at risk. But Germany, Italy, USSR, Japan is not. How often are they attacked in 1936? The odds of them getting attacked without some warning is extremely small. They can take almost no risk by doing it.

Originally posted by cfeedback
I think it's an exploit but a minor one...supply cost is relatively small and having your troops at 0 org is a definite downside.

I think we disagree on our respective definitions of "minor" and "small". By not paying supply costs, the USSR can save 35 IC per day. Assuming war starts in mid-39, that is:

[35 IC / (5 IC/INF)]*3.5 Years*4 INF/Year = 98 extra infantry divisions.

cfeedback, you are a great player, but spot me an extra 98 infantry divisions and I will beat you every time. The more I look at the numbers, the more I think that not paying for supplies is a total cheese tactic.

 

[unmerged(3970)]

In real life though in world war 2 all major countries except for SU did that. Especially democracies as they had only a small fraction of their forces mobilized in peace time. Those countries wanted to have the soldiers working for the industry in peace time instead of being mobilized and fully supplied at full strength for no reason. An example of this would be the wermacht sending many soldiers back to the industry after the conquest of france irl. As soon as the war approaches then the country can start mobilizing it's troops and the time required to do so is reflected in the amount of time in hoi to get the organization back up. So this tactic is not an exploit and is historical.

 

[cfeedback]

Re: Re: Re: Zero Supplies: Exploit?

Originally posted by Mr.Bigglesworth
cfeedback, you are a great player, but spot me an extra 98 infantry divisions and I will beat you every time. The more I look at the numbers, the more I think that not paying for supplies is a total cheese tactic.

are you sure on that math? if we're both using this tactic/exploit, surely it's not 98 divisions. Maybe the SU benefits from it the most but all countries will save a fair amount of IC.

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by acetime
In real life though in world war 2 all major countries except for SU did that.

Did what?

Originally posted by acetime
Especially democracies as they had only a small fraction of their forces mobilized in peace time...As soon as the war approaches then the country can start mobilizing it's troops and the time required to do so is reflected in the amount of time in hoi to get the organization back up. So this tactic is not an exploit and is historical.

This effect is already reflected in A) the lower org for democracies in peacetime and B) the lowering of the CG demand when a nation goes to war (more IC to spend on getting more divisions ready to fight.

Originally posted by acetime
An example of this would be the wermacht sending many soldiers back to the industry after the conquest of france irl.

An example of this in hoi would be to disband the divisions, not stop producing supplies for it.

Originally posted by acetime
So this tactic is not an exploit and is historical.

Please show me one reference where it says that a major nation did not produce any ammunition or food for it's armies during peacetime, or a quote by a developer that says that this was an intentional programming decision to simulate anything in history.

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Zero Supplies: Exploit?

Originally posted by cfeedback
are you sure on that math? if we're both using this tactic/exploit, surely it's not 98 divisions. Maybe the SU benefits from it the most but all countries will save a fair amount of IC.

Germany will only save 17 IC per day, and UK and France can not employ this tactic, because they can get quickly destroyed by any DOW. So I guess USSR will get only an extra 49 inf divisions if both use the tactic.

 

[unmerged(3970)]

Did what?

Not supply their entire possible theoretical number of troops that they can call up during the war in a matter of days not month's that it takes to train a new division in hoi.

An example of this in hoi would be to disband the divisions, not stop producing supplies for it.

Actually disbanding a division in hoi would require training a new division to get it back. Most major countries however could mobilize the troops in days or weeks. This is more of not supplying them in hoi.

Please show me one reference where it says that a major nation did not produce any ammunition or food for it's armies during peacetime, or a quote by a developer that says that this was an intentional programming decision to simulate anything in history.

I never said they are not supplying anyone in their army. They would still supply a small number of troops but certainly not every possible soldier. According to you they would be sending supplies and equipment to US national guard who are not even called up for service and are living and working as civilians.

 

[unmerged(9612)]

Firstly in terms of interpretation ;

You assume having the supply slider set to 0, means your soldiers are hungry, without boots and so on ... Thats your interpretation... You may also interpret it as simply no extra training , live munitions and peace time manoeuvers (i.e feeding and clothing the soldiers is already taken care of)

Secondly, I personnaly dont use that as it does not make sense. It makes you liable to be caught with "your pants down"... USSR could be at war way before 41 (what about Japan for instance), there were two games where US was attacked in 37 and so on. No country is safe.

Thirdly you really do need to stockpile resources as making up air and tank losses is very supply intensive. In one recent game, Germany went trough 35,000 supplies in a few weeks as it was fighting massive commonwealth armies in France..

So a player who does not produce supplies and wastes his initial stockpile will run into pbs quickly... I dont really see the need to "ban this exploit"

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by acetime
I never said they are not supplying anyone in their army. They would still supply a small number of troops but certainly not every possible soldier. According to you they would be sending supplies and equipment to US national guard who are not even called up for service and are living and working as civilians.

When you produce zero supplies, you are not supplying anyone in your army. There is no provision in hoi for a national guard type division. They don't exist. So you are incorrect, according to me you don't send supplies to them. You send supplies to your standing army, as the programmers intended.

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by Tomar
You assume having the supply slider set to 0, means your soldiers are hungry, without boots and so on ... Thats your interpretation... You may also interpret it as simply no extra training , live munitions and peace time manoeuvers (i.e feeding and clothing the soldiers is already taken care of)

If supplies were intended to refer just to wartime expenses, the programmers wouldn't have had you pay any supplies during peacetime. Supplies are the basic upkeep of the army: food, equipment, munitions, uniform, etc. If otherwise, why would org go down to zero if they didn't have any extra training? It costs extra supplies to reinforce a division because now they are using live munitions and getting damaged equipment.

Originally posted by Tomar
Thirdly you really do need to stockpile resources as making up air and tank losses is very supply intensive. In one recent game, Germany went trough 35,000 supplies in a few weeks as it was fighting massive commonwealth armies in France.

I was playing a game with another player that did this. He ended up with 54 medium tank divisions (most advanced) as UK by 1939. He didn't need to resupply his army, he had such a numerical advantage he just rolled over Germany.

 

[unmerged(16498)]

I think you are trying to change the game basic to fit your way to play a little too much. I understand your disir to play a realistic game the way you see it. And I understand some exploit can ruin the basic of the game. But others are simply a strategic choice you make. I will make a comment on 2 similar stategies that were beeing complained about in my last game. 1) The ZERO supplies 2) The no deployment of build units. 2 things used by many players.

In a game I just played I was France and went with zero supplies until mid 1937. Even after the UK players ask everyone in the game if they were ok with this at the end of 1936(after reading this post I assume). So the Axie players knew what I was doing and even then he didn't attack.. After mid 1937 I supplied my troops to keep organisation. By mid 1938 I had a good amount of divisions around 90 and Uk declare war to Germany a move he was not expecting. We saved at this exact moment.

The next day I came back to continue the game and the german player didn't show up. He said to cfeedback it was an exploit for the Russian to hide divisions and for France to not supplie is troops and it was hopeless. He was right to say it was hopeless because he played the way he played, he had barely 60 divisions mid 1938 and only because he used an exploit...The little thing he did with Austria and even with Poland... people in the game will know what I'm talking about. But that's beside the point. France and SU played well with the help of UK and USA and won. They defeat the strategy of the Axie to research and not build enoeuf... END of the story.

As far as I'm concern It's one of the best part of the game to MAKE decisions like supplying your troops at the level you want or deploying them. This is a strategie game after all, the moves of all players should not be evident, it's the fog of war and the secrecy around millitairy matters of countries. I like to have to guess what the others is doing... researching a certain level of tech or building lot's of divisions. If the russian pass from 95 to 165 divisions in 1 week. The german can do the same with tanks since he doesn't have to research all the land doctrine like the russian do. All nations can do this and it a matter of stategic choice. If you remove this you will remove one of the fun part of the game.

What about Italy not joining the Axie to reduce WE? Another exploit? I'm kiding here people... please don't start another tread about this one . Let's keep the strategic part of playing the game alone. Now flame me at will or agree to all or some, up to you. But by making judgement on the way others are playing this game you a simply refusing to find a strategy to counter that strategy. My opinion anyway...

 

[Vissarion]

I think neither making no supplies or not deploying all units is an exploit, although the supply thing is more of an advantage to some cuntries than others. But in many mp games I have experienced that SU attacks very early on in the game (march 36) to "secure one front". It is true that it is safer to have 0-org units as Germany than as France, but thats the way it is.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Some good points for both sides.

No one has mentioned one facet of supply, namely paychecks
AFAIK, you either have a 'standing army' or you conscript when the time comes. Any divisions on the map are obviously in uniform and thus, a standing army, which needs to be paid. Therefore, SOME supplies should be needed. National Guard troops, and Canadian militia, receive a regular stipend for being 'on call'. How many NG troops would do it for free?

That issue aside, how can an army that does not have supplies for training be effective after 3 or more years? They probably forgot how to use their weapons

Undeployed troops? easy to get around. Just open the save game. ( I don't like to do this, I would rather just use the ledger, since there is no espionage factor in the game, but if the ledger's gonna lie.....)

If the zero supply slider is not an exploit, (maybe it's not) it is a poorly-designed game feature, since unsupplied troops should have some kind of penalty to reflect neglected training (maybe a gradual drop in max org, which slowly rises once troops are supplied)

I think the problem is that you have two types of players; those that just want to have fun, and those that care (to some variable degree) about winning. Oil and water. I think the best solution is to play with people with similar minds on these issues, and to have it laid out in advance whether or not it is acceptable.
As has been stated, there are risks involved, and a poor player using this tactic/exploit (not saying all who use it are poor players) will find out that it's not a substitute for skill and strategy.

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by Thor_1
I think you are trying to change the game basic to fit your way to play a little too much.

I want to play the game the way it was meant to be played, not change it to fit my needs. The programmers designed and balanced the game under the premise that everyone would supply their divisions.

Originally posted by Thor_1
I understand your disir to play a realistic game the way you see it.

Above all I want a fun game. No game that I have played with anyone who has used this exploit has been fun. It's too much of an advantage.

Originally posted by Thor_1
...it was an exploit for the Russian to hide divisions

I think it's an exploit to hide them mainly because of the supply issue, but without producing supplies the point is moot.

Originally posted by Thor_1
As far as I'm concern It's one of the best part of the game to MAKE decisions like supplying your troops at the level you want or deploying them. This is a strategie game after all, the moves of all players should not be evident, it's the fog of war and the secrecy around millitairy matters of countries.

Chess is one of the best strategy games because the whole thing is balanced out. In chess, if you want to change it so that rooks can move as queens, then it's fair because it effects both sides the same. HOI is different though. It's a lot more complicated. Say you make it so it takes half the amount of time to upgrade the IC of a province. It would help USSR a ton, and ruin the game because of it. It's the same with the supply issue. It ruins the game that the programmers did their best to balance out.

 

[unmerged(16020)]

I agree with you mostly Mr.Bigglesworth, but I don't think it is as big of a deal as you do. It should just be a house rule for the server that your troops always must have enough supplies to keep their org at full strength.

Myself, I try to build up a stockpile so I can cut my supplies in half in times of need.

Personally, I would do the following (as Germany) if I knew a Soviet player was bombing his supplies. Either:

a) Bluff and threaten an invasion unless he stops

or b) Don't bother bluffing and just launch an invasion. You can invade from the Black and Baltic seas simultaneously as you take down Poland (or even ignore Poland if you have enough transports). You should be able to get Stalingrad and Leningrad before he can do anything really.

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by Lunar
I agree with you mostly Mr.Bigglesworth, but I don't think it is as big of a deal as you do. It should just be a house rule for the server that your troops always must have enough supplies to keep their org at full strength.

I'm not trying to tell people how to play, if they want to use this "tactic" it doesn't bother me, as long as I'm not in the game. If you do want to use this tactic though, everyone in the game should know beforehand that it is a viable option.

Personally, I would do the following (as Germany) if I knew a Soviet player was bombing his supplies. Either:

Those are good suggestions, but there is no way of knowing who is not producing supplies and who is.

 

[unmerged(9612)]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tomar
You assume having the supply slider set to 0, means your soldiers are hungry, without boots and so on ... Thats your interpretation... You may also interpret it as simply no extra training , live munitions and peace time manoeuvers (i.e feeding and clothing the soldiers is already taken care of)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If supplies were intended to refer just to wartime expenses, the programmers wouldn't have had you pay any supplies during peacetime. Supplies are the basic upkeep of the army: food, equipment, munitions, uniform, etc. If otherwise, why would org go down to zero if they didn't have any extra training? It costs extra supplies to reinforce a division because now they are using live munitions and getting damaged equipment.

_______________________________________________

Org goes down because an army that is only fed and clothed is not effective.. They need to practice, manoeuver, fire live ammo and so on.... That's what supplies can be deemed to represent..
Its all a matter of interpretation.

If food and cloth were included, I would assume that a div with strenghth 1, would require much less than the same with strength 100 , which I think is not the case at present (unless mistaken)...

But in any case, I really dont see it as a problem that a player would not produce supplies.. There are many downsides to that as mentionned, and if he wishes to take the risk, its his choice

Also in most cases supplies represents only 4 to 8 percent of total IC production ..... hardly a game breaker... you have random events that increase -or decrease- dissent by 5 percent, some countries have admin geniuses increasing prod by 15% (which may die randomly never to be replaced) and others dont and so on ... and nobody is complaining about that

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Originally posted by Tomar
Also in most cases supplies represents only 4 to 8 percent of total IC production ..... hardly a game breaker... you have random events that increase -or decrease- dissent by 5 percent, some countries have admin geniuses increasing prod by 15% (which may die randomly never to be replaced) and others dont and so on ... and nobody is complaining about that

As stated earlier, the Soviet supplies consume 34 IC's. That's 34 IC's after taxes (after CG is taken out). Since 60 percent of the total initial IC's of the Soviet Union are taken up as CG, that means that those 34 represent 86 IC's you are giving the Soviets at the beginning of the game. If you are playing on very hard, that is 30% of the Soviet economy, rather than 4-8%. Very much a deal breaker.

I've only had a minister die on me once in all the games that I have played online, and workers strikes aren't all that common.

So how could you stop the Soviets from doing this? Japan can't invade, the org would be back up before they move through one province. Same with invading through the black sea. Leningrad is a possibility, if you build enough transports and defeat the Soviet Navy and land before the defender's org gets high enough where the coastal forts will eat you up. Invade Poland early? You just significantly lowerd the Soviet and USA CG, so you didn't accomplish much. Then you can have an easier time invading Russia, but if you take Moscow though, say hello to the United States, which just joined the Allies a couple years early.

I am a self-proclaimed expert at playing as the Soviet Union, and it is clear to me that the Soviets can use this tactic with impunity.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

I don't think it's a problem if you dont increase the size of your army, but how can you realistically rationalise increasing your army size, when you can't supply the one you have? I would like to hear examples of armies increasing their size BEFORE mobilizing the troops they already have.

The real problem occurs when army size is vastly increased without supplying. True, USSR in 1936, with 91 div, only gains 35 IC by zeroing supplies (8%). Still not too bad. But if you double the size of your army, you now are not spending 70 IC on supplies. If you triple it, you are saving 105 IC, over 25% of USSR's IC. This creates a snowball effect, allowing you to create huge armies with no limit (other than manpower) to their size.

Also, consider modern Russia. What happens when soldiers get no supplies? (ie. no paychecks) People wind up with military hardware they shouldn't have

I'm not totally against the idea (though I don't personally do it), but it should carry some stiffer penalties.

NOTE: This is just my opinion, not trying to tell people how to play