Supply lines for units

[Sava]

With the discussion of unit support in the unit balance thread, I've come up with an idea that I think has merit.

Supply Lines:

They work like the trade system where a unit needs to have some kind of contact with the rest of the Civ. Units that don't will lose a HP per turn and then become unusable (not dead) until supply line is made available again. This would be great for seiges.

Maybe a unit could have like a ten turn leeway where it wouldn't need supplies, but after that, it would need to come in contact with a road, rail or city (or supply drop from an airport) to not incure the penalty.

C'mon people, give me opinions and more suggestions on this matter. I think it's worth discussing.

[Deathwalker]

What about when a unit's in a enemy teritory. Does it use there roads to connect back to it own teritory

[nato]

Well, I would love some sort of supply system for units. Supply and logistics are very very important. For instance, in WWII on the Russian front I bet more guys were lost from being encircled and cut off than direct combat. So supply would be great!

However using a system like the trade route thing might not be a good idea. I know that whenever there is a change to the trade route (like one city being cut from it) there is a noticable little pause in the game as it calculates. I'd be very worried about such calculations for 100s of units. It might be far too slow to do.

Also, as always, new ideas are up against the simplicity less-is-more barrier, but thats never stopped me from suggesting stuff.

[Asmodean]

Idea: Great

Probability: Low

I don't see Firaxis ever implementing a supply line system.

Firaxis: Please prove me wrong

That said and done, I love the idea, and would like to contribute (just give me time to think it over).

Asmodean

[wrylachlan]

This was talked about extensively in another thread about supplying mechanical units with oil (gasoline). The general consensus was that the pathfinding algorithm would be prohibitively costly to the CPU.

That said, I would like to see supply lines in. The way I would work it is make military units have culture power - meaning if a military unit is standing on a tile of someone else's culture, that tile temporarily becomes your culture for as long as the military unit stays there. Then to supply your troops in enemy territory you would have to have a line of military units along the road so that you could pass supplies up the road. And the enemy could pillage out his own roads as he retreats to slow you down.

If this is implemented, however, I want all Military units to cost significantly more and have higher stats so that you have fewer of them. Because if I have to micromanage supply lines, and move hundreds of units, I'll go totally insane.

[Stuie]

The other thread:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=51595

[fire_toad]

I'm not sure if this is very practical when looking at how much slower the game will go. But, as an idea it is a very interesting one. The trade routes that existed in Civilization Call to Power could be modified as supply lines. A line would stretch from the unit to your city. Enemies, if the landed on it, could break the connection.
That would inteoduce a much more realistic spin on the game. Then the territory you are on, would be crucial, and flanking would be deadly. Because a weak unit could take a strong one out of action by taking out the supply line. This would also introduce vanguards, units for the sole purpose of guarding the supply line. It would also make individual strong units next to useless without backup. IF combined with a way to downsize the military, supply lines COULD be incorparated.

[Nostromo]

Well, the fact that a damaged unit cannot be repaired on foreign soil simulates, somewhat, supply lines. I know its not what you have in mind, but supply lines are in, sort of...

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Sava
With the discussion of unit support in the unit balance thread, I've come up with an idea that I think has merit.

Supply Lines:

They work like the trade system where a unit needs to have some kind of contact with the rest of the Civ. Units that don't will lose a HP per turn and then become unusable (not dead) until supply line is made available again. This would be great for seiges.

Maybe a unit could have like a ten turn leeway where it wouldn't need supplies, but after that, it would need to come in contact with a road, rail or city (or supply drop from an airport) to not incure the penalty.

C'mon people, give me opinions and more suggestions on this matter. I think it's worth discussing.

+

I had this thought when I heard about trade networks, It would take such little effort to make this so. Maybe the editor could have an option to restrict units to x spaces away from the trade network, or maybe units could undergo attrition or something

[Jon Shafer]

Great idea - too complicated for a Civ game.
It has less of a chance of being implimented than Firaxis doing something incredibly stupid like putting Dinosaurs in the game or something.

*Someone whispers into Trip's ear*

...

Son of a ...

[Deathwalker]

This idea though quite good, would be very dificult to implement, and so will probabley not go in the game

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Deathwalker
This idea though quite good, would be very dificult to implement, and so will probabley not go in the game

.

It would not be difficult to implement. Youve already got the trade network in place and superb (nearly flawless) path finding.

To use the Firaxian method of persuasion (where one describes cool scenarios/implications for the idea)

I can just imagine capturing a port city and not being able to procede until the city is linked to my civ's trade network through building a harbor or something. Each city in a trade network could support some amount of units, so a size 2 city with out a link to your main trade network could not support a huge army around it. I can just imagine hurrying a harbor so that the army can advance, or surrounding a huge enemy army.

I've also found it true that numbers is way too much of a factor in civ's combat. If a smaller force could cut off units from their trade network then a huge force might have to concede to a smaller civ. Someone I know in special forces told me that 90% of war is logistics, I dont see that at all in civ3.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
It would not be difficult to implement. Youve already got the trade network in place and superb (nearly flawless) path finding.

Um... not exactly. The trade network code is already a slowdown and if we then apply this same code to units which outnumber cities in many games up to 5 to 1 that would bring a CPU to its knees. And since the pathfinding algorithm becomes more CPU costly the greater the size of the map, the problem would only compound itself on large and huge maps.

Additionally there is more to coding a new function than making it possible. You also have to make sure that the AI knows how to use it well. My guess is that something as complicated as sneaking past an enemy to cut his supply lines would be pretty difficult to get across to the AI.

Please note that I'm not against this idea, I'd love to see some sort of supply lines code in... but I do think you are mistaken if you think coding this such that the AI could use it and it would run at an acceptable speed would'nt be difficult.

[rhenric557]

What if the supply line wasn't so much for the units but for the city. Say in times of war you hav to physically supply cities on enemy controlled continents. Say that airlift can get shot down like in CIV 2, and like wise the theoretical supply ships going to the harbors can get sunk. All based on there distance to enemy cities of course. Lets say that you have to Automate transports as supply ships for a city, then you'd have to have a navy to protect them, bringing in an actual need for a good sized navy. It's realistic but I doudt Firaxis will use such an Idea. There does need to be someway to make supply more difficult to maintain. being able to drop fifty plus units into an airport per turn makes it a bit to easy to get a foot hold on an enemy continent.

[Spiffor]

As a builder, I'm against the idea. It will bring more micromanagement in the military part of the game, and I feel there is enough already.

And there is a problem : what about ancient / medieval wars, when there aren't roads everywhere ? Until late XVIIIth century, logistics played a minor role, troops rather took food directly from the land they occupied.
It seems that such an idea will greatly add to the late game tedium (increased micromanagement, increased waiting time)

[Coracle]

Good idea supply lines. However. . .

The Civ 3 AI is not exactly a bright bulb as it is. It couldn't handle it even if any unit in enemy territory was considered out of supply UNLESS on road. or unless workers built a new railroad to it. Hell, this AI can't handle NAVAL trade routes being interdicted by subs and privateers (doesn't happen).

I think it might also slow down an already slow game.

I don't think it's practical, although a nice thought.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Spiffor
As a builder, I'm against the idea. It will bring more micromanagement in the military part of the game, and I feel there is enough already.

But if you are building, not attacking, you shouldn't have to worry about supply lines. It is only the warmongers who will have to deal with the micromanagement when they invade enemy territory. And since it is the warmongers who are looking for more diverse military strategy, I bet they wouldn't mind.

And there is a problem : what about ancient / medieval wars, when there aren't roads everywhere ? Until late XVIIIth century, logistics played a minor role, troops rather took food directly from the land they occupied.
It seems that such an idea will greatly add to the late game tedium (increased micromanagement, increased waiting time)

The easiest way to implement it in terms of the ancient medieval problem is to have each unit have a supply number which indicates how much it needs the suppy network to survive. Set the ancient units to zero, and no problem, they forrage off the land. Set Modern Armor to 5, and for every turn out of the supply network they temporarily loose 5 attack points... or something like that. Bottom line being that the play balance stuff could be worked out.

As for it adding tedium, yes the increased waiting time is a severe problem, but if it was worked out (super-efficient code or all civ players buy new CPUs) then I don't think the micromangement would be a problem, since you would only see it when you went on the offensive, primarily, so you builders wouldn't be troubled.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sava

Supply Lines:

They work like the trade system where a unit needs to have some kind of contact with the rest of the Civ. Units that don't will lose a HP per turn and then become unusable (not dead) until supply line is made available again.

Your proposed method would eliminate the extensive pathfinding algorithm for determining supply of units in the field. Now it is "just" a gameplay issue.

They would have to keep near their cities to stay in supply. If they ventured too far without capturing each city in turn, they could be cut off from their supply. On the other hand, isn't this how most wars play out in Civ3? Each city in turn?

[Mikel]

Supply lines were one of the most debated features in the compilation of the Civ Wish List as I remember. people were discusssing everything from what constituted supply to how it could be implemented. I even remember a length debate on how to include Command and Control to some sort of supply structure.

In the end I think Firaxis tried to introduce something that gave us the tactical options the gamers were looking for with the simplicity of a Civ idea : Strategic Resources. The only issue is that they messed up the implementation by not correctly balancing the units and allowing builds to continue even after the resource has been lost which almost entirely defeats the purpose. They also missed out on giving us the tools and the feedback to make these strategic decisions ( like an easy fun way to implement Naval blockades http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=52183 ).

Now I know this doesn't allow small armies to cut off large armies and defeat a larger enemy in the way everyone has discussed, but if you would allow me to throw the Firaxian persuasion method back out there....

The enemy throw the bulk of their attack force into your territory and start to attack the border cities. The units take damage, which they can't start to recover until they retreat or take a city. Rather than meet them head on you send your smaller army to take a mountain that contains their only source of iron. Now if this stopped all production of iron dependant units that turn then you could be sure that few reinforcements would be on their way to help that invasion, and so that enemy army will die from the law of diminishing returns.

This doesn't help if the attacking army is so large it can power through your country without the need of reinforcements, but could you really have cut the supply of an army that outnumbers you by so much anyway?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Mikel
The only issue is that they messed up the implementation by not correctly balancing the units and allowing builds to continue even after the resource has been lost which almost entirely defeats the purpose.

When starting a new unit, the resources are allocated and set aside. This is a normal pipeline procedure. Destroying a mine does not destroy all inventories in the pipeline.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Now it is "just" a gameplay issue.

After reflection, I believe it would be too easy to exploit the AI. In addition, depending on the exact model chosen, there may still be problems with path calculations. Each unit must not only consider its attack orders, but must also keep track of how many turns to the nearest road.

Probably not until Civ4. Computers will be faster then too.

[Mikel]

Originally posted by Zachriel


When starting a new unit, the resources are allocated and set aside. This is a normal pipeline procedure. Destroying a mine does not destroy all inventories in the pipeline.

I can't argue with the realworld scenario that you have pointed out, but if this was changed it would IMHO allow greater strategy depth within the game. It would be far more worth while taking out strategic resource if you know that it stops any new units of type X being created. On the flipside you would think far more seriously about taking and holding a resource if you knew that it wasn't enough to hold it for one turn and set all of your cities to build X then retreat. I think these tactics will be especially appreciated by the Multiplayer community.