Military Units and Supply

[Austin]

Right now in CivIII there are no restrictions what so ever on keeping your units supplied. This means that you can drive a bunch of tanks deep into an enemy continent and motor around endlessly with no penalty.

Also, you can surround an enemy army, and again it has no ill effects.

This results in armies moving around in big gigantic stacks, and often said stacks wandering deep into enemy territory with no regard for flanks or anything else.

For modern armies at least this is impossible. Keeping your men supplied is always a primary concern for any army.

So here is an idea. For more modern units (tanks, riflemen, cannons, artillery etc.) you have to worry about supply. Primitive guys like spearmen have no worries because you really only have to worry about feeding them.

Supply status is checked at the beggining of each turn.

A unit is considered in supply if it is on or next to a road or railroad that eventually connects back to your capitol (or a city with a harbour, just like a resource). It is also in supply if it is in a coastal square next to a friendly ship.

A unit that is out of supply suffers a hit point loss every time it moves, attacks, or is attacked.

This will put a premium on defending your flanks and actually forming coherent LINES, something sadly lacking from CivIII at the moment (where gigantic skyscraper stacks wander around the landscape at will).

Austin

[SpencerH]

Supply would be a welcome addition (by me) but I think it would slow the game down enormously (as do trade route and movement calcs).

[Velociryx]

A possible alternate plan would be to abstract the notion of supply by increasing support costs for units not inside their borders, and increase it further due to distance FROM their borders.

This would make warring more expensive than defending, and give at least some kinna nod to the expenses incurred by fielding a force halfway around the world.

-=Vel=-
(an idea I originally posed the SMAC forums)

EDIT: It'd be easy enough to put some kinna counter on newly captured cities, such they didn't count as "your borders" for X turns.....

[Arrian]

Any of you guys ever play Railroad Tycoon. Great game. Anyway, it had variable complexity settings for the economy and stock trading.

If you played on "basic" econonmy, you could haul cargo anywhere and get paid for it. If you played with all the bells and whistles on, you had to bring lumber to a paper mill, which then produced paper which had to be hauled to a city... in order to get paid. Thus, complexity was optional. Similar stuff with the stock market in the game.

Adding more "realistic" stuff for the combat portion of civ is all well and good. I just think it should be optional. Like Spencer said, it would slow the game down (at least on my puny computer).

More diplomatic options would also be welcome ("hey! Stop killing my friends, civ X" and "Mutual DEFENSE Pact" and "Do not trade resource X to civ Y" and so on). Again, these things should be optional. The AI isn't really up to utilizing those types of options, so they really represent an advantage for the human. So long as you know that, why not? Some have a penchant for the "metagame" :nods to Vel:

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

OH, quite right, Arrian! Awesome game, RR Tycoon! And yes, I'd not mind at all, to have toggleable options like that....would be FANTASTIC, and IMO, hugely more immersive....to be able to finesse and control the game....

"No, Germany, do NOT trade your iron to the English..."

"France, you will STOP attacking my allies, The Rus at once!"

"Would the Romans care to sign a Mutual Defense Agreement"

Any or all of the above would really enhance SP, and make MP to DIE for!

Metagame...YUMMMM....

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

I agree with Arrian's call for making such a systm optional. Many players would not want to play with such a system but I do think it would make for a better game. I also think that HP loss would be too big a penalty, specially if one plays in regular settings. I think that even better than increaed cost like Vel says would be a substantial combat penalty, and a loss of the retreat ability for mobile units if they are out of supply. I do like the way Austin detailed the rules though, they make sense.

[Austin]

Originally posted by GePap
I agree with Arrian's call for making such a systm optional. Many players would not want to play with such a system but I do think it would make for a better game. I also think that HP loss would be too big a penalty, specially if one plays in regular settings. I think that even better than increaed cost like Vel says would be a substantial combat penalty, and a loss of the retreat ability for mobile units if they are out of supply. I do like the way Austin detailed the rules though, they make sense.

Given what happens to modern armies once supply is cut, I thought that I was being pretty lenient with the hit point loss.

On Rommel's dash to the sea during the Fall of France, he started out at Dinant with over 200 tanks, and reached the coast with 24.

Vel is modelling something different but equally important that should layered on top of mine, but for all units not just the complex ones. It would definetly act as a break to expansion, and show you things like why Rome abandoned Persia and Dacia after conquoring them.

Austin