48 replies to this topic

[The Crooked Philosopher]

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.

[Sighvatr]

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, 08 June 2012 - 09:57 PM.

[The Crooked Philosopher]

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.

[majapahit]

The Crooked Philosopher, on 08 June 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

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.

[kosmo]

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.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Also, perhaps soldiers could 'forage' for food by hunting, farming, or collecting berries.

[majapahit]

kosmo, on 09 June 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

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.

In my opinion, resources such as farmland etc should accessible to all factions. So player A can 'steal' resources in player B's city if not guarded.

[wrod]

I think instead of the troops losing health or stamina it should be that their defenses drop since they don't know the area and that they move slower too.

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, on 09 June 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Also, perhaps soldiers could 'forage' for food by hunting, farming, or collecting berries.

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, on 09 June 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Also, perhaps soldiers could 'forage' for food by hunting, farming, or collecting berries.

i think u can already do that

Edited by wrod, 09 June 2012 - 03:29 PM.

[Sighvatr]

It would make the game unfair and less enjoyable to play if one faction is affected by disease on a map and not other factions. So in order to cheat the system of disease to play fair, you can draw all the different ground textures in the game, place down every species of animal and tree.

[majapahit]

Sighvatr, on 09 June 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

It would make the game unfair and less enjoyable to play if one faction is affected by disease on a map and not other factions. So in order to cheat the system of disease to play fair, you can draw all the different ground textures in the game, place down every species of animal and tree.

That's why there should be an option to enable or vote disasters and map based attrition.
Its nice for people who like to play in random maps.

[The Crooked Philosopher]

I suggest that 0 AD should have deployable base where logistic convoy could drop supply, providing supply for the soldiers, becoming defensive structure when under attack, able to heal soldier when wounded soldier came nearby and most of all deployable and it would be more logical to have such deployable base when player waging war on hostile land.

Edited by The Crooked Philosopher, 15 June 2012 - 10:33 AM.

[wrod]

Maybe it would just be better that if they r in a foreign area they move slower have less health and cause less damage

[majapahit]

The Crooked Philosopher, on 15 June 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

I suggest that 0 AD should have deployable base where logistic convoy could drop supply, providing supply for the soldiers, becoming defensive structure when under attack, able to heal soldier when wounded soldier came nearby and most of all deployable and it would be more logical to have such deployable base when player waging war on hostile land.

I don't think the map is big enough for making such logistic effort.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

That depends entirely on the map size. By the way, what I meant by foraging for food would be a kind of foraging that would restore stamina and not yield food for your civilization.

[The Crooked Philosopher]

Good idea, why don't you include pillage as an option for survival? since there's no war without raiding and looting.

[majapahit]

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, on 28 June 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

That depends entirely on the map size. By the way, what I meant by foraging for food would be a kind of foraging that would restore stamina and not yield food for your civilization.

So its "consume" food for stamina? That's sounds interesting. Reminds me to arcade adventure games but I guess its also nice for strategy games.

[savva]

I like this idea so much! It would enable guerilla warfare, making the game more strategicaly advanced. I think that supply routes should be implemented, Units would load withfood and water at the depots. Maybee roman camp should also recieve and distribute supplies or maybe it should be self sustained and produce them itself? But army should also be able to self sustain itself by huntning, eating berries and raiding enemy houses and food depots, making the enemy destroy his buildings. Dont think all soldiers shoud be able to farm.
Ranged units may also have limited supplies of arrows/spears, slingers should not require ammo, as stones are widespread,thus making them more independant of supplies. Ammo shoud be given

Edited by savva, 06 July 2012 - 09:31 AM.

[majapahit]

Just tried the atlas and indeed it can support la-arge maps, so logistic route is realistic

Edited by majapahit, 10 July 2012 - 10:25 AM.

[Alpha of the Eagles]

I would totally love being able to raid the other players supply depot (like a hostile market trade, with high risk of loss) just to make them protect it better. But making advanced rules for where which faction should do combat would be simply game breaking to the general public. Making eastern troops loose less stamina than others in desert enviroments is a good idea in my mind, but the moment you start removing health for no appareant reason, people will be frustrated. We should have more subtle differences in performances with regards to enviroment to influence the player, not force him/her.

[spedgenius]

I thought I would pop in and add my two cents. I really like the Idea of attrition and logistics.

Here is how I see this working: When a unit is outside the sphere of influence for given amount of time his stamina as well as attack points will steadily decrease. Some civs could have an advantage as they were better at living off the land and foraging. Eventually without some sort of replenishment the unit will become inefectual. (A malnurished soldier would have a hard time with descision making, aiming and weilding a heavy sword/spear/shield) To combat this there could be a unit that has its own area of influence that replenishes the unit while within its perimeter, Perhaps a food cart or an encampment. I like the Idea of a cart that unpacks into a camp. The replenishing would cost a certain amount of food. Restocking of the camp could be done virtually or for a bit more logistical complexity would have to be restocked manually, perhaps a trade cart could pull double duty during war time? If this were the case then soldiers could also restock by foraging and stealing from plundered crops using the camp as a dropsite.

This would allow for quick raids with no loss of stamina or attack, but be true to the reality that long protracted engagements are costly for the those left back home. I also agree that health should not be affected as the logistics could be sidestepped by bringing along some healers to go around and bring everyone back to health.

Edited by spedgenius, 22 July 2012 - 11:03 PM.