Supplies

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Greetings.

Fisrt of all, i would like to congratulate the EB team for their unwavering commitment to historical accuracy.
The following is an idea regarding one of the most important issues to a successful army (nd campaign)and that is to say: logistics (precisely supplies). Sega didnt take in account the importancy of supplies for an army and thus severely undermined the accuracy of military campaings especially in hostile territory.

A) Supply as a general trait.

As you know, mods like BYG grim reality use supply as a general trait (A.1 See note) and most importantly BYG created more than one supply trait level (A.2 ), a general could easily lose its full supply trait while in a hostile territory especially if commanding a numerous army and a general could have his supply trait upgraded by fortyfing in friendly territories as well as embarking on ships (A.3), but to have his trait upgraded he would have to spend money since he would be buying supplies (A.4). The entire system of supply traits can be worked out to match EB standards.
At this moment, i have an important question: is it possible to lose troops by traits, for instance the trait poor supplies would make some of your troops to defect or even die?
If the answer is negative, its still possible to work around it but it would be more direct and realistic if the answer is positive.

Notes for A:
(A.1): EB1 had a supply trait that affected moral, as we can see the supply feature was taken in account by the EB team albeit their efforts were hampered by engine limitation.
(A.2): Full supply, half Supply and so on, also the consumption rate of the supply trait is affected by the size of the army.
(A.3): Embarking on ships is a very important feature.
(A.4): Certainly every campaign had to be supplied and spent money in doing so, one of the reasons why war is so expensive.

B) Resupply train

BYG mod created an ancillary known as the resupply train (B.1). The resupply train main effect would be that of allowing a given general to reach full supply status. For instance, the supply traits would range from 1 to 1, where "1" is no supplies and "8" is full supplies; a general that has the resupply ancillary would be able to reach the "8" status while a general that do not hold the resupply train can only reach "3" status. (B.2).
Therefore, before embarking on a campaign a given general (B.3) would have to get in a friendly city and buy supplies. Please refer to (B.4) as another interesting idea if possible. I will address acquiring supplies in another chapter.

B1) Assigning the resupply train.
There are certainly a number of ways to assign the resupply train. My thinking goes in the following line:
Take the Roman republic as an example, the resupply train could be assigned whenever a senator is elect as consul or praetor. Here, i have another question: is it possible to lose an ancillary? If possible, when the character is no longer proconsul or propraetor he would automatically loose the resupply train.
If the answer is negative, it will be a minor setback that will be dealt with in the acquiring supplies chapter.
Another option is assigning a resupply train for every general. I am well aware that this option would have some in game issues that will be dealt with in the acquiring supplies section as well as the in game issues section.

Notes for B:
(B.1): In BYG the resupply train make it easier to acquire supplies as well as maintaining them, in my idea the resupply train would have further effects. In BYG, there`s only one resupply train per faction which is not a good idea for EB (my belief).
(B.2): Such idea linking the resupply train to a given trait is probably feasible if we take in account the professional staff feature of BYG.
(B.3): Taken that he has the permission to embark on a military campaing against a foreign kingdom. I, for one, believe that the EB team will use a feature that allows only a certain number of generals to do it (a roman consul for instance) since this has already been proved possible by other mods.
(B.4): Let's say that the supply trait grade goes from "1" to "8", "8" being full supplies and "1" no supplies. The average speed that you could purchase supplies would be "1 notch trait" per turn, so if your trait is 3 you would need 5 turn to get to "8" but if we can link the average speed on which we can purchase supplies to the level of agricultural development of a given region, in a developed region we would be able to purchase "2" per turn. This would certainly add another level of strategy to the game.

C) Acquiring supplies.

First of all, i need to make some considerations regarding the supply trait system.

C1) Adopting system where only some general shave the resupply train.
In this system every general (that doesnt have supplies at level 4) would automatically purchase supplies until it reach level "4" and the expenses would be paid by the treasury.
Generals with the resupply train would purchase their supplies from "4" onwards and the expenses will be paid by the treasury.

C1.1) Where to purchase supplies.

Its possible to purchase supplies when fortified in a friendly territory (C.1), in a city or in a supply ship. (All these features have been proven possible by BYG)
Purchasing in cities (please refer to B.4) should cost X gold.
Purchasing in homeland forts should cost 1,5X gold.
Purchasing in naval units should cost 2X gold. (C.2)

Resupplying (to some degree) by defeating an enemy army ( capturing the camp) or taking an enemy city by assault.
Foraging.



Notes for chapter C.1.1:
(note C.1): Concept of friendly territory.
The sea is considered neutral (afaik). Our own territories are obviously friendly. The question is: is it possible to resupply when fortified in allied territories?
If the answer is positive, allied states will be very useful. Imagine the following situation, you are the Koinon Hellenon and you want to attack mesopotamia, you could establish an alliance with the Hayasdan take two generals and estabilish a fort in the Hayasdan territory. One of the generals will campaign in mesopotamia while the other will keep stocking supplies when the general campaigning sees his supplies low the other general can relieve him. Other possibility is to retreat for the Hasdayan and resupply there in case you take a single general.
( note C.2) The idea is to introduce another strategic factor.
As we know, its possible to resupply in naval units, this situation alone is very important strategically since naval superiority will allow the player to resupply his armies nd in case you dont have naval superiority will be very difficult o conduct far away sea invasions.
Nevertheless, since the costs of resupply at sea (2x) could propel the player to take Cyprus and use it as a base to resupply or maybe ally himself to the Ptolemies and resupply in a fort there.

C.2) Scutage tax and buy supplies.

In BYG the order to tax the nobles was tied to the king, if possible, we could tie the order of buying supplies (for the general holding resupply train) and we could stop buying the supplies with that given general by clicking once again. Buying supplies represent the preparations before embarking on a campaign.

C.3) Time to resupply.

One notch per turn in cities. (See note B.4)
One notch every two turns in forts and ships.

D) Consumption rate

Factors that affect the consumption rate:
Army size.
Time (D.1)
I believe that supplies should not be consumed while in home territory (D.2) and fortified in friendly territories (D.3) but should be consumed when on ships.
Notes for chapter D:
(D.1): Applied only in situation when the supplies are consumed. Time represents that supplies are not eternal (food goes bad).
Could be something like that:
Consumption rate for turn 1: X
Turn 2: X
Turn 3: 1,25X
Turn 4: 1,25X
Turn 5: 1,5X
Turn 6: 1,5X
Turn 7: 1,5X
Turn 8: 1,5X
Turn 9: 1,75X
Turn 10: 1,75X
Turn 11: 2X
Turn 12: 2X

One of the reasons for this feature is to make the idea of supplying in a city in Spain (and 1x cost) for invade Syria without having Cyprus (or maybe an alliance with the ptolemies) less tempting since your supplies will be being consumed on the seas and your costs to supply on the ship soar. If you take Cyprus, you will have a far more solid and economical base to the invasion of Syria.
D.2) If and only if your home territory have a certain order, in a way that you wont conquer an enemy city and immediately be able to resupply or at least resupply in much slower pace.

E) Supply effects.

Depends on the answer for the question of chapter A.
Nevertheless, what is certain is that being low on supplies should bring terrible effects. I case the answer for the question raised in chapter is negative a way to work around it is:
Grade 1 to 8, "1" is no supplies and "8" full suplies.

Effects:
8: -0 moral
7: -0
6: -0
5: -0
4: -0
3: -2 (increase chance of rebelling)
2: -6 (increase chance of rebelling)
1: -10 (increase chance of rebelling)

The consequences of being low on supplies must be drastic because thats what happened in history.

F) In game issues:

First, the AI should not be affected by these features for obvious reasons.

Second, it regards the system to assign the supply trains as well as paying for the supplies nd being able to decide the amount of supplies purchased.


Thx

Note: most of these features were originally thought by byg. And they work as intended.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Supplying system.

I believe a supplying system should meet the following criterias.


A) Acquiring supplies.


Say that a Roman general is the commander of a given Theme and therefore may conduct foreign campaigns. Before embarking on a given campaign, he would have to buy/stock supplies (meaning the preparation phase --- entirelly realistic and historical). The obligation to buy supplies before entering a campaign represents the prohibitive costs of war as well as the logistics behind a sucessful army.

One could argue that the costs of war are represented by the unit upkeep. To some degree this is true but upkeep costs do not make a difference between a mobilizated army and a stationary one (other than the free upkeep) nor it represents the difficult of waging war in far away lands.


B) Consumption


After the supplies are quantified that is to say the amount of supplies that you`re taking to your journey, consumption becomes a key element of the supply system. If your army doesnt consume supplies it means that no supplies system are in place meaning that you can campaign to the ends of the world without having to manage your supplies logistic.


C) Where to acquire supplies


It is an element of logistics.
EX: Supplying on ships means that you need control of the seas since an army should be able to go from "1"supply to "8) in 1 turn. Creating a supply line using 2 general, for instance one general remains fortiyfied in Cyprus and acquires supplies, then he disembark in Syria and supply the army campaign there.


D) Effects of being low on supplies

Effects should be terrible since there has been no shortage of example when ar army is defeated for being low on supplies.

If these criterias can be met, i think its safe to say that "habemus" supply system. It seems that such goals can be achieved which in turn will add a lot in term of realism and strategy.

Thx

[Coldfire88]

The simple solution would be to implement supply and morale system of BYG's mod into EB with his permission, the better solution would be to make a new system closer to the time period of EB but that might be more time consuming. but I agree EB can benefit alot from an optional supply/morale system, it stops you from having permanent stacks of armies that can march to the edge of the world and be fully operational, great for preventing blitzes. Maybe even encourage campaign seasons by having less penalties/bonuses in that season.

I would implement BGR myself if i wasnt so likely to break the game before i manage it.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

The simple solution would be to implement supply and morale system of BYG's mod into EB with his permission, the better solution would be to make a new system closer to the time period of EB but that might be more time consuming. but I agree EB can benefit alot from an optional supply/morale system, it stops you from having permanent stacks of armies that can march to the edge of the world and be fully operational, great for preventing blitzes. Maybe even encourage campaign seasons by having less penalties/bonuses in that season.

I would implement BGR myself if i wasnt so likely to break the game before i manage it.

I agree... A supply system would add a lot to the game, one must also consider that such system would increase overall difficulty and would be completely historical (please note that i dont know if the game already has a supply system...in no way i intend to be disrespect the work done which, as i said, is brilliant).

@Alex33

Yes. The Ai can handle it, although i am not sure if they are exempt from some features. One a side note, its seems that, as of yet, no one was able to conquer the entire map under BYG terms... This is also completely historical as it was extremely difficult to manage large empires.

Again, my English is somewhat poor, therefore i am sorry if i come out as rude for this is not my intention. I have the utmost respect for the team.

Thx in advance

[alex33]

@lucio does the ai handle this system well? I have never used such a mod before so i have no idea haha

[rovert]

Deus Lo Vult has something like this along with a bunch of other things , everyone just stays in there starting position almost never taking any new lands .

[Sarkiss]

Deus Lo Vult has something like this along with a bunch of other things , everyone just stays in there starting position almost never taking any new lands .

not true. how many turns have you played it for? many features/restrictions apply to human player only.
supply system needs to be more in tune with the difficulties that are accompanied with fielding an army and have greater impact on the game imo. z3n had some interesting ideas, hopefully some will get implemented or if not made into a sub-mod.

[Coldfire88]

It works fine in BGR, infact if anything it makes it harder for the player to expand and needs careful planning to counter AI attacks so it adds a challenge for the player.

[myarta]

Hi,

Were you aware of the existing system EB2 has for this?

There are four levels of supply state, from Well Supplied on down, causing penalties to troop movement range, battle morale, and eventually at the lowest level, General's hitpoints and defense against assassination (VERY unpopular general who doesn't feed his men).

Additionally, there are several levels of personal tiredness from moving full points each turn under the Forced Marching tree. These levels drastically reduce movement range as they progress. Combined with the weather system, I've never had a problem in EB2 with being able to powerwalk across the entire map without consequences. The supply and forced marching system keeps it pretty well in check from my point of view.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Hi,

Were you aware of the existing system EB2 has for this?

There are four levels of supply state, from Well Supplied on down, causing penalties to troop movement range, battle morale, and eventually at the lowest level, General's hitpoints and defense against assassination (VERY unpopular general who doesn't feed his men).

Additionally, there are several levels of personal tiredness from moving full points each turn under the Forced Marching tree. These levels drastically reduce movement range as they progress. Combined with the weather system, I've never had a problem in EB2 with being able to powerwalk across the entire map without consequences. The supply and forced marching system keeps it pretty well in check from my point of view.

Hi... yes, i am aware of that and i do believe it is a step in the right direction but it is not a supply system as of yet (you might be right that it does solve the issue raised, there are others though). That said, these traits tell me two things:

A) The EB team is aware of the importancy of supplies, which, i think, should lead to a complete supply system (under the terms of the team obviously);

B) If the team chooses not to implement a supply system, that is not, under any circunstances, a demerit for the team or the mode, it means only that the team thinks it wont be the right step for the mode.

IMO, a supply system will add a lot to the game in terms of difficulty, strategy and historicity. Ty for you reply. Have a nice day.

[myarta]

Okay. I guess I would say that they DO have a "supply system" but your suggestion is for a more detailed one. It sounded like you were saying they were ignoring supplies entirely, but I must have misunderstood.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Okay. I guess I would say that they DO have a "supply system" but your suggestion is for a more detailed one. It sounded like you were saying they were ignoring supplies entirely, but I must have misunderstood.

That's fair. Btw, Quintus told me in anothor thread that they are debating whether to include a complete supply system or not...

[Funkmaster Rick]

I really liked BYG's Grim Reality. Lots of huge annoyances and micromanagement added, all to the benefit of immersion and realism.

However, I don't think any of it applied to the AI. I could be wrong, but last I recall that system was entirely a player issue, thus I suspect the AI in EBII would not handle it well without a lot of work.

I do find the idea of a resupply option highly appealing, though; sieges lasting more than a year can be a real problem to maintain with no or minimal options for resupply. It makes some cities nigh-unassailable unless you're willing to deliberately throw many warriors to their death to take those walls. This may be an intentional decision. I still think having an option for resupply, even if it's a finicky and difficult one, would be interesting.