MOVEMENT, SUPPLY, ETC. (ver 2.0) hosted by don Don

Looking back in MOVEMENT, SUPPLY, ETC. (1.0) Vader Two, Diodorus Silicus, and Theben said much the same. One suggestion for incremental road technology is in §1g, including requirements for mounted/wheeled units to cross mountains. The supply rules also allow for movement at ½ cost (on top of roads/RR effects) in uncontested territory. These are just suggestions, and even if Firaxis likes the suggestions they will no doubt tweak everything to their taste.

The main reason why explorer/alpine units don't get any extra movement on real roads is because of supply. In civ/civ2 the movement rates are de facto supply rules. One generally can't move tens of thousands of men around faster than the supply chain can move. Explorer/alpine units are small, lightly equipped units that essentially have no supply chain to hold them back. They're already moving as fast as their feet allow!
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by don Don (edited July 13, 1999).]</font>

[loinburger]

Roads, mounted units, etc.: Consider the fact that the Caucasus Mountains were never successfully invaded and that Transylvania repelled the Turks whereas the lower regions failed, and consider that the Fertile Crescent got itself taken over every hundred years because there weren't enough mountains. Chariots and cavalry were DEADLY back in the olden days. But try getting a horse up a mountain range with no path, and you've got yourself a dead horse. So I like the idea of mounted/chariot units receiving a significant penalty for crossing hilly/mountainout terrain, and would even support a restriction to them going up a mountain without there being a road. If you go increasing the number of moves each unit has (which I've always felt was a good idea), then you run the risk of Civ III becoming a "build chariot sweep across the world by 2000 B.C." type of game. I tend to dislike rush tactics and therefore support the mountain movement restrictions.

Railroads + Roads: Have any of you ever seen Buster Keaton in "The General"? Two rival civilizations (in the Civ sense of the word) used the same rail lines in that movie to devastating effect. Maybe the railroads can be easy targets for an ambush ala Lawrence of Arabia. As for roads, it only makes sense that they be easy to take over, but then that leads to rush tactics all over again (early in the game, anyway, which is when I hate them the most). Perhaps there should be an option of setting up a 'roadblock', in case you don't want to completely destroy that mountain road that you spent 5 years building and yet you also don't want the Assyrians to drive their chariots into your hometown. A roadblock can be set up by any unit, takes one turn to complete, negates the effect of a road (or railroad), and takes one turn to remove, all done without damaging the road/railroad. A roadblock cannot be removed by bombardment, although it is automatically removed if the road/railroad is destroyed. In other words, nothing serious, just a little delaying action while you prepare an ambush and rush some units out to meet the chariots.

As for air units (as well as mountain crossings), I like most if not all of the ideas posted here so far, but have a few additions. These are in regards to the idea of turning the Civ III world into a true 3D rendered sphere showing altitudes and elevations (I feel that this could be done, as a sphere resembles a flat map up close, and it would be a simple matter of game mechanics/a complicated matter of a rotating viewpoint to avoid any negative consequences of having mountains jutting up all over the place). A unit's ZOC would no longer be a circle, but rather a sphereoid/parabaloid--the ZOC would cover the spaces surrounding the unit and would go as high as the unit's AA capabilities would allow (a guy with a sword would have a ZOC going up 0 spaces, a guy with a gun would go up 1 space, a missile launcher would go up 2) and would cover the surrounding spaces (except at the apex, where the surrounding spaces would not be covered--a sphereoid/parapaloid). What this would mean is that a high-altitude bomber attacking a city/unit would no longer be repelled by a host of enemy units surrounding the target; using the present engine the bomber could not attack a city if it were surrounded by warriors, but under this system the bomber would have no problem reaching its target. This altitude system would also mean that a biplane wouldn't work in the Himilayas (the elevation is too high, about 4, and the biplane can only work at 1 or 2), and that other airplanes would be easier to shoot down the lower they flew/the higher the attacker is. Of course, the airplane wants to fly low in order to hit its target, also, so there's some give and take. Furthermore, the altitude system could be used to better compute travel times through mountains--maybe the Appalachians would take 3 move points while the Himilayas would take 6. And finally, you can't go too high without oxygen masks, so nobody can colonize Mt. Everest until they reach a high tech level.

Roadblock: nifty idea. Just trigger an avalanche at a critical pass or two instead of destroying miles of roadway.

I think we'll be building 20,000'+ structures before we'll even consider colonizing 20,000'+ mountains.

PS: Caucasus successfully invaded and conquered at least twice: Cimmerians (early 6th BCE) and Scythians (mid 6th BCE). The Scythians were horse tribes similar to the Huns and Mongols.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by don Don (edited July 14, 1999).]</font>

[Flavor Dave]

technophile--if I understand you correctly, you favor this penalty for horse units b/c it's more realistic. Well, if you want realism, play two turns and die of old age.

It is already the case that, without roads, you'll use archers and legions thru mountains instead of chariots and elephants. You get better defense, and no penalty when attacking pikemen. So I guess as things play out, your suggestion that horse units in mountains react like helicopters is a really minor change to the game. I still don't like it, tho, b/c making changes solely for "realism" is one step down the path to a bad game.

[loinburger]

Flavor Dave: reaslism schmealism, I'm trying to make this a better game too, so don't go *****ing at me for throwing in the 'realism' factor. The primary reason I want this restriction on horses and chariots et al is because I HATE rush games, and if you increase the number of moves that units get (something I am in favor of) then you're going to get a game called "the fall of civilizations that didn't build horses and got whupped by the Mongols." In "reality" civilizations that got whupped by horse and chariot tribes popped back up in one form or another (ex. China) because you can't just wipe a civilization's influence off the face of the planet--however, it is not influence that you get rewarded for in Civ, it is survival, and it don't matter a hill of beans if those nasty Assyrians that just captured your last city were 'influenced' by your civilization (aka they stole your tech) because you're just not playing anymore, they are. So please, if I EVER speak of 'realism', don't give me a realism speech (I hope this isn't coming off too strongly, I do not intend for it to) because I'm after about the same things you are. If Civ were "real" it would suck, I agree--you would play two turns and then die, as you say. But have pity on us poor builders who don't want to have to go off researching cavalry right off the bat.

[loinburger]

they edit out '*****' now? What a pity. I don't know what they were thinking of, I meant a poodle.

[loinburger]

Don Don: But I thought that the folks in the Caucasus were the most warlike of them all--didn't they conquer India? Or did they go soft after that?

The Saka did conquer western India in 2nd c. BCE, and they were Scythians; that particular tribe of Scythians were never in the Caucasus mountains.

:| Flavor: Don't jump down the guy's throat on that point! He isn't the first to propose limitations on mounted and/or wheeled movement through mountains, nor the first to propose that units take damage crossing mountains.

[korn469]

this idea concerns two problems in the game. the first one is units are made up of people and large armies would require a significant investment of resources and people to keep it running. The other problem it addresses is the fact that it cost the exact same to support a warrior as what it does to support a wing of stealth bombers.

instead of subtracting a population point to create a unit i think the way units are supported should be changed. do away with support costing sheilds. i think that a certain number of units should create a soldier specialist. the soldier specialist would be like all other specialist (scientist, tax collector, entertainer, doctor, engineer, transend)...one population of a city not working the land and this would represent the logistics and people need to keep a military machine running. like specialists in alpha centauri the soldier specialist would modify labs and economy and psych.
the modifier would be -2 economy -2 labs +1 psych

this would require that to have a huge modern military machine you would have to have a large well developed population

some units would require more support than others. have units rated in support points from zero to three support points. a freedom fighter/muja-hadeen(sp?) unit might take zero points. a regular army infantry division might cost one point. a armor division might cost two points. finally a stealth bomber wing might cost three points.

support level

three it takes 4 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 6 support points the first soldier specialist doesn't cause a econ/labs penalty

two it takes 4 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 6 support points

one it takes 3 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 5 support points

zero it takes 3 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 4 support points

minus one it takes 2 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 3 support points

minus two it takes 2 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 2 support points

minus three it takes 1 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 2 support points

minus four it takes 1 support points to create the first soldier specialist each soldier specialist provides a total of 2 support points each soldier specialist has a -3 labs/-3 economy modifier +1 psych

naturally when units were disbanded or killed the soldier specialist would turn back into regular workers

if you lost soldier specialist for whatever reason then the units they supported would be disbanded

[loinburger]

Korn: I like that idea about soldier specialists (obviously the exact benefits/penalites resulting from the different support levels would have to be ironed out in play-testing) except for one thing, that being the labs penalty. Wars have produced some of the largest technological boons in history (although they have been only boons in war-related fields, at least until someone found another use for whatever got invented). In the Tech thread the semi-consensus was that research should be directed towards one or several blind paths (i.e. Industry and Agriculture). Perhaps instead of producing a labs PENALTY, soldier specialists should produce a lab BONUS, but only in certain fields; fields which are the most geared towards war (such as a tech path called War) would receive the maximum bonus. However, if the civilization were trying to direct research towards a path which is in opposition to war (I don't know, painting? music? The thing is, almost EVERYTHING can be used for a war, be it for propoganda or weapons development), then those paths would receive a penalty to research. So soldier specialists would not necessarily slow down research (in fact, they might speed it up), but they would serve to lock a civilization into a certain technological path. "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it control your destiny" sort of thing.

Psych bonus? Sure. War means money. Let the death cause the psych penalties.

Econ penalty? Sure. The more a country spends on war, the less it can spend on anything else.

[korn469]

technophile

like somebody says on this thread "the best ideas are the ones that can be improved"

i think your suggestion is great. so if you are researching a war tech you get a labs bonus. if you are researching a peace tech you get a labs penalty. i like it!

korn469

[loinburger]

I consider the effects a war has on a population's happiness to be "Support".

Problem: Democracies are terrible for war. This means that a despot can go invading you with an inferior army and not fear severe reprisals until you manage to change governments. What a pain. While some may argue that the benefits of a democracy outweigh this disadvantage, I disagree. I think that democracies SHOULD receive severe happiness penalties if attacking a rival civilization, but SHOULD NOT receive happiness penalties, or should receive a lesser happiness penalty, if the rival civilization struck the first blow.

Example: WW II. After Pearl Harbor the majority of Americans were pissed off enough to not give the government a "happiness penalty". There were still plenty of unhappy people, but this was mostly due to the fact that there was a war and not due to the fact that the AMerican government was involved with it.
HOWEVER:
The Vietnam War eventually got the American people so riled up that some historians actually think that he civil unrest may have eventually started a revolution. The doves began to outnumber the hawks and the government was severely criticized. Much unhappiness was caused, not because there was a war, but because the US government was involved with it.

Solution: As a Democracy/Republic:
If a rival civilization declares war on you, your citizens do not become as unhappy as they normally would while your military units are away from their home bases. However, as soon as the war ends, you had better get those units home as soon as possible.
If a rival civilization attacks you, you citizens will not become as unhappy as they normally would while your military units are away from their home bases. Your Senate will not accept peace until the rival civilization has paid for its crimes against your civilization.
The more a rival civilization differs from your own in social engineering choices, the less unhappy your citizens will be while you are at war with that civilization and the less willing your Senate will be to make peace.
If a rival civilization commits atrocities against you, your citizens will demand vengeance (will not become unhappy AT ALL while your units are away from home) and, depending on the circumstances, your Senate might not make peace ever--it will demand that the rival civilization be eradicated completely.

A democracy is more opposed to war than the other government choices, but if you ruffle its citizens' fur enough it will bite back. I think that Civ III should reflect this.

[ember]

As a minimum, no unhappines should be caused by your units being anywhere within your borders, it shoudln't have to be in your city.

You basically are saying that if someone commits an atrocity against you, your units in their territroy don't cause unhappiness?

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[loinburger]

exactly. The present Democracy and Republic governments seem to assume that people, if given the choice, would always rather "turn the other cheek" than seek veneance/preventative measures. But if someone nukes your capital, it doesn't matter how democratic you are, the citizens are going to call for blood and won't quiet down until you've hammered the offending civilization to its knees. They're not going to CARE that Johnny might not come home from the war, because they know darn well that their ideals and their way of life is at stake. So yes, atrocity=no unhappiness.

Also, I agree that units should be able to be stationed anywhere in your borders and not cause unhappiness.

[Flavor Dave]

Well, the thing about horses taking damage thru mountains--they ALREADY are punished by not getting the movement advantage!! Who would YOU send thru hills to conquer the Zulus--archers and legions, or chariots and elephants? The units with the 2 defense, that's who.

Hey, if you want to weaken chariots and elephants more in bad terrain, OK. I think it's a bad idea, but a small bad idea. As the game is played, what you're talking about is mostly theoretical, since 1. If you have to go over mountains to attack, you are kinda stupid for trying. Wouldn't it be smarter to build a fortress in the mountains, put a phalanx/pikeman and an elephant in there, and go in the other direction, over plains and grasslands?!?!

Finally, what kind of rush games are you trying to avoid. Maybe it's just my patient, non-HG/ICS dependent style of play, but what you're talking about has never been a big issue for me. Even when I moved up to a new level and endured the requisite butt-kickings till I figured things out, I'd only lose a city here and there.

Increasing the movement of units won't change that, I don't think. If a computer civ known for being offensive sellouts (attack without adequately defending) comes after me, I am confident I'll stop them, and then I'll just do an end run and take a couple of their poorly defended cities.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Flavor Dave (edited July 20, 1999).]</font>

Flavor Dave: I don't know that anybody is trying to prevent rush strategies per se. Those who suggested making geographical obstacles like mountains and deserts tougher (Diodorus Sicilus, for example) did so out of a sense of historical realism. Moving thousands of soldiers and their supplies through these obstacles takes a toll.

[Flavor Dave]

dondon--"
technophile
Civer
posted July 14, 1999 23:58

Flavor Dave: reaslism schmealism, I'm trying to make this a better game too, so don't go *****ing at me for throwing in the 'realism' factor. The primary reason I want this restriction on horses and chariots et al is because I HATE rush games, and if you increase the number of moves that units get (something I am in favor of) then you're going to get a game called "the fall of civilizations that didn't build horses and got whupped by the Mongols."

You're right, moving these units thru the mountains are tough. But the proponents of this idea were speaking specifically of horsemen/chariots/elephants, IIRC. These units are ALREADY weakened in rough terrain as their extra movement means nothing (unless there are roads). That's why I pointed out that in rought terrain, you'd spend your shields on archers/legions, not chariots/elephants. Better defense, no bonus when attacking pikemen, same movement.

[loinburger]

It's true, I'm a builder. I like to sit tight and cozy in my fortified empire and build, build, build, until late in the game when I either go on a rampage with tanks and howitzers or else build a spaceship. And I HATE it when other civs cross my mountain border with knights and elephants and kick my buttocks across the continent!

Sure, if you're fighting in mountains/swamps/whatever, then you'll build legions and archers. But what if you're just crossing a guy's mountainous borders so that you can sweep across his unprotected plains and grasslands? It is to prevent this that I have been such a strong proponent of further penalizing mounted units. I'm not trying to kill off the knight or elephant, I'm just trying to make them stop for repairs when they're done crossing the Alps or Pyrenees or whatever range I've hidden behind. Yes, horses are already penalized by not having their multiple moves, but they still attack and defend at full strenght while in the mountains and can still beat up my phalanxes no matter how fortified they are.

[Theben]

I'll try it your way, Flav Dave. For GAME EFFECT, shouldn't the player who's stuck with tons of mountains in his territory get some benefit from them? They already suck at providing resources. Having a natural "city wall", is that so bad?
How about making the "damage due to terrain" idea a game option?
Plus, even if my LASS idea or some variant isn't used (do I sound too hopeful?) I believe mounted units will get additional STR in both attack & defense in civ3.

technophile,
"They're not going to CARE that Johnny might not come home from the war, because they know darn well that their ideals and their way of life is at stake."
I think this statement is what really describes the situation most democratic societies look at. True, a sneak attack will unite people behind their leaders, as will sustained attack that cannot be fought against (bombings of Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia). But a more important factor is the values of the society. 2 examples:
WWII- Germany & Japan threaten free world, and have shown the power to do so. It is important to our values, and has moral justification. Little unrest.

Vietnam-A small country with little ability to threaten the free world. Many Americans (including many troops) view their fight as a fight against colonial rule. America was founded on anti-colonialism. Little importance to our values, has no moral justification; even opposed to our morals. Much unrest at home, loss of morale in troops.

At any rate, it doesn't belong here. You should post this in the social engineering threads.

Thought:

Units should require lots of stuff for supply. Food, Resources, and Money. Each one should need a different amount of each. For example, a huge, poorly trained army could take lots of food but very little money. Highly skilled mercenaries would take more money, and perhaps fewer resources (they're going to be very efficient.) Units that start out normal and become veteran will give you the bonus without the increase, so that there's a major incentive to make your own veterans, rather than build units as elite troops.

A unit should be something like 1/10 food, 1/2 resource, and 1 gold to maintain.

[loinburger]

Was this thread moved to Other and I just haven't realized it?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by technophile (edited July 28, 1999).]</font>

Technically the Movement portion has kinda fallen thru the cracks in the Firaxis forum, but this thread is still open for ideas.

Technically, the support ideas that people have been batting around here should be in the Econ/Trade thread (which will include "Resources" in its title on the next incarnation). I'll be working with Harel on that one, so whatever is here will get into the summary.

[Theben]

*BUMP*

[loinburger]

Wonderful! At least Theben's still looking...

Kevin's Semi-Hashed Out Supply System:

This goes along with the Orders suggestions I've posted in Combat.

In order for this system to work best, I've adopted Maniac's x10 system (all resources + costs are multiplied by 10, i.e. grasslands produce 20 food but citizens also eat 20 food; allows for greater flexibility in production).

For the purposes of my system, I will assume that all minerals are in the form of Shields. My system will require some minor changes if Commodities are used instead.

********THE SYSTEM*********

All units require three things for support: gold, shields, and food.

All resources for a unit come from one city, which is not necessarily its home city. Effeciency, an SE factor, will determine how well supplies reach the unit, as well as:
-the distance from the supplying city,
-the distance from a friendly country's border,
-city improvements in supplying city (see below),
-terrain improvements connecting unit to supplying city.
For example, let's say that a tank requires 8 shields each turn (I'll only talk about shields in this example, it makes it simpler; and remember, the x10 system is being used). One square holds 2 tanks, one supplied from New York, one supplied from Anchorage Alaska. We'll assume that all of my ideas regarding movement are accepted, and that Paths (1/2), Improved Roads (1/5), Bessemer Railroads (1/20), Maglevs (unlimited), and Vacuum Tubes (unlimited, can go underwater) are used. The number of moves it would have to expend to reach NYC is 2, thanks to the infrastructure. NYC also has a Supply Depot and Ammo Dump (see below), and the Civ's Effeciency is 3. End result, Tank A, supplied from NYC, is receiving supplies at 90% effeciency, and requires only 9 shields to be supplied each turn. HOWEVER, Anchorage is 8 MP's away from the tanks, has no ammo dump, and no Supply Depot. Tank B is receiving shields at 25% effeciency and must receive 32 shields each turn to remain supplied.

Units require food every turn (say, 1 food, which isn't that bad since the x10 system is being used). If they do not receive food for 2 turns in a row (we'll assume that they have stored body fats or something), they recieve damage. Food is gathered either by foraging or by shipment. If foraged, there is no wastage, and the square that the unit is resting on produces 1 less food for that turn. This would only be a problem, obviously, in a city square. Food can also be shipped at a cost of additional shields (1 shield per food, plus ineffeciencies).

Shields must come from an outside source. Different units require different expenditures: tanks need, say, 8 shields, while explorers might not need any! Units have a supply bar to show how many supplies they have on hand, and different orders require different supply expenditures. VERY rough numbers would be:
-Fortified units require 1 shield expenditure each turn, and 5 per time unit defends.
-Holding units require 1 shield expenditure each turn, and 5 per time unit defends.
-Ambushing units require 2 shield expenditure each turn (stealth in moving resources around is required), and 10 for the ambush.
-Delaying units require 3 shield expenditure each turn, and 10 for each time attacked
-Retreating costs 10
-Raiders INCREASE their supplies by 5
-Blitzers require 5 shield expenditure each turn, 30 per attack
-Movement requires 5 shield expenditure for ground units, 2 for air units, 1 for sea units. This is multiplied by the terrain defense % (rougher terrain requires more supplies to move through). These numbers are doubled for Blitzers.
--There is a method to my madness, particularly with Blitzers. A Blitz is wonderful for attack but terrible for defense, since you've left your support vehicles and infantry in the dust.
*-*Each unit has 100 supplies on its supply bar. The bar is normally blue. When the bar falls below 25% the bar turns purple and the unit moves at 50% (low on fuel, let's say). When the supply bar falls to 0, the unit CANNOT MOVE, receives -75% to ATT and -50% to DEF.

Gold is easy: every unit requires gold (wages) unless your SE settings make it so you don't have to pay them (Theocracy, for example), while other SE settings will make you pay them more (Democracy, I suppose). If you don't pay them for one turn, the unit is marked so that you can see it and an enemy with any scouting ability whatsoever can also see it, the unit is more easily bribed, and Mercenary units will disband/fight for the other side. After 2 turns, the unit fights at -25% for ATT and DEF, and after 3 turns, the unit disbands. Gold is subtracted automatically from your treasury, and is not affected by supply lines or anything of that nature.

I shall continue later.

[Theben]

Not that I know what you'll post next, but lemme interject:

x10. That was Maniac? Well, I agree it should be used.

Commodities should only matter for trade purposes. I oppose needing specific ones for unit/building construction.

Gold, shields, food, is good.

Do you have a formula for this, or are you pulling numbers out of a hat?

The thing about foraging, in the case of an army, is that in order to get enough to feed the army it has to be a farm.

You already have a good idea about how I feel about most of these combat missions. As for a supply bar, this can be assumed in the hit points of the unit. When it takes damage in combat part of that is consumed supplies.

Furthermore I'll post my idea about shifting supplies between cities here. Use a hotkey, and a menu, similar to the "find city" command, will list all available cities to switch supply to. Click on the city you wish to switch to to change the supply route.

technophile, good stuff!

Well, as I said, I would like discussion of resources and unit support costs moved to the economics thread.

I want this thread to concentrate on movement and supply ideas; let me quote my proposal [stepping up on soap box].

Supply has no effect on unit support costs, only on effectiveness of that support reaching the unit. Supply is a generalization of whether that unit has instantaneous access to supplies (the resources modeled as well as unmodeled) and communications, and whether the unit has freedom to move unhindered. Supply rules are a nod of recognition that the supply line of a fighting unit is far more vulnerable than the unit itself.

In this vein I like many of your suggestions, and I would like you to develop some ideas of supply drawn from your model. Could you, for example, refine your criteria based on the supply model I proposed (§4), or would that be asking too much? I would prefer, for example, a penalty to att/def rather than an increase in support costs when distance from nearest tile "in supply" becomes too great.

Another point, especially pertinent by the time your civ would have armor units and RR, is that support need not physically come from Anchorage (using your example). Instead, although Anchorage foots the bill, they can buy with money and trade their goods for support from sources nearby the armor unit. Especially when NYC and Anchorage are the same civ! If support materials are to come from a friendly power there might be some slight inflation of the cost, while a neutral or wary state might add a significant surcharge (but probably never equal to the unmodified support cost). This too, can be dictated by the supply conditions.

That's all for now, but I've some other comments I'll post later.

[Harel]

Agreely awaiting the power shift Don don.

( On a personal note, contact me via e-mail ).

[loinburger]

Sorry for the delay, I was having a brain scan done.

First, I'll finish up, then I'll address the issues posted so far.

AIR SUPERIORITY:
Enemy air superiority will greatly increase the ineffeciency with which resources reach your troops. Air superiority is determined by:
-distance of enemy aircraft from your unit(s)
-ATT strength of enemy aircraft
-quantity of enemy aircraft
AND the same three factors in relation to your aircraft, allied aircraft, and neutral aircraft.
Quantity x Avg. Distance x Avg ATT Strength will give both your and the enemy's Air Power Factor (APF). Allied aircraft will add their full APF to your total. Neutral aircraft will only add to your APF if they are at war with your enemy (they'll knock down his aircraft, if not in defense of you, then just for the sake of knocking them down). Ground AA does not add to APF but decreases the other side's APF. Enemy APF - Your APF gives the effeciency modifier, which cannot be negative (if your APF is greater than the enemy's, then air superiority has no effect on your supply lines).
I don't know what numbers should be used here. Let's say, the enemy has APF 20 greater than yours, so your effeciency decreases by 20%. This CAN reduce effeciency to zero!

SEA SUPPLIES:
Distance and movement rates are the greatest determinants of supply effeciency. For sea supplies, I'll say that the MP's required for supply movement are (1/MP's of fastest vessel).

AIR SUPPLIES and ZOC's:
If enemy ZOC's completely surround your unit, effeciency drops to 0%, UNLESS you have discovered flight. If you have discovered flight than supplies can be airdropped in. This is a much less effecient method of transport, however, due to the danger and the fuel used. If you must resort to air transport, then enemy ground AA will add to the enemy's APF (instead of just subtracting from your own) and if the enemy has a greater APF than you your effeciency will drop by ((what it would normally drop by) x 1.5). This is because your supply 'copters are being damaged and/or shot down, and you must expend greater resources (shields) towards their repair/replacement. This is in addition to a penalty incurred from the simple fact that air drops are being used (fuel expenditure). This last penalty is significantly decreased if there is an Airport TI or friendly city within range of your stranded unit(s).

CITY IMPROVEMENTS: Supply Depot and Ammo Dump. I have no idea what these should cost for upkeep or shields, or what techs should be required for them. What the Supply Depot and Ammo Dump do is increase effeciency for all supplies doled out by the city they are located in.

TERRAIN IMPROVEMENTS:
Airport: Same as usual, except that they affects the effeciency with which air drops are carried out. IMO, they should also decrease ineffeciency for ALL supplied units in range of them, but this is highly debateable (not that everything else I've said isn't )
Port: Increases effeciency for sea supplies. Takes awhile to build, costs money to build, and can be destroyed from sea (even from units that don't bombard).
Train Station (these have been suggested as ways to prevent getting onto and off of railroads from anywhere): Increases effeciency for rail supplies (or maglev supplies, if it's a Maglev Station).
Relay Station: Increases effeciency for all ground supplies. Doesn't take as much time to build as a railroad, costs money to build.
-Purpose behind having TI's playing a part in supply: If the Raid order is used (see Combat) and/or if Bombard units can destroy TI's, then these would give extra targets to be wiped out; cut the enemy's supply, the unit dies/is easy pickings for your bombers. Additionally, the Relay Station would serve the purpose of increasing effeciency for field operations where there might not be time to build enough infrastructure to have effecient supplying. Also good if the enemy is using a scorched earth policy.

That about does it for Kevin's Semi-Hashed Out Supply System...

[loinburger]

Now for the critics.

Theben:

Yup, I'm pulling numbers out of a hat. Take all numbers I give with a grain of salt--they are meant only to be used relative to each other. I have no idea how many supplies a tank needs, but it seems to make sense that they need more than explorers, that's all. Also, for the different unit orders requiring different supplies, that was to demonstrate that some orders will be "safe", i.e. will leave the army prepared to fight a long drawn out engagement, while other orders will be "dangerous", or will leave the unit ripe for a counterattack. For example, if you have a tank unit that Blitzes 3 times, it now only has 10 supplies left. A couple of enemy partisans can reduce that down to 0 supplies, and now the tank is as good as dead. Food was identical--the x10 system makes it possible to feed an army. If you feed an army 1 food and your plains produce 20, no problem. If you feed an army 1 food and your plains produce 2, that's a problem.

As for the Supply Bar, I still contend that supplies are different enough from combat damage that they should have a separate bar. Supplies are used up even if the unit isn't damaged at all--bullets get used up, swords get blunted, etc. What's more, an undersupplied army can still fight fine, just not as well, and being undersupplied is more easily fixed than being damaged. An infantry unit without bullets (0 supplies on the supply bar) is in trouble, but is still alive. In one turn, with adequate supplies and adequate effeciency, that unit can get all the bullets it needs, and is now at full fighting strength (100 supplies). However, if everyone in that unit is missing a leg and an arm (10% health), it doesn't matter how many supplies you give them, they're still going to be screwed the next turn (maybe a few of them grew new arms. Great. Now they're at 15% health). And finally, Blitzing (and other supply-intensive orders) does not damage the attacking army, it just leaves it open to attack.

Don Don:

Don't worry, I'm not pretending that I know how many supplies every unit should get. I was just giving a few fr'instances for the sake of comparison.

As for strictly having reduced ATT/DEF instead of increased supply costs, I'll check that out in greater detail, but I'm a little opposed to the idea. Just because an infantry unit is far away doesn't mean that it doesn't have enough bullets to fight (reduced ATT/DEF), it just means that you've got to work harder to get the bullets to where they're supposed to go (you've got to burn coal to fuel your trains, so you expend more supplies).

As for the Anchorage/NYC problem: if Theben's idea is used and you can instantly change the unit's "home city" at any time, then you would just make it so BOTH tanks are supplied from NYC. No problem. The example I gave is assuming that, for whatever reason, you don't have enough war materiel being produced in NYC to support both tanks, so you have to make Anchorage the second supplying city.

As for buying supplies from friendly/neutral Civ's to decrease ineffeciency, I like this idea. Spend gold, get shields and/or food. But, this is assuming that the other civs have the war materiel to sell to you (not every general store has tank treads). Solution: you work out a trade agreement (I know, wrong thread!) with the other Civ stating that that Civ will provide X supplies for Y gold each turn. If you spend too much gold and have extra supplies, tough luck. If the Civ doesn't own up to their side of the bargain, and they do so repeatedly, it is reason to declare war, even in Democracy. This would allow for supply buying in both single and multi-player.

Additionally, you should be able to plunder cities to gain supplies (preferably an enemy's). I don't know where to post this idea, though. Suggestions?

Can you arrange for the brain scan to be converted to ASCII format and posted here? It'd save you a lot of typing!