Caveman 2 Cosmos (ideas/discussions thread)

[Somebody613]

@pecheneg
I tried. Your belief is just too strong to tackle. Oh, well. Le shrug.

 

[pecheneg]

I tried. Your belief is just too strong to tackle. Oh, well. Le shrug.

Actually, I am a believing... Orthodox Christian. Only here the canonical religious literature for Orthodoxy for more than a thousand years also contains a pretty good retelling of Aristotle's logic. Well, the ruthless application of it for a very long time and very reliably divorced faith and objective knowledge from different angles within the framework of canonical views.

 

[raxo2222]

Actually, I am a believing... Orthodox Christian. Only here the canonical religious literature for Orthodoxy for more than a thousand years also contains a pretty good retelling of Aristotle's logic. Well, the ruthless application of it for a very long time and very reliably divorced faith and objective knowledge from different angles within the framework of canonical views.

He is unaware, that plenty of scientists were and are religious.
At best religion is like coffee or alcohol (in moderation), while at worst its opium for masses.

 

[Somebody613]

Atheism is one the most jealous religions out there, quite right.
And... I'll stop there. It won't change anything for anyone anyways.

 

[pecheneg]

He is unaware, that plenty of scientists were and are religious.

Yes, and the knowledge of the possibilities of biological and technical evolution automatically suggests the possibility of almost unlimited, divine power.

At best religion is like coffee or alcohol (in moderation), while at worst its opium for masses.

Moreover, an attempt to attract religion to everything is a very anti–Christian view, an actual waste of faith on unworthy objects. Freethinkers can, but we, the Eastern Orthodox, cannot .

 

[raxo2222]

Atheism is one the most jealous religions out there, quite right.
And... I'll stop there. It won't change anything for anyone anyways.

Atheism isn't problem, but religious extremism is problem.

 

[Toffer90]

There are simply no other signs that make it possible to separate religion from non-religion. For example, the idea that religion is a social structure built around a certain ideology automatically adds almost any political party to the list of religious movements.

That is why I as a non-religious person would never become a member of any political party in Norway. Many here are loyal members to a party and it takes a lot to make them reconsider their vote or stop missionary work for it. ^^ The religious following of parties is worse in the US though.

All kidding aside, the worldview (or ideology as you called it, though I consider ideology and religion as two different things) would have to be a worldview about what reality/existence itself is rather than just opinions on how society works best. Few political parties are communities of people who belong to a specific school on what reality and existence is, they are usually just ideological rather than religious and ideological (exceptions exist but I speak from the perspective of Scandinavia, even the Christian people party is secular in its approach to politics and can't be classified as Christianity itself or even some schism within Christianity).

 

[Toffer90]

I think it's why science is a religion more so than a "science".

I get what you mean, but real science isn't supposed to take a stand on what reality/existence is, it is just supposed to attempt to describe reality as it appear to be, thing with science is that nothing is final, everything is just a theory that can be challenged by science, and one can't assume something cannot be wrong just because it has never been proven wrong before. The moment someone starts to take a bombastic stance on what reality/existence is based on whatever (e.g. science) and a community of followers grows around it, then you have a religion based on said whatever.

 

[Somebody613]

I get what you mean, but real science isn't supposed to take a stand on what reality/existence is, it is just supposed to attempt to describe reality as it appear to be, thing with science is that nothing is final, everything is just a theory that can be challenged by science, and one can't assume something cannot be wrong just because it has never been proven wrong before. The moment someone starts to take a bombastic stance on what reality/existence is based on whatever (e.g. science) and a community of followers grows around it, then you have a religion based on said whatever.

"Supposed" is a very popular excuse. Except real science is still performed by real people - and real people are almost always religious fanatics of their ideology. So it's still almost always a religion when it comes to anything practical. And that isn't limited to history - Covid was a rather strong religious sect of its own, even though it was "supposed" to be scientific. Yet people still screamed about "anti-vaxxers" as if those were nothing less than heretics. Preaching is still preaching, ya know.

 

[pecheneg]

All kidding aside, the worldview (or ideology as you called it, though I consider ideology and religion as two different things)

Hmm, obviously my terrifying English let me down. It seems that I will have to learn the language for purely humanistic reasons - I seem to be practically mocking the interlocutors.

I also believe that religion is not equal to ideology. More precisely, that religion is one of the many variants of ideology.And in this case, I meant just ideology in a narrower sense, without a religious/mystical connotation.

would have to be a worldview about what reality/existence itself is rather than just opinions on how society works best. Few political parties are communities of people who belong to a specific school on what reality and existence is, they are usually just ideological rather than religious and ideological

Well, that's what I wrote about. That is, that according to the formula "organization + any worldview other than religious" we do not get religion. We will get an ordinary political party, a congress of astrologers, a "corporation" of sorcerers in Africa, etc.

 

[Maltazard]

I'll just add that the key ingredient to religion from a social sciences perspective is not that constitutes an organized church or not, neither it is that it's an organized on unorganized religion. It is that it involves a set of beliefs concerned with the "sacred" and "mystical" dimension of life, with the spiritual, moral, unseen and transcendentand aspects of existence. So for instance scientology or pastafarianism wouldn't really fit it, as they are more of an organization with a religious pretext (the former) and a mockery of the notion of religion itself (the latter). It is not an ideology since it's not born out of a concern to organize the mundane affairs, even though both the generic prescriptions of eastern religions and the very detailed prescriptions of the monotheist organized faiths do indeed prescribe how to life the mundane life, they do so in order to live a life worthy of a good afterlife. Whether is spirits of the ancestors, a plurality of petty or not so petty deities, karma, cosmic energy, a one allmighty god, there is an element of sacred and mystical to have a religion. Obviously religion is then used as a political motif to justify ideological decisions, but as we know even among Islam which I consider to be the most prescriptive doctrine out there, there is a wild range of theocratic organization which goes from full on theocracy to semi-secular states.

The process of secularization itself is interesting since I believe it goes to show the subtle line between religion and culture and how they interact with each other. Religion adapts to culture and vice versa. They are at times indistinguishable and at times in conflict - let's not also forget that it's relatively easy to proselitize and convert a population but then they'll develop their own version of that religion by fusing it to their own cultural fingerprint.

Atheists should refuse not just the notion of faith, but also the notion of a transcendendant dimension to life, or of an "after life". All existence is explained, lived and resolved within the mundane space. If you believe in an afterlife, and merely reject the notion of any deity, you're not an atheist (although you do lack a deity and thus a-theist seems appropriate in its literal, etimological sense), but chances are you're just a spiritual, religiously unorganized individual. You might be gnostic, confucianist or just very loosely new age and not even know it because atheism is the go to answer for people who do not adhere or follow a doctrine.

 

[pecheneg]

If you believe in an afterlife, and merely reject the notion of any deity, you're not an atheist (although you do lack a deity and thus a-theist seems appropriate in its literal, etimological sense), but chances are you're just a spiritual, religiously unorganized individual

By the way, there is a whole group of Nirishvaravada ("the godless") teachings in Indian religion and its derivatives. Undoubtedly religious, but built almost entirely around a belief not so much in gods as in impersonal karma. That is, rebirth with posthumous retribution.
At the same time they 1. Quite numerous 2. Often perfectly organized 3. At one time, probably covered a very significant part of humanity
For example, Jainism is a very organized religion. At the same time , in the Jain ideology
1. There is no creator god or/and global ruler
2. Celestial beings (devas) exist, but are mortal and subject to the objective law of karma.
3. The main object of the cult is not them at all, but the "saints" who have achieved enlightenment, etc. At the same time, there is an afterlife, rebirth and the same karma, and the task is completely Buddhist, to leave the chain of reincarnations.

However, this is not the most remarkable thing. And the fact is that the mimans school, which is quite close in content, was very influential in the Early Middle Ages... in mainstream Hinduism. Content:
1. There is an afterlife/reincarnation and karma.
2. The gods not only did not create the world. They did not participate in the creation of the Vedas, which exist forever and have absolute authority.
3. Since according to the eternal Vedas, the duty/task/dharma of a person is to perform sacrifices and rituals, they should be performed.
4. At the same time, sacrifices/rituals are valuable in themselves. This is not communication with the gods, but a way of obtaining/accumulating apurva. That is, a kind of mana/grace affecting karma / rebirth, etc.
5. Rituals are valuable.... together with the entire "church" organization of Hinduism, which ensures their conduct, the brahmin caste, etc.
6. The gods themselves are "just names in the Vedas." That is, they are just an appendix to a self–valuable ritual. In general, Confucius, with his cult of ritual as such, was not alone in his ideas. Anyway, here is just an exemplary example of the concept of "godlessness + afterlife", but ... just as a variant of classical religion and with a huge and developed organized "church".

 

[LeanArcticWolf]

Here’s an idea that can be a great addition to C2C: Logistics.

This idea is based around the Realism mod’s logistics system. In short, an army could only contain so many units in a single tile before there was a strength penalty applied to them if they exceeded the limit. There was a rural and urban logistics system, where urban would always hold more. Researching the appropriate technologies was the only way to increase the logistics limit. Lastly, the logistics system was on a spectrum, such as, no issues for 1-5 units on a tile, -2% strength for 6-8 unites, -5% strength for 9-12 units, etc. In short, Realism’s logistics system adapted to Caveman2Cosmos would be great.

In addition to it, I was thinking that geography should also be tied to the logistic system. After all, geography is the very reason why we need logistics in the first place. Having ancient armies clashing in the middle desert should not be as doable as having armies clashing in lush farmland.
Logistics should be expanded beyond the urban/rural system and also take account of geography by food yields.

1-2 Food yields: Provide no bonus
3-4 Food yields: Expands logistics by 1
5-6 Food yields: Expands logistics by 2. And so on for higher food yields.
0 Food yields: Decreases logistics by 5

These numbers can always be changed for balancing, but the main point is that tundra and deserts should not be able to support the same size armies as lush farm land.

Logistics can also be improved by a few ways: coast/river, great generals, and buildings (in addition to aforementioned technology being an influencing factor)
Traveling by coast/river will improve logistics by 1 or two, regardless the terrain, as the army is being supplied by “merchant ships”.

Great generals will negate the 0 food yield penalty on logistics completely. This simulates for example the brilliance of Alexander the Great navigating through the deserts of the Persian Empire. Or a great general can have a special promotion line that affects logistics. First level improves army logistics by one, level 2 improves it by 2, and level 4 negates the 0 food yield penalty on logistics completely.

I was also thinking that path improvements (cart path, road, paved road, etc) would also improve logistics and each better path improvement would provide a better bonus for the tile, but that may be too many variables for logistics already. Movement bonus may be good enough reason to use it already. Perhaps a slight terrain defense aid? Soldiers are better supplied by road, so they are better fed and able to fight better:

Cart path-no bonus,+1 to logistics?
Road-1 % defense bonus. +2 to logistics?
Paved Road-2 or 3 percent defense bonus, +3 to logistics?
Etc

Buildings, such as ammo depots and barracks would increase urban logistics.


TLDR: Basic idea is to adapt the logistics system from the Realism mod to C2C and add geography, great generals, path improvements, and buildings as influencing variables to rural/urban logistics.

 

[pecheneg]

As a figure who actively campaigned for linking logistical opportunities to the "fertility of the terrain" in the case of Chronicles of Mankind, I strongly support it. And here there is another nuance, important from the point of view of realism - which I suggest thinking about. A preindustrial farm is always stocks until the new harvest. At the same time, what should feed, say, four adults for two hundred days, is able to feed 800 people a day. Naturally, the further away from the harvest, the smaller the reserves, but on average we will get 400 man-days. And in the riskiest season (in winter). In other words, the ruthless plundering of peasants gave pre-industrial armies a one-time, but huge bonus to logistics. As a result, the armies, whose numbers were comparable to those of the then "first-class" city, were not without problems, but operated far from their supply bases.

Meanwhile, this formed a very specific strategy. The armies could only go "forward", to the territories not looted. Forcing the enemy to retreat along the old road meant causing a collapse. That is, the costs of losing a campaign for an advancing army in the first half of the 19th century were extremely high. The level of risk we are familiar with is already the result of the appearance of the railway network, etc.

cart path, road, paved road, etc)

The problem with roads is that there is an obvious life hack. You can build a high-level road on one tile in the middle of the jungle and get the same bonus as from a full-fledged highway. It is not difficult to imagine the consequences in the form of troops being supplied along routes leading to nowhere, which begin to be built only when approaching the enemy. That is, it would be optimal to partially borrow a component from the Chronicles of Mankind, where the logistical penalty increases due to distance from cultural boundaries.

This will not only remove the life hack - supply difficulties are objectively growing with removal even now. At the same time, the efficiency of a wagon compared to a truck / train is extremely low. For example, а hoofed «engine» requires three times the mass of "fuel" to obtain the same amount of energy.

But it is not the abstract distance that should be considered, but the actual costs of movement - that is, taking into account roads, etc. Including the strongest discount for sea/ocean tiles. The difference in transportation costs at sea and on land was monstrous even, for example, in Rome. Where there were excellent roads - and quite mediocre ships. At the same time, it is still worth counting from the nearest city, and not from cultural borders passing somewhere in the jungle or desert.

Traveling by coast/river will improve logistics by 1 or two,

In fact, the cost of sea transportation, even in Roman case, was ten times less than by land. The relevant documents have reached us. Obviously, it is largely from here that the configuration of the same Roman Empire. In the age of sail, everything has become even more interesting. And it became quite interesting when steamboats already exist, and a developed railway network is still a rarity. As a result, we see a situation where Europeans are waging wars with each other and aborigines on the other side of the globe, but... In general, see the example of Charles 12 and Napoleon.
Right now, the cost of sea transportation (in Russia) is 3.5 times less. than rail transportation and 5 - than road transportation. At the same time, it is clear that we are talking about normal transportation, and not broken military ways or dirt roads.

 

[strategyonly]

1. Shouldn't all mines have at least 3-4 or more production value?? )pic 1)

2. is there anyways to change the "land units" in the pic to units that can attack withOUT causing war?? it would be nice, because on the other side is "military units" anyways .. . (pic2)

 

[Thunderbrd]

1) Precious metals are more economic than production driven aren't they?

2) Would be nice to have some expanded filters like that. Not my wheelhouse but I agree.

 

[LeanArcticWolf]

In fact, the cost of sea transportation, even in Roman case, was ten times less than by land. The relevant documents have reached us. Obviously, it is largely from here that the configuration of the same Roman Empire. In the age of sail, everything has become even more interesting. And it became quite interesting when steamboats already exist, and a developed railway network is still a rarity. As a result, we see a situation where Europeans are waging wars with each other and aborigines on the other side of the globe, but... In general, see the example of Charles 12 and Napoleon.
Right now, the cost of sea transportation (in Russia) is 3.5 times less. than rail transportation and 5 - than road transportation. At the same time, it is clear that we are talking about normal transportation, and not broken military ways or dirt roads.

Very true. Certainly, rivers/coast should provide more of a boost than land routes, though perhaps naval logistical buildings, such as shipyards should be tied to providing the majority of the boost-It still takes naval infrastructure to supply an army overseas. The more advance the naval infastrucutre, the more significant the boost. I still think land routes should provide a boost still as a paved road is much better than a dirt trail. After all, WWII in the Eastern Front, logistics was heavily influenced by the lack of paved roads. In fact, the reason why there were massive battles in the countryside during the world wars was due to railroads and trucks. Sabatoging an enemies road system will now have a much bigger impact as it'll now affect logistics.

Also, one would be able to surmise where an enemy (and yourself) will usually concentrate their forces: Mainly, armies will follow rivers/coasts and land routes, such as roads. One will also know that large armies will generally travel through lush farmlands vs barren deserts. It'll provide logic to the movement of armies. Certainly, there can be wonders, etc that can provide a logistics bonus for desert, tundra, etc tiles to help nations that are in those inhospitable environments.

 

[pecheneg]

Very true.

Thanks

The more advance the naval infastrucutre, the more significant the boost.

Yes, and I would
1. Spread the mechanics wider. The development of "water" infrastructure in theory should GREATLY affect the cost of maintaining cities
2. Tried to take into account the "network" effect. The value of the network does not increase linearly with the addition of each new node. It is proportional to the number of new connections within the network, which grows much faster than the number of "nodes". Metcalf's rule: the utility of a network is proportional to half the square of the number of users of this network ≈n2/2.
The most straightforward way is to use the mechanics of courts and cathedrals. That is, for every few harbors, you can build a "superharbor" with additional effects.
Among other things, it will facilitate at least point expansion to other continents. The strongholds of Portugal, Holland, Spain, etc. were scattered along all the coasts back in the Renaissance, but this is practically forbidden by the current mechanics of the game. Similarly, large-scale expansion into sparsely populated, but large regions of the "Siberia" type is prohibited. At the same time, in reality it was successful... because it relied on the same combination of river and sea logistics.
Вy tying the cost of maintaining cities to harbors and giving the Versailles/Forbidden City effect to large ones, you can get a more realistic picture. And it's fun to fight in the other hemisphere, as it was in the real Renaissance, yes.
At the same time, harbors may have national specifics. For traditional specialists in "water" expansion, ports can be more efficient.

I still think land routes should provide a boost still as a paved road is much better than a dirt trail. After all, WWII in the Eastern Front, logistics was heavily influenced by the lack of paved roads. In fact, the reason why there were massive battles in the countryside during the world wars was due to railroads and trucks. Sabatoging an enemies road system will now have a much bigger impact as it'll now affect logistics.

I am not protesting against the accounting of roads by themselves. Moreover, I'm all for it. Just taking into account only the area on which the unit stands at the moment narrows the possibilities ... to depict the same eastern front of the Second World War, for example. The logistical problems of the Wehrmacht increased in proportion to the total length of bad and destroyed roads in the rear. The possibilities of the fleet, looted throughout continental Europe, did not run out immediately after the Soviet border, alas. Using the general removal, taking into account the patency of tiles, you can get a realistic picture, much deeper mechanics and eliminate life hacks.

One will also know that large armies will generally travel through lush farmlands vs barren deserts. It'll provide logic to the movement of armies. Certainly, there can be wonders, etc that can provide a logistics bonus for desert, tundra, etc tiles to help nations that are in those inhospitable environments.

I totally agree. I myself actively campaigned for the differentiation of logistical penalties depending on the fertility of the area. The Russian Empire is big, yes.

Last performance. https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/chronicles-of-mankind.643052/page-80#post-16341996

The general pathos boils down to the fact that
1. Pre-industrial armies, due to understandable logistical problems, relied heavily on local resources. And not only agricultural ones – for example, even among the "specialists" of the Roman legion there were professional hunters.
2. As a consequence, small detachments could operate at a gigantic distance from the bases without any external supply. At the same time, we are talking not only about a Cortez-style situation, but also about a "green desert" like "taiga" (there is very little edible biomass there), tundra and a real desert. This is about how Siberia was conquered.
3. At the same time, even very large armies by pre-industrial standards could exist in a favorable area at the expense of local resources. For example, Napoleon's aggressive tactics were associated with the rejection of the "store system" of the 18th century, and in Western Europe it worked.
These are pretty obvious arguments, but perhaps some references will be useful to you in the inevitable future disputes.
However, there are some less obvious mechanisms. The effectiveness of the robbery was mentioned above. Another point is that reliance on local resources created "Napoleonic" risks not only in Russia.
The tactic of "surrounding the enemy's army with clouds of light cavalrymen, killing small detachments collecting resources" worked perfectly in Southern Italy of the 16th century, for example. There, Spanish jinete "showed the Cossacks" to the same French.
At the same time, in fact, "mechanics" acts more globally. In fact, the armies of that time were forced to wage two parallel wars – an obvious one that got into textbooks, and a war of small detachments. At the same time, the number of casualties in major battles and in a small war was obviously comparable. In the English Civil War, about half of the victims died in skirmishes of detachments of 10 or less people. The civil war has its own specifics, but nevertheless.
These moments are difficult to reproduce, but there are some thoughts about them – for the very distant future, of course.

 

[dummy1929]

Here’s an idea that can be a great addition to C2C: Logistics.

This idea is based around the Realism mod’s logistics system. In short, an army could only contain so many units in a single tile before there was a strength penalty applied to them if they exceeded the limit. There was a rural and urban logistics system, where urban would always hold more. Researching the appropriate technologies was the only way to increase the logistics limit. Lastly, the logistics system was on a spectrum, such as, no issues for 1-5 units on a tile, -2% strength for 6-8 unites, -5% strength for 9-12 units, etc. In short, Realism’s logistics system adapted to Caveman2Cosmos would be great.

In addition to it, I was thinking that geography should also be tied to the logistic system. After all, geography is the very reason why we need logistics in the first place. Having ancient armies clashing in the middle desert should not be as doable as having armies clashing in lush farmland.
Logistics should be expanded beyond the urban/rural system and also take account of geography by food yields.

1-2 Food yields: Provide no bonus
3-4 Food yields: Expands logistics by 1
5-6 Food yields: Expands logistics by 2. And so on for higher food yields.
0 Food yields: Decreases logistics by 5

These numbers can always be changed for balancing, but the main point is that tundra and deserts should not be able to support the same size armies as lush farm land.

Logistics can also be improved by a few ways: coast/river, great generals, and buildings (in addition to aforementioned technology being an influencing factor)
Traveling by coast/river will improve logistics by 1 or two, regardless the terrain, as the army is being supplied by “merchant ships”.

Great generals will negate the 0 food yield penalty on logistics completely. This simulates for example the brilliance of Alexander the Great navigating through the deserts of the Persian Empire. Or a great general can have a special promotion line that affects logistics. First level improves army logistics by one, level 2 improves it by 2, and level 4 negates the 0 food yield penalty on logistics completely.

I was also thinking that path improvements (cart path, road, paved road, etc) would also improve logistics and each better path improvement would provide a better bonus for the tile, but that may be too many variables for logistics already. Movement bonus may be good enough reason to use it already. Perhaps a slight terrain defense aid? Soldiers are better supplied by road, so they are better fed and able to fight better:

Cart path-no bonus,+1 to logistics?
Road-1 % defense bonus. +2 to logistics?
Paved Road-2 or 3 percent defense bonus, +3 to logistics?
Etc

Buildings, such as ammo depots and barracks would increase urban logistics.


TLDR: Basic idea is to adapt the logistics system from the Realism mod to C2C and add geography, great generals, path improvements, and buildings as influencing variables to rural/urban logistics.

Brilliant idea. A lot of the logistics system could be modelled by simple terrain modifiers or unit type modifiers, keeping overhead low. At a certain point, from trench warfare onward, "living off the land" should become unfeasible, as it was historically. (i.e. no logistics bonuses for machine gun or modern infantry, instead reliance on roads.) Having road and infrastructure contribute to terrain combat modifiers would also make sense; fighting over a road or railroad and over bases has been a driver of a lot of historical warfare. Pre-modern long-range campaigns, like Alexander or the Mongols, should be exceptional and only possible through special unit or leader bonuses.

 

[pecheneg]

At a certain point, from trench warfare onward, "living off the land" should become unfeasible, as it was historically. (i.e. no logistics bonuses for machine gun or modern infantry, instead reliance on roads.)

In fact, if you "give", for example, one French infantryman 1914-18 a kilogram of food a day, then you can find that the French started shooting more than chewing, except towards the very end of the war. In 1916, the consumption of ammunition was clearly less than 2.5 thousand tons per day, and the number of the army was 3 million. At the same time, ammunition is overwhelmingly shells, cartridges are the first hundreds of tons.
Meanwhile, we do not take into account horses. The norm of the Russian army at that time was one horse for 5 people. At the same time, if we take just the weight, then the consumption of a horse is three times more than all five infantrymen combined.
As for the possibility of using local food resources, there was clearly no fundamental difference between the Frenchman of 1214, 1814 and 1914 in the field of consumption. At the same time, the yield has doubled.
A "minor" but unpleasant problem with self-supply in the First World War was the enormous density of troops. If we assume that half of the personnel were directly at the front, it will still be up to 5 thousand per kilometer of the Western Front.
At the same time, on the eastern front of the Second World War (without Finland) in 1943 there were about 2 thousand per kilometer of the front (from the Soviet side). And then, suddenly, local resources already played quite a significant role.
That is, a third of the hay for horses in that very 1943 was prepared directly by the Soviet army. The population was systematically resettled from the frontline strip of 25-30 km and the harvest in this strip was carried out by spare regiments, recovering wounded, etc. At the same time, even a population density of 30 people per square kilometer means that the rear lane in peacetime fed 900 people per kilometer of the front.
The Germans, for their part, stupidly plundered everything within reach, staging a famine genocide. At the same time, as I said above, such tactics give a one-time daily ration for hundreds of people from each conditional farm.
And it's a front. Meanwhile, regiments and brigades of light infantry were actively running around the German rear, in complete isolation from mass supplies. Partisans in the USSR on a grand scale.
That is, there is no point in completely excluding local resources. An adequate option is to give a very high logistical weight to artillery, tanks and a smaller but impressive motorized infantry.

Mongols

The Mongols did not have a special supply technology, invented personally by Genghis Khan. They just had a very mobile, fully mounted army. With the appropriate capabilities to rob everything around and quickly move to new territories.
At the same time, the individual Mongol armies, in addition, were also quite compact - several tens of thousands of people.
And this is a specific feature of all nomads.
As a result, they are not even the first to reach Europe from Mongolia by the army. The possessions of the Turkic khaganate included the South of European Russia 600 years before Genghis Khan. At the same time, the area of the "small" nomadic empire of the Xiongnu is approximately equal in area to Europe outside the former USSR.
Light cavalry, obviously, should have a smaller logistical weight compared to infantry and heavy horsemen.