BGForums

Some thought on waging warfare:

-- Normal supplies and military goods requiured for supply/repair units. One thingk that is really flawed is the supplies coming from everywhere. that is, every city produces supplies and so every unit in a city is always fully suplied. But does this means cities also produce ammo and fuel? Strange....
This renders some strategies useless, like surronding the enemy and cutting of supplies. I would suggest make military goods and oil also part of the supplies (like 5-10% each). This way the country would have to ensure there was a supply route to, at least, one military goods' factory and an oil source.

-- Temp occupied land. A strange thing happened to me once when I was playing Barcelona and at war with two bordering coutries (Paris and Marseille). The two countries had no pact between each other, they just happened to be at war with me. I attacked Paris and occupied most of it southern region. Suddenly Marseille attacked me on the former Paris region and it occupied Paris region. So, in the end, Marseille ended up occupying Paris territories, even though they were not at war. I would suggest creating a new concept: temporarily occupied territory. These would be all regions occupied to the enemy while in war. After a peace agreement all these regions would revert to regular land. In my example, this would prevent Marseille from entering Paris territory (even though occupied by me) since they lack any alliance or mutual defence treaty.

-- Improve AI when entering a war. Make the AI buildup previously to a war. It just build 2-3 units and sends them immediately to the front line alone. And this over and over again until one of the sides cedes. The AI should build an army and attack with it all at once, proteting occupied land.

-- Reduced supply across rivers if there is no bridge. I couldn't test this one, but I think rivers do not influence supply.

-Oh really? Without road u have less supplies,Without road on river (aka bridge) it would be same.
PS:U didnt needed to post lots of diferent posts..Only 1 in development what would u like too see.

_________________
Just when I discovered the meaning of life, they changed it.

Actually, that is not quite accurate, eveyr city "has access too" supplies. Supplies are Ammo produced at military goods facilities and fuel is from petroleum facilities or either can be bought on the market. The supply model is merely a delivery system. To change this we would have to track where every barrel of oil and ton of MGs is located.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

OK, but if every city "has access too" supplies, how can it be possible on an encircled city? I (and others) have tried to completely cut off a city from supplies but the units inside just keep fully supplied??

I would suggest to define supplies as a mix of water/food/mil_goods (since there is already a fuel stat). Lets say: 40% water / 40% food / 20% mil_goods. Whenever one of these is not directly available, there would be a proportional penalty for the units.

PS - I also don't know if lack of fuel affects just the units move or also its fighting capability. I think that it should also affect the units performance fighting. After all, a tank out of fuel is a sitting duck!


@Vuk-Wolf


I don't know if I completely understood your commnet, but the problem is when the countries are not allied! In my example Paris and Marseille are not allied, just both in war with me. And Marseille ended up ocupying territory from Paris.... it just doesn't make sense!!



Yes, but what I was saying is: there is still supply across rivers with no bridge. I would suggest that rivers would completely block (or drastically reduce) supplies if no bridge is present.

Short answer,you cant currently shut off a city from supply.

There is a recent thread in which george mentions they are looking to change this in the future.Creating a system in which the number of hexs bordering a city controlled by a faction capable of passing supply to the city will determine what percentage out of 100% possible, that city will get in supplies.Or something close to that.

IE a city completely surrounded,no hexes on its borders are under control of a faction that can pass supply to the city, will get no supply.With each hex they do control,providing a % of the possible 100% that they would get IF they controlled all 6 hexes.

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

I usually keep my units a hex away when I surround towns and cities so that I don't have trouble with garrisons. That could be a problem.

Yup, depending on the system, that could be an issue.Hopefully this will get a thread of its own, and some serious talk, before implementation.

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

Still pondering the 'encircled cities' concepts, though as tkobo mentioned there have been other threads on this.

I'm not sure it was pointed out in this thread yet, but rivers without bridges do very strongly restrict supply levels.

The occupied land issues have their pros and cons. Obviously if the third party regions were allied with each other then land would be reclaimed properly; otherwise the correct 'solution' becomes more muddy. I suppose the AI regions should trade this among themselves, but land trading is not a feature of SR2020.

Finally, when it has sufficient units, the AI certainly can use larger formations of units. Make sure you are also playing at the higher military difficulty levels, and that you have the latest update.

-- George.

If we remember both Stallingrad and Lenningrad during WWII all the animals in the zoo's were eaten plus small vegitable gadens and canibalism provided food, ammo casings were reloaded in basements and cellars and ethanol provided fuel for many of the vehicles plus they were able to get limited supply from small boats coming across the Volga and Lake Lagoda. It was very crude and brutal, but it hapened.

While what you say is undeniably true, most countries today are NOT led by charismatic and totalitarian leaders, blinded by decades of ideological indoctrination (in which they start to believe after so long), are not all afraid for their lives (since Russia's fate was to be Lebensraum - living space, implying no living russians would be there) from an invader that never denied that it wants them dead or working until they die.

Today's decadent life style and little to none "heroes" to rally behind means that a town or a city would rather surrender then suffer the horrifying losses like Leningrad and Stalingrad did.

In most cases this would be true, but today in some counties, most notible the US and Canada the number of citizens ownig guns may allow for this even though it wouldn't be in major urban settings. I would think it would most likly take the form of partisans operatin in rurral areas.

Texas should get special partisan units... conservative gun nut mobs...
That would be awesome.

Both Stalingrad and Leningrad were not completely encircled, there being limited access (river and lake crossings) that allowed a minimal level of resupply. In SR2020 this would be akin to a 4-hexside or 5-hexside encirclement, and so some supply can cross the remaining attached side.

The encirclement proposals made recently were to reduce supply when more hex sides are in enemy hands, taking it to nearly zero (but not entirely zero) if completely encircled.

-- George.

However Geoge, the Wehrmacht 6th Army was though they didn't revert to canabalism. And don't forget the Bastards of Bastone.

The German 6th army is an example of a full encirclement, showing the fact that supply levels should then approach zero when all sides are controlled by the enemy, with the end result being an inability to continue fighting for very long. (Though in SR2020 gameplay this is actually more difficult to simulate as the 6th Army controlled an area that would effectively be a number of hexes in size, not just a single hex).

Bastogne was only a matter of days from encirclement to relief and so is not a true example of this, though their fighting power was certainly affected by their situation.

-- George.