Supporting troops

[Asmodean]

Okay, Sore Loser.

But!! Were this model ever to be used in a strategy game, you would have to take great care that it didn't become too time intensive. What I mean is that you don't want to spend half of your playing time only worrying about supplies. The model should be implemented in such a way, that it is easy to set up, maintain, and monitor your supply routes.
You want to focus on your overall strategy. Not whether this or that infantry unit has enough to eat.

Asmodean

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Trifna
UberKrux: Well simply puting a path wouldn't take that much, not more than a few units here or there. And maybe Civ4 will come out when we'll have 2Gig DDR on new computers

yes, but with a unit that does the supplying, you could attack it and steal the supplies for your own troops.

[Trifna]

Uber, I fear I didn't understood... What does attacking some units or interposing into the supplying path have to do with your post about the computer's RAM?

[Specialist290]

Interesting discussion. Were features like this to be implemented, it would put a whole new spin on "amateurs think strategy, vets think logistics."

Seriously though... I think that supply should play an important part in how a unit fights. Whoever has the better supply routes would have a good if not decisive edge over their opponents.

Most of the supply would come directly from the mother country of the unit. Of course, you can still recover a bit by foraging on the enemy, but some things, such as ammunition, would not be compatible with yours (due to differences in technology, manufacturing processes, etc.), and therefore would have to come from home.

Like Trifna, I think that they should have a permanent status (quality) and a temporary status (condition). The permanent status would rise with combat experience as long as the unit survives, but condition would fluctuate from situation to situation. I think that the following factors should be able to affect the cost to supply, and thus the unit's condition:

1. Supply route length. Naturally, the longer a supply route, the longer it's going to take for whatever is being shipped on it to arrive, not to mention greater fuel and maintenance costs for whatever is hauling it.

2. Enemy intervention. This would interfere by causing a supply route to take the long way (see 1), or even cut off (a) unit(s) entirely. (Would also make a clever trick for finding enemy armies for those who know the supply formula).

3. The presence of roads/railroads/other transportation improvements along the route. Things go a bit faster if they follow a set path.

4. Technology. Of course, the better a technological "edge" a civ has, the lower the cost will be to support an individual unit. This would be reflected in the uses of inventions such as the radio to better coordinate movements of both troops and supplies. After the advent of air power, it should be impossible to completely cut supply lines, though they could still be severely disrupted.

5. Proximity to civilization in general. As we all know, it's easier to find something when it's on the map. In enemy territory, foraging will almost always occur, no matter how disciplined the troops.

6. Terrain. Sea routes are notoriously more expensive than land routes. Supplying over mountains is much more difficult than over grassland. Air power might be able to cut some of this out.

7. Air Power. Once a civ develops the ability to build aircraft, it should be easier (if more expensive costwise) to resupply.

8. Friendly ports and bases. If a unit is overseas, then it should get a benefit by sea supply if it is near a friendly (i.e. controlled or allied) coastal city. If a nearby friendly city has an airport, air resupply costs would be decreased.

9. Home Tean advantage. If a unit is within its own borders, drastically lower costs to supply.

More to come. I don't think I can fit all of this into one post...

[LDiCesare]

4. Technology. Of course, the better a technological "edge" a civ has, the lower the cost will be to support an individual unit. This would be reflected in the uses of inventions such as the radio to better coordinate movements of both troops and supplies. After the advent of air power, it should be impossible to completely cut supply lines, though they could still be severely disrupted.

Yes, but then modern armies can't forage and require more supplies (mechanized replace parts, fuel...).
Air power allows paratrooping supplies, but unless you dominate the air (little anti air defense), a lot of the supplies will be lost to the enemy too.

[Specialist290]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Yes, but then modern armies can't forage and require more supplies (mechanized replace parts, fuel...).

True. However, improvements in technology would also increase efficency of the convoy itself, thus lowering costs due to accidents, mixups, etc. Thus the overall cost is reduced. However, I do think that different types of units should require different levels of support, and not just modern mechanized units: ancient cavalry would cost more than infantry also, due to the fact that horses cost more to maintain than humans.

Air power allows paratrooping supplies, but unless you dominate the air (little anti air defense), a lot of the supplies will be lost to the enemy too.

Also true. Quality of air defense would have an effect on supply by air. However, for units that are not under threat of having supply lines cut, the planes could land at an airbase or city a short distance away and unload their supplies onto trucks heading for the front, which would tie in with point 8.