Lines of Communication

This thought occured to me while I was posting a reply earlier.
Can you isolate an invading unit(s) by cutting their supply lines? Or does this only keep them trapped in your territory?

I am thinking that a stack of units advancing into an enemy territory must have secure lines of communication, just as all of your cities must be connected. There could be a penalty of some kind where a unit or units is effectively cut-off from their homeland, or just from the nearest city, friendly or otherwise.
Does this mean a bit much?

Likewise, I don't like the idea that an enemy cannot use the roads of the Civ they are attacking.
This seems absurd to me. The two ideas are connected, really. Why not allow enemy use of roads(since there is no logical explaination for why they can't), but allow penalties when that road is cut off behind them.

Are there any other armchair military historians who agree?

The lack of road use may simulate that when invading a country that your moving carefully and tactically, not just blasting along oblivious to the surroundings. Late game would be carnage, armour and modern armour would take entire civs out before you got the chance to draft a rifleman. Of course there is a promotion (commando I think) that offers this power but quite tough to field an entire army with that promotion.

Does the extra cost of having soldiers in enemy land simulate the extra difficulty of supplying a far off army? possibly.

I think maintaining supply lines would be hard to model, would you make a line of friendly forces to connect you to home? or a line of ships?

The sea lanes are a lione in and of themselves, as they are open, and you can only cut off a force that is unsupported across the sea by blockading all of the mainland ports. So a line of ships isn't neccessary.
On land, it is a question of simply securing your lines that run from your civ to your army in the field. Simply having a few units back would safeguard your advance, but the historical precedents inherent in this are many. The Persians would have overrun Greece from the get-go if the didn't have to worry about feedijng their army. Napoleon could have swallowed all of Russia if his bullets and biscuits just appeared there, rather than there being a secure line back to France--or at least Prussia, in that case.

I started this thread because I think the tweaking would be relatively easy(if I knew how to do it) and because it impacts the SOD aspect of warfare that is such a part of Civ. Not negatively, either. It just represents a broader risk, and broader planning when one attacks--while giving expanded options for defense for a slightly weaker or unprepared defender.
This would not erase any incoming stack. At best it would render the stack orderless(you couldn't command them; instead they would be immobile until the lines opened up again). At worse, and in protracted cases, the units in the isolated stack would begin to lose a percentage of strength--starvation in the field--until supplied.
Of course, cutting the lines of communication could really only buy time for the defender, in that the stack would be stuck, or at worse, severely impeded. I don't know if it is better that the stack would be immobilized, or that it would loss stength, or both. I suppose it could be one or the other, but in any case, the lines would have to be opened up again, and then secured by the attacker. This wouldn't mean a line of units running back as much as a few units stationed along the rout, able to keep any enemy clear of that route.
After all, it would only take moving a unit in behind the stack in order to cut it off. It would only take the defeat of that unit to resecure the lines.

This is, after all , how the rules apply to cities--shouldn't it likewise apply to marching armies?

The use of enemy roads would be outrageous. Armor, even cavalry would plow over anything before any chance for a response. Destroying roads doesn't really affect "communication", as you put it, but it does reduce mobility, and could slow down the next wave of attackers. And cut off resources to cities. So I guess a Russian-style Scorched Earth strategy wouldn't work to well.

Anyways, in terms of realism, Civ is a game, not a simulation.

I suppose it could work, if you gave the supply line soldiers some kind of zone of control, similar to the area that a blockading privateer gets, A logistics tech could be added as well, I suppose that might get a better zone of control than if you used a more general purpose unit.
Will it give to the game though or make things too complicated?

Bigfoot3814 said:

The use of enemy roads would be outrageous. Armor, even cavalry would plow over anything before any chance for a response. Destroying roads doesn't really affect "communication", as you put it, but it does reduce mobility, and could slow down the next wave of attackers. And cut off resources to cities. So I guess a Russian-style Scorched Earth strategy wouldn't work to well.

Anyways, in terms of realism, Civ is a game, not a simulation.

Click to expand...

It isn't a question of destroying the road, but of blocking the route. And I suppose it can be called a game, but it is clearly a historical simulation of some degree.

I_M_Weasel said:

I suppose it could work, if you gave the supply line soldiers some kind of zone of control, similar to the area that a blockading privateer gets, A logistics tech could be added as well, I suppose that might get a better zone of control than if you used a more general purpose unit.
Will it give to the game though or make things too complicated?

Click to expand...

No, it is even simpler than that. A unit in it's own homeland occupies the tile containing the road, thus cutting off the stack as it advances--unless that attacker took the precaution of garrisoning his advance--thus the attacker has to have additional forces present to safeguard his line of attack. This idea is as old as time, and it accounts for why an army of 100,000 ends up with only 40-50,000 at the point of attack. The army must have a secure line behind them or else they are isolated and cannot be either supplied or reinforced from behind.
No new tech or upgrade is required, only simple rule changes. Zone of control is not even an issue because all one needs to do is cut of the communications. The only upgrade one might think of would be some kind of Forage upgrade(French Revolutionary Armies) that feeds your unit on the march, an effect that could be similar to the Medic upgrades.
Take an example: Persian SOD advances into British territory. British SOD marches out, manuevers behind the Persian stack, and appears behind them on the sole road running back to Persia. The Persian SOD has no choice but to turn about and attack the British SOD rather than advance as planned, because to do so is to invite disaster(loss of stength and lack of mobility). However, a seperate Persian SOD, albeit smaller, engages the British from their rear and attempts to drive them off, this unit having no enemy behind it, therefore supplied. Now, I would agree that if this supplied stack sent one or two units forward to make contact with the initial SOD, this would reopen communications--but only allowing that stack to deal with the British SOD without loss of stength.

Ultimately, the idea here not only gives SOD's a harder time of it, but it also puts more combat in the field as opposed to regular seiges, which is the norm. As the idea of the SOD has not diminshed in succesive CIV games, wouldn't this open up a good deal more strategy where combat is concerned? I think it would.

As to the problem of armour rapidly overrunning an enemy territory--I don't know where you get that kind of crazy idea from! Germany did to France, and Russia did it to Germany--using the audobahn, no less, that Hitler had just spent the past eight years building! That's what armour is for, guys. And of course knowing this, you make certain you have the defenses to check such an advance.

Hi

I think spupply lines are abad idea. They would make woaring which can already get bogged down and slow at times even worse.

Lets say roads are the supply/communication line and a defending unit occupying space on the road cuts off the line. What happens to stacks who just leave the road? does that main invading armies *have* to stay on a road way or else they are cutoff?

it also means no waring until making sure you have a road not only to the civ you want to invade but a road to every city in that civ you want to invade.

And you say you wouldnt need to cover every inch of road just leave a garison every few squars but that can still be a LOT of garrisons needed if the civ is far away. especially if the line is cut behind the garrions then the garrions are "cutoff" as well.

So you will still need a whole line of garrisons if not every square then almost every other square to be sure that all of the line is in a garrsions line of sight and to make sure there is no point in line where not only the stack but all the garrisons wouldnt be cut off as well. So if you think SOD's are bad this just sounds worse. Not only do you still need your 1 stack of 50 but now you need 50 stacks of 20 to go with it to cover the lines.

And this doesnt even take into account overseas supplies or fact where more fact where there is just ONE road into a city or civ there is more often either NO roads or multiple roads. It just seems to making things waaaaay too tedious just for sake of "realism".

And fact is "supply/communication" lines ARE represented by fact that its slower to move in enemy terriitory, unit maintainance costs are more expensive for units outside your borders and they take longer to heal outside your borders and even longer inside enemy borders. And that war weariness only builds from battles outside your territory.

All of that is used to show how keeping an army in the field is difficult and expensive and even more so during a war.

Maybe its not 100% realaistic but it strikes balance between realism and being fun I think.

As for not being able to use enemy roads. Thats fromm civ2 I bet. In that game you CAN use enemy roads PLUS like in civ3 RR give unlimited movement points. So wars in civ2 is use engineers to RR to EVERY enemy city then send in howitzers to take em. Not ONLY could you kill 12 plus cites or more in one turn but with careful planning you COULD take out several or even EVERY enemy empire in one turn hehe.

So from game play side I think its to slow down war so people are not taking out dozens of cities in one turn. "blitz" attacks can still happen with air units and multiple move units in that they will go faster than one turn units but it wont be "insant" blitz just relatively faster. Its also a bit realiztic in that it probably IS slower moving through enemy territory than friendly or neutral.

Plus going slower means mainatince costs and ww build up more so it means you really have to have plans to deal with it if you are going to try and conquer a huge amount of territory.

Kaytie

I can't really argue with those points. You make a good case.
I probably just spend way too much time reading military history.

KaytieKat said:

I think spupply lines are abad idea. They would make woaring which can already get bogged down and slow at times even worse.

Click to expand...

what is "woaring"?

Gudinsdiv said:

I can't really argue with those points. You make a good case.
I probably just spend way too much time reading military history.

Click to expand...

thank you for posting, i think lines of communication is a great idea indeed and someday will have such a mod !!!

Let me to introduce some of my ideas on this subject:

1. Supply routes
road is not necessary, there is only a free passage needed between a stack and any of your or vassal's city. its simply a pathfinding algorhytm tat's already implemented in civ. length of that path (computed as for units, /3 for roads, x2 for hills etc) must affect a maintenance cost per unit. if there is no free passage to your stack, it loses strength, heals slower etc. so if a straight path is blocked, there are used some roundabout routes, and there is no available passages, your invade forces start suffer.

2. ZOCs
territory that is under enemy ZOC couts as impassible, simply like mountains in pathfinging algorhytm. i think it was a great idea about implementing zones of control (ZOCs) as a measure to realize lines of communication (LOC). They can be realized on same principle like a culture zones. Each unit type has a value of his ZOC potention and whole of units (your and enemy's) form a picture of passable and impassable territory for your suppliers.

3. LOC blocking
Say you have an enemy fort passed behind your SOD. Units that sitting in it creates some impassible area, that makes your supply more costly due to roundabout way is needed, or even blocks it. What you can do is to get some of your units near this fort, that will 'press' enemy's ZOC just like cities reduces each other's culture zones. More units youll have there, more you'll reduce enemy ZOC. Rival units can sally from their forts to block more territory, but if there is say 1 enemy muskeeter, and you have 5 of cuirassiers close by, his ZOC will be 1 tile (where it stays). LOCs considered blocked after 1 turn since all routes get impassible. Blocked territory may be not totally impassible but to have a more movement cost (depending on how many ZOC points are put on the certain plot), therefore raising a price of supply.

4. Army supplement slider
Due to LOCs blocking, supply costs can rise dramatically (to the infinity, if we use rise movement costs in blocked territory conception), i think there must be army supply slider implemented. You allocates say 10% of your income on the military needs, and it distributes among your units. Firstly, city garrisons are supplied, then more and more remote (and thus more expensive) units. So if your stack of 10 riflemen on the other side of the globe get blocked, it will not eat all of your treasury in one turn.

5. Self-supply
historically ancient (and especially medieval) armies were not so big and therefore needed no LOCs. ie Hannibal roamed apennine peninsula for years, surrounded by enemies. So a stack can be fully or partially supplied from the plot where it stands. Each tile has it's own supply limit, depending on terrain type, features (forest, road, oasis), resources and improvements.

6.
Graphically LOCs can be represented as a small caravans processions going to and from your stacks. Bigger the stack - more density of figures supply line has.

7. features.
there can be various fun promos, spy missions, units like a partizans etc. realized with ZOCs.

the end.
thanks for attention

p.s.
also there could be a land transport and sea transport values that can be produced as a gold, culture etc (by taxing, city production, from buildings etc). more transport points you have, more units you can supply. transport points are divided in land and sea TP, so for example you cant immediately switch to the land supply if sea LOC is blocked and you have not enough land TP.

Civilization is transportation! (Henry Ford)

killmeplease:

I like a lot of these ideas, except where ZOC seems to get a tad too complicated. I think in a broad game like this it's enough to have the typical, restrictive one-space out of each unit/stack that prevents enemies from just dancing right around someone. The defensive factor of forts, when well-garrisoned, is enough of an impediment, and these can easily be masked--as hostile obstacles often have been in history.

You make a great point about early armies, but I disagree that for some there would no LOC. Perhaps one or two archers, or some other early units, but a stack of five or more swordsmen would exhaust whatever forage value a forest or plain might have and leave the rest famished. Take your idea to the level of several SOD's and there is a realistic need for supply lines to be recognized.
Of course, I don't neccessarily agree with the supply slider. Not only does it add another slider, such computations are already accounted for in the game. My argument is that the game itself should show a direct correlation behind the support costs imposed and the reality of having thirty or so units advancing along a route towards the enemy civ.

Much has been made of the "roads" part of my argument, but inherent in the idea of eliminating the "cannot use enemy roads" rule is the fact that roads can be blocked, supply can be cut, and strategy can play out on terrain in a more satisfying way. By the same token, LOC's are not out and out restricted to roads, but the fact that roads represent the link between cities and civilizations only makes it a realized logic that your army depends on it going backwards as much as forwards.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem so complicated an idea as it's being made to be, nor as cumbersome.
It seems as if there are those who bemoan the SOD, yet shirk at any idea that might in some way diminsh it's potential--short, of course, of simple unit-per-space restrictions.

I've toyed with the idea of simulating logistics, and the best thing I could come up with is to bring back the caravan unit from Civ I & II. The idea would be that any army on enemy territory can only heal if they have enough 'supplies' in the form of caravans/trucks. Their supplies gradually dwindle over time, but can be replenished by pillaging improvements.

As it happens, the slower healing in enemy territory already simulates that effect pretty well, with the march/medic promotions being really valuable in terms of specializing your units for particular roles. I think the game is pretty good at simulating logistical tails as is, even if it doesn't do so explicitly.

Incidentally, just how nerdy are we that we're debating the finer points of unit supply chains and lines of communications? Man I love this community.

my intend was not to make SODs weaker or something, but to bring a variety, more strategy in the game.
particulary i do not think that ZOCs are complicated at all - pathfinding and territory control already are realized in the game. also i think that unit's ZOC radius must be in fact a summary of tiles that it potentially can reach from its position in the next turn (after unit's move is done). so ZOCs can be very wide (instead of 1-square radius), thus there will be more in-field battles (to eliminate threat of LOC cut), maneuvres and operational tactics, there will be sence in building forts and defensive units (cant remember when i built my last archer unit). wars will be much more funny than they are now. Ok maybe another slider and transportation points are bad ideas, but if you throw them off, you'll get the gameplay as simple as it is in unmodded BTS.

it's best than messing with caravan units i think will be time consuming and irritating. that is why they were removed from the game.

ps:
of curse forest tiles can not supply big stacks (2 units is a very limit, i think that too). But you can spread your forces or move them in columns until they get close to the enemy. Then your army regroups and makes bigger stacks that can use enemy's farmlands to supply themselves.

Toast said:

I've toyed with the idea of simulating logistics, and the best thing I could come up with is to bring back the caravan unit from Civ I & II. The idea would be that any army on enemy territory can only heal if they have enough 'supplies' in the form of caravans/trucks. Their supplies gradually dwindle over time, but can be replenished by pillaging improvements.

As it happens, the slower healing in enemy territory already simulates that effect pretty well, with the march/medic promotions being really valuable in terms of specializing your units for particular roles. I think the game is pretty good at simulating logistical tails as is, even if it doesn't do so explicitly.

Incidentally, just how nerdy are we that we're debating the finer points of unit supply chains and lines of communications? Man I love this community.

Click to expand...

Nerdy? My bathroom book is the Campaigns of Napoleon by David Chandler!

I think it would be cool to represent supply with a unit, an upgradeable Supply Train that is consumed over a series of turns by your units. If they are in enemy territory without the Supply Train, they would lose health, slow down their movement, and eventually die.

KaytieKat said:

Hi
...

As for not being able to use enemy roads. Thats fromm civ2 I bet. In that game you CAN use enemy roads PLUS like in civ3 RR give unlimited movement points. So wars in civ2 is use engineers to RR to EVERY enemy city then send in howitzers to take em. Not ONLY could you kill 12 plus cites or more in one turn but with careful planning you COULD take out several or even EVERY enemy empire in one turn hehe.

So from game play side I think its to slow down war so people are not taking out dozens of cities in one turn. "blitz" attacks can still happen with air units and multiple move units in that they will go faster than one turn units but it wont be "insant" blitz just relatively faster. Its also a bit realiztic in that it probably IS slower moving through enemy territory than friendly or neutral.

Plus going slower means mainatince costs and ww build up more so it means you really have to have plans to deal with it if you are going to try and conquer a huge amount of territory.

Kaytie

Click to expand...

Yea, I liked those things in Civ 1 & 2 (as well as the transport bridge) because then at least a few modern historical campaigns were actually possible with (1 year) game turns. I mean the Germans were still pretty far into Russia in 1944, and the Anglo-American Allies were in Britain. In 1945 both sides met up in Central Europe and the war was over. That's one turn.

As it stands war is still tedious in Civ 4, as well as being unrealistic. The model of SoD's is historically accurate until Genghis Khan or Napolean, but it fails thereafter. "Battles" in Civ 4 end up being a series of duels which are not particularly interesting but often take a lot of time optimize. And they are not made any more interesting by the addition of more units in the SoD. I'd rather maneuver across a wide front in the modern era and have stacks fight one another in single combats.

Gudinsdiv said:

Nerdy? My bathroom book is the Campaigns of Napoleon by David Chandler!

Click to expand...

That's a great book!

I_M_Weasel said:

The lack of road use may simulate that when invading a country that your moving carefully and tactically, not just blasting along oblivious to the surroundings. Late game would be carnage, armour and modern armour would take entire civs out before you got the chance to draft a rifleman. Of course there is a promotion (commando I think) that offers this power but quite tough to field an entire army with that promotion.

Does the extra cost of having soldiers in enemy land simulate the extra difficulty of supplying a far off army? possibly.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you are right.

1) No use of enemy roads/rails
2) The extra supply cost

But I think there is one other thing.

3) Healing slower in enemy territory

I think that those 3 game mechanics do a decent job of simulating a supply line.

dowski

One "easy" fix would be to adjust the cultural borders according to military presence. A SOD (with sufficient air/sea/land units) should extert a huge ZOC, so why not just overwhelm the cultural border? The decay of the effect could be rapid, but reduced if garrisons left in the wake.

This would make fighting more realistic, having opposing forces in the fields, and put a huge penalty on hiding in cities. The AI makes good use of siege weapons, so that's pretty standard now anyway.

Additional penalties could be used, like damage to enemy troops in friendly culture, like -2% health/turn to min health of 15%. Also, a city surrounded by enemy culture should have additional unhappiness.

Jolly Rogerer said:

That's a great book!

Click to expand...

I've got two--the older in the bathroom and the better one on a shelf. I have good few books on Napoleon, but getting nerdier still(though some would say "sophisticated") I am almost always reading either an atlas, a World Almanac, a general history book, something Napoleonic or Noam Chomsky, or the Bible--which thrown altogether is an interesting blend!

Anyway, a general comment on the caravans: I agree with the earlier post concerning trade links--even though in Civ 2 it got tedious. They could really work it so that complimentary has/needs for your own cities are automatic. But to have a supply caravan, it needs roads, and having the option of cutting that road--not having another unit on it which would then have to be guarded--is the principal behind communications. And remember, communications is not strictly supply. It's literal contact to back home, the receipt of orders, the path of reinforcements, and for more modern armies, the ammo.

As for ZOC, I used to play Romance of the Three Kingdoms on Nintendo, you know, the first one. In that game there were ten units to a side and Koei always enforced a one-space ZOC. This was both practical and realistic, and it provided for turning the enemy, outflanking, etc.

Ultimately(and because there is a Sun Tzu link somewhere on this site) the elements of suprise, manuever, and logistics should be better represented. For instance, there is no effect whatsoever to your stack suddenly appearing behind an enemy stack, when in every case this should have some bearing on that stacks/units condition--morale, health, supply, etc. As it is, there is no difference to any unit whether you attack the flank, rear, or front. For me, that leaves a bit of an empty space. Heck, even Nintendo's Desert Commander had a better tactical system than this! And I can't imagine it being all that difficult to translate these things in the game.
Try this, for instance: Any unit in a stack that is attacked from behind suffers a combat penalty, and a lesser penalty if attacked from the flank. Actual direction would be predicated upon the last tile the attacking unit moved from and would only apply for one turn after initial contact. That is, an Egyptian SoD is invading the Aztecs on a given road(they border). An Aztec SoD appears directly behind the Egyptian. Giving a round for the Egyptian SoD to "turnabout", any attcks by the Aztecs in that round would have a positive modifier because they have suprised the Egyptians from behind. On Egypts turn the could either advance--inviting an attack at favorable odds to their enemy--or turnabout and engage the Aztec SoD in normalized, unpenalized combat.
This not only simulates the effect of an attck from the rear, but it also provides for the disruption of communications.

I think I have to learn to Mod, really. There seems to be a good deal that one can do--if hasn't been done already.