Dealing with SOD's, supply, and generally reducing everyone's reliance on war

[Ronojoy1917]

Well of course supplies don't really come in one or two caravans, but the unit represents more then that, just like a chariot unit represents more than just two chariots.

Personally, I don't really like the idea of an abstract supply route system. I assume these routes would need to be protected by units. But then your armies would be supplied by lines that you can't physically see. Of course, you could have a button which shows your supply lines as actual lines, but I don't really see how those would altogether work better then using supply system based on a unit. I'd prefer for it to be more tangible.

 

[Camikaze]

If you have a supply system based on lines on the map that you can toggle on/off, that are customisable, then it is just as tangible. I would think that an accurate representation of supply lines would involve a continuous stream of caravans (something that could be visually represented along these lines), rather than just one caravan unit at one location along that supply route (although it would obviously represent more than one actual caravan). And supply lines would have to be defended. That is partly their point; to provide something that must be defended, so you have to leave units behind to defend, to create a more in depth war strategy.

The true advantage of the system I propose as opposed to a unit based supply system is automation. Supply routes could be automated, as well as being customisable, whereas supply units virtually always have to be micromanaged (as all units do). This would be tedious, and for an added side effect, would increase the usage of stacks, as you would be much more inclined to supply one tile (even if you were moving many units, you could group move them) rather than multifarious locations.

 

[rysmiel]

I think this is a reasonably fair way of bringing the concept of supplying the army without getting too tedious or into micro-management, while still keeping a degree of realism.

So for those of us who like micromanagement and are not sold on realism as a virtue, it's a double negative.

 

[Ronojoy1917]

So for those of us who like micromanagement and are not sold on realism as a virtue, it's a double negative.

It would be just a mild double negative. Although now I'm starting to see that most of the aspects of Camikaze's system based on actual lines on the map would work out better.

 

[Gangor]

If you have a supply system based on lines on the map that you can toggle on/off, that are customisable, then it is just as tangible. I would think that an accurate representation of supply lines would involve a continuous stream of caravans (something that could be visually represented along these lines), rather than just one caravan unit at one location along that supply route (although it would obviously represent more than one actual caravan). And supply lines would have to be defended. That is partly their point; to provide something that must be defended, so you have to leave units behind to defend, to create a more in depth war strategy.

The true advantage of the system I propose as opposed to a unit based system is automation. Supply routes could be automated, as well as being customisable, whereas supply units virtually always have to be micromanaged (as all units do). This would be tedious, and for an added side effect, would increase the usage of stacks, as you would be much more inclined to supply one tile (even if you were moving many units, you could group move them) rather than multifarious locations.

I have several problems with your proposal

1) It will slow the game down. Every turn every stack will have to check if it is still supplied. This is gonna take loads of processor time.

2) It doesn't take into account alternative strategies. Maybe it makes sense sometimes to pre-build the supply units and so allow your attack force to run amok for a while. Maybe your strategy revolves around capturing enemy supplies. Etc, Etc.

3) It doesn't "cost" anything. Yes, yes, I know units cost maintenance. But they also need munitions and replacement equipment, not to mention replacement soldiers. This should have to be built.

4) It would be easy to automate. Press the automate button. Supply unit seeks out nearest stack that needs supply. Easy.

 

[Hail]

1) It will slow the game down. Every turn every stack will have to check if it is still supplied. This is gonna take loads of processor time.

nope. it only makes sense to check those supply lines, where "something" happened on current turn

2) It doesn't take into account alternative strategies. Maybe it makes sense sometimes to pre-build the supply units and so allow your attack force to run amok for a while. Maybe your strategy revolves around capturing enemy supplies. Etc, Etc.

maybe the supply system should be more flexible

3) It doesn't "cost" anything. Yes, yes, I know units cost maintenance. But they also need munitions and replacement equipment, not to mention replacement soldiers. This should have to be built.

too much MM. your solution to a "problem" will only appeal to MM-lovers

4) It would be easy to automate. Press the automate button. Supply unit seeks out nearest stack that needs supply. Easy.

strange problem MM is bad in itself and i value my time

 

[Camikaze]

I have several problems with your proposal

1) It will slow the game down. Every turn every stack will have to check if it is still supplied. This is gonna take loads of processor time.

I hadn't thought about that, to be honest. But now that you mention it, I don't feel there is a need to take away from good ideas because someone with an old and slow computer will have trouble with it. And I would hardly think that a simple check would hog too many more resources, given the large amount of similar checks that already have to take place.

2) It doesn't take into account alternative strategies. Maybe it makes sense sometimes to pre-build the supply units and so allow your attack force to run amok for a while. Maybe your strategy revolves around capturing enemy supplies. Etc, Etc.

There would be a pillage supply option, and these supply routes would be much more easily interruptible than if there were supply units wandering around, so the latter of those two strategies would be eased, not prevented. And even units running amok must have some supply, and the system I propose does nothing to prevent the movement of those units.

3) It doesn't "cost" anything. Yes, yes, I know units cost maintenance. But they also need munitions and replacement equipment, not to mention replacement soldiers. This should have to be built.

Of course there would be cost associated. Costs would be roughly proportional to the total length of supply lines (although there would be a more complicated formula than simply total supply line length = cost).

4) It would be easy to automate. Press the automate button. Supply unit seeks out nearest stack that needs supply. Easy.

You can't beat a fully automated system on automation grounds.

 

[moscaverde]

I don't know if the supply lines could be flexible enough to follow the normal military units movement (as the way units move in CIV). Maybe these lines could work for resources (I remember something about CTP).
But seems like a good idea. Visible supply lines (I believe a supply line filter for the map would be good, like the one for resources) are a great and necessary addition to the game.

 

[Gangor]

nope. it only makes sense to check those supply lines, where "something" happened on current turn

Ok, I concede that you'd only have to check stacks that have moved. But c'mon, what's the point of a stack that doesn't move?

too much MM. your solution to a "problem" will only appeal to MM-lovers

It's no more MM than workers improving terrain; in fact it's considerably less. Do you also advocate getting rid of workers?

strange problem MM is bad in itself and i value my time

The time it takes to press the "automate" button? Hell, you could select an option that automatically allocates all supply units and then you'd have nothing to do except select a city to keep building them.

 

[Gangor]

I hadn't thought about that, to be honest. But now that you mention it, I don't feel there is a need to take away from good ideas because someone with an old and slow computer will have trouble with it. And I would hardly think that a simple check would hog too many more resources, given the large amount of similar checks that already have to take place.

You're basically doing a pathing algorithm over the whole map for each individual unit stack. There is already enough going on in civ without this hogging the processor. I'd much rather a better AI.

There would be a pillage supply option, and these supply routes would be much more easily interruptible than if there were supply units wandering around,

But should it be easier? Think supply convoys battling their way to Malta...

so the latter of those two strategies would be eased, not prevented. And even units running amok must have some supply, and the system I propose does nothing to prevent the movement of those units.

But it should. An army marches on it's stomach and an army without supplies ought to be severely disadvantaged.

Of course there would be cost associated. Costs would be roughly proportional to the total length of supply lines (although there would be a more complicated formula than simply total supply line length = cost).

My argument is that there ought to be a production cost to keeping an army in the field, not just a financial cost.

You can't beat a fully automated system on automation grounds.

No indeed, however I was trying to point out that supply units could also be automated for those who don't want to micromanage.

 

[Hail]

I don't feel there is a need to take away from good ideas because someone with an old and slow computer will have trouble with it.

taking it to the extreme: maybe there is a contract between Firaxis and Intel/NVidia: we make games full of resource-hog "good ideas" and you create the hardware to run our games faster.

[...] given the large amount of similar checks that already have to take place.

like?

Of course there would be cost associated. Costs would be roughly proportional to the total length of supply lines (although there would be a more complicated formula than simply total supply line length = cost).

additionally the cost should be penalized for parts of a supply line path going through neutral tiles and, more-so, through enemy-owned tiles

 

[Gangor]

additionally the cost should be penalized for parts of a supply line path going through neutral tiles and, more-so, through enemy-owned tiles

Or you could have a nice simple supply unit that doesn't require all these complicated calculations

 

[Camikaze]

But should it be easier?

Yes. That's one of the whole points of having supply lines. So that there is something for the enemy to interrupt that is important to the war effort.

But it should. An army marches on it's stomach and an army without supplies ought to be severely disadvantaged.

Of course. My system would represent this perfectly.

My argument is that there ought to be a production cost to keeping an army in the field, not just a financial cost.

In Civ, any sort of cost towards any factor of production (not in the hammers only sense of the word, i.e. hammers, food and commerce) will invariably result in the diminishment of the other factors of production. This is by no means a perfect flow through, and could be better developed, but if you have a large financial cost, then you will build over workshops with cottages, for example. Again, given the way things work in Civ, it is hard to adjust, so the flow through is not that great, but there will be a hammers cost incurred by a financial loss.

like?

Well, for instance, I assume that similar checks have to take place for every tile, to see if it is attached to the trade network, each turn.

additionally the cost should be penalized for parts of a supply line path going through neutral tiles and, more-so, through enemy-owned tiles

Agreed.

 

[Gangor]

Yes. That's one of the whole points of having supply lines. So that there is something for the enemy to interrupt that is important to the war effort.

Well if you had units blocking the supply routes then you would have no problem intercepting the supply unit. But if the area is contested then there is the possibility of the unit being sneaked through, or perhaps being captured. Additionally, an alternative route could be found (supplying Tobruk from the sea?). Both of these possibilities would be difficult to implement satisfactorally with an automatic supply line.

Of course. My system would represent this perfectly.

My point was that units without supply can not function. Perhaps they would be stuck in place with reduced health until resupplied?

In Civ, any sort of cost towards any factor of production (not in the hammers only sense of the word, i.e. hammers, food and commerce) will invariably result in the diminishment of the other factors of production. This is by no means a perfect flow through, and could be better developed, but if you have a large financial cost, then you will build over workshops with cottages, for example. Again, given the way things work in Civ, it is hard to adjust, so the flow through is not that great, but there will be a hammers cost incurred by a financial loss.

Point taken, however munitions were ever produced in factories

Well, for instance, I assume that similar checks have to take place for every tile, to see if it is attached to the trade network, each turn.

Well not each tile, but each city. Also, every time a unit is moved you use a pathing algorithm.

 

[moscaverde]

Wouldn't supply units be defended under the sods?
I remember the caravan unit from civ II and it was a huge pain in the neck. =P

 

[Gangor]

Wouldn't supply units be defended under the sods?
I remember the caravan unit from civ II and it was a huge pain in the neck. =P

Well you could do that. But you'd pay the price of increased stack penalties and potentially slower movement for having them there. You'd also need to build them first - delaying your attack. And big stacks would need lots of supplys...you'd run out eventually.

 

[Camikaze]

Well if you had units blocking the supply routes then you would have no problem intercepting the supply unit. But if the area is contested then there is the possibility of the unit being sneaked through, or perhaps being captured. Additionally, an alternative route could be found (supplying Tobruk from the sea?). Both of these possibilities would be difficult to implement satisfactorally with an automatic supply line.

Not at all. If every possible path was mapped, then a blocking of one supply route would result in an automatic readjustment along another possible line of supply, which would invariably result in a higher cost (due to a longer path), which is more realistic, and also with probably a slight delay before readjustment (say, a turn), so that units do loss some strength due to lack of supply (as would be realistic with an actual supply route being blocked; you cannot readjust automatically), but supply would continue the next turn.

Allowing units to sneak through with supplies is way too tactical for a supply system, and would kinda undermine the whole basis of it.

My point was that units without supply can not function. Perhaps they would be stuck in place with reduced health until resupplied?

I'm still wondering what this has to do with my system. The system I propose has a very good model for loss of strength with loss of supply.

 

[moscaverde]

How the line would be determined, if you have, for example, many units scatered in the enemy territory? It would have a supply line for each one of them?


The way I see the two options, supply lines and supply units, favor SODs over multiple groups of units. As one supply route is easier to defend than many.

 

[Gangor]

Not at all. If every possible path was mapped, then a blocking of one supply route would result in an automatic readjustment along another possible line of supply, which would invariably result in a higher cost (due to a longer path), which is more realistic, and also with probably a slight delay before readjustment (say, a turn), so that units do loss some strength due to lack of supply (as would be realistic with an actual supply route being blocked; you cannot readjust automatically), but supply would continue the next turn.

This would lead to some bizzare stuff like supply lines going around the world and through the other side of the enemy's territory that he hasn't thought of completely blocking with units. Besides - do you really expect to calculate every possible supply route across the whole world for every stack of units in the world and not slow the game down, even on reasonably fast computers?

Allowing units to sneak through with supplies is way too tactical for a supply system, and would kinda undermine the whole basis of it.

Rubbish. Take for example the strategy of blockading the UK with submarines in order to starve them to submission - Hardly tactics. The strategy of deploying units to prevent supply is the same for both systems. With supply units you have to decide your strategy for getting supplies to your stack - defend the supply route, escort the supplys or some other method. To my mind it could lead to some exciting gameplay.

I'm still wondering what this has to do with my system. The system I propose has a very good model for loss of strength with loss of supply.

Eh, I'm not too concerned about arguing the effects of loss of supply. It would have to be decided by playtesting anyhow to optomise it.

 

[moscaverde]

Maybe the supply line could be determined by the player the turn before its implementation.

I was thinking in a hybrid system of unit and line, a series of units would stabilish the line. Maybe if the supply unit give supply like the format of a BFC, but still necessary to have as many to reach your/friendly territory. It would be easy to flexibilize the supply line, but with less micromanagement than caravan like units.