Org Mobile Site
Thread: Supply lines?
One thing I would love to see in (but fairly sure not to) is proper supply lines and baggage trains in M2TW. If nothing else it could be a place for archers to reload on ammo. Ideally of course I would love the reserve troops to stay there protecting it, and for knights to get a new lance after a charge or a new horse after the last one was shot or some quick armour repair/replacement.
I suppose it would just mean less troops on the actual field though
I suppose it would just mean less troops on the actual field though
Originally Posted by HighLord z0b:
One thing I would love to see in (but fairly sure not to) is proper supply lines and baggage trains in M2TW. If nothing else it could be a place for archers to reload on ammo. Ideally of course I would love the reserve troops to stay there protecting it, and for knights to get a new lance after a charge or a new horse after the last one was shot or some quick armour repair/replacement.
I suppose it would just mean less troops on the actual field though
I think that it's too complicated for a game of the type of total war; that's more for turn based games...One thing I would love to see in (but fairly sure not to) is proper supply lines and baggage trains in M2TW. If nothing else it could be a place for archers to reload on ammo. Ideally of course I would love the reserve troops to stay there protecting it, and for knights to get a new lance after a charge or a new horse after the last one was shot or some quick armour repair/replacement.
I suppose it would just mean less troops on the actual field though
Originally Posted by HighLord z0b:
One thing I would love to see in (but fairly sure not to) is proper supply lines and baggage trains in M2TW. If nothing else it could be a place for archers to reload on ammo. Ideally of course I would love the reserve troops to stay there protecting it, and for knights to get a new lance after a charge or a new horse after the last one was shot or some quick armour repair/replacement.
I suppose it would just mean less troops on the actual field though
I think it`s to much complicated for the total war seriesOne thing I would love to see in (but fairly sure not to) is proper supply lines and baggage trains in M2TW. If nothing else it could be a place for archers to reload on ammo. Ideally of course I would love the reserve troops to stay there protecting it, and for knights to get a new lance after a charge or a new horse after the last one was shot or some quick armour repair/replacement.
I suppose it would just mean less troops on the actual field though
Pain in the ass IMHO, especially as I doubt even MTW2 will be doing a very good job in representing the way the armies of old covered the whole battlefield and quite handily obstructed each other from passing until at least parts were broken and chased off. And for good reasons; the presence of a substantial enemy force in a formation's rear tended to cause mass panic right fast - after all, logically the enemy could only be there if they'd already busted your mates at some point of the line and it was already crumbling, right ?
Compared to the real thing Total War battles are highly unrealistically mobile and involve tremendous amount of small-unit maneuvering that would've been the envy of even Early Modern armies nevermind Medieval and Antique ones, so getting tangled up on this sort of stuff seems somewhat pointless.
Compared to the real thing Total War battles are highly unrealistically mobile and involve tremendous amount of small-unit maneuvering that would've been the envy of even Early Modern armies nevermind Medieval and Antique ones, so getting tangled up on this sort of stuff seems somewhat pointless.
Originally Posted by HighLord z0b:
One thing I would love to see in (but fairly sure not to) is proper supply lines and baggage trains in M2TW. If nothing else it could be a place for archers to reload on ammo. Ideally of course I would love the reserve troops to stay there protecting it, and for knights to get a new lance after a charge or a new horse after the last one was shot or some quick armour repair/replacement.
I suppose it would just mean less troops on the actual field though
Yeah, it should be made, in the Medieval 3: Total War which will be a third-person-"shooter".One thing I would love to see in (but fairly sure not to) is proper supply lines and baggage trains in M2TW. If nothing else it could be a place for archers to reload on ammo. Ideally of course I would love the reserve troops to stay there protecting it, and for knights to get a new lance after a charge or a new horse after the last one was shot or some quick armour repair/replacement.
I suppose it would just mean less troops on the actual field though
In this combat you will begin as a unlucky, destitute peasant. First you have to fight only for your food and survival, but after some rage, when you've got some money, a good horse, armour and a nice sword, you'll already have the chance fighting for nobler aims. And when you have been hired by the holy sovereign then you'll have to make great sacrifices, because for the success man have to suffer. You'll shed your blood, tears and sweat and at last in a fearsome battle you will die and your bloody corpse get lost in the dark night aruond the death rattles. 'Cause this is an age of darkness...
I really don't think a couple of baggage carts on the edge of the map is as difficult as your making out. Even if they just treated an ammo cart as a unit with defense but no attack that the archers could reload at.
I did think the English longbowmen got rather short changed when it cames to arrows in MTW. In big battles, they would be resupplied and so have made a more sustained contribution. But trying unlimited ammo vs the AI makes the game rather unbalanced, so I won't protest.
I would like to see some representation of supply on the campaign map. I think it would add to the gameplay if you had considerations like cutting supply lines or the difficulties of foraging. At the moment, there's lots of interesting tactical choices on the battle map but the campaign map is rather simple and needs spicing up (ambushes were one step in the right direction, but are still fairly rare). Losses due to attrition would be another related thing that should be added.
I would like to see some representation of supply on the campaign map. I think it would add to the gameplay if you had considerations like cutting supply lines or the difficulties of foraging. At the moment, there's lots of interesting tactical choices on the battle map but the campaign map is rather simple and needs spicing up (ambushes were one step in the right direction, but are still fairly rare). Losses due to attrition would be another related thing that should be added.
I think that this could be done with some success.
Although this is not a general idea, consider the following:
Your army begins its trek into enemy territory. The enemy is hostile so you have two options to feed and supply your army:
(1) Pilfering. This is quick, efficient, but is untenable for long term stays in the same territory because of a depleting hidden resource. Additionally, pilfering has the unwanted effect of destroying infrastruture and killing civilians so that when you take the territory, you will suffer with reduced capabilities until the territory rebounds from your marauding army. Finally, in the instance that you deplete the countryside of all resources, your army may suffer (a) casualties and desertions, (b) reduced morale, and/or (c) a reduction in loyalty and increased chance for bribery.
(2) Supply lines. Built by the General of your army similar to forts and watchtowers. These can be dismantled by the player just as a unit can be dismantled. Each supply base offers a certain amount of distance before another supply base must be erected. The advantage is that you can further your aims in the enemy territory without worrying about being supported by the countryside. The disadvantage is that supply bases would be costly and that they must be protected. Should an enemy take your supply base, they would gain your supplies and destroy the base.
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. The result is a need for supply lines, which poor nations have difficulty sustaining.
This would also increase the value of pillaging. Not only could you pillage a city, but you could pillage a countryside.
This is an entirely feasible concept. The challenge for CA would be in developing the AI in a way that supports the system.
Although this is not a general idea, consider the following:
Your army begins its trek into enemy territory. The enemy is hostile so you have two options to feed and supply your army:
(1) Pilfering. This is quick, efficient, but is untenable for long term stays in the same territory because of a depleting hidden resource. Additionally, pilfering has the unwanted effect of destroying infrastruture and killing civilians so that when you take the territory, you will suffer with reduced capabilities until the territory rebounds from your marauding army. Finally, in the instance that you deplete the countryside of all resources, your army may suffer (a) casualties and desertions, (b) reduced morale, and/or (c) a reduction in loyalty and increased chance for bribery.
(2) Supply lines. Built by the General of your army similar to forts and watchtowers. These can be dismantled by the player just as a unit can be dismantled. Each supply base offers a certain amount of distance before another supply base must be erected. The advantage is that you can further your aims in the enemy territory without worrying about being supported by the countryside. The disadvantage is that supply bases would be costly and that they must be protected. Should an enemy take your supply base, they would gain your supplies and destroy the base.
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. The result is a need for supply lines, which poor nations have difficulty sustaining.
This would also increase the value of pillaging. Not only could you pillage a city, but you could pillage a countryside.
This is an entirely feasible concept. The challenge for CA would be in developing the AI in a way that supports the system.
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton:
I did think the English longbowmen got rather short changed when it cames to arrows in MTW. In big battles, they would be resupplied and so have made a more sustained contribution. But trying unlimited ammo vs the AI makes the game rather unbalanced, so I won't protest.
I would like to see some representation of supply on the campaign map. I think it would add to the gameplay if you had considerations like cutting supply lines or the difficulties of foraging. At the moment, there's lots of interesting tactical choices on the battle map but the campaign map is rather simple and needs spicing up (ambushes were one step in the right direction, but are still fairly rare). Losses due to attrition would be another related thing that should be added.
Yeah I think keeping the supply lines on the campaign map is a great idea, it would really influence which way your army marched. It's also the main point of besieging a castle, so in some ways it's already considered during the game. An army that's besieging can also have it's supply lines cut by another army though, forcing them to either assualt the castle or attack the army.I did think the English longbowmen got rather short changed when it cames to arrows in MTW. In big battles, they would be resupplied and so have made a more sustained contribution. But trying unlimited ammo vs the AI makes the game rather unbalanced, so I won't protest.
I would like to see some representation of supply on the campaign map. I think it would add to the gameplay if you had considerations like cutting supply lines or the difficulties of foraging. At the moment, there's lots of interesting tactical choices on the battle map but the campaign map is rather simple and needs spicing up (ambushes were one step in the right direction, but are still fairly rare). Losses due to attrition would be another related thing that should be added.
It would also be good if you had the option of forraging or raiding an area for food/supplies. It's a bit of a risk but a great benefit if you pull it off. Napoleon did it all the time so that he didn't have to spend a huge amount of money and maintain supply lines to his main army. If the province your in had a famine then you would loose troops and morale though.
With the idea of baggage carts on the battle map still has some validity IMO. Apart from being able to resupply archers and seige equipment, they could also be used for defense. The defenders used a circle of wagons in quite a few battles as a sort of quick fortification.
Ideally I would have the battle map big enough to have both armies base camp at either side as well, but I know that's too much at the moment.
Originally Posted by HighLord z0b:
Yeah I think keeping the supply lines on the campaign map is a great idea, it would really influence which way your army marched. It's also the main point of besieging a castle, so in some ways it's already considered during the game. An army that's besieging can also have it's supply lines cut by another army though, forcing them to either assualt the castle or attack the army.
It would also be good if you had the option of forraging or raiding an area for food/supplies. It's a bit of a risk but a great benefit if you pull it off. Napoleon did it all the time so that he didn't have to spend a huge amount of money and maintain supply lines to his main army. If the province your in had a famine then you would loose troops and morale though.
See my last post. Yeah I think keeping the supply lines on the campaign map is a great idea, it would really influence which way your army marched. It's also the main point of besieging a castle, so in some ways it's already considered during the game. An army that's besieging can also have it's supply lines cut by another army though, forcing them to either assualt the castle or attack the army.
It would also be good if you had the option of forraging or raiding an area for food/supplies. It's a bit of a risk but a great benefit if you pull it off. Napoleon did it all the time so that he didn't have to spend a huge amount of money and maintain supply lines to his main army. If the province your in had a famine then you would loose troops and morale though.
Come to think of it, "scorched earth" strategies were a key part of the English way of fighting the Hundred Years War. Here's one quote:
"It has been estimated that in just two months in 1355, the Black Prince managed to devastate 18,000 square miles of south west France."
I don't think you can properly capture that without modelling supply issues at the strategic level. You could argue that MTW catches that by allowing the destruction of province buildings but I think that has too much of a long term effect (on what troops can be built there in future decades) and too little of a short term one (on the ability to sustain an army in the province living off the land).
I suspect supply considerations were even more important when dealing with more distant campaigns like the crusades.
"It has been estimated that in just two months in 1355, the Black Prince managed to devastate 18,000 square miles of south west France."
I don't think you can properly capture that without modelling supply issues at the strategic level. You could argue that MTW catches that by allowing the destruction of province buildings but I think that has too much of a long term effect (on what troops can be built there in future decades) and too little of a short term one (on the ability to sustain an army in the province living off the land).
I suspect supply considerations were even more important when dealing with more distant campaigns like the crusades.
Medieval armies were often fairly capable of supplying themselves by the simple expediect of looting the areas they passed through. Supply lines in the modern sense often weren't terribly necessary unless you wanted to actually conquer an area rather than just damaging it to undermine the enemy's economic base.
Devastation of enemy territory was actually the chief way Medieval wars were fought. This had much to do with the strenght of fortifications and the severely limited times the feudal armies could eb kept on war footing before their obligations expired and they went home (or had to be paid wages to stay; few barons could afford that), and the fact any defender who did not like the odds for open battle would retreat to his network of fortified places and harass your field army from safety.
Naturally, if the defender was willing to give battle odds are the attacker was then busy getting the Hell out of Dodge, as that would mean the defender had a superior force at his disposal...
A single afternoon's field battle could very well lose a lord his army, his life, his ambitions, his lands and all the resources and power his ancestors had painstakingly been gathering for generations. Obviously, few were eager to risk it. Thus the retreat behind walls, and the ensuing attrition battle of siege, skirmish and devastation with which the attacker hoped to weaken the defender for the next campaign and persuade his subjects of their lord's inability to meet his feudal obligations of protection, and the defender sought to contain the damage and wear out the attacker's forces.
The issue is as old as the skill of building defensive walls. Great empires of the antiquity prided themselves specifically on their prowess in siege warfare and taking fortified cities, as these were extremely challenging operations requiring enormous investements of resources. Less affluent folks, for example the Greeks in most of their petty wars with each other, tended to be simply stumped by even simple city walls, and had to resort to trying to goad the defenders out by devastating their livelihood.
Devastation of enemy territory was actually the chief way Medieval wars were fought. This had much to do with the strenght of fortifications and the severely limited times the feudal armies could eb kept on war footing before their obligations expired and they went home (or had to be paid wages to stay; few barons could afford that), and the fact any defender who did not like the odds for open battle would retreat to his network of fortified places and harass your field army from safety.
Naturally, if the defender was willing to give battle odds are the attacker was then busy getting the Hell out of Dodge, as that would mean the defender had a superior force at his disposal...
A single afternoon's field battle could very well lose a lord his army, his life, his ambitions, his lands and all the resources and power his ancestors had painstakingly been gathering for generations. Obviously, few were eager to risk it. Thus the retreat behind walls, and the ensuing attrition battle of siege, skirmish and devastation with which the attacker hoped to weaken the defender for the next campaign and persuade his subjects of their lord's inability to meet his feudal obligations of protection, and the defender sought to contain the damage and wear out the attacker's forces.
The issue is as old as the skill of building defensive walls. Great empires of the antiquity prided themselves specifically on their prowess in siege warfare and taking fortified cities, as these were extremely challenging operations requiring enormous investements of resources. Less affluent folks, for example the Greeks in most of their petty wars with each other, tended to be simply stumped by even simple city walls, and had to resort to trying to goad the defenders out by devastating their livelihood.
Originally Posted by HighLord z0b:
One thing I would love to see in (but fairly sure not to) is proper supply lines and baggage trains in M2TW. If nothing else it could be a place for archers to reload on ammo. Ideally of course I would love the reserve troops to stay there protecting it, and for knights to get a new lance after a charge or a new horse after the last one was shot or some quick armour repair/replacement.
I suppose it would just mean less troops on the actual field though
I'd really like some more complex logistics (not to mention feudal style recruitment...) but that seems like it would radically change the nature of the strategic component of the game; sadly developers have sound economic reasons to not mess with something that works. :)One thing I would love to see in (but fairly sure not to) is proper supply lines and baggage trains in M2TW. If nothing else it could be a place for archers to reload on ammo. Ideally of course I would love the reserve troops to stay there protecting it, and for knights to get a new lance after a charge or a new horse after the last one was shot or some quick armour repair/replacement.
I suppose it would just mean less troops on the actual field though
Some kind of baggage might be neat though - it reminds me a lot of DBM. You could place your baggage at the start of the battle, and then you have to protect it. If you lose your baggage, your troops lose morale, and you lose some cash at the end of the battle (your enemy might even gain some, if you end up losing the whole battle). If you take enemy baggage you inflict the same effects on the enemy forces.
This would mean that you have to protect your baggage, but also might consider risking some troops to take the enemies. Also some troops (peasants, shifty mercenary/free company types) might charge baggage preferentially!
I think this would probably be easily doable with the TW engine.
I would at least like to see supply lines on the strategic map. There should be an ammo/morale penalty if you push too far with out resupply.
I think it's a good idea. Guarding the baggage train was an important part of any military enterprise and battles, campaigns even, could be lost because an army's supplies were destroyed.
the supply lines and foraging is an essential option , you cannot truly represent historical campaigns if you keep out those factors and you will always be playing a approximative game and not an historical one without this feature .....
Originally Posted by :
I think that it's too complicated for a game of the type of total war; that's more for turn based games...
Total War is turnbased, last time I played BI at least...I think that it's too complicated for a game of the type of total war; that's more for turn based games...
Originally Posted by :
In this combat you will begin as a unlucky, destitute peasant.
If such a game were ever made, I would hope that we would not be forced to start as dirty peasants :pIn this combat you will begin as a unlucky, destitute peasant.
I actually think it's a good idea. I think it'd be too hard, but it seems to be a cool idea especially if planned out correctly.
An other idea I got that stems from this is 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.
May be a bit complicated, but I think it'd be a cool idea.
An other idea I got that stems from this is 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.
May be a bit complicated, but I think it'd be a cool idea.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO