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

[Gangor]

5)this i still disagree with i dont think trucks or convoys should be represented on the screen otherwise why not build 20 of them and to hell with the depots and so what if you lose a few? i think you should be forced to guard your depots with 'supply trucks' this loses its priority for me hugely.

The reason being cost and speed. Supply units would be expensive, and building them would delay your invasion, allowing your opponent more time to prepare. They would be useful in different circumstances - if your army has to lay seige to a city or is otherwise delayed then a supply depot would be very helpful. However in a headlong assult it would be a waste of a supply unit. A supply depot could provide more total supply over the course of it's usefulness than simply using a supply unit to resupply a stack.

Supply Depot:
agree they should consume a unit, i think it should be a worker. but i think depots should be able to be made anywhere even beside the enemy capital if the player really thinks this is wise.

Where would they get their supplies from?

supply lines i think should be toggable on the map and still disagree with trying to maintain an intact supply line it wont be possible unless you can give me an example of you defending one against say 10 stacked units which you have no idea where they may attack along for instance a 10 square supply line? which in the absence of my not coming up with a convincing defence strategy would be why i think it should be automatic.

You're missing the point. Supply lines should be very difficult to defend against a determined counter attack. This is the primary reason to have them in the first place.

i think depots should be constructed at any distance and supplies can only go through territory that is either your own, neutral (such as sea), your enemys (but facing a penalty for each square that must be travelled) and civs that you have open borders with.

Again, missing the point. All these "penalties" are too much complexity and micromanagement. KISS.

you also mention depots being destroyed when they either run out of supplies or the chain is broke, i disagree just because something is broke doesnt mean it cant be mended.

Perhaps. But I think there should be a serious consequence for having your supply lines cut. Can you think of a better suggestion?

(but i dont think you should 'capture' supply depots, why do you need a supply depot in your own territory?, instead they should be automaticly pillaged

Agreed.

do we use supply trucks given the fact that they practically make supply depots redundent? and if yes are they worth it if you can build 20 or so and not worry about losing half or even 3/4 of them where in comparison a depot lost means a halted invasion (as to me it should be)

In producing your 20 supply units you're forgoing producing 20 tanks. Deciding your supply strategy will be a trade off - like all aspects of civ.

if using a fixed supply line how would it be defended without the map using 3 times as many military units as it does now? if not other than the idea above which you disagree with can you think of another or should both types be playtested and leave it at that?

Supply lines ought to be difficult to defend. The defender needs some advantage!


Edit: Another thought came to me. Supply units directly supplying stacks would be necessary until you capture a port on a new continent.

 

[Spartan300]

Gangor.
im all for civ counterattacks, it was me who mentioned supply lines in the first place on this thread but i dont think you should make them so unmanageable to be unworthwhile (especially if you have the option of building supply trucks).
personally i think this would become apparent through playtesting.
i also think that if the supply line is cut that a lack of supplies is sufficient damage to your units (you could make rationing but i think we already have that covered by not killing the unit as soon as its supplies run out)
i think we are disagreeing on something that for a start needs more opinions by others, it seems that not enough people are giving their thoughts on it, it also seems that both and a combination of these ideas for supply need to be playtested.
Q. have you ever played Rise Of Nations? they have supply trucks on there they are expensive but you always buy more than you need its better to have 10 tanks and 10 trucks than 20 tanks without trucks. the civ with 10 trucks will win.

also i think you should be able to build supply depots anywhere so building one on the beach/coast could create a 'port' of some kind.
KISS
PS how would you defend your 10 square supply line (which i think is pretty short) against a stack of 10 units?

 

[Gangor]

PS how would you defend your 10 square supply line (which i think is pretty short) against a stack of 10 units?

I wouldn't have a 10 square supply line I couldn't defend in the first place.

 

[moscaverde]

Exactly, this is why troop advancement should be carefull and well planned.

About the broken supply chain, maybe the depots without the supply line (because the chain was broken) should simply not provide supply. They would again provide if the chain was 'mended'.

 

[Silurian]

Supply depots will have trucks/ wagon trains based in them that will supply the surrounding units or another supply depot. They will contain blacksmiths, carpenters etc for fixing the wagons etc to service the wagon trains. So to service the wagon trains it need to be stationary. When it moves it uses its wagon trains/trucks to move its equipment.

Supply depots are not consumed when they deliver a box of bullets to a rifleman just as the rifleman is not consumed when he fires the bullet.

As I suggested above all the defender has to do is get within the BFC of the depot (or multiple depots) and "blockade supply route" to stop it/them suppling the next depot.
The defending unit is sending out patrols to ambush the wagon trains so they stay near the depot and can only supply units within the BFC of the depot.

Before the war/ during the war the attacker stockpiles supplies in your cities with an "Arsenal". This is done abstractly I do not think any one wants to move boxes of bullets and bales of hay.

When the attacker crosses the border it starts to incurs penalties as Gangor has outlined. So the attacker moves his depots to produse a supply line from the Arsenal to the front line. The transport between the depots is assumed to happen off screen. As they advance the attacker moves forward another depot to increase the lenght of the chain. If you have more depots you can set up a parrellel chain to reduce the effect from a raider getting within the BFC of an individual depot, because the supplies go another way. But building more depots means less tanks.

 

[Gangor]

Supply depots will have trucks/ wagon trains based in them that will supply the surrounding units or another supply depot. They will contain blacksmiths, carpenters etc for fixing the wagons etc to service the wagon trains. So to service the wagon trains it need to be stationary. When it moves it uses its wagon trains/trucks to move its equipment.

Don't you like the daisey chain idea? Seems to me that making a supply line difficult and expensive to set up provides a nice incentive to plan very carefully any aggressive wars.

Supply depots are not consumed when they deliver a box of bullets to a rifleman just as the rifleman is not consumed when he fires the bullet.

No, not when it is connected to supplies from a friendly city.

As I suggested above all the defender has to do is get within the BFC of the depot (or multiple depots) and "blockade supply route" to stop it/them suppling the next depot.
The defending unit is sending out patrols to ambush the wagon trains so they stay near the depot and can only supply units within the BFC of the depot.

Why? They can already cut the depot off from supply. This seems rather tactical and also unnecessary.

Before the war/ during the war the attacker stockpiles supplies in your cities with an "Arsenal". This is done abstractly I do not think any one wants to move boxes of bullets and bales of hay.

What is the purpose of this?

 

[Silurian]

Don't you like the daisey chain idea? Seems to me that making a supply line difficult and expensive to set up provides a nice incentive to plan very carefully any aggressive wars.
QUOTE]

I do like the daisey chain idea.

"No, not when it is connected to supplies from a friendly city"

Supply depots should be destroyed when they are destroyed not when another supply depot is destroyed. What happens when you have multiple interlocking supply routes.

"Quote:
As I suggested above all the defender has to do is get within the BFC of the depot (or multiple depots) and "blockade supply route" to stop it/them suppling the next depot.
The defending unit is sending out patrols to ambush the wagon trains so they stay near the depot and can only supply units within the BFC of the depot.

"Why? They can already cut the depot off from supply. This seems rather tactical and also unnecessary"

This is how I think they should disrupt the supply. The idea is to stop a SOD of supply. The actual road that the wagons come down or plains that they cross will not be fixed. If the defender counter attacks in the south the wagons will take a more northerly route. If you have a SOD with your supply unit the defender may not be able to attack it. If you can "blockade supply route" then the defender can disrupt it with out attacking the SOD. This will force the attacker to patrol the area around the supply units.

"As I suggested above all the defender has to do is get within the BFC of the depot (or multiple depots) and "blockade supply route" to stop it/them suppling the next depot.
The defending unit is sending out patrols to ambush the wagon trains so they stay near the depot and can only supply units within the BFC of the depot.

Why? They can already cut the depot off from supply. This seems rather tactical and also unnecessary"

This makes it harder to do a supply unit spam. It gives more scope to the defender to cause disruption.

Quote:
Before the war/ during the war the attacker stockpiles supplies in your cities with an "Arsenal". This is done abstractly I do not think any one wants to move boxes of bullets and bales of hay.

What is the purpose of this?

The purpose of having to build an Arsenal is to stop the attacker from using captured cites as supply bases until they have stopped the unrest and built some improvements.
It makes the supply lines longer and hence easier to attack. It also makes the agressor build buildings tying up resources so that they can attack.

 

[Silurian]

View attachment 240153

sorry if this is a bit long

The Tan empire has invaded the Yellow empire.
Dotted line is the limit of the area supplied.
CAV are defending units, tan are tan units, tran d is a transport with a depot on board, dep is a stationary depot and m/dep is a depot that has just moved.


The city at T12 has an arsenal so can act as a supply source.
It supplies the depot at S9 (within 5 tiles) and the depot on board transport at N13 (within 10 tiles) and the tan ships at K12

The depot at S9 supplies S6 and N9.

The depot at S6 supplies P2 and O3 plus the unit at P5.
If the Yellow Cavalry unit attacks it and destroys it then the unit at P5 will be unsupplied. Also unless the depot at N7 stops moving and starts forwarding supplies the depots at P2 and O3.

The depot at P2 supplies O3 and the unit at N3

The depot at O3 supplies the units at N3, M3 and P5.
It can not supply other depots because a Yellow unit in the city has used "blockade supply route"

The Yellow Cavalry unit at Q4 uses "blockade supply route" then depot R6 would be unable to supply P2 and O3; and P2 could not supply O3; and the units at N3 and M3 would become unsupplied.

The depot on board transport at N13 supplies the depot on board the transport at G7 plus the ship at F10. If the ship moved to N12 it could also supply the depots on land at R9 and N9 and units at M10 and N11

The depot on board transport at G7 supplies the depot on land at I5 plus the units at G5 and E6 and ships all three ships. If the Yellow send a ship out of the city and sinks the transport the depot and units on land will be unsupplied plus the ship at C7.

The depot at I5 supplies the unit at G5. It can not supply the depot at N7 because that depot is moving.

The depot at N9 supplies the unit at M10 and N11 and the depot that is moving at N7. It can not supply other depots because the Yellow Cavalry unit at L10 has used "blockade supply route". If it moved south to O9 it then it could supply other depots but whilst it was moving it could not supply anything.

The depot at N7 has just moved so can not supply anything. If it stops moving it will be able to supply the depots at P2 and O3, and I5.

 

[Gangor]

This makes it harder to do a supply unit spam.

What is the problem with supply unit spam?? It would be a valid strategy imo.

The purpose of having to build an Arsenal is to stop the attacker from using captured cites as supply bases until they have stopped the unrest and built some improvements.
It makes the supply lines longer and hence easier to attack. It also makes the agressor build buildings tying up resources so that they can attack.

I think I've suggested this before, but how about just having cities produce "supplies", like wealth or science?

 

[Silurian]

What is the objective of introducing a supply system?

1- Create supply lines that have to be defended so the offensive side can not rely on one SOD
2- Making the supply lines more vulnerable the further the offensive side moves into the defenders territory
3- Give the defender a way of countering the SODs with out having to carry out a frontal assault.
4- Reduce the defenders reliance on SODs
5- Increase the cost of aggression to reduce the reliance on war.
6- And introduce some realism but not at the expense of game play.


The chosen supply system should not replace the SOD (or reduced SOD) with the SOD of Supply.

The purpose of the "blockade supply route” is to prevent the attacker from setting up a chain of supply depot with attached SOD and letting the defenders roam around outside. It is better for the defender to attack and destroy the depot but if it is not strong enough "blockade supply route” allows the defender to stop the depot passing supplies forward (or side ways) to the next depot. But the depot can still supply units within its BFC so that it can supply the units defending it or attacking if it is on the front line.

Having two or more depots on one tile does not increase the ability to supply (in my system). There is nothing wrong with building more depots (and there defenders) to improve the resilience of the supply network but I think the defending unit should be able to suppress all the depots that whose BFC it falls within. You should force the attacker to protect the supply route.

Depot supply range

Also I have suggested a 5 tile range supply range. 10 for ships.
In the early game this could be longer ( since less manufactured goods were required or the could more easily be made or repaired in the field etc)

You could start of with say 8 (no limit for ships) between depots.
Reduce to 7 (no limit for ships) when you have built x maceman and or knight
Reduce to 6/ 15 when you have built x rifleman and or frigate
Reduce to 5/ 10 when you have built x tanks and or mech inf, anti tank sam infantry, destroyer

What is the problem with supply unit spam?? It would be a valid strategy imo.


I think I've suggested this before, but how about just having cities produce "supplies", like wealth or science?

The Palace should provide an Arsenal once there is a barracks in the capital.


My proposed system just assumes that supplies are produced in your civilisation automatically, as Civ 4, but then makes them move automatically along your supply route from your Arsenals via depots. I assume that you are not proposing to have defined amounts of supplies being held in the Arsenal then being moved from depot to depot.

But you could have a supply slider which took a “tax” of hammers, gold and food to fill up. Then when units make an attack it costs supplies. If you used these supplies for healing then there would be an incentive to carry on attacking with a badly damaged unit.

 

[moscaverde]

I agree with Silurian that supply units would be used instead of supply lines, remember that in some parts of the game production is plenty. This would not limit the power of SODs, actually it would be the contrairie. And supply units add to micro again.

 

[Camikaze]

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.

And they would be ridiculously expensive. I mean, why shouldn't you be able to supply from the other side of the world, if you are willing to pay exorbitantly for it? And the chances are that you would not be able to do that, given that if you were coming onto a new continent, or something, there would be a requirement to have a unit at the crossing point between sea and land, if in enemy territory. In fact, that principle could easily be extended to necessitating a unit on a supply line for that supply line to be able to enter enemy territory at the point of entry.

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?

I would assume calculating the shortest path would not involve calculated every path. If it does, then every time you move a unit you have to do this anyway.

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.

The game doesn't have merchant naval ships. It is assumed when you block a tile that you actually block a tile. If a submarine is there, then you shouldn't be able to somehow sneak around it. It is blocking your supply, because your supply goes in that tile. Any further involvement in whether or not the submarine is actually blocking supply, given that they are in the tile, is too tactical.


And please, people, point out where the automated supply line system is inferior to a unit system in any way, because I'm failing to see how it is, in any way.

 

[Gangor]

And they would be ridiculously expensive. I mean, why shouldn't you be able to supply from the other side of the world, if you are willing to pay exorbitantly for it? And the chances are that you would not be able to do that, given that if you were coming onto a new continent, or something, there would be a requirement to have a unit at the crossing point between sea and land, if in enemy territory. In fact, that principle could easily be extended to necessitating a unit on a supply line for that supply line to be able to enter enemy territory at the point of entry.

But it's done automatically, remember? The player has no choice - they're simply bankrupted as soon as the supply route on the near side of the world is blocked. Unfair and unrealistic.

I would assume calculating the shortest path would not involve calculated every path.

I believe it's slightly more efficient than that. But it's still timeconsuming.

If it does, then every time you move a unit you have to do this anyway.

Yes, but over a much shorter distance. Pretty sure this is an O(x^2) algorithm. Maybe someone more familiar with pathing algorithms can correct me?

The game doesn't have merchant naval ships. It is assumed when you block a tile that you actually block a tile. If a submarine is there, then you shouldn't be able to somehow sneak around it. It is blocking your supply, because your supply goes in that tile. Any further involvement in whether or not the submarine is actually blocking supply, given that they are in the tile, is too tactical.

Historically one ship (or sub) would never be enough to block an area represented by a tile in Civ. Besides, in times of war ships tend to travel in convoys and some of the ships are bound to get through. This is not a tactic employed by players but a reality.

And please, people, point out where the automated supply line system is inferior to a unit system in any way, because I'm failing to see how it is, in any way.

1) Ugly. Supply lines running all over the place.
2) If not ugly then difficult for the player to see what's going on (if you don't display the supply line graphically).
3) Processor-hungry.
4) Requires no planning or fore-thought from the player.
5) Inflexible
etc. I could come up with more but I'm tired and have to go to bed

 

[Camikaze]

But it's done automatically, remember? The player has no choice - they're simply bankrupted as soon as the supply route on the near side of the world is blocked. Unfair and unrealistic.

Not correct. It is fully automated, for ease, but is also fully micromanageable, if you want to prevent those large losses. You could choose to just not supply your units.

Historically one ship (or sub) would never be enough to block an area represented by a tile in Civ. Besides, in times of war ships tend to travel in convoys and some of the ships are bound to get through. This is not a tactic employed by players but a reality.

And historically one unit would not be enough to supply a whole army. I mean, come on. The whole point of having tiles and having one unit occupying those tiles is the assumption that they actually do occupy the whole entire tile. Unless you are going to argue that enemy naval units should be able to occupy the same tile without conflict, this is not an argument.

1) Ugly. Supply lines running all over the place.

Like roads?

No, supply lines would be toggable (?). They would be another layer that you can turn on and off, or see for any given unit or stack at the click of a button.

If anything is ugly, it's filling up the screen with more units.

2) If not ugly then difficult for the player to see what's going on (if you don't display the supply line graphically).

And because you can toggle it on or off, it is very easy to see.

3) Processor-hungry.

I'm still sceptical about this. However, if we assume this is true, then it is not really an issue anyway. If supply lines are better than supply units, then it is worth having, regardless of how processor hungry it may or may not be. It is not a good factor on its own. If this is the only negative of having a supply line system, as opposed to a supply unit system (and that too would involve more processing due to having extra units), then it isn't nearly enough to overcome the advantages of the supply line system.

4) Requires no planning or fore-thought from the player.

Of course it does. How is a player going to support their civ if they don't protect their supply lines? They will firstly, run out of units, and secondly, run out of money, if they don't pay plan to protect their supply lines.

5) Inflexible

In what way? Supply lines are completely flexible. You can choose any possible path on the entire map for any given unit, with costs changing accordingly.

 

[Silurian]

Automatic Supply Line System (aka Heisenberg System)

If the computer chooses the supply route from all possible routes there will be some strange effects.

If the unit is due north, east, south or west the number of possible routes of equal distance between the two points would be the distance apart (centre tile to centre tile) plus one.

If the unit is north east, south west etc there is only one shortest route.

For the defence to disrupt the supply routes they will have to spread their forces over all the possible routes.

If the defender is spread thinly they will want to keep away from the attacking SOD and the supply point so they are not destroyed piecemeal. So any line of individually units would want to be say 4 tile gap from the attacking SOD and supply point so the individual units would have time to form a SOD of there own if required.

So a blocking line of individual units would require the SOD and the supply point to be ten tiles (including the tile the SOD is on) apart. (Assuming all units move at the same speed)

Eleven units would be required to form this line to block all possible equal shortest routes on a north, east, south or west axis. To block the second shortest route which is two longer would require two more units, one each end.

On the north east axis only one unit would be required to block the shortest route. To increase the length of the supply route by one tile would require two more units.

To break the defensive line, all the attacker has to do is move a stack of three or four units near the line then attack one unit or wait for the line to group together and leave holes for the supplies to get through.

There is no point in the defender tying up eleven units when they could be defeated by three attackers.


Automatic Supply Line System will not prevent SODs.

 

[Spartan300]

Automatic Supply Line System will not prevent SODs

i still disagree and still would prefer this than faffing about with supply units all over the shop (how many would you need to keep a large offense going?)


if from your frontal city the army advances forward, attacking the civ a supply line from your city would last (in my mind) upto your cultural borders and stop, once your SOD passes this line they must setup another depot after x turns depending on your logistics capabilities (i think logistics should be integrated into research, for example husbandry allows 1extra turn of supplies that can be carried, the wheel another 1 etc). so for sake of argument let us assume the SOD carries 5 turns of supplies into enemy territory they build a depot 3 turns in the depot becomes operational on the 4th turn and supplies come rolling in.
now the supplies (to keep things simple) have to cross friendly territory (no fee/penalty) then 5 squares of enemy territory (assuming the units in the SOD move 2) on a direct line each square costs the supplies 15% on each enemy controlled square travelled (so 100 supplies falls to 85/72.25/61.41/52.2/44.37 finishing at the depot with 37.7 supplies out of the 100) however i think the computer should automaticly factor in this depreciation and send in the required quantity of supplies to that point (or maybe the player decides over each depot how many supplies he wants sent there and should the player state he wants 100 supplies at the depot in question the computer has below the desired amount the total supplies it will cost him on the supply line currently in use, an automatic calculator if you like, and you could also set a warning system, so after x amount of squares supply line deviation the computer would alert the player so that he can restraighten the line (rather than constantly checking this every turn) so ok the supply line is now in place 6 squares in enemy territory and with a 5 square line should the attacker decide to build another supply line the depot should have a no penalty range of a city radius (and auto supply for units). for units going alone you could send supplies to them but as the unit is not a depot and the route therefore less travelled and risky, a larger penalty should be imposed (and avoid having depots everywhere keeping them more strategic, like warring cities basiclly).
defending civ turn.
enemy SOD is 20 units, defender has only 10 units free to counterattack the option he now has is to rush these units into the 5 square supply line, say 2 squares in, extending the supply line (and possibly rushing workers to the spot to fast build a fortress) causing more penalty to the attacker ( i think all units should have a zone of control, when it comes to supply lines say a 1 square radius around them, and for larger stacks of say 5 or more increase it to 2, as there would be more units to patrol a larger radius).
so the defender has successfully doubled the supply line halting the enemy advance now it is the attackers turn.
the attackers SOD of 20 now turns around to attack (leaving a 5 unit defense at the depot) but being 3 squares away cannot reach the enemy in one turn so must either endure the increased cost of supplies or halt them (from the desired amount entry at the depot he would now change it to zero).
defenders turn.
either run away from the attacking SOD or hold.
this time they are going to hold.
attackers turn.
attacks the defenders and destroys them but with high casulties/weakened units, either return to home or depot.
defenders turn.
attacks the depot with the city defense units, captures the remaining supplies and either mops up what is left of the SOD or returns home.

now this to me evens the play, with supply units how could the defender stand much more of a chance than he does now? all the attacker would do is either have an SOD ferrying supply units or send the supplies with the reinforcements.
for this reason, which i hope makes sense to you all, is why i am not convinced with supply trucks/units.
Rob

 

[Camikaze]

@Silurian- my system proposes that a supply line does not automatically reform when it is broken. So, them enemy would be able to see the exact path that a supply line is taking, and block that exact path. Even though other paths may be of equal distance, the supply will be broken, as the line will not automatically reform. So the defender would only require one roaming unit to break the supply of an entire stack. Because once the line is reformed, if we assume that the defender is within its own territory using roads or railways, it will be able to quickly go and cut off the new supply line, if it is undefended. This would prevent stacks, because it would be so easy to cut off the one supply line that a stack would have, whereas if there were multiple smaller stacks, there would be more supply lines, and hence more supply lines to cut off.

 

[Gangor]

@Silurian- my system proposes that a supply line does not automatically reform when it is broken. So, them enemy would be able to see the exact path that a supply line is taking, and block that exact path. Even though other paths may be of equal distance, the supply will be broken, as the line will not automatically reform. So the defender would only require one roaming unit to break the supply of an entire stack. Because once the line is reformed, if we assume that the defender is within its own territory using roads or railways, it will be able to quickly go and cut off the new supply line, if it is undefended. This would prevent stacks, because it would be so easy to cut off the one supply line that a stack would have, whereas if there were multiple smaller stacks, there would be more supply lines, and hence more supply lines to cut off.

How do you suggest that cut off units regain supply?

 

[Camikaze]

A supply line will be re-established along a clear route (if one exists) the following turn.

 

[Silurian]

now this to me evens the play, with supply units how could the defender stand much more of a chance than he does now? all the attacker would do is either have an SOD ferrying supply units or send the supplies with the reinforcements.
for this reason, which i hope makes sense to you all, is why i am not convinced with supply trucks/units.
Rob

I am not proposing having supply depots (units/trucks/wagon trains/ baggage trains etc) moving with supplies.

I am proposing that having a stationary depot means that the area is supplied and if there are no enemy units nearby the depot can supply the next depot in the chain.
The supplies move between cities (with arsenal) depot(s) and units automatically as in the present CIV 4 system but with restrictions on length between supply nodes.
If the depot is moving it can not provide supply since it is moving it own equipment.

The “manual supply line with depots” described @Spartan300 above is similar to this apart from the micromanagement of units of supply passing between depots and having to pick the actual routes the supplies between depots.

Automatic Supply Line System will not prevent SODs

i still disagree and still would prefer this than faffing about with supply units all over the shop (how many would you need to keep a large offense going?)

@Spartan300 above


But you are proposing to have supply units all over the shop.
What you call the supply units does not matter, what they actually do that counts.

Lets assume that the border is a straight line east west.
The attacker has a supply depot established with a 5 tile gap between the depot and the border,
And we are using the “manual supply line with depots” described @Spartan300 above.

The attacker chooses his supply route and decides it is coming from a point on the border 5 tiles to the east of due north ( since it is one of the many shortest routes)

The defender moves to attack the supply line.
The supply line disappears because the attacker moves it so it is now coming over the border 5 tiles to the west of due north.

There is a game at the fair like that where you a “small furry creature” that pops out of different holes and you have to hit it with a mallet to win a prize.

Every turn the attacker will be checking and moving the supply line(s) away from the defender.