Comabt effects of logistics and supply

Combat unit effectivenss could be reduced if a unit is unable to trace a line of supply to a friendly city. Unsupplied units would have reduced attack/def/movement strengths if they are kept in enemy territory without supplies for too long. Possibly they could be subject to random hits as well (simulating dissertions, etc.) Ancient era units could 'live off the land' for a time, provided there were enough food resources (food levels in nearby cities would be reduced accordingly). In the modern era, airlift resupply could be possible, provided you control the skies around that airbase. This change would eliminate certain unrealistic practices that are currently possible, like sending an army or SOD deep into enemy territory with impunity.

A similar idea has posited, by me, in several other threads in this forum ! I'm not so much bothered by units being able to trace a line of supply to a friendly city (or fort), but just that they are within a certain range of it! If they get caught outside of this range, then they suffer a % loss of morale and Firepower, every turn, until the unit is back in range.
I can see the merit of your idea, though, as it would allow enemy units to 'outflank' the enemy and cut their lines of supply!
The possible options, as I see them, could be:

1) Units have an 'Operational Range', they cannot travel more than that # of hexes, away from a friendly/captured city or fort (supply points), without suffering degraded performance (and possible hp loss).

2) Much like option #1, but the city/fort must be connected, by a road, to friendly territory in order to count as a supply point.

3) Your idea! No operational range, just has to be able to trace an uninterrupted line of 'supply' to a friendly city/fort.

4) A fusion of Options 1 and 3.

Anyway, if that is what you're talking about, then you DEFINITELY have my vote !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

If this is done, then the line of supply would have to be traced such that no part of the line goes next to an enemy unit. This could actually become burdensome, but might work. The one caveat to not going next to an enemy is that supply should be able to travel through friendly units regardless of the presence of enemy units.

I've often thought that some sort of basic supply system should be in effect, if only to simulate the effects of such a system being disrupted. The lack of healing in enemy territory works well, but it needs something a bit more. I don't think it should be based on roads or supply networks as this would massivly slow down the game speed (notice what happens when a harbour is destroyed, there is a huge wait).

How about a supply unit? it could be era specific, changing graphics or becoming obsolete to be replaced with an update each era. You could also have a sea version.

The idea would be that units on the same square as the supply unit could either heal in one turn, as if they were in a baracks, or it would be needed for the unit to heal at all. The effects could be upgraded as techs are researched. Units with a stealth attack could be used to destroy or capture the weak supply unit, denying your enemy his advantage. Before battlefield medicine the unit would not work when in enemy territory.

I think this would greatly add to the game and would make partisan type units much more usefull, they would be needed to reduce the enemies ability to wage war.
supply units could also be needed to enable artillery units to perform bombard attacks, representing the need for ammunition, this ability would have to be possible in enemy territory from an early point, perhaps with a tech like seigeworks.

A stack of doom denyed support units would be unable to heal, and would find itself deprived of defensive bombards. It would have to retreat to a friendly city or suffer defeat.

You would have to write this in to the AI as a fundamental tactic, otherwise the AI would be crippled. It wouldn't take much, just write a routine telling the AI to make partisan attacks against supply units, and to escort stacks of doom with supply units of thier own. Much easier than trying to program anything with roads and supply lines etc...

Oh yeah!
It must be possible to surround an enemy army, as the russians did at Stalingrad vs the germans. If you cant get supplies in, your units will fight less efficient, end over time be likely to surrender!

This would really make warfare more fun, interesting and realistic! You would need strategies preventing your troops to be surounded, and make counterattacks to open up the logistic lines again! Keeping a frontline will be much more important then to day!

Philips beard said:

Oh yeah!
It must be possible to surround an enemy army, as the russians did at Stalingrad vs the germans. If you cant get supplies in, your units will fight less efficient, end over time be likely to surrender!

This would really make warfare more fun, interesting and realistic! You would need strategies preventing your troops to be surounded, and make counterattacks to open up the logistic lines again! Keeping a frontline will be much more important then to day!

Click to expand...

Hmm.. I suppose my idea doesn't realy cover what would happen if the supply unit were surrounded or cut off. perhaps the unit could degrade after a while and have to return to a friendly city. If it cant then it loses its effectiveness. I don't know if the player would realy want to muck abour ferrying supply units back and forth, perhaps it would actualy enhance the gameplay (give you more of a feeling of maintaining your forces).

How about if the supply unit has to be "Healed" in a friendly city if a new tech is researched or a new resorce becomes available? That would represent the fact that new parts and equipment would be required to supply your armies. I think it may be better if the unit has to be "healed"/"recharged" every ten-twenty turns or so. More simple that way (the resorce thing probably wouldnt work unless it covered only the first time a resource becomes available, otherwise you would have to recharge your supply units evry time someone pillaged your iron or oil, even if the resource is only out of commision for a single turn).

You see, this is why the idea of operational range (OR) works so well, IMHO ! Imagine this scenario in the game:

You've got your eye on a massive oil supply near an enemy city deep in its territory (sound familiar? ) Anyway, you send a 'Stack 'O Death' of 10 tanks and 8 infantry deep into enemy territory. OK, say that the tanks have an OR of 6, and the infantry have an OR of 8, but the city lies 10 hexes inside enemy territory. Part way along your invasion path, you build a fort to act as a 'supply point'-as well as a place to 'heal' your troops. You then continue towards your main goal. The target proves more difficult to capture than you had anticipated, so you dig in for a protracted siege. Whilst you're doing that, though, an enemy unit has either (a) captured your fort or (b) placed itself on top of your 'supply line' (think embargoes in Civ3 to get an idea of how this would work). Either way, your units are now out of supply. Each turn your tanks will suffer a degradation of 20% to their firepower, armour and morale (4 hexes outside OR*5), as their ammunition and fuel and spare parts run low! In addition, each turn they have a 20% chance of losing a hp (or multiple if they use a larger hp system!) due to breakdowns and malfunctions. The infantry are a little better off, only suffering a 10% reduction to firepower, armour and morale per turn (2 hexes outside OR*5), and a 10% chance, per turn, of losing a hp due to desertions and malnutrition. These losses may be increased if they terrain is very hostile and/or the unit in question has already suffered injury.
Anyway, needless to say, these losses could prove devestating should the enemy launch a major counter-offensive! The only real MM involved in such a system would be to build the fortresses you need as supply points AND to keep a unit capable of defending it from enemy attack! This is a lot less MM intensive, IMO, than having YET another unit to move about with your military units!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Aussie_Lurker said:

You see, this is why the idea of operational range (OR) works so well, IMHO ! Imagine this scenario in the game:

You've got your eye on a massive oil supply near an enemy city deep in its territory (sound familiar? ) Anyway, you send a 'Stack 'O Death' of 10 tanks and 8 infantry deep into enemy territory. OK, say that the tanks have an OR of 6, and the infantry have an OR of 8, but the city lies 10 hexes inside enemy territory. Part way along your invasion path, you build a fort to act as a 'supply point'-as well as a place to 'heal' your troops. You then continue towards your main goal. The target proves more difficult to capture than you had anticipated, so you dig in for a protracted siege. Whilst you're doing that, though, an enemy unit has either (a) captured your fort or (b) placed itself on top of your 'supply line' (think embargoes in Civ3 to get an idea of how this would work). Either way, your units are now out of supply. Each turn your tanks will suffer a degradation of 20% to their firepower, armour and morale (4 hexes outside OR*5), as their ammunition and fuel and spare parts run low! In addition, each turn they have a 20% chance of losing a hp (or multiple if they use a larger hp system!) due to breakdowns and malfunctions. The infantry are a little better off, only suffering a 10% reduction to firepower, armour and morale per turn (2 hexes outside OR*5), and a 10% chance, per turn, of losing a hp due to desertions and malnutrition. These losses may be increased if they terrain is very hostile and/or the unit in question has already suffered injury.
Anyway, needless to say, these losses could prove devestating should the enemy launch a major counter-offensive! The only real MM involved in such a system would be to build the fortresses you need as supply points AND to keep a unit capable of defending it from enemy attack! This is a lot less MM intensive, IMO, than having YET another unit to move about with your military units!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Click to expand...

Good stuff Aussie, I think this would add some real strategic depth to military planning. Deep strikes into enemy territory would still be possible, but would carry significant risks (like 'Operation Market Garden', for example). Making the operational ranges unit-specific also makes sense. This could make partisan/guerilla/terrorist units more important for the game.

For my part, I would require both a line of supply, and that the unit be within operational range of a friendly city or fort/depot (which would ultimately need to be connected to a home city). For ancient age units, I would still want to include a 'local foraging' option: there are plenty of military campaigns where this was a big factor (ex: the wars between Rome and Carthage -- Sun Tsu also talks about the importance of pillaging and using local resources). To keep the supply line open, it would have to be clear of enemy units and zones of control. The actual attrition and other effects of being cut off would have to be determined in the context of the overall game design (don't want to make it unbalancing).

Great Aussie! Could be a nice way to do this!
Now the germans really got to take Tobruk in the coming Civ IV WW2 scenario!

Hey Phillips Beard, you're more right than you might realise. You see, in my system, Operational Ranges are halved in harsh terrain. So, for instance, tundra, desert, jungle, marsh and mountain terrain will halve your operational range, wheras tiles and irrigation might actually double it. Of course, travelling on a road, through the desert, will leave the OR value as is
(i.e. 0.5*2=1!). Within this system, it would be possible for certain units to ignore the Operational Range cost-the same way that units can ignore movement cost for some terrain types!
On this topic, naval units would, for the purposes of OR, count as a 'supply point'. However, naval units would also have an Operational Range-though substantially more than their land based cousins. Well, at least in the modern age they would. If naval units had this limitation, though, it would be neccessary to build 'Naval Bases' as terrain improvements-which could act as supply points on islands in the midst of the ocean!
Also, related to Operational Range, I feel that hexes should have a stack limit, which would help to further reduce the SoD mentality! Basically, stack limits would only apply to units who are staying in a hex for more than one turn. So, for instance, a mountain hex could support much fewer units than a grassland hex. Units might also have a 'support factor', though it might make things too complex. For instance, a tank might have a greater support number than infantry, so you can stack more infantry on a hex than tanks! This would work especially well for RR hexes, as it would limit the number of units which could occupy a RR hex at any one time!
Finally, I do agree that certain units should be able to 'pillage' a hex they are on, so long as that hex has a food/shield rating. Doing so would use up the units movement for that turn, but would delay degradation for that turn. Also, every time a hex is pillaged, there is a chance that the hex itself becomes degraded!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I like these ideas, Aussie! An easy way to implement realistic, and more fun warfare!

I guess a lot of people would disagree, but I would also like to see supplyships that could increase your line of supply on great oceans, when the distance from your harbours are becoming to big.

Perhaps these supplyships also should be needed for the trade crossing oceans, so you really will need a fleet to protect your trade! (protecting the supplyships) I have seen alot of people complaining they cant see any importance of havig a fleet, so this could be a sollution to make naval warfare more important in the game too!

I have to agree that a operational range idea sounds good, and in a multiplayer game it would be the perfect option.
However, you have to think how the AI would handle it. operational ranges would be a major part of the game and I realy think you would have to make the AI cheat to get it to work.

For instance, when planning an attack outside of your operational range, you would look at the types of troops you wnted to send, check thier operational range and then build a fort at the furthest extent.

On the other hand the AI would select a whole buch of random units, form them in to a stack, build a fort in a random, totaly useless place and then send its stack of to get slaughtered on some random war against an enemy on the other side of the globe.

Also you have to think of how a new player would under stand the effect. I started playing civ when I was about 12, I started out on cheiftan difficulty and was totaly stumped by why some units would win while others lost, or how to ballance my ecomomy with my research (i'd finish the game on my first victory with several cities placed next to each other "to make them bigger" not realy understanding unhappyness or the effects of irrigation. My most advanced unit was a catapult). The fact was, although many of the rules confused me, I was stall able to play and with practice, achieve a win. Any supply effect would have to be easy enough to understand that a new player could get to grips with it. And just having the option to turn it off would not be fun, I actualy like the fact that the game was too complicated for me to understand in one sitting, that was part of the apeal.

I think having a supply unit (Something that was visulay obvous like a truck or waggon) would be easy to understand, but difficult to master. You wouldn't need too many of them, as they could be shared by any troops in the area needing to heal, and I think they would soon become so much an intergral part of the game you'd be hard pushed to rememeber what edition of civ first started using them.

Also it would enable weak players to use partisan tactics to defend them selves against a stronger enemy, so that the standard way of winning any battle in CIV III; Build a massive stack full of attackers and defenders with some artillery and move it to each enemy city in turn crushing all defenders with local superiorty wouldnt be so totaly effective.

Perhaps another ability of the supply unit would be to protect a stack from encirclement. In civ 1 and civ 2 if a unit in a stack lost a combat, that whole stack would be detroyed, representing encirclement of the enemy. This was removed simply to make the AI more effective in combat, and to help represent the "Strength of numbers" tactic. In civ 4 the encirclement rule could be revived (meaning that fortress's would again become usefull) but could be mitigated by the presence of a supply unit in the stack. This would reduce the reliance on the "Stack of doom" tactic in civ, unless you wanted to shell out for dozens of supply units for your stack, a few luck bombards or a well placed partisan or bandit raid could leave your enemy vunerable to being encicled and wiped out, even with thier superior numbers. However, pehaps it would be best if a tech made encirclement in your own territory impossible (perhaps military adminisration, or "living off the land").

Also you would have to program the AI to react well to the loss of supply units. Either sending in replacements, or scattering a un-supplied stack in to adjacent squares and retreating. Continuing to send the stack forward would be foolhardy, unless it could capture some enemy supply units quickly (supply units would be defence 0, so they would be capturable if you could destroy all thier defenders). Think of the germans in WWII at the battle of the bulge. Because they lacked oil the german tank crews were equiped with syphens for refueling once they reached the allied supply depots.

Smoking mirror said:

I have to agree that a operational range idea sounds good, and in a multiplayer game it would be the perfect option.
However, you have to think how the AI would handle it. operational ranges would be a major part of the game and I realy think you would have to make the AI cheat to get it to work.

Click to expand...

Play one of the operational level wargames (Korsun Pocket being a great example). You will see that an AI can be made to understand this.

Supply is the core of the gameplay in KP. I would suggest anyone interested in this style of gameplay, try that game then come back here. It's been done and very effectively.

Great! Then it should be possible for the firaxis guys to make it as well!

warpstorm said:

Play one of the operational level wargames (Korsun Pocket being a great example). You will see that an AI can be made to understand this.

Supply is the core of the gameplay in KP. I would suggest anyone interested in this style of gameplay, try that game then come back here. It's been done and very effectively.

Click to expand...

OK, I admit that with the new CIV being programed from scratch something like supply lines could be made to work well.
However, my opinion is that it would be to complicated for a "fun" game like CIV where the idea is not to reproduce reality with complicated simulations but to use a bunch of fun gameplay features that can be used to Produce realistic effects.

Aussie, interesting ideas.

What do you think of the concept of "outposts", as you yourself suggested in the thread "general idea threads:unit&unit combat". But then a modified version of it. I did reply on your post regarding the OR, but extendable by builing "outposts". Outposts could be for ground units (and for naval units, when built at coast squares) what airfields are for air units: extending their OR! Outposts could be built by military or exploratory units though. I am curious what you think of that? Would it be compatible with what's been suggested here?

Regards,
Jaca

Smoking mirror said:

However, my opinion is that it would be to complicated for a "fun" game like CIV where the idea is not to reproduce reality with complicated simulations but to use a bunch of fun gameplay features that can be used to Produce realistic effects.

Click to expand...

The guys who did KP understood this and made supply both workable and useful without being hard to understand.

Basically a unit was in supply or not (the rules are bit complicated, but are handled by the computer - being in your territory, being near a supply point, on a good road network, etc. - there were simple graphic views to see this easily).

A unit that is out of supply can take actions for as many turns as it has supply left (usually 3). After that it's attack, defense, and movement go way down. They did not worry about what a supply was (food, fuel, bullets, etc.), just that a unit was supplied or not.

First up, whether you call them 'outposts' or just the current 'forts' doesn't really much matter to me-just so long as you can build something that is a 'Supply Point'. I personally don't feel that the suggestions I've put forward would make the game any less fun, or any more difficult. Learning how to 'cope' with OR and 'Terrain Stack Limits', within the framework of your current combat strategies, would be no less difficult than adjusting to the new diplomacy/trade system, bombardment and culture/border systems introduced in Civ3! I know for a fact that these new system, at first, caused people a lot of difficulties-as they tried to utilize their favourite Civ2 strategies, and FAILED. Now, of course, we've all adjusted our strategies and have very high praise for the changes. I sense that my ideas, if they were implemented, would prove to be VERY much the same !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

EDIT: Warpstorm, who released the game you mentioned and where can I get my hands on a copy? !

SSG released it (an Australian company, IIRC). For more info look at http://www.korsunpocket.com While it only does a few WW2 battles, it has some wonderful gameplay mechanisms.

In the end, I almost don't care that much how Firaxis does it as that theydo actually include supply. They could even create a caveat that early tech units don't need supply, so long as units that quite obviously do need supply have to have it.