Jump to content

Logistics and attrition warfare


Recommended Posts

Is it possible for 0 AD to add new feature for example attrition where player may suffer attrition when they venture too far into enemy territory and logistic wagon could provide player immunity from attrition like Rise of Nations?

The elements and purpose of attrition and logistics:

Key feature of attrition: lost of health and stamina in a very slow rate, gradually losing combat effectiveness and mobility.

Attrition effects on all unit: effects on all units including spearmen, swordsmen, archer, javelinmen, slinger, cavalry spearmen, cavalry swordsmen, cavalry javelinist, cavalry archer, champion infantry, champion cavalry, champion archer, heroes, siege weapon, warships, civilian ships, priest, merchant, civilian, editor-only unit and structures.

The effects and outcome: depend on what unit, for example civilian, citizen soldier especially heavy infantry suffer more while some raider unit like Mounted Devotio may suffer less or virtually immune from attrition.

Nature of attrition: depend on the factions and the map itself, for example Celtic player may found their troops fight less effectively in Punjabi even in their own territory due to the nature of the map, unlike Rise of Nations where attrition was based on national borders and attrition tech related research.

Exploiting attrition and logistics: know your advantage and disadvantage and use it to gain victory.

Countermeasures: methods of counter attrition.

Balancing:horse archer based civilization suffers little from attrition thus compensating their disadvantage of lacking siege weapons which encourage early attack on other factions, as for civilizations like Celts and Iberians raiding become possible and lucrative, while Romans, Persians and Hellenic factions may find that war become more expensive because they need to keep a strong logistic forces in order to wage a full scale war.

The reason i post this topic was because 0 AD like most of the RTS game lacks logistics and the purpose of the territory borders served only for building structure and expansion but still lack another vital feature that gives national border a more significant function. Another reason is that most RTS cares only how to destroy an enemy while ignoring that logistics was a key factor to win a war which most of them ended up fighting a war in numerical superiority while ignoring other vital elements in the game.

Edited by The Crooked Philosopher
Link to post
Share on other sites

We will most likely not add logistics to 0 A.D. part 1 as it hasn't been designed to include logistics, and as we're getting close to having all the features needed it's a bit late to add something as big as logistics at this time. It's definitely something worth considering for part 2 though :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good input, I'm glad to see there is some desire for this from the fans. The original game design was intended to have logistic features. Seasons, fixed territories, stamina, and moral were all interwoven parts and pieces that were going to play into this. I liked that, not just because I was on the design team that developed the idea, but because think this would have added a level of depth and strategy that would have brought something unique to RTS games and differentiated 0 A.D. in another way from the "Age of" series of games.

There are some remaining elements though, and you never know what Part II might bring :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, that since 0 A.D. should have logistics, you MUST look at this post. I myself am still an active Age of Empires II player, and never had to deal with this (And I'd love to!)

http://strategyspace...8/18/logistics/

Taht tank is jsut one example, and it is my hope 0 A.D. can implement it ever better

Also, how did Hittites who had rough terrain have the best armies of chariot archers? thats what I heard on aoe.heavengames forums

Edited by Centurion
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was posting about this topic on another forum, and I'm gonna quote part of the replies about this whole logistic thing

"It could also help to differentiate between some civs. The romans were very good at supplying their armies, the gauls were notoriously lacking in a good logistic organisation." ~ Thompsoncs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretically could Roman infantry have 1ammo, for those pilum thingies they threw before engaging charging? Those were supposed to be effective and every battle, if I remember right.

MY IMAGINATIVE MOMENT: Maybe they'd have 1 ammo, and the thing would start being thrown once the enemy was in.. 40 feet range? And romans wouldn't throw it at all but default to their normal attack if the enemy they were targetting was within 10 feet

They would have to be more effective using these to open a battle, to justify a logistics for it.

Here's a page about it, thanks google!

http://www.caerleon..../army/pilum.htm

Edited by Centurion
Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly support the idea (i've even suggested things like this a long ago somewhere around this forum), let's just wait for part 1 to be released to start wondering how things will turn out to be.

a quesition . will every new feature from part 2 work to part 1

Well, somewhere i can't i remember exactly where, the team said that they didn't had in mind how part two will be released, if as another game, if as a patch or if as an expansion, they just aren't sure yet. But expect part 2 to have at least the civs featured in part 1 plus 6 more (and maybe even more).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, somewhere i can't i remember exactly where, the team said that they didn't had in mind how part two will be released, if as another game, if as a patch or if as an expansion, they just aren't sure yet. But expect part 2 to have at least the civs featured in part 1 plus 6 more (and maybe even more).

Most likely a bit of both, either you follow development step by step (might be done as patches or as now with alpha/beta releases, but should all build on part 1 and go towards part 2) and end up with the finished part 2, or you install part 2 once it's finished. It's definitely possible that the engine will change quite a bit, so in that sense it should be seen as a new game rather than an upgrade.

In either case, part 2 should include everything from part 1, civilizations, gameplay features, art, sound (apart from things which have been improved of course, and perhaps minor changes due to other bigger changes in part 2. Say we change the combat system to do things differently, then things like the attack types/armor types might change etc.), so there should be no reason to have part 1 installed once part 2 is finished (unless for nostalgic reasons, or if you want to be reminded how much better part 2 is I guess :P ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I just listened to a commercial jingle about logiistiics...

Idea for logistic is interesting. More chance to test strategy and the strongest army will not always win when then forgot their logistics. It also gives a purpose in attacks. Not just about skirmishes but targeting supply wagons to disrupt enemy's army.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an idea. How about drawing a supply line on the terrain just like you would draw out a set of walls, except in this case the "towers" are supply depots and the "walls" are dotted lines (that show up when you select a depot). The lines would be much longer than the longest wall, of course. You would drag these from your Civic Centre out into the map into neutral and enemy territory. Units within vision range of a depot does not suffer attrition or each depot has a supply aura. You can disrupt an enemy supply line by destroying a depot along the way. Supply lines would cost Food, simulating that the most important supply of all is Food and water.

Anyway, not saying we should add this, but it's an idea nonetheless.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like that idea, but what if you attack an enemy with one or few troops? There are those kind of people whom like to play mind games.

Edit: Mythos, that would also be a great way to hurt a player too is by constantly raiding his depots. I truly dislike having to wait and kill off soldiers in order to drain another player's supply of resources. Games would move along more quickly that way.

Though what happens if you built a trail of supplies to an enemy, and you order your men to attack? Would that mean that while my guys are fighting an enemy they begin to lose stamina and health because they are not nearby the supply line? That would be ridiculous.

The only solution to this is that you only need to connect your supply line to an enemy's border so you can attack without the worry of logistics.

I also agree to the losing of stamina, but not health. The reason is because people can hunt/scavenge/forage/plunder for food.

Edited by Sighvatr
Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand my intentions, what i suggest the losing health feature in a very slow rate at a foreign land. For example: if a Celtic player engage battle in Kalinga, they loose some health gradually (sick) and stamina (exhaustion) due to different geographical influence. On the other hand, Mauryan player may suffer the same effects if they engage battle in Gaul.

Historically, most of the military expedition especially when an army enters a foreign land, they will definitely suffers attrition and this is inevitable when the supply line was too thin. The principal of logistics was simple, to supply an army the daily needs for survival in the battlefield, an army will never win a battle if they have no logistics at all even they have a million well armed, well train elite soldiers.

For me, i would definitely support such feature to implement into the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So even if two enemy cities border directly next to each other, there is huge geographical difference even if the map itself was based on one location in the world? Like the Nile in Egypt? Sounds like a bad joke to me. Lol

Of course a Mauryan soldier would find a Gaul war camp smelly and unpleasant. He may as well just lay down and die from intoxication.

Edited by Sighvatr
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the map not the enemy that generates the attrition that harm player's unit, unlike Rise of Nations, RoN's attrition was generated by hostile and neutral player region and they can be upgraded by certain tech not by the map itself. My concept of attrition was generate by the map not the enemy nor the player and its uncontrollable, for a faction belongs to the region would have an upper hand against a faction that is unfamiliar to the nature of the map while both faction who are stranger to the custom map will gain no advantage from the map but to depend more on their logistics supply because the army was unable to adapt to the map. 0 AD team member did mention weather and season, so what would it be when such feature was implement into the game?The answer was simple, attrition. Both player and enemy's unit may begets disease due to unfamiliar weather and region , so if a soldier was immune to exposure, hunger and sickness in the game would cause most weak faction to demise when confronting a powerful faction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the map not the enemy that generates the attrition that harm player's unit, unlike Rise of Nations, RoN's attrition was generated by hostile and neutral player region and they can be upgraded by certain tech not by the map itself. My concept of attrition was generate by the map not the enemy nor the player and its uncontrollable, for a faction belongs to the region would have an upper hand against a faction that is unfamiliar to the nature of the map while both faction who are stranger to the custom map will gain no advantage from the map but to depend more on their logistics supply because the army was unable to adapt to the map. 0 AD team member did mention weather and season, so what would it be when such feature was implement into the game?The answer was simple, attrition. Both player and enemy's unit may begets disease due to unfamiliar weather and region , so if a soldier was immune to exposure, hunger and sickness in the game would cause most weak faction to demise when confronting a powerful faction.

This is interesting. If the map has a "weather", and "terrain type" properties, bad weather can cause attrition to players outside friendly region.

Perhaps if the civ can be linked to certain terrain, example roman = terrain A, when roman plays in map other than terrain A, it will cause more attrition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beside the fact that in my opinion this will make balancing quite hard, I don't really get the point. The distances displayed on one map and the armies itself aren't that huge I think. Of course logistics is necessary in reality, but how will you implement that an invading force can use the resources of a conquered city e.g.? If I remember Clausewitz correctly, which of course was way later, every greater invasion force had to use the resources of the so far conquered country and I honestly don't believe Xerxes did supply his troops only from persia. So I think if Logistics is added and troops will loose health outside the own territory, the effect should be much smaller, if not zero, if buildings/troops of the enemy get destroyed, as the troops would be able to use their food etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...