Ammunition Idea

[Rusty Edge]

Generally speaking the idea of supply however proposed doesn't appeal to me for civ.

It's all well and fine in a tactical battle game, but here it seems like another dimension of micro management that adds complexity without adding fun. To my way of thinking, the health/hitpoints & maintenance costs of the unit includes things like fuel, food, ammunition, parts and replacement equipment and personel. The general commanding the unit manages that.

 

[Camikaze]

Wouldn't that be a massive advantage already?

You don't want that Longbowman to hit City Garrison III, now, do you?

For a singular unit, if it was suicide, the chances are the enemy would only gain 1 XP. So, I guess if you did it with 10 units, it would become a massive disadvantage, but then if you lost 10 units like that, you would be at a massive disadvantage anyway.

I'm thinking perhaps a disadvantage to unit morale, or some other such thing that could be added to the game, would be best.

 

[exhile]

How about a suicide bomber unit or a kamikaze air unit? (no offense to camikaze)

The unit would be guaranteed destruction for a specied number of damage. It would function similar to the cruise missile.

 

[cardgame]

I agree with the idea that there should be Munition Plants, and that the micromanagement of ammo and supply trains is much more suited to a game focused more on war and less on civilization.

I think these should reduce military unit maintenance by something like 25-50%, and perhaps another building, Victory Gardens perhaps? could also reduce unit maintenance by 10-25%.

@ camikaze, WolfRev mod has something similar to morale. It's pretty sweet.

 

[Camikaze]

@ exhile. None taken. I was thinking something along those lines also, as perhaps a unit that doesn't suffer from morale loss, or anything. I really think that it would be a good thing to add to the game.

@ cardgame. Thanks for the reference to the mod. I don't think that unit maintenance should be reduced though, as it would undermine any disadvantage that exists during war, which would, of course, undermine the balance of the whole game.

 

[Argetnyx]

If you don't have a supply option, then what use is 'surrounding your enemy'?

 

[cardgame]

If you don't have a supply option, then what use is 'surrounding your enemy'?

To cut off their supplies

Spoiler :

We just don't need supply trains and crap ingame.

 

[Argetnyx]

It was an integral part of the strategy in any war. Cutting off supplies was the main reason that the Allies were able to even hold on th their landings during D-Day.

 

[Camikaze]

So supply should be a part of the game, but an automated one. This would still satisfy the need to maintain supply routes and supply lines, but would avoid the tedium of micromanaging supply units.

 

[Argetnyx]

Yes, that's a good idea. But if you wanted more realism, you could partly control it: It would still be automated, but you can intervene and set it your own way in-game.

 

[Camikaze]

I suppose, yes. I do think you should be able to choose a supply route if you so desire, to match your war plans, but if you didn't want to, it would be automated for you. I was more thinking that the actual units needed to go back and forth over the supply lines would be automated, rather than the actual lines themselves.

One question that hasn't been answered yet (IIRC) is what the effect will be on units that have no supply? I would suggest that some parameter be established effecting their strength. Say, a -20% strength modifier for every turn they are without supply, max-ing out at 80%. Or perhaps an exponential, or sinusoidal, modifier on their actual health, whereby they lose health each turn that they do not have supply, in the function (where y = percentage of original health (0≤y≤1), and x = number of turns (0≤x≤10):
y = cos ([∏x]/20)
So that after 10 turns of no supply, the unit dies.

 

[Argetnyx]

I play Civ3, so what I would do is: If the units does not have supplies: It's attack value is reduced by, say, a fourth; and so is the defensive value. If it is a mechanized (anything with a motor), it will have half off of movement.

 

[Camikaze]

But what happens the next turn? Surely if a unit doesn't have supplies for multiple turns in a row, they will wither and perish. Such as will happen if you use y = cos ([∏x]/20). (∏=pi. I just couldn't find the right symbol in my character palette)

 

[Hail]

so what would be the mechanism for cutting off supplies?

 

[Camikaze]

There would have to be a path of tiles between your units and your territory. Just some continuous path. So, to stop supplies, your enemy would have to disrupt that path, and to keep supplies going, you would have to defend the path. This would also force battle out of cities, most likely. Your territory would, however, only be that territory that is connected via a trade route to your capital. So, newly captured cities would not receive supplies if they were completely surrounded.

The only problem I can see is that there are many and varied paths, and just having to have one severely undermines the idea of supply lines. Perhaps there could be a qualification whereby the path of tiles has to be directly towards your territory (terrain permitting). Anyone got some other suggestions?

Also, in the case of an intercontinental invasion, you would have full supplies for the first turn of landing, and the next turn thereafter, after which time the no supply penalty applies, until you can capture a city. This city would have to then connect to the coast, or something, in order to become part of your trade network, and receive supplies.

 

[Argetnyx]

This goes with the trade route idea. To cut off supplies, all you have to do is intercept them, if there is another, unused, route, then they will start towards that direction. It should not be an instantanious thing, even with rails (which are unrealistically fast), but taking time to find their way. With this being used, the turns required for supply shortage effects must be moderately long. Not too short, because you would be having problems too soon. But not too long because you wouldn't have to worry about shortages, unless in extreme situations.

 

[Camikaze]

I also think that the effect shouldn't be completely instantaneous, but perhaps mostly so. Some supply would be blocked if the existing supply route was blocked, but most (75%?) would be instantaneously diverted. Perhaps this would reduce supplies by a quarter of what they would otherwise.

The formula y = cos ([∏x]/20) has it so that it will take 10 consecutive turns of no supply before a unit dies. After 1 turn, a unit will have 98.7% of their original health, moving to 95.1% after 2 turns, 89.1% after 3 turns, 80.9% after 4 turns, 70.7% after 5 turns, 58.8% after 6 turns, 45.4% after 7 turns, 30.9% after 8 turns, 15.6% after 9 turns, and 0% after 10 turns. This accelerating diminishment of health takes things into account nicely, IMO.

I think if a unit has no supply, it cannot heal, also. That seems to make sense, and would mitigate healing that would mitigate the no supply penalty.

Also, I think that once a unit does receive supply again, it should not fully recover heath instantaneously. Perhaps then it would instantaneously recover half of health lost due to the no supply penalty, and then have to fortify heal, conventionally, for the remainder of the units health losses to be recovered.

 

[Hail]

sounds good, but imo it's another "complexity without fun" thing. maybe something simpler like, if there is no path that does not go through enemy-controlled tiles, then the unit is cut off? the time the supplies will reach the target unit is proportional to the path's distance.

 

[Camikaze]

What determines enemy controlled territory? Part of this would be that you can still have a fully supplied army whether you were one tile inside enemy territory, or twenty tiles in enemy territory. However, it is meant to be harder to supply those units that are twenty tiles within enemy territory. If the route needed from them is complex, that is a good thing. It reflects that which the feature would be trying to reflect- you can't just plonk yourself in the middle of nowhere. And I think that supplies should reach units instantaneously. It isn't like every few turns there is a large arrival of goods to your units. There is a steady stream of supply. So, having it take time for supplies to reach your units wouldn't really work.

Also, I think that as a possible balance for having supply in the game (which is really something against the attacker- it makes invasion harder) would be that units connected to supply would heal like normal units in your own territory. This would be far more realistic, and would lead to a further advantage for those units that have supply.

 

[Argetnyx]

If you've passed through, and the enemy has not taken it back (occupied the tile once again), then it is controlled by you. This takes the game off of cities, for you have to make sure that your path through to your current position is not cut off. If it is, then your supplies are not coming through, therefore, your surrounded military suffers in attacking, defensive, and morale values.

That's how it should work.