So this is a cool dynamic I thought the game could use. It is a common tactic for players to build massive armies and station them in key places, like cities or heavy fortifications where they can be used to break down enemy invasions. And if the enemy decides to bypass the position, you can use the army as a means of breaking through and wreaking havoc behind the enemy's lines, possibly even threatening his core. My improvement is to add a line of supply dynamic making troops dependent on a safe path back to your core territories to maintain their position. This would be as simple as having a line of unconquered friendly territories back to the core ( coalition members' territories included). If they lose their supply line, the force starts taking a gradual condition penalty that reflects the attrition caused by a loss of supplies. This would create a siege effect that if not relieved will result in the death of units. Special units like Commandos could be immune or have reduced attrition as their training specializes in living off the land they are in. A zero in a critical supply storage, food for infantry and some artillery models, oil for tanks, planes, and ships could have a similar effect as the lack of a usable surplus forces units to come apart for want of material.
Logic is the path to the Dark Side Mr. Spock. :wallbash
3 Replies
23 Nov 2016, 06:16
The immediate game effect would be to cause players' troops to adopt a more fluid stance as they have to keep their main formations connected to the homeland. The resulting expansion of defended territories would cause the battle lines to look more like the modern "front" battle where distant troop movements and conflicts can effect an entire army and less like the medieval "local" battle where armies concentrated in one place, like a castle, and one or two battles decided the fates of entire countries.
Logic is the path to the Dark Side Mr. Spock. :wallbash
23 Nov 2016, 07:21
There are significant obstacles to fighting far from home as it is, even if you have a path to reinforce. Without a path it's even worse because you are pretty much trapped. I'm not sure creating more obstacles would make the game more enjoyable. The idea is cool in principle, but it would create a pretty easy strategy for defenders to counter an invasion. Also just because a prov is captured doesn't mean you can't move supplies. Unless they have a significant defense of those provs you can just march right through, and if you can get air through or connect via sea you could still move "supplies".
24 Nov 2016, 03:58
True you could move resources through air and sea. They could easily create that option. But I would suggest only making that viable for naval paths as historically air supply is very inferior as a means of supplying units and can easily be countered by a strong AA presence. If you did a naval reinforcement then the requirement would simply be a path from your forces to the sea and from the sea, through a path that is not blocked by enemy naval units to a naval base in your core.
Well yes, it would create a simple defense plan, but it also creates a simple offensive plan. But relying on your ability to cut off large amounts of troops would work against you as a skilled player would do what every commander has done and protect his line of supply. This will have the effect of spreading out both armies, shrinking the mass of the key formations and thus streamlining the game by drastically shortening battle times. What is not shown on the tactical map is that realistically these divisions would be leaving behind squads, companies, and in tight situations, whole battalions of their force behind as police and anti-partisan patrols. While these formations may not be large enough to effectively counter division size units that move through the territory and as such are not shown on the tactical map, they are large enough to interdict the relatively poorly defended supply convoys and foragers a besieged army would deploy in enough numbers to create an unsustainable position and that's what I'm suggesting they simulate.
Not that no supplies can get through, but not enough of them are getting through to replace losses through breakdown or incidental casualties. These losses would cause a slow decrease in the unit's ability to fight which is accurately simulated by the condition bar. Therefore a sustained period of losses would eventually cause a unit to effectively disband as a fighting force, the casualties may be less when compared to direct combat as frequently a commander will reassign surviving troops to still effective commands in such a severe situation, but the effect of losing a unit is still there.
Logic is the path to the Dark Side Mr. Spock. :wallbash
