Tacticle and strategic movement? supplies

[creaney2]

I do enjoy the game a great deal but I have some ideas that might allow some improvements. It makes no sense that it takes years for a boat to go from Alaska to Chile. People can move about any place around the world in a year baded on supplies and their knowledge of land ability to navigate.

Take sea units and base them at some city and they have a rang they can do missions, transport units, engage in commerce or explore. Sea units can act more like air units. When they do a mission at war time they can be intercepted then do combat. There should be an option to put a fleet in an enemy port if it is not defended and bombard the enemy or conduct siege.

The explorer is a good idea. There can also be scouts that can move and live off the land but larger formations should start from a base an have a limited range or have some logistics such as fleets or other supply units that must be built to keep them in the field. It can make sieges interesting in that the sieging army has to be supplies.



The owner can build supply and move them. Any other civilization should be able to build supples and sell them or there should allow for pillage to stay supplied but that causes resentment and possible partizan's resistants or terrorism.

[thefluffyrocker]

Sort of an ok idea but i see it as being too fiddly and down right unrealistic...I wouldn't really site realism as a down side usually as it's a game but as the point seems to be to add realism i think it matters.

In a realistic term the only slightly realistic ships that could have a base city and range would be coal/oil powered ships. Sail and nuclear powered ships can in theory travel forever, based solely on their food/water supplies...Which can last more than long enough to sail around the world, even multiple times.

Even then most ships go from port to port cllecting coal/oil/food etc on the way via trade so there are few restrictions on a ships range in reality.

Giving units a combat range tied solely to a base would basically mean that everytime they move you would have to also assign them a new base. Which is basically doubling the effort and time needed to move units.

[scragham]

Sort of an ok idea but i see it as being too fiddly and down right unrealistic...I wouldn't really site realism as a down side usually as it's a game but as the point seems to be to add realism i think it matters.

In a realistic term the only slightly realistic ships that could have a base city and range would be coal/oil powered ships. Sail and nuclear powered ships can in theory travel forever, based solely on their food/water supplies...Which can last more than long enough to sail around the world, even multiple times.

Even then most ships go from port to port cllecting coal/oil/food etc on the way via trade so there are few restrictions on a ships range in reality.

Giving units a combat range tied solely to a base would basically mean that everytime they move you would have to also assign them a new base. Which is basically doubling the effort and time needed to move units.

well, on the one hand, i agree that a supply system would add a fair amount of fiddly-ness to the game and yet another layer of abstraction, on the other hand, having a supply and supply line system would make siege warfare meaningful.

that mechanized infantry unit dug in deeper than a tick inside that size 20 city (with its attendant defense bonuses and inherent defense)? surround it, cut it off from its supply and food sources, and watch both the mech inf unit and the city wither until it's ready to be smashed.

in addition, adds meaning to having your units cut off while they're doing some incursion in enemy territory and provides a lot more motivation for maintaining front lines.

as an aside, few ships are able to steam/sail around the world multiple times without resupply (or even once). even the nukes, which are obviously not constrained by fuel, don't carry enough food and other consumables to enable them to operate that long... but i agree, a supply system for ships would overly complicate things. having to stop at an island or port every 100 tiles would be pretty painful.

[thefluffyrocker]

I think many of us would enjoy the addition of a supply system to allow even more strategic options such as cutting off and starving a unit for example but the system mentioned is way too restrictive to be fun, which is the problem i have with it.

For it to be playable and fun you need it to be simple but effective. Such as a form of visible supply route, e.g. a line the game draws on the map or you can customize that represents a supply route that can then be blocked or raided for example. If a unit has no connection to a supply route then it starts to take damage for example or can no longer heal if damaged, or both.

You could then add supply depots that are part of a supply route and if a unit is cut off from the main supply system.i.e. your capital it can then draw supplies from the supply base until the route is restored or the supply base runs out of supplies.

[scragham]

admittedly, the OP's system sounds way too restrictive.

the system i kind of like derives way back when from another microprose game that i played (how way back? back in the apple II days) called decision in the desert. the supply system was imo simple and effective.

basically, if a unit can trace a route via roads to a supply depot, then it's considered in supply and replenishes its stocks of fuel/ammo/other consumables. every action it takes consumes some of these stocks, and if its out of supply long enough (or if the supply situation in that particular scenario is poor enough) then eventually it runs out of supply, its combat strength starts to decline, and other bad things.

as applied to a civ type game, i'd envision it as being each unit has a couple of major values - namely how much supply said unit requires (i.e. the first warrior/spearman/whatever units would have a pretty low value, if not outright 0 seeing as how they can pretty much live off the land, while later units like modern armor, mechanized infantry, aircraft/helicopters all have relatively high values because of the amount of fuel and the like they consume), and how much supply said unit carries. each city or port (assuming they have intact lines to the base civilization) is considered a supply center. if an uninterrupted line is traceable between a unit and any given supply center, then its amount of supply is replenished. in the meantime, moving, fighting (that means attacking and defending), or even staying in place, constantly drains the amount the unit has on hand. if the supplies are depleted completely, then the unit starts suffering penalties to combat as well as movement. the more turns the unit is out of supply, the higher the penalties.

either way, i suspect anything we're discussing is already too late to be implemented in civ5, but maybe civ6?

[creaney2]

Exactly the game need a meaningful logistics system. Also I find it frustrating that it takes years to get units onto combat or enemy territory. There is a difference between strategic movement when units are moving cross country by train and the tactical movement in a combat situation.

Still ships could operate from any friendly port and conduct transport blockade or intercept transport or bombard. There would not be any resource requirement. It would a base like how planes operate. It would be a change from a movement score. It would get rid of the problem of crossing the ocean in three to five years. Ships could conduct operations from that base or change bases without regard to distance.

It would be a challenge to crate a logistics system. Abstraction can be good and creating supply units would be good but tedious. It would keep armies smaller but it would add some complexities to tactics but would not be useful if units were automatically supplied in their territory. It would make siege possible and destruction of powerful units without direct combat.

In France the Germans had fewer and smaller tanks. The won not by destroying enemy formations but going around them. Historically small units could hold off many times their numbers but also could be starved out. Building water source or storing supplies could make sieges take longer.

It would also make the tail and teeth concept of armies where the grain cars where as important as the phalanx. It was Philip of Mastadon who created the quartermasters corps. Having supplies is critical for a army to operate especially in hostile territory. Sun zu wrote his book in order to win battles without fighting and a logistic system would allow this.

[Procylon]

I really don't think we need to add a logistics system into the game.

Logistics is one of the most complicated concepts in warfare, and many armies completely fail because of it.

Trying to add in a logistics system into Civ would either make it way too complicated or frustrating, or it would fall so short that it wouldn't be worth programming it in.



Forget the fact that it takes years to get from Alaska to Chile.

We all know the timeline and hex sizes is out of whack. You can't have a turn based game that spans 6000+ years AND a realistic terrain system. It just doesn't work.


If it takes a unit a thousand years to move across a continent, it is because it makes tactical sense in many other ways.

Logistics is just one of those ideas that is far better left to run in the background, with no chance for it to require any kind of intervention.

Gameplay over realism.

If realism doesn't help the game, it gets left out.

[Gunslinger79]

This is one thing I really don't see being fun having to deal with. There is enough thinking going on as it is, and probably even more with the new combat system. All these supply route and logistics ideas would be good for a battle only game, but civ is more than just the military planning. The time it takes to complete a turn and play a game would be too long if you add much more stuff to worry about.

[scragham]

without question, gameplay over realism.

however, i don't think a basic supply system would really detract from the game. in the system i envision, sure it's extremely abstracted, but the basic idea is simple - have an uninterrupted supply line back to a city or port. that really shouldn't add any new complexity to the game from the player's perspective; just enforces common sense behavior and the existence and importance of front lines.

[Procylon]

without question, gameplay over realism.

however, i don't think a basic supply system would really detract from the game. in the system i envision, sure it's extremely abstracted, but the basic idea is simple - have an uninterrupted supply line back to a city or port. that really shouldn't add any new complexity to the game from the player's perspective; just enforces common sense behavior and the existence and importance of front lines.

It isn't even entirely that logistics could be made to be a less complicated system.

It is one of those things that would piss people off when their tank ran out of gas on the way to Moscow.

I think it would be better served by a non-intrusive part of the unit maintenance costs.

Perhaps you could even make units more costly to maintain when they are off in other Civ's lands. I can see that being an ok substitute on both ends.

[scragham]

It isn't even entirely that logistics could be made to be a less complicated system.

It is one of those things that would piss people off when their tank ran out of gas on the way to Moscow.

hehe... i don't know, i see that as a good thing. it and its equivalent has happened more than once in history.

I think it would be better served by a non-intrusive part of the unit maintenance costs.

Perhaps you could even make units more costly to maintain when they are off in other Civ's lands. I can see that being an ok substitute on both ends.

i'm not sure why you think my hypothetical system would be that intrusive. as far as i can tell, everything runs under the hood; all the player has to do is common sense stuff that has always needed to be done historically;

a) intact supply line
b) if you're launching an invasion, get a port ASAP!!!

with penalties for not paying attention to these simple rules.

supply information could be presented pretty simply; one sub-tab in the military units tab indicates "in supply" or not... there could be a couple of markers on the edge of a unit icon to indicate "in supply" or not as well as "supplies exhausted, suffering penalties."

edit: btw, this is all, obviously, predicated on a drastic decrease in the number of military units in the game, as has been suggested will happen in Civ 5. admittedly, a supply system like this would be pretty hard to manage with a modern-era military in Civ 1-4.

[creaney2]

There are some good responses to a logistics system. I would like to see a way of doing sieges and armor bypass. At least a siege option for cities so that there would be a way to keep units from healing in cities. I often get frustrated that I move 1/3 what the defender does and they can reinforce a city while I have a few dozen unit healing an lumbering from the last attack.

[thefluffyrocker]

Perhaps you could even make units more costly to maintain when they are off in other Civ's lands. I can see that being an ok substitute on both ends.

There is already a similar feature to this in Civ iv and it is basic at it's most prime meaning. While slightly realistic it is a very simply annoyance really reather than any tactical or strategic factor that can be used to gain or lose and advantage or requires any real thought.

This could be part of the supply system but having it as the be all and end all of supply mechanics is just a waste really.

[Procylon]

Have any of you played Galactic Civilizations 2? The system in that game, never got into the minutiae of supply units and whatnot.

The supply system associated with having a planet or space station nearby, and how your ships could endlessly move about in the giant radius that each station supplied.

I think that would be a good and easy supply system for naval units. It is simple, very tech driven, and it would keep ships from going nuts all over the world's oceans without caring about food or fuel.


You could perhaps use that on land to a lesser degree with the forts and cities.

Each unit has a range that it can not move beyond without resupply. So say a fort allows our warrior to move anywhere within 15 hexes. Later on, that might increase with tech and social policies, as well as unit type.

The warrior could also get a little further range if he pillages enemy land or occupies an enemy city. Pillaging enemy land might give him enough food to keep going that extra few hexes to get to the enemy city, and of course capturing the city would allow him to move another 15 hexes beyond that.


This is the least intrusive supply system that I can think. A simple leash on your units that keeps a 20,000 strong warrior unit from going anywhere he pleases without food.

It would make scouts that much more important since they could probably go 2-3 times as far from home as an enitre warrior unit.

It would also give an additional use for frontier forts.

[scragham]

sounds like a decent system for ships, but my problem is that it still doesn't seem to address the concept of having units and cities get cut off... didn't sound like sieges etc really had a place in that system?

[Procylon]

sounds like a decent system for ships, but my problem is that it still doesn't seem to address the concept of having units and cities get cut off... didn't sound like sieges etc really had a place in that system?

Sieges would be a different matter as a siege would have nothing to do with how far units could travel.

If you wanted to siege a city, you would have to come up with a system where surrounding the first hex in the city ring would cut it off from all of it's tiles for food and whatnot.

So, you take 6 units, siege the enemy, and his city gets no food and starves.

You might even be able to do it with 3 units.


As for a unit being cut off, say fortified and surrounded on that lonely hilltop, I don't think it should matter. Sure in real life, but not in game terms.

Adding a supply value to each unit that you have to watch is just way too detailed for civ. Adding it in would needlessly complicate systems that work well because of how simple they are.

[scragham]

eh. i think we're going to have to agree to disagree...

[Krikkitone]

Actually you could do it Far simpler

Units all behave like "Air" units

ie they have a position that they are stationed at and they conduct operations in a range from that position.

"Moving" would be done rarely, and moving outside of cities even rarer.

Generally all units would be based in a city/military base.

Establishing a new 'base of operations' for units would require that the 'Base of operations' have connections.


So you wouldn't have to worry about a Scout taking 1000 years to cross the continent... the Scout couldn't cross the continent at all. THe scout would be based in one of your cities, and it would conduct "exploration" missions... during which it might die so you get no information. But they would only be able to get to a certain Range. (fairly long range for a scout)

[Procylon]

Actually you could do it Far simpler

Units all behave like "Air" units

ie they have a position that they are stationed at and they conduct operations in a range from that position.

"Moving" would be done rarely, and moving outside of cities even rarer.

Generally all units would be based in a city/military base.

Establishing a new 'base of operations' for units would require that the 'Base of operations' have connections.


So you wouldn't have to worry about a Scout taking 1000 years to cross the continent... the Scout couldn't cross the continent at all. THe scout would be based in one of your cities, and it would conduct "exploration" missions... during which it might die so you get no information. But they would only be able to get to a certain Range. (fairly long range for a scout)

I don't think so. lol

The system you propose would take quite a lot out of the game. You would no longer march to enemy cities, you would just appear there? You wouldn't have to worry about units blocking your advance? It would basically take the whole concept of marching right out of the game.

[thefluffyrocker]

Actually you could do it Far simpler

Units all behave like "Air" units

ie they have a position that they are stationed at and they conduct operations in a range from that position.

"Moving" would be done rarely, and moving outside of cities even rarer.

Generally all units would be based in a city/military base.

Establishing a new 'base of operations' for units would require that the 'Base of operations' have connections.


So you wouldn't have to worry about a Scout taking 1000 years to cross the continent... the Scout couldn't cross the continent at all. THe scout would be based in one of your cities, and it would conduct "exploration" missions... during which it might die so you get no information. But they would only be able to get to a certain Range. (fairly long range for a scout)

This would be a drastic and very bad change to the game. It works with units like air units which are in general tied to a base in reality, but for ground and naval units it would be way too restrictive, way to simplistic and do little to change the current stack of doom philosphy.

It would simply be pile all your units into the nearest base to your objective and then have them attack all at once. There would be no real concept for artilery or strategic movement or in fact and form of strategy beyond the most basic.

It would also make simple movement a lot more fiddly, as moving air units currently is in the existing versions.

You would in essence be turning it into one of these fixed position castle games where it's simply a case of 2 static positions bombarding each other.

[Krikkitone]

I don't think so. lol

The system you propose would take quite a lot out of the game. You would no longer march to enemy cities, you would just appear there? You wouldn't have to worry about units blocking your advance? It would basically take the whole concept of marching right out of the game.

Not necessarily.

"Marching" to the target would be setting up a new base. (Ground units could probably be based outside of a city, but that would be limited to a certain range from cities. And they would have to have a clear path.)

You would have "Interception" /Screening but that would be your defenders/counter attackers working at once instead of one unit at a time. You couldn't just 'go around' defenders tiles, they would intercept you if you came into their range

"Range" would not be direct # of hexes but amount of movement so your range for an action would be farther on a road.


Essentially you would attack with all units at once, ie you would set them up and they would perform their action (like an Organized stack of death, where some units were in front, some handling the sides/rear)

So Movement to a new 'base' in enemy territory would be moving your whole army group, and it would require combat from anything within range of the path.

Defense would consist of setting degree of defense (defend a wider area or get larger bonuses)... and the defender would intercept enemy units.

[Procylon]

This won't ever happen in civ, even if you could get a working system together. Your best shot is to mod it in yourself...

[scragham]

i'm having a hard time envisioning how this system could be implemented in a way that makes sense to most civ players... it's just way, way too radical a departure from civ (and the norms of most TBS games like civ)...

[cesar1]

admittedly, the OP's system sounds way too restrictive.

the system i kind of like derives way back when from another microprose game that i played (how way back? back in the apple II days) called decision in the desert. the supply system was imo simple and effective.

basically, if a unit can trace a route via roads to a supply depot, then it's considered in supply and replenishes its stocks of fuel/ammo/other consumables. every action it takes consumes some of these stocks, and if its out of supply long enough (or if the supply situation in that particular scenario is poor enough) then eventually it runs out of supply, its combat strength starts to decline, and other bad things.

as applied to a civ type game, i'd envision it as being each unit has a couple of major values - namely how much supply said unit requires (i.e. the first warrior/spearman/whatever units would have a pretty low value, if not outright 0 seeing as how they can pretty much live off the land, while later units like modern armor, mechanized infantry, aircraft/helicopters all have relatively high values because of the amount of fuel and the like they consume), and how much supply said unit carries. each city or port (assuming they have intact lines to the base civilization) is considered a supply center. if an uninterrupted line is traceable between a unit and any given supply center, then its amount of supply is replenished. in the meantime, moving, fighting (that means attacking and defending), or even staying in place, constantly drains the amount the unit has on hand. if the supplies are depleted completely, then the unit starts suffering penalties to combat as well as movement. the more turns the unit is out of supply, the higher the penalties.

either way, i suspect anything we're discussing is already too late to be implemented in civ5, but maybe civ6?

Would be great if we do not have to wait to civ6 and it is developed in expansion packs

I like the supply management concept toguether with front lines drawn in the map.

It would enhance flanking and encirclement tactics to force enemy units run out of supplies.

It will also give more importance to withdraw decisions (withdraw from good defensive positions to avoid being encircled)