Supplies Difficulty Level Improvements Query

[Byg]

Hi all,

I was wondering if any players currently using supplies find the difficulty of using them too high, too low or balanced correctly.

If too high, would you prefer to see:

a) supplies lasting longer

(currently 1/4 supplies used every other turn in foreign lands and every fourth turn in own lands)

b) out of supplies effects less harsh

(each mod or indivuidual can easily set the penalty to anything. It currently affects movement, loyalty and command)

Currently in SS4.1:
Effect Command -2 (the generals punishment for running out)
Effect TroopMorale -6 (the effect of having no food etc)
Effect Unrest 3 (affected when taking supplies from a city)
Effect MovementPoints -5 (the effect on a weakened army of starvation)

And the same question to anyone wanting the effects harsher.

[Petykemano]

Well, I think, food supplies should last longer. 4 turns are so few, that I sometimes I hardly can make it to the city/castle having supplies above 50%, especially in winter and especially with siege units. I think supplies should at least 4 turns without any penalty in foreign country and at least 8 turns in homelands (without any penalty as well)

[Quark]

Well most of my campigns are in europe or as byzantium and I have had no problems (apart from having to convert the populace as Byzantium, troop morale does suffer alot here). It might be a different story though if I played either of the russian factions, or the moors trying to reach Timbuktu.

[Arkat]

I would say that the supply is too tight. I was trying to do a siege of a castle (Pamplona) as Aragon and I figure I will be out of supplies before the siege ends in 9 turns.

I am not sure if you could configure it, but perhaps you could consider foreign territory as any territory not directly connected to existing territory. You could throw religion in there as a modifying factor.

[Teodosio]

I was wondering if any players currently using supplies find the difficulty of using them too high, too low or balanced correctly.

Hello Byg, I have been playing SS 4.1 for some weeks and I saw your traits in action. I must say that I was a bit scared at beginning, but after a bit I understood the system and I like it a lot.
I admit I have not enough experience to provide a good feedback; anyway, until now I am under the impression that the system is good for open campaign (it forces you to move quickly and to plan), but it stops completely sieges (as Arkat said). I am forced to storm every time. I should say that storming is actually more fun, but maybe it would be good to leave open the possibility of sieging to the end (until the defenders surrender). Maybe the traits could be slighlty modified to give some disadvantage, but not complete disaster.

Another thing: I think you would be interested in some technical feedback. I found those errors in my system.log.txt. It seems something is not working right, have you alredy noticed that?

19:21:36.031 [script.err] [error] Script Error in Stainless_Steel_Mod/data/export_descr_character_traits.txt, at line 1910, column 11
Could'n find level name description string for trait(ImpHatched) level(ImpHatched).
19:21:36.031 [script.err] [error] Script Error in Stainless_Steel_Mod/data/export_descr_character_traits.txt, at line 1911, column 21
Could'n find description string for trait(ImpHatched) level(ImpHatched_desc).
19:21:36.031 [script.err] [error] Script Error in Stainless_Steel_Mod/data/export_descr_character_traits.txt, at line 1912, column 28
Could'n find effect description string for trait(ImpHatched) level(ImpHatched_effects_desc).
19:21:36.046 [game.script] [error] Condition parsing error in Stainless_Steel_Mod/data/export_descr_character_traits.txt, at line 13698, column 15
Condition parser doesn't recognise this token: SuppliedBySea
19:21:36.062 [game.script] [error] Condition parsing error in Stainless_Steel_Mod/data/export_descr_character_traits.txt, at line 14341, column 49
trigger  not found

Thanks for your great work!
+ rep!

[Inhuman One]

I personly think that supplies could only go down in foreign countries. In your own land it would be easy enough to keep your army supplied after all. You might want to set up camps here and there. I havent tried it yet since I feared for running out of supplies so I dont know if you get supplies in a camp.

I found another flaw though, ditching the general when out of suppies seems to be the best idea when in a desert or something, since the movement gets so rediculously slow then.

I personly rather ditch the entire supplies system all together. Theres realism and there is fun, its not mixing here for me.

[Istari6]

As a military history buff, I'm a huge fan of the new supply system. That was one of the major realism factors that was missing in M2TW, the challenge of supply lines and planning military movements given the ability of an army to "eat out" the surrounding province.

For those who find it "less fun", perhaps it can become a toggleable option for future releases? But please don't dumb it down or remove it.

Please keep the concept of armies consuming resources slowly even when on friendly terrain. After all, in the real world, if you concentrated an army from around the kingdom, it was a major strain to keep it supplied even when in friendly territory.
--> However, perhaps the supply penalty could kick in once your army was over a certain size in a province? That would add a further bit of realism, since smaller armies could probably be supplied for long periods of time, but large armies rapidly had to "get moving" or end up disbanding due to the challenge of supplying over a medieval road infrastructure.

Are there thoughts of adding any further supply options in the future? One that would be nice is to allow a faction to build a special city structure or have a general's trait that would enhance supply at long range. Charlemagne was famous for creating a well-organized supply infrastructure similar to the old Roman system, and that was a major key in helping him create the Carolingian Empire. Would be nice to invest a faction's resources into developing such a supply network for future conquests.

Another possibility is to create special supply depots, that would enhance supply if you're in a province next to it. This would force the player to think ahead and build a supply depot in a castle or town near the frontier, then launch the offensive once that supply depot is stocked.

There are a variety of other possibilities, but again, please don't dumb down or remove the current supply system. It really adds alot of flavor and strategy to SS.

Chris

[Byg]

Hi all,

interesting comments.

Petykemano
Surely without a penalty for running out of supplies then why would supplies be important enough to plan for? Do you mean no penalty in homeland only?

A lesser penalty in homeland would be possible, though I can't think of any logical reason for this in reality yet.

I see though that you are managing to arrive at your destination with supplies remaining anyway, so that's good.

Quark
No problems is good, I'll make a harder version for you...

Is converting the pop as Byz a real drag or tolerable? You mean because more neighbours are of differing religion right?
So we either leave as is to make byz a tough faction to play or boost their generals ability to resupply regardless of religion or boost their priests. At least their territories are small and they can travel by sea to most places, so they have an advantage to counter their problems.

Arkat
Hi, I deliberatley made supplies short enough to encourage the human player to storm rather than starve out enemy cities, you can still do it though, by sending more supplies with another general or nipping off to a ship to resupply whilst the troops maintain the siege with some risk to their deserting of course.

Your idea of easy supply in connected territories would be ok, but there is no technical way to do this. They are of course easier anyway because they are closer.

However, if you don't want to run out then, as I had hoped to produce 2 versions, one version could have more supplies in foreign territory and you could just select the version you prefer.

Teodosio

Hi, yes it must look scary at the begining, I hope everyone reads the very detailed explanation of how it all works in the link in my signature and alerts me to anything lacking.

Do you think the current penalty represents complete disaster for the general? Please let me know how a battle goes for you when fighting whilst out of supplies. Do you always lose, scrape through, or win with more losses. I'm very interested in that.

Thanks, I am aware that "suppliedbysea" shows as an error in the log. Fortunately it doesn't actually produce an error. Possibly related (though I doubt it) is that a related trigger is in the wrong place, the effect being that it does not inform you in your traits list that you have supplied by sea, though you have. There is no harmful effect and it is corrected in all future versions and I gave Stainless Steel and Deus lo volt the simple instruction to correct this so no worries there.

inhuman one
Hi, yes you can separate the army from their general to save supplies affecting the general, fortunately this can have the realistic effect of the troops deserting their general (who selfishly ran off with all the supplies).

The Grim Reality traits are being made as a standalone mod to be incorporated into any other mod or vanilla. Stainless Steel and some other mods incorporate these traits directly and they get tweaked for each mod as to the wishes of their host, King Kong in this case.

For general info there are always files supplied in the SS forum to remove the supplies system for any who do not like or wish to try them.

When the standalone is released you will be able to install and uninstall at will.

I would have liked supply camps and I do keep thinking about ways in which this could be implemented. Maybe these permanent forts in kingdoms will work. Just got the game, but not seen the code yet.

Istari6

Hi, I covered some of your points above. I am glad you like the system as is, which really confirms that I need 2 versions.

I figure supplies carried would relate to size of army anyway, but in any event there is no way to detect army size for the purposes of traits.

I do hope to add in some supply abilities both poor and enhanced for generals to become good and bad logisticians.

Currently the poor logistician takes longer to resupply rather than penalise him further in the field. I expect I will make a good logistician capable of going further with the same amount of supplies. I suppose the better explanation for this could be good forager, living longer off the land.

I had also thought about the idea of making some sort of mission for a general to perform in order to become good with supplies. Perhaps simply having experience of travel, terrain, ships etc could be the mission. e.g an English general could be sent on a mission to jerusalem and then get the good logistician trait. Gets complicated though, and some wont like it.

[Teodosio]

Do you think the current penalty represents complete disaster for the general? Please let me know how a battle goes for you when fighting whilst out of supplies. Do you always lose, scrape through, or win with more losses. I'm very interested in that.

Don't get me wrong, the system is fine when campaigning in open terrain, the only problem is if I try to siege a settlement without storming it. The general will get a massive command and troop morale hit, making any battle a suicide; furthermore, I am under the impression that the "troops weary" and "out of supplies" traits produce permanent bad traits, like "poor logistics". So actually trying to siege a place seems very dangerous, and there are very strong (too strong?) incentives on assaulting.
Another thing: I have seen that some traits, like "Troops Despondent", give -1 Influence. What is that? Piety?

A suggestion: maybe you could think about a way for an army to forage plentfully when in enemy lands. For example, if an army doesn't move at all during the turn, we could image it is gathering a lot of foodstuff...

To sum up, I have dropped a few comments, but I already think that your work is super-cool! Keep up!

[Bearhugger]

I figure supplies carried would relate to size of army anyway, but in any event there is no way to detect army size for the purposes of traits.

there has to be a way to detect this.
vanilla MTW2 has a trait for generals: "feels appreciated" (or so), because he has a big army with him.
if a general has a very small or no army with him he would get:
"feels unappreciated" (lacking the exact term here).
that is in vanilla. so there has to be a trigger.

[Istari6]

Appreciate the quick reply.

I'm really interested in bringing your supply system into Kingdoms before I start any of those campaigns. Do you know when the standalone will be ready, and if it will be compatible with Kingdoms?

Thanks again for all your hard work on this system!

Chris

[Petykemano]

Petykemano
Surely without a penalty for running out of supplies then why would supplies be important enough to plan for? Do you mean no penalty in homeland only?

A lesser penalty in homeland would be possible, though I can't think of any logical reason for this in reality yet.

I see though that you are managing to arrive at your destination with supplies remaining anyway, so that's good.

Hi Byg!
I didn't say, that there should be no penalties, but that food supplies should last two turns more without penalties
Now it looks like this in foreign territory:
0. turn: fully supplied (the turn you moved to a for. terr. from a city after fresh foraging is gone)
1. turn: fully supplied
2. turn: 75% supplies
3. turn: 50% supplies
4. turn: 25% supplies
5. turn: out of supplies

What I say is to longer fully supplied state (when there are no penalties) should last a few turns longer.

[Inhuman One]

there is a thing as adding too much though. Europa Barborum for example. I tried to play that for rome total war but it made no sense at all.

I definatly hope that Stainless Steel wont take things that far.

[T-wester]

there is a thing as adding too much though. Europa Barborum for example. I tried to play that for rome total war but it made no sense at all.

I definatly hope that Stainless Steel wont take things that far.

QTF

i would like to be able to bring supplies an army other than changing the
general or send him on a ship, perhaps with merchants ?

[Inhuman One]

If merchants travel with the army they could supply them perhaps? the bigger the army the more merchants it would require, perhaps it could be one merchant for each five units. They wont make any coin and because of that are rather expensive since they are just there to keep the supplies going.

Merchants should also be made bribeable, they care so much for coin after all.

[Bearhugger]

If merchants travel with the army they could supply them perhaps? the bigger the army the more merchants it would require, perhaps it could be one merchant for each five units. They wont make any coin and because of that are rather expensive since they are just there to keep the supplies going.

not a good idea IMO

Merchants should also be made bribeable, they care so much for coin after all.

a good idea IMO

[Petykemano]

As for me, I think having merchants as supply line creators is a good idea. It was not the general and his personal bodyguard who carried the supplies and had to go back to the city to refill the supply wagons. It was military logistics that arranged supply lines and granted fighting soldiers enough food.
I agree with this idea.

[Teodosio]

As for me, I think having merchants as supply line creators is a good idea. It was not the general and his personal bodyguard who carried the supplies and had to go back to the city to refill the supply wagons. It was military logistics that arranged supply lines and granted fighting soldiers enough food.
I agree with this idea.

There is a problem with merchants providing supply.
I can see 2 ways of actually doing this: have merchants that provide supply as long as the army is near; or having merchants that provide supply for a number of turns, and have to re-supply themselves in cities from time to time.
The first solution is easily exploitable: you could just assign a merchant to your general, and the supply problem is solved for good.
With the second solution, you would have a merchant that goes around for some turns, and then comes back in a city when supplies end. But this is what you are already doing with your general, there won't be much difference.

In conclusion, I am under the impression that including merchants in the supply system wouldn't provide practical gameplay benefits.

[Petykemano]

Without promoting any further this merchant-based resupply theory, I just want to tell you that the latter way would actually make some difference. I you would have to change the merchants to over and over resupply your army, you would not have to change your heroic general to a young and starless one.
On the meantime, changing merchants is just as boring as changing generals. It's just too much micro management.
However I still agree with and like supplies included in the game.

[Byg]

On the merchants thing. I thought of and ultimately discounted this idea in one of the threads in my signature. There were 2 reasons: you can't detect the proximity of a merchant to a general in traits (despite there being a condition for this) and really all you are doing is following your army with another character which would not be much fun.

Keep those thinking hats on though, but please use the thread in my signature for new ideas because this one is mainly about difficulty level ideas (It's not that important to me, but I don't want to occupy two threads discussing the same thing in SS's forum. I'll rename this thread better.