Background
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 07, 2012, 07:52:20 AM
 

Author Topic: Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition  (Read 13280 times)

Strategy

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
    • micabyte.com
Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« on: April 06, 2003, 03:21:17 PM »
Foreword
Right; here is the first dump of design information concerning movement and attrition in the game system. As we playtest the precise values, I will probably update the numbers and perhaps clarify a few things, or alternatively turn it into a webpage. Anyway, feel free to comment (many of these things are still being tested, so nothing is completely sacred).

The Basics
A few basic points, in case you haven't guessed from reading the site:  ;D
- Game turns in the operational game are simultaneous turn-based. In other words, players plan army movement, and armies are then moved "simultaneously".
- Armies can always move between areas that share borders.

On Movement

Rate of Movement
The rate of movement of an army is equivalent to the slowest element in the army; converted to movement factors, these factors are:
Siege train, Supply train: 9 MP
Infantry and most Cavalry: 12 MP
Some Light Cavalry:   15 MP

Leaders can choose to force-march gaining an additional +3 MP, but taking a penalty in their army’s ability to gather supplies and making them significantly more vulnerable to ambushes. In addition, certain leaders may have or gain the “Celeritas” ability, allowing them to force-march their veteran troops longer and harder than ordinarily possible.

The cost of movement is typically dependent on the terrain type being entered; the most basic terrain types and their equivalent costs are currently:
Clear, Steppe & Desert: 3
Rough & Wooded: 4
Mountain: 5

What happens if two armies “collide” while moving from each their own area into the others area? Each army in the game has an initiative rating, based on the initiative of its General and the make-up of the army (veteran armies and armies made up of light troops will have higher initiatives than poorly trained armies or armies consisting of heavy troops). In this case, the army with the highest initiative will become the attacker and “pin” the army with the lower initiative in its area. Once the two armies are in the same area, there is of course the chance of a battle taking place (depending on the combat stance and aggression of the two generals), but if combat is evaded, the defending army may now attempt to complete its movement plans and move into the area that the attacking army has just vacated.

(This makes possible some interesting strategies with respect to pinning enemy forces,; however, since the player can not micro-manage the movement of his armies below a certain level, I do not believe this will be too much of an advantage for the player).

On Supply

Naturally, forces consume an amount of food (generically termed supplies) every turn of the game. If the supplies delivered to an army is insufficient during the turn, the units suffer from gradual attrition as soldiers fall sick, straggle, or desert.

The Eating Capacity (EC) of an Army for the entire turn is roughly calculated as follows:
EC = #infantry + (#cavalry*3) + (#elephants * 175) + (#chariots * 12) + (siege engines * 20)

NB: Chariots & siege engines may have differing requirements depending on type (e.g., a 2 horse chariot might have a lower EC than a 4 horse chariot). I also haven't added supply units into the mix here.

The supplies collected by an army while traversing an area is calculated from the following formula: (SC) * ((100 – SM)/100)]

The Supply Capacity (SC) of an area is calculated dependent on the number of people available in the area for farming, the land support value, the condition of the land, the season, and a host of other things; this value is then modified depending on who owns and controls the area. The typical supply capacity would tend to range from between 15-45,000 troops, depending on these factors.

The Supply Modifier (SM) is calculated as follows:
+15 Enemy has cavalry superiority in area
+10 Forced Marching
+5  Undisciplined army (50%)
+5  Army is demoralized
-10 Plundering
-10 Logistical Genius (Character trait)
-15 Stationary the entire turn

Armies with a supply train may choose to deploy the supply train to make up any shortfall between the supplies required by the army and the supplies actually collected. This is only possible when the army is located in or adjacent to an area containing a friendly, unbesieged city (representing the existence of supply depots on which the army can draw).

The supplies actually collected divided by the eating capacity of the army then determines the attrition suffered by the army. The actual attrition suffered depends a lot upon the type, training, and morale of the various units. Elite and veteran units will suffer lower attrition than levy units (as they suffer less from desertion), while levy troops will suffer greatly (in terms of attrition) from any shortage.

Armies can also be supplied by sea if the army is located in a coastal area, but that requires the large-scale utilization of transport ships. Sea suply brings us into a wholly different area of the design which I shall not touch on yet, though.

All for now - hope this was of interest.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2003, 03:52:55 PM by Strategy »

Barkhorn1x

  • Quirite
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2003, 03:13:27 PM »
Very interesting Strategy.  Keep it coming!

Barkhorn.

Demonic_Emperor

  • Equite
  • Aedile
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
Re:Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2003, 12:42:04 AM »
Indeed, I like seeing data about aspects of the game.

Does an elephant really eat 58 times as much food as a horse, and how many horses are pulling each chariot (I would think 2)?

Massinissa

  • Quirite
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2003, 07:18:13 PM »
I assume therefore that you aren't intending to introduce attrition due to outbreaks of disease in the army or similar?

What about recruiting whilst marching?

Strategy

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
    • micabyte.com
Re:Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2003, 08:13:46 PM »
For the chariots, I assume 4 horses. For 2-horse chariots (like e.g., the Celtic ones), I would probably reduce the EC. And the numbers (including the one for the elephants) are purely game balance issues - except for the Infantry / Cavalry ratio which is based on the usual ration allowance of the infantry compared to cavalry. If anyone of you has some good historical data for chariots and elephants compared to infantry, do let me know. :D

Attrition due to disease does not occur on the march in this system (consider it factored into the base attrition factor). However, siege supply (like sea supply) is a totally different ball game. Armies that are besieging (and those being besieged) will typically suffer from disease attrition, but this is all part of the "siege" sub-game. And then, of course, a place might be suffering from disease to begin with the result that an army moving through picks it up.

Armies can not recruit and march. Recruiting is an order in itself. We assume that sending round messengers, organizing drafts, gathering people together, gathering arms, issuing them, organizing units, and then training them up to some standard (however low it may be), takes up a lot of time.

Though primarily its a game mechanism decision. ;)

Demonic_Emperor

  • Equite
  • Aedile
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
Re:Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2003, 01:24:48 PM »
4 horses for chariots? Not very cost effective weapons are they?  ;)

Are you going to differentiate between African and Indian elephants?

Strategy

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
    • micabyte.com
Re:Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2003, 05:07:45 PM »
Nope.

There will be differentiation between African & Indian elephants, but not at the supply level.

Max_i

  • Quirite
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2004, 10:58:17 PM »
hmm, wouldn´t a forced march rather  lead to "general" attrition (i.e a fixed loss of x%)? if we have a 15k army forced marching trough a 45k province, the "+10 Forced Marching" penalty wouldn´t matter, or am I missing something? may be "general attrition" should come atop of this modifier.

q: will diseases affect provincial supply, too?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2004, 11:03:08 PM by Max_i »

Strategy

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
    • micabyte.com
Re:Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2004, 11:45:09 PM »
The forced march gives a modifier, which leads to a higher attrition percentage - however, if the supply rating is high enough, this is less of a problem. Rationale: stragglers (the major form of attrition in a forced march) would probably find their way back to their units in friendly territory leading to lower losses . But the algorithms are still being tweaked, though.

Currently, disease is only a factor in sieges.  If introduced as a factor in the strategic map (which might not be a bad idea), the effect would probably be reflected in a supply modifier (and decreasing population), rather than a direct penalty provincial supply.

Bromley

  • Quirite
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2004, 12:28:21 PM »
Damn.  Just previewed and lost everything  >:( .

Current supply rules

One infantry eats 1.
One cavalry eats 3.
Therefore, at the maximum, 1 horse eats 2 (horse + rider = 3).

One 4-person chariot therefore eats 10-11 (depending on whether it has 2-3 people).  A 2-person chariot eats 5-6 (1-2 people).

Note that this doesn't take into account remounts for cavalry.

Byzantine consumption

Nearest that I could find to the period - 10th century stuff.  This is from my skip-reading of the article, which is really juicy (if you like that sort of thing :) ).
http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/haldon1.htm#_ftn57

1 soldier:  Just under 3lb reducing to just over 2lb on campaign.
1 horse:  5-6lb in barley, the rest in forage, to ~5lb on campaign.

Actually, a horse seems to eat ~20-25lb per day (~15lb on campaign), but the rest is grass/hay.  Still, in the wrong places at the wrong times, you'd have to carry that extra with you.

There's also some discussion about water, which may be relevent to campaigns in Parthia.

Note the remounts issue.  ". . . but we must then add supplies for re-mounts and pack-animals,the total provisions necessary for the animals of a fast-moving cavalry force of 1,000 men will have amounted to at least half as much again, . . ."  It's difficult to pull out exactly what it would be, because the number of pack animals are dependent on distance.

Although both infantry and cavalry will have pack animals, the remounts and the higher number of pack animals per soldier in the cavalry units (more to carry) may well mean that the supply ratio should be 1 infantry : 4 cavalry.  Therefore a 4-horse chariot would cost 14-15 and a 2-horse one 7-8.

All these amounts would increase when the units were not campaigning by ~50%, if I understood the article correctly.

The cost of supply might well differ from it's weight, in that soldiers campaigning appear to have received little meat whereas those at rest got that 1lb of meat.


Elephants

African
http://www.oaklandzoo.org/atoz/azeleph.html
"Working elephants need 300 to 600 pounds of food per day."
"Estimates in the wild range from 100-1000 pounds of vegetation per day."

So we're looking at between 100-300lb as a subsistance/starvation diet.  Some of that can be foraged by your men.

Given that 1 of your supply units is ~2-3lb (infantry allowance), that means that you currently allocate between 350lb and 525lb for elehant supply.  As I can't find a single thing on campaigning with elephants, that sounds perfect :) .

Btw, they drink 30-50 US gallons per day = 114-189 litres.  So no marching through deserts with elephants I guess :) .

This site is on Indian elephants and places the working elephant consumption at ~700lb, with 250 litres of water needed.
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2003/7-9/66-68_elephants.shtml

EDIT:  Just thought.  Although I've quoted everything in pounds (that's how I found most of it), you probably work in kilos.  And the historical supply for a man was ~1kg.  So that fits nicely with your supply system.

EDIT:  Roman Supply.  Did some more searching.  No prime sources, but this confirms the 2lb grain per day in Caear's time.  Of interest for the game, it says that this was increased when forced marches were made (not quantified though).
http://info.uah.edu/student_life/organizations/SAL/misc/romanwarmach.html#cthree
« Last Edit: June 18, 2004, 09:01:04 AM by Bromley »

Strategy

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
    • micabyte.com
Re:Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2004, 11:18:09 PM »
Thanks for the post - sounds great. I may indeed be underestimating the supply requirements of cavalry; I will need to reconsider that.

Issues about water I may have to let slide, at least for now, in the interest of playability and complexity (i.e., less work for me to finish the game).

Quote
All these amounts would increase when the units were not campaigning by ~50%, if I understood the article correctly.

That sounds funny. Only just skimmed the article (bookmarked it for later reading), but why do you think this is so? (Didn't see anything to indicate this).

---

Regarding the game, I can say that so far I haven't made much changes in the game mechanics from what is written above. The main change I am thinking of adding right now is to introduce a specific order to create supply depots, rather than having "supply units". This has several effects - it simplifies things somewhat, but also opens up for various strategies and possibilities.

Having supplies will require the dedication of scarce ressources (namely a character's orders). Depots will of course be vulnerable to raids and attacks, which means that there is an additional concern to keep in mind when attacking the enemy. It's not yet been implemented, though, and I shall have to analyze the effects on the AI first before I introduce this element into the game.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2004, 11:27:12 PM by Strategy »

Bromley

  • Quirite
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2004, 08:53:21 PM »
Belated reply.  I understand the pressures to simplify and agree that it's necessary and desirable.  I was just providing a little info to help you :) .

I wish that I'd been clearer first time about the increased supply thing when not campaigning (when I was certain of what I meant :) ).  I think (but haven't reread the article) that the point was that when stationed in a town people eat more, whereas when they have to campaign in enemy territory (and they therefore have to carry everything they don't steal), they tend to get less to eat.

Strategy

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
    • micabyte.com
Re: Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2004, 11:39:01 PM »
The effect would be subsumed in the game in any case. Under the current rules, units garrisoned are automatically supplied by the city in which they are garrisoned (this was very common at least in the Hellenistic world - make the protected pay for their own protection). This is a useful way to reduce upkeep for forces without disbanding them, as well ensuring that the supply situation is handled (cities are generally assumed to have sufficient supplies unless under siege).

If the garrisoning army is very large compared to the city size, though; they may end up being a bit unhappy wrt the garrisoning (so it is hopefully not something that can be exploited without repercussions).

barritus

  • Quirite
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • I love YaBB 1 Gold!
Re: Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2005, 09:16:44 PM »
I see that the movement rate is the same for clear, steppe, and desert. Travelling in sand is much more difficult than hard turf, however, I'm sure you have your reasons. Will camel mounted soldiers gain movement rate bonuses over horse cavalry in the desert?

Strategy

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
    • micabyte.com
Re: Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2005, 11:05:52 AM »
Depends. Stuff like movement rates is data-driven (i.e., moddable), so the precise configuration will also depend on playtesting.

Dan Antonescu

  • Quirite
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • RoT lead game-designer
    • Realms of Torment
Re: Design Data: On Land Movement & Attrition
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2008, 11:05:12 AM »
you may want to read this ALL:

The Logistics of the Roman Army in the Jewish War
by Jonathan Philip Roth

Found it while I was searching for documentation for the ancient historical strategical/tactical game project I'm working on. I have a txt version of it compiled by myself, but it's not the final version yet (as it needs more checking/corrections). Send me an email if you want it.

PS: you might also want to check
Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army by Donald W. Engels
The Logistics of the Roman Army at War, (264 B.C., A.D. 235) by the same Jonathan Philip Roth
« Last Edit: May 15, 2008, 11:17:23 AM by Dan Antonescu »
RoT lead game-designer