Natural attrition.

Have a feature request for SRGW? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
way2co0l
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 687
Joined: Nov 29 2010
Human: Yes

Natural attrition.

Post by way2co0l »

This one I view more of as a wishlist item in line with chemical weapons and the like. I don't really have any belief that it'll make it into the game at release, and won't really be heartbroken about it, but I do think it's worth bringing up as something to consider at some point with future development.

But as we continue to delve deeper into history, the bigger a role natural weather attrition has played in warfare and currently is completely omitted from the SR series. Again watching the Great War youtube series, specifically in regards to the effects that weather had in the trenches, campaigns in the Caucasus and Carpathian theaters, and it's plainly obvious what a huge impact this had on warfare at the time. Even in the WW2 German invasion of Russia, but I'm going to keep it focused on the scope of this game for this point.

There's already a weather system in game, and while it's imperfect, it's what we have and we can work with it. Severe weather that takes place in mountains, snow, or mud should have an attritional effect on units simply being there in the first place, but an even larger effect on units moving through them. This effect should be partly mitigated by supply level in the area, rail or defensive structures existing in the hex, current unit supply, as well as technology and military equipment spending. Simply defending in an entrenched area during winter should have an effect, but less as long as the unit isn't moving, is well supplied, and well equipped. Attempting to attack through a mountain pass with no infrastructure, little supply, and a winter storm with inadequate equipment spending should have a very severe attrition effect on your forces.

Again, I view this as a wishlist item which would enhance the game, but don't mind waiting for future updates to get it. Most of the other topics I've been bringing up would take precedence in my own personal opinion, but I'm hoping you guys will at least note it for future consideration. :)
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Natural attrition.

Post by Zuikaku »

Also unit stuck out of supply in non-supply hexes shoul'd slowly deteriorate and get destroyed by atrittion.

But the problem stays - AI shoul'd not send units deep into the desert and other out of supply areas. Until this is fixed, problem of thousand out of supply units will stay...
Please teach AI everything!
way2co0l
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 687
Joined: Nov 29 2010
Human: Yes

Re: Natural attrition.

Post by way2co0l »

Unfortunately yes. :/ That problem becomes even bigger the further back in time we go where supply infrastructure becomes worse and worse. The only real solutions to that are either to allow units to continue to move and even fight (albeit at a much reduced effectiveness - that way they can move back to areas that do have supply and you can argue the fighting ability would be bayonets and hand to hand combat) or to simply spread at least a minimal level of supply almost everywhere with very few areas in the most inhospitable areas that truly have zero supply at all. Everywhere should really have at least SOME level of supply to ensure that even if the units move at a much reduced rate, they're able to eventually make it where they're trying to go. The AI is currently unable to pathfind through those areas lacking supply and are also incapable of building their own supply in those cases so those are the only options I can see. The only time supply should really be an issue is in newly conquered territory where your supply network hasn't been able to advance far enough yet so if you advance too quickly, you can run out. Otherwise it shouldn't really be an issue to get at least a minimal amount.
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Natural attrition.

Post by Zuikaku »

way2co0l wrote:The only time supply should really be an issue is in newly conquered territory where your supply network hasn't been able to advance far enough yet so if you advance too quickly, you can run out. Otherwise it shouldn't really be an issue to get at least a minimal amount.
And that is the solution!
Maybe to supply fuel only at minimal levels but not ammo.

Hope devs will see this :-)
Please teach AI everything!
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2544
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Natural attrition.

Post by SGTscuba »

I thought the weather system did some stuff in this regards such as reducing supply levels?
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
way2co0l
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 687
Joined: Nov 29 2010
Human: Yes

Re: Natural attrition.

Post by way2co0l »

SGTscuba wrote:I thought the weather system did some stuff in this regards such as reducing supply levels?
Yes, it reduces supply, but that has no effect on unit strength unless it engages in combat in that weakened state. But the reality of the world war is that natural attrition caused more casualties than combat itself. Whether that was something like trench foot, malaria, typhoid, starvation, hypothermia, ect killed many men, but took many many more out of action as they were often simply incapable of fighting. I had suggested in the other thread about static warfare and low combat damages, and adding this would ensure that all armies would continue continue suffering massive casualties. As Zuikaku and I were saying before, there should be a minimum level of supply for movement to avoid units getting stuck and letting them get to their eventual destination but when in areas of low supply (and especially so when there's mud, snow, or an active storm or traveling over inhospitable terrain such as mountains or desert) then they should continue suffering casualties. These losses can be replaced once those conditions improve such as leaving the mountains they were traveling through to get to the battlefield.

This ensures people die in this bloody war even without spending military goods. Not a single one of the combatants was ready for this war or prepared for the changes required to fight it successfully, and the casualties represented that fact in every major campaign. Even an example such as the Dardanelles had nearly 100k soldiers for the allies, and yet most of them were simply incapable of fighting due to a whole slew of issues with actual combat being the last of them.

Obviously the human player wants to do things better and be smarter, but since we're taking control right from the very beginning of the war, we're stuck with the situation each nation was in and can only work to change it. There should be technologies which reduce many of these penalties such as mountain warfare researches which symbolize learning the techniques required to fight and survive there. This shouldn't eliminate those factors so early, but they should improve them and the player would have to decide whether they want to go rushing tanks, gas, aircraft, or attrition reductions. Makes for some difficult player decisions.

The AI would expectedly have a tougher time handling this as they won't know how to mitigate these issues outside of technology. The best things they can do are keep equipment spending high (which should partially mitigate a lot of it, but should also be expensive and with the defensive budget idea from the other thread would have a direct impact on the size of the army they can field) try to prioritize high supply points to travel through, and should avoid moving their armies once they get them into their front positions except when they're preparing an offensive (which they should avoid doing during an active storm) to try to minimize the attrition they'll suffer as a result.

Also, just to be clear. With my idea, most units will likely be suffering some minimal level of attrition no matter where they are simply due to a bunch of conditions, but they should also be able to replace those losses on their own fairly easily as long as they're not in active combat. Only when you combine several of these negative effects without having enough mitigating factors will units start to suffer more casualties than they can currently replace, and the AI should try to move their units out of those areas unless that area happens to be on the front, in which case the units need to stay but be rotated with back line units whenever they get too low.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRGW”