Supply changes

Overall I am really enjoying NTW. I would make a couple of small changes to the supply rules.

1) In an enemy region you are out of supply and automatically suffer attrition each turn UNLESS

a) build a supply depot in an enemy town that you own (obviously if you own the capital you aren't in an enemy region anymore)
b) expend a supply wagon

I would give the ability of supply depots to build supply wagons. Maybe they would cost 500 gold. Their effect would be to provide one turn of supply in enemy territory but they would slow down the movement rate of the army they were with. They would not be represented on the battlefield but lets say if you lose a battle your remaining wagons are captured.

2) If you are out of supply you start battles with less ammo and even artillery would have limited ammo.

Note weather attrition and supply attriton would be two different states thus you could be going through the alps in winter with supply wagons and thus be in supply but suffering weather attrition.

I think the two changes would really give a feel for the restraints that generals operated under in those days.

i think thats a really good idea actaully.

Have the supply depots build supply wagons, should limit it though, to say, 1 wagon train per depot.

Then move that wagon train with you, though the wagons should be limited in movement points also.

Would open up all sorts of possiblitys, raiding your enemys supply lines for one thing and looking after your own for another.


Good idea!

Originally Posted by CharlestheShort

Overall I am really enjoying NTW. I would make a couple of small changes to the supply rules.

1) In an enemy region you are out of supply and automatically suffer attrition each turn UNLESS

a) build a supply depot in an enemy town that you own (obviously if you own the capital you aren't in an enemy region anymore)
b) expend a supply wagon

I would give the ability of supply depots to build supply wagons. Maybe they would cost 500 gold. Their effect would be to provide one turn of supply in enemy territory but they would slow down the movement rate of the army they were with. They would not be represented on the battlefield but lets say if you lose a battle your remaining wagons are captured.

2) If you are out of supply you start battles with less ammo and even artillery would have limited ammo.

Note weather attrition and supply attriton would be two different states thus you could be going through the alps in winter with supply wagons and thus be in supply but suffering weather attrition.

I think the two changes would really give a feel for the restraints that generals operated under in those days.

Very good idea. I wonder if it could be modded in?

There are different levels of supply depots so maybe the bigger ones could support more wagons. That way for your invasion of Russia you could stockpile a bunch of wagons so you could make it to Moscow without your army falling apart. Unless of course your wagons get captured and you have to retreat losing men all the way

The reason I would say that being out of supply would cause losses too is that supplies represent ammo and food/medicine/blankets etc etc. An army with no supplies would lose men to sickness/desertion/starvation.

Before WWI it was an iron rule that more troops died from attrition than combat.

Originally Posted by CharlestheShort

Before WWI it was an iron rule that more troops died from attrition than combat.

Not to split hairs, but attrition includes combat. Attrition is just wearing one side down, in whatever way you can, either through military losses (casualties) or loss of materiale, or psychologically.

In fact WWI was the GREATEST example of attrition warfare - the Allies just wore the Germans down until they couldn't mount an effective defense, and the blockade starved all the resistance out of the homefront.

I would think this is a great idea except that being "out of supply" shouldn't mean you're taking constant losses.

No, you shouldn't be able to recoup your losses, but you also shouldnt suffer more for just being "out of supply". The ammunition idea is a good one though. The unit sizes are too small (oh DarthMod NTW I can't wait till you rear your armored head!) to have losses from battle,weather, AND starvation.

I could understand that kind of attrition in a 6 month span where your army is in enemy territory, but supply attrition after two weeks is lame.

Originally Posted by Gaidin

I could understand that kind of attrition in a 6 month span where your army is in enemy territory, but supply attrition after two weeks is lame.

My point exactly. That level of mirco-managing is exactly why I don't play RTS games like StarCraft and Command and Conquer.

Originally Posted by Gaidin

I could understand that kind of attrition in a 6 month span where your army is in enemy territory, but supply attrition after two weeks is lame.

go 3 days without food and water in the russian winter then say that...

Originally Posted by Bigfootedfred

go 3 days without food and water in the russian winter then say that...

See the post above yours for reference on why it would suck.

Also, they already have seasonal attrition so I'm not sure what relevance Russian winter has to this.

Originally Posted by Gaidin

See the post above yours for reference on why it would suck.

Also, they already have seasonal attrition so I'm not sure what relevance Russian winter has to this.

well, 3 days without water anywhere, any season...youll be dead.

2 weeks without food....your dead too

Originally Posted by Bigfootedfred

well, 3 days without water anywhere, any season...youll be dead.

2 weeks without food....your dead too

Which says nothing about the point regarding game design that isn't focused on that level of micromanagement. What's your point?

Originally Posted by Gaidin

I could understand that kind of attrition in a 6 month span where your army is in enemy territory, but supply attrition after two weeks is lame.

Actually, no. During the four years I spent in the US Marine Corps, my platoon would be anywhere from 20 to 50% understrength, caused by everything from desertion to illness to training accidents (one died in a car accident; no-one starved to death that I know of). That was a modern military, in peacetime. Attrition doesn't just mean men dropping dead from inanition. It means not present with the colours (for whatever reason) when the battle begins. N:TWs attrition system may not present it that way precisely, but no officer in any age of warfare ever expects to fight with his T/O strength.

Which, once more, is a level of micromanagement the game design was never interested in implementing for the campaigns.

Did you read nothing else I've said or just feel you have to quote my first post and run with it?

Originally Posted by Gaidin

Did you read nothing else I've said or just feel you have to quote my first post and run with it?

Actually, your subsequent posts are just as foolish as this one. I can understand if you don't want to see realistic attrition in a game, but don't make sweeping statements about military realities you obviously know little about.

The wagons would not be represented on the battle field and with an army it would just be a simple number next to the generals card or something showing how many wagons he had. There would not be much micro management. The point of the exercise would be to add some strategic depth and realism. Do you go for the quick blitzkrieg without the wagons even though you will suffer supply losses or take a more methodical approach and build up your supplies before slowly moving forward.

By the way I'm not saying that supply attrition should be devastating, just a slow steady drain if you chose not properly feed/arm/cloth your troops.

As it stands the supply system is OK but could be made more of a tactical element in the game.

People might gripe about micromanagement...fine make the supply system optional if you don't like it disable it. But to me the fun of strategic/tactical games is decision making, weighing the cost/benefits of various actions etc. I think a more in depth supply/attrition system would be fun.

It would also give a more realistic feel of napoleonic warfare. Campaigning in places like Russia and Spain were so difficult because of the barreness of the countryside.

That just gave me another idea, supply attrition could also be dependent on the relative fertileness of the province ie North Italy would be easy to go without supplies while Spain/Russia would not.