• Havoc
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Explicit Supply vs. VST
08-29-2019, 07:16 AM,
#1
Explicit Supply vs. VST
I've read in a few places that "experienced players" tend to prefer VST, but for me personally being fascinated with the logistical aspects of the Eastern campaign I like the idea of on-map, explicit supply better.  Why is it that people tend to prefer VST?  I have only ever played with explicit.

Some of the campaign games ship with VST turned on by default, but I wasn't able to really find a compelling reason why the developers prefer that over explicit either.
Quote this message in a reply
08-29-2019, 07:42 AM,
#2
RE: Explicit Supply vs. VST
For me, it's so much more time consuming to march all my supply units up, etc. I do like using explicit supply in the Smolensk campaign and the new Bulge campaign...makes for interesting situations.
Quote this message in a reply
08-29-2019, 07:48 PM,
#3
RE: Explicit Supply vs. VST
It may be that experienced players prefer VST to Explicit Supply, although I was not aware of it. Since most scenarios do not offer Explicit Supply as an option, VST is certainly preferable to not using VST. But, based on my experience, it is not that rare for Explicit Supply to be used in those scenarios where it is available.

I think Explicit Supply is simple to understand and allows better management of logistics but this at the cost of increased time spent. Some think it is worth it and some don't. Both are correct.
Quote this message in a reply
08-29-2019, 10:51 PM,
#4
RE: Explicit Supply vs. VST
I think it makes more sense and adds another link or kink in the chain in campaign scenarios than smaller scenarios.
Quote this message in a reply
08-30-2019, 04:24 AM,
#5
RE: Explicit Supply vs. VST
I think it all boils down to levels of complexity, VST is more realistic than the default supply rules where supply levels do not change no matter how far you move from your supply sources or over difficult terrain, VST models those factors much more realistically but most importantly does not require the players to do anything.

As stated by others explicit supply add's more complexity and more units, nothing wrong with that provided the players can cope with the extra workload.

Great that we have three supply models to choose from!  Smile
Quote this message in a reply
08-30-2019, 05:22 AM,
#6
RE: Explicit Supply vs. VST
Used explicit supply playing both Korsun and Stalingrad campaigns when I used to PBEM, I really enjoyed the challenge of positioning the supply units behind the front line action sectors and the need to keep feeding others into position.
Quote this message in a reply
08-31-2019, 01:48 AM,
#7
RE: Explicit Supply vs. VST
I apologize if this is covered and I just miss it, but how does rail supply work with explicit supply turned on? Is the idea there to put truck convoys in rail transport mode to simulate it?
Quote this message in a reply
08-31-2019, 02:25 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-31-2019, 02:29 AM by Lowlander.)
#8
RE: Explicit Supply vs. VST
(08-31-2019, 01:48 AM)Zoetermeer Wrote: I apologize if this is covered and I just miss it, but how does rail supply work with explicit supply turned on?  Is the idea there to put truck convoys in rail transport mode to simulate it?

I am sure supply trucks can move by rail ( brain freeze, cannot remember that far back ) however the rules state " that when supply is in railroad or travel mode it cannot supply units.
Remember to check the scenario or campaign for railroad capacity first.
Quote this message in a reply
08-31-2019, 03:24 AM,
#9
RE: Explicit Supply vs. VST
Gotcha. So does Virtual Supply Trucks not take advancing railheads (or any railhead) into account? The rules say that it is always based on motorized travel distance from the static supply sources (usually at the map edge). Looking at Smolensk '41, the Soviets for example have supply sources only located on the map edges. Does that mean a city like Orsha, which is connected to multiple high-capacity rail lines, would be much lower-supplied than a city like Vyazma?

Actually just looking over the rules again, maybe there actually isn't such a thing as advancing railheads? I wasn't able to find anything about gauge conversion, etc. in the user manual. Maybe the time scale is sufficiently small that it didn't make sense to include it.

I don't mean to be so negative about the game, I love it, just want to make sure I'm understanding all the rules clearly!
Quote this message in a reply
08-31-2019, 06:36 AM,
#10
RE: Explicit Supply vs. VST
Yes as I understand the rule VST only uses the motorised movement point value to calculate the level of supply in any particular hex, rail lines play no part in this calculation.

As an aside it seems to me that in the early titles supply sources were only ever at the map edges while as the series developed they started to appear in other locations, I always assumed this was because VST did not exist at the start and was added a few titles into the series, but I am not sure that is true or not?
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)