Printable View
From an other thread I got an idea:
A supply line on the campaign map from a settlement to a campaigning army. If enemies or rebels were to move onto the roads and choose the "block supply" option, they could perhaps do moral damage to the blocked army or maybe weaken them from "lack of food" or something.
Perhaps way to complicated, but I think it's a good idea.
As others have already pointed out, supply lines weren't as important than as in later warfare. Armies lived mostly of the land, which is in Rome represented by the devastation they cause. While I think supply lines would be interesting strategical factors, they don't fit very well into the historical context.
History is filled with examples of generals attacking supply bases or engaging in a "scorched earth" policy, leaving nothing for invaders to eat or supply with.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
The result is a need for supply lines, which poor nations have difficulty sustaining.
I think supply lines would be a great idea because it really did determine how far an army could reach and how long they could campaign. Some armies did try to live off the land as evidenced by spring and summer being the war seasons in times of antiquity.
Also, it was a useful strategic move to destroy your farmlands before the approach of an invading army to buy yourself time and slow down their ability to drive deeper.
I remember my one full Rome campaign where I had sent two powerful stacks of invading armies East all the way over and then down into Egypt... they were on the road for nearly 30 years!!!!. C'mon aside from the morale factor of marching men that long - how the hell can they survive for that long on foreign soil.
Completely wrong I am sorry mate , but supply lines are important even to modern day times , without them you cannot hope to mobilize an army especially the more far you go into enemy territory , of course it is less important when u fight peasants in ur own little county but when u move far away it becomes incredibly important , mostly vital , especially when u cross terrains that by their nature are totally empty of forms of foraging like deserts for example ....Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Supply lines are especially important in modern day times, but not in medieval European. Armies were dependent on foraging, which made it indeed difficult for them to cross barren territory. The general absence of deserts in Europe helped, but even though armies used to move mainly along rivers and fertile routes. I'm not saying supply lines didn't exist, but they played a lesser role than in other eras.Quote:
Originally Posted by PROMETHEUS
Okay, then explain how the Crusaders managed to spend so long in the Holy Land?Quote:
Originally Posted by PROMETHEUS
Did they have ships filled with food arriving all the time from Europe? Caravans of camels loaded with food from Europe? I don't think so. It's a good example of how armies of that period could sustain themselves from local resources... by looting, pillaging, and finally taxing the locals when they settled into a captured city for a while. The one thing the Crusaders did rely on as a "supply chain" was fresh infantry, cavalry, and artillery reinforcements. But that's already modeled in the game.
Supply lines start to get more critical when armies rely heavily on expendable resources that can't be easily manufactured or looted locally, like gunpowder, bullets, spare parts, and diesel fuel. That's when you can start thinking about crippling an army by hitting its supply chain.
Maybe this could start to kick in during the later period of MTW2 when firearms and cannon are more important. But I still think it would be an unecessary addition as a game mechanic, mainly because you wouldn't send a group of supply wagons without an armed escort. Especially behind enemy lines. If you're sending an escort, then you're likely to use that escort to reinforce your army, after the supply train arrives. And since reinforcements are already modeled in the game.... well, you can just use your imagination to consider them arriving along with supply wagons.
May be u don't know the concept of a supply line ...
a supply line is needed for a fielding army that is invading an enemy territory , it can support by pillaging and foraging of course but not for too long time , so a supply line is needed especially in crossing desertical places .... also , the Holy land isn't a desert but a fertile land , apart some places it is quite lush .....
and the concept of a supply line applies to a moving army , not when it conquered already a territory , wich in that case can freely abuse of the local resources to an extent tough ....
Actually, the Crusaders almost were exterminated by starvation, especially near Antioch, when they sallied out, there was almost no food at all to be found. And anyone who thinks the First Crusade won because of their cavalry, think again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
Okay, forget the cavalry. The fact that they almost starved, proves my point about the lack of a "supply line"... at least the way it's being talked about here. They either supplied themselves locally, or not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Yes, I hated the fact that an Iberian army can march from Iberia, to Scythia, without an trouble at all. Roman invasions of Parthia failed because of supply problems.
I recently saw the History Channel's special titled, Julius Caesar's Greatest Battle that documented in detail his fight against Vercingetorix, the King of Gauls. In showed how Caesar was almost forced to quit his unfinished campaign because he was cut off from supplies, being in the heart of Gaul, and Vercingetorix targeted his foragers to prevent them from replenishing the army.
Even in their final battle did supplies factor into each decision... The Gauls were holed up in a plateau fortress (forgot the name) and Caesar had dug himself deep around for a siege or to starve them out. The Gauls understood their dilemma and sent out every non-fighting individual including women, children, the infirm and the elderly. Unfortunately, the Romans didn't want them and most of them starved to death between the two armies.
I believe it was Napoleon that was quotated as saying, "An army marches on its stomach."
I know a lot of these different ideas would add a great deal of complexity to an already indepth game but personally I want to experience more of the challenges that came with Medieval and Ancient warface.
I am worried about the supply lines, but also the baggage trains. The romans set up forts while on march to protect themselves and their baggage trains. Medieval armies also had large baggage trains which came in useful as they were able to loot more effectively, and carry more food and equipment. The truly huge supply lines/baggage trains came out in the Napleonic era, but were very important much earlier.
mfberg
If you want evidence of the great importance of supply lines in Medieval warfare, you need only look at Scotland's First War of Independence and the way in which the Scots forces effectively defended themselves from English armies by neutralising their supply lines, forcing them to use naval resupply. Furthermore, Robert the Bruce filled the Scots treasury to bursting point after capturing the baggage train of the English army after Bannockburn. I would say that lines of supply were extremely important in this era.
I mentioned somewhere else on this forum that baggage would be a nifty idea, so I agree with this completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea
It'd mean that the player would have to consider carefully where they set up and would punish them for failing to do so. This feature would also be a good candidate for optionalising as well (so you if you don't want baggage on the battle field, you can disable it - to keep the arcade style battle people cheerful).
Tracing supply lines could be tricky to do though. Perhaps the inability to trace a line might mean that soldiers have a morale and movement penalty because they have to forage? If the campaign map has seasonal variations then unsupplied soldiers foraging in foreign territory in winter could suffer serious attrition due to starvation and exposure?
i agree that supplies should become a factor in the strategic game.
supply lines probably weren't as important as baggage trains.
if anyone remember genghis khan 2 by koei, u had to stock on food before u invaded a province, otherwise ur army suffers attrition if u couldn't forage or loot.
I think there should also be an option to have armies suffer losses from disease and such, as this historically has ruined many armies and would make the terrain a much bigger consideration.