Attrition of Military Forces

[polypheus]

In war, a large percentage of losses suffered by military forces is not due to combat but to attrition. Attrition is due to a variety of factors including disease, desertion, equipment breakdown, weather, etc. The most famous example of this is Napoleon's Russia campaign in which about half of his 500,000 man army was lost to attrition alone.

Attrition should definitely be expanded as a concept in Civ3. I say expanded because attrition was already an implemented concept in Civ2 for the helicopter unit. Recall that a helicopter unit loses a small amount of HPs if not in a city.

Therefore, I propose a very simple model of attrition that will nevertheless add tremendously to realism, but most importantly, gameplay and strategy.

My model is this:
Most, but not all, military units will suffer from attrition in the same manner as was implemented for Civ2 helicopters in which a small amout of HPs is reduced each turn. But attrition only occurs for military units when not operating inside your own (or possibly allied) territory.

With attrition being implemented for most units (and not just helicopters) gameplay and depth is expanded. You can now trap units and watch as they slowly wither under attrition without having to actually engage hostile forces. It also simulates (sort of) logistics and supply lines because now you need to periodically send new units to replace withering units that have been reduced through attrition. And it adds to diplomacy because now you really need good allies and right-of-way agreements to mimimize attrition.

I hope that Civ3 will contain an expanded implementation of the attrition concept so that most units (not just helicopters) will suffer from it.

[Inverse Icarus]

i dont like it.

sure its realistic, but hell.

thats not civ.

[NakaNaka]

Yea you need to balance realism and gameplay. I don't want complete realism I want to play a fun game.

Sorry I also would not support this idea.

[marcuspeddle]

I like the idea of attrition. When I played Caesar III there was always the chance that my troops would put their tail between their legs and run for base. That added an element of surprise to the game. In Civ3 I wouldn't want automatic attrition like the helicopters in Civ2 but I think morale would be based on 1) the amount of gold and resources allocated to the military (I believe in CTP2 there was something called 'military readiness' which was high or low depending on your spending), 2) time spent away from friendly cities (soldiers need their pleasures), and 3) the happiness of the people. If mothers are unhappy to see their sons fighin' in some foreign land then perhaps the sons are not too pleased either. Perhaps another factor would be distance from the home country. This would only apply in older time periods because in modern times it only takes a few hours to get anywhere by plane. Alexander's troops refused to follow him to India but I think this might have been based on a number of factors, not just distance from home. Oh yes, now that we mention Alexander, I suppose leading your army across deserts should reduce your forces significantly. These ideas add some complexity to the game but also some depth. Many of the people in these forums complain that diety level is too easy and what can they do about the 255 city limit. These kind of ideas should take some of the steam out of them

[Ilkuul]

Have any of you played Europa Universalis? Attrition is a big factor there. And in that game, I like it. It somehow fits, adds realism, etc. I'm not so sure, tho', whether I'd like it in Civ3. In Civ there are so many more units and strategy options open (in EU your land forces are infantry, cavalry and artillery ONLY), that to have to cope with attrition as well -- on top of all the other new factors like culture, expanded trade & diplomacy etc. -- just seems a bit too much to me.

Yes, it's realistic, but be aware of the downside: it's pretty darn frustrating to set off with 30,000 troops as I did in one EU game, and arrive with only 12,000!

[MORON]

As long as you don't make gameplay hell, I have no problems with attrition. However, I don't see how attrition can be a major gameplay factor without making attacks impossible.

[popcornvendor]

i like the idea of attrition. i mean, wasnt the reason Hitler didnt conquer Russia was becuz his forces were devastated by the russian winter? if he didnt have attrition, he wouldnt have lost as easily. coulda changed our modern history. *taps forehead*

[Ralf]

Everybody talks about attrition = too much realism. But for me the idea of attrition (slow gradual damage-taking) would add first and foremost to gameplay and strategy. The realism-factor (as always) comes second to me.

However, since the the human player have such a overwhelming unit-tactical overview-advantage over the AI-civs; I would really prefer to lay the burden more or less entirely on the human player alone.

In other words: AI-civs would NOT have to take this factor into account. ONLY the human player. The problem is however that most civers would cry about "unfair" AI-tactical advantage, without realising that the AI-designers works from a very severe unit-tactical disadvantage to start with.
So this exclusive HP-attrition feature would infact even out the otherwise heavily HP-favourable odds to somewhat more equal & just levels.

[Myrddin]

I have no problem with the idea in principle as a way of handicapping the human player at higher difficulty levels.

This together with the proposed effects of culture are a much better, and subtler, way of preventing a conquest win than CTP2's blunt weapon of limits on city numbers based on governement types.

[samurai]

Think the idea is just great. It`s not possible at all that let`s say an elephant unit is capable to discover the world alone.War units should be war units, not explorers.
If you had some units that were dedicated to exploring (like the explorer in civII, but noone used), they would suffer less of attrition than war units.

Another thing, moral get low in cold places,swamps and deserts. If every tile had some kind of attrition rate, and each unit had attrition points, then you could calculate how much damage your unit woul get when entering a "low moral area".
Brings a lot more of strategy to the game in my opinion

A great idea.

[TechWins]

At first I thought attrition would make the game too complicated, but if now I think putting attrition into the game would add greatly too the strategy of war and exploring. I don't want the same type of attrition as suggested by other people, I just want maybe a 1/20 hp loss when moving through a desert, tundra, glacier, jungle, or swamp tile. Having it be this way really wouldn't add too much complexity but still add more strategy while being fun. There's already a unit defense bonus in certain tiles so why can't there be an hp loss in certain tiles? Possibly certain units shouldn't loose any hp in these tiles. I think having it this way would be a compromise between realism and the fun factor.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,
I'd just like to say that I've always been a bit of a fan of the attrition concept, but as part of a more strategic combat system. As I've explained in other posts, I feel that units should have a maximum "Range". This is the range that they can operate within enemy territory. The range of a unit will depend on how much maintainence it would realistically need (eg. a tank would probably have a shorter operational range than infantry!), this range would also be modified according to the predominant terrain. if you exceed this range, your units would begin to suffer attrition (the rate would of HP loss would again depend on Maintainence levels)-this would obviously effect Firepower, movement, morale and attack strength to reflect factors such as disease, no food, no ammo, no fuel and no spare parts!
In order to extend your maximum range you would need to either a) capture an enemy city with a functional granary and barracks (or other suitable military improvement), or build a "Supply Depot" ("Oh no!" I hear you groan, "he's going to tell us about Supply Lines again!")
This depot would be act as in some ways like a reverse colony in that, as long as it's connected to a friendly/occupied city by a road/RR it allows your units to calulate their range from this point (thus reducing the risk of attrition).
The benefits of such a system are manyfold and include
1) Suddenly range, and not MP's, become the key determinant of how quickly a Civ can conquer it's enemies (possibly allowing MP's to increase without unbalancing the game)
2) It makes players (and AI's) consider the availability of viable targets (to keep your supply lines short) before engaging in a war.
3) If you're facing a particularly powerful opponent, it gives you a new way of "defeating" them (as destroying supply depots, or extending your ZOC over their connecting Roads/RR, will disrupt the enemies supply lines). Thus defending supply lines will become a part of long-term strategic planning!
Anyway, just a few thoughts, I just hope Firaxis are considering it! (Oh, to be a beta-tester!!!)

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[johndmuller]

I'm for something like this which would limit that annoying and unrealistic gambit of parking a unit in your city area and forcing a war to get rid of it. I also like the idea of there being some mitigating factor(s) so that some such lurking was not out of the question.

Maybe units which stay too long in foreign territory get seduced by the foreign culture and assimilate?

[Grumbold]

I think EU style attrition would become unwieldy in a unit based game like Civ, much as I came to like the challenge of it. Sadly the AI was a bit of a bonehead about limiting attrition losses (may be addressed in patches, they just keep on improving stuff) so it made it one more area where the player had an advantage.

Instead (as I posted in another thread recently, but it is more appropriate here) I would propose that all units should have "supply/fuel" limits. They must return to a city/fort/port/airbase within a set number of turns or lose all mobility. Ships and armies would gradually get increased "fuel" limits as technology improves but by far the largest would belong to the explorer unit. You would have the choice then of exploring and returning to base or pushing further out past your borders but end up with stranded units that would have to be disbanded or rescued. That way you can explore far afield but there will be a high cost, very accurate considering the massive attrition rates on the exploratory missions.

Combining this with the concept of a city needing a supply depot in order to refuel your units and suddenly the 1 turn railroad invasion to capture the distant capital is dead. Creating a supply depot ought to be a fixed build time too, not dependant on local production values and not rush-buyable.

[TechWins]

I'm for something like this which would limit that annoying and unrealistic gambit of parking a unit in your city area and forcing a war to get rid of it.

This wouldn't happen if they have national borders in the game. If a Civ's unit is inside your national borders, simply just ask them to remove their troops from your borders.

Off subject I think when asking another Civ to remove their troops all units should be included. The reason for this is in Civ 2 some stupid Civ would keep a caravan running around my cities forever and I couldn't even irrigate in certain places because of that. Regardless of whether or not caravans are going to be included.

[johndmuller]

Originally posted by TechWins
This wouldn't happen if they have national borders in the game. If a Civ's unit is inside your national borders, simply just ask them to remove their troops from your borders.

In SMAC, it's only your friends whom you can ask to leave (not neutrals) and they can (and often do) say no (and sometimes say something like - we'll see who belongs here - vendetta on you ...), so it is not a lot different.

[TechWins]

In SMAC, it's only your friends whom you can ask to leave (not neutrals) and they can (and often do) say no (and sometimes say something like - we'll see who belongs here - vendetta on you ...), so it is not a lot different.

If the diplomacy is as good as it has been claimed than this shouldn't occur either.

[Kc7mxo]

Hah. This has always been a trait of the ai. Its a pushy bugger.

I think attrition would be a good idea, but only if your units don't have to travel very far. If i'm the romans, and I want to go to war with the chinese, it makes sense that they coudln't get there very easy. Alexander had to conquer everyone on the way to india to secure his supply routes.

But in civ THERE IS NO ONE BETWEEN US.

With only 7 civs, and a limited number of of cities you can effectivly have, and units that simply cannot go very far, you will never be able to have a war. Empires will simply glare at eachother across the gulf of barbaric landscape while destroying eachother explorer units.

Attrition only works in a small world, like in Europa. Else only hundred city empires spanning the globe will be able to engage eachother.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
With only 7 civs, and a limited number of of cities you can effectivly have, and units that simply cannot go very far, you will never be able to have a war. Empires will simply glare at eachother across the gulf of barbaric landscape while destroying eachother explorer units.

Well of course; the concept of attrition must be implemented very differently in Civ-3, comparing with (for example) in Europa Universalis. Thats goes without saying.

In Civ-3; no indevidual units are withered away - ever. Only the combat-strength of these units are slowly & gradually reduced. And this can be regained by letting them rest - preferbly in one of your cities or fortresses (yet another reason why on should build fortresses, by the way).

[MORON]

Ideas

1. Attrition rate depends on distance to nearest base/city and terrain

2. A cap on damage based on unit type...say 50% for infantry and so on

3. A penalty on fighting when attrition rate exceed a certain number

[Ralf]

Originally posted by MORON
1. Attrition rate depends on distance to nearest base/city and terrain

Unnecessary and way too complicated. Please; keep it simple & generic. The idea is too add the quintessential concept of attrition - not to mimic complicated real-life army-march logistics in every possible detail.

2. A cap on damage based on unit type...say 50% for infantry and so on

I think the cap should be 1/3 = red damage-bar.

3. A penalty on fighting when attrition rate exceed a certain number

Well, thats the big idea with implementaing attrition in the first place. Let the combat-penalty go from full strength to 2/3 (yellow damage-bar), and then to 1/3 (red damage-bar).

[Sirotnikov]

Attrition is a serious and difficult subject. It is indeed real and quite burdening. The problem is, that while you can use it in games about regional battles (big regions, ie a portion of europe or something) it is difficult to implement in a game in which you should often conquer the whole world.

I think that there is no need for attrition, as most units die in their first or second battle, and adding elements hindering them from fighting would just make fighting an annoying experience.

You can't possibly claim the units should rest before even reaching the front lines. At least not today.

The attrition in previous times, is here also, as on a map, a macedonian army usually loses most of it's units in combat before reaching east persia, and most units are already in the yellow or red health.

Having more limits will mean that fighting becomes even more difficult. Long distance fighting hardly ever happens in ancient erras in civ. Why? Attrition. Only it wasn't the units who got tired, but we, who got tired of moving them each turn. And yes, I am aware of the go to, and it is still annoying.