like somebody says on this thread "the best ideas are the ones that can be improved"

i think your suggestion is great. so if you are researching a war tech you get a labs bonus. if you are researching a peace tech you get a labs penalty. i like it!

Problem: Democracies are terrible for war. This means that a despot can go invading you with an inferior army and not fear severe reprisals until you manage to change governments. What a pain. While some may argue that the benefits of a democracy outweigh this disadvantage, I disagree. I think that democracies SHOULD receive severe happiness penalties if attacking a rival civilization, but SHOULD NOT receive happiness penalties, or should receive a lesser happiness penalty, if the rival civilization struck the first blow.

Example: WW II. After Pearl Harbor the majority of Americans were pissed off enough to not give the government a "happiness penalty". There were still plenty of unhappy people, but this was mostly due to the fact that there was a war and not due to the fact that the AMerican government was involved with it.
HOWEVER:
The Vietnam War eventually got the American people so riled up that some historians actually think that he civil unrest may have eventually started a revolution. The doves began to outnumber the hawks and the government was severely criticized. Much unhappiness was caused, not because there was a war, but because the US government was involved with it.

Solution: As a Democracy/Republic:
If a rival civilization declares war on you, your citizens do not become as unhappy as they normally would while your military units are away from their home bases. However, as soon as the war ends, you had better get those units home as soon as possible.
If a rival civilization attacks you, you citizens will not become as unhappy as they normally would while your military units are away from their home bases. Your Senate will not accept peace until the rival civilization has paid for its crimes against your civilization.
The more a rival civilization differs from your own in social engineering choices, the less unhappy your citizens will be while you are at war with that civilization and the less willing your Senate will be to make peace.
If a rival civilization commits atrocities against you, your citizens will demand vengeance (will not become unhappy AT ALL while your units are away from home) and, depending on the circumstances, your Senate might not make peace ever--it will demand that the rival civilization be eradicated completely.

You basically are saying that if someone commits an atrocity against you, your units in their territroy don't cause unhappiness?

Hey, if you want to weaken chariots and elephants more in bad terrain, OK. I think it's a bad idea, but a small bad idea. As the game is played, what you're talking about is mostly theoretical, since 1. If you have to go over mountains to attack, you are kinda stupid for trying. Wouldn't it be smarter to build a fortress in the mountains, put a phalanx/pikeman and an elephant in there, and go in the other direction, over plains and grasslands?!?!

Finally, what kind of rush games are you trying to avoid. Maybe it's just my patient, non-HG/ICS dependent style of play, but what you're talking about has never been a big issue for me. Even when I moved up to a new level and endured the requisite butt-kickings till I figured things out, I'd only lose a city here and there.

Flavor Dave: reaslism schmealism, I'm trying to make this a better game too, so don't go *****ing at me for throwing in the 'realism' factor. The primary reason I want this restriction on horses and chariots et al is because I HATE rush games, and if you increase the number of moves that units get (something I am in favor of) then you're going to get a game called "the fall of civilizations that didn't build horses and got whupped by the Mongols."

technophile,
"They're not going to CARE that Johnny might not come home from the war, because they know darn well that their ideals and their way of life is at stake."
I think this statement is what really describes the situation most democratic societies look at. True, a sneak attack will unite people behind their leaders, as will sustained attack that cannot be fought against (bombings of Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia). But a more important factor is the values of the society. 2 examples:
WWII- Germany & Japan threaten free world, and have shown the power to do so. It is important to our values, and has moral justification. Little unrest.

Vietnam-A small country with little ability to threaten the free world. Many Americans (including many troops) view their fight as a fight against colonial rule. America was founded on anti-colonialism. Little importance to our values, has no moral justification; even opposed to our morals. Much unrest at home, loss of morale in troops.

Units should require lots of stuff for supply. Food, Resources, and Money. Each one should need a different amount of each. For example, a huge, poorly trained army could take lots of food but very little money. Highly skilled mercenaries would take more money, and perhaps fewer resources (they're going to be very efficient.) Units that start out normal and become veteran will give you the bonus without the increase, so that there's a major incentive to make your own veterans, rather than build units as elite troops.

Kevin's Semi-Hashed Out Supply System:

This goes along with the Orders suggestions I've posted in Combat.

In order for this system to work best, I've adopted Maniac's x10 system (all resources + costs are multiplied by 10, i.e. grasslands produce 20 food but citizens also eat 20 food; allows for greater flexibility in production).

For the purposes of my system, I will assume that all minerals are in the form of Shields. My system will require some minor changes if Commodities are used instead.

********THE SYSTEM*********

All units require three things for support: gold, shields, and food.

All resources for a unit come from one city, which is not necessarily its home city. Effeciency, an SE factor, will determine how well supplies reach the unit, as well as:
-the distance from the supplying city,
-the distance from a friendly country's border,
-city improvements in supplying city (see below),
-terrain improvements connecting unit to supplying city.
For example, let's say that a tank requires 8 shields each turn (I'll only talk about shields in this example, it makes it simpler; and remember, the x10 system is being used). One square holds 2 tanks, one supplied from New York, one supplied from Anchorage Alaska. We'll assume that all of my ideas regarding movement are accepted, and that Paths (1/2), Improved Roads (1/5), Bessemer Railroads (1/20), Maglevs (unlimited), and Vacuum Tubes (unlimited, can go underwater) are used. The number of moves it would have to expend to reach NYC is 2, thanks to the infrastructure. NYC also has a Supply Depot and Ammo Dump (see below), and the Civ's Effeciency is 3. End result, Tank A, supplied from NYC, is receiving supplies at 90% effeciency, and requires only 9 shields to be supplied each turn. HOWEVER, Anchorage is 8 MP's away from the tanks, has no ammo dump, and no Supply Depot. Tank B is receiving shields at 25% effeciency and must receive 32 shields each turn to remain supplied.

Units require food every turn (say, 1 food, which isn't that bad since the x10 system is being used). If they do not receive food for 2 turns in a row (we'll assume that they have stored body fats or something), they recieve damage. Food is gathered either by foraging or by shipment. If foraged, there is no wastage, and the square that the unit is resting on produces 1 less food for that turn. This would only be a problem, obviously, in a city square. Food can also be shipped at a cost of additional shields (1 shield per food, plus ineffeciencies).

Shields must come from an outside source. Different units require different expenditures: tanks need, say, 8 shields, while explorers might not need any! Units have a supply bar to show how many supplies they have on hand, and different orders require different supply expenditures. VERY rough numbers would be:
-Fortified units require 1 shield expenditure each turn, and 5 per time unit defends.
-Holding units require 1 shield expenditure each turn, and 5 per time unit defends.
-Ambushing units require 2 shield expenditure each turn (stealth in moving resources around is required), and 10 for the ambush.
-Delaying units require 3 shield expenditure each turn, and 10 for each time attacked
-Retreating costs 10
-Raiders INCREASE their supplies by 5
-Blitzers require 5 shield expenditure each turn, 30 per attack
-Movement requires 5 shield expenditure for ground units, 2 for air units, 1 for sea units. This is multiplied by the terrain defense % (rougher terrain requires more supplies to move through). These numbers are doubled for Blitzers.
--There is a method to my madness, particularly with Blitzers. A Blitz is wonderful for attack but terrible for defense, since you've left your support vehicles and infantry in the dust.
*-*Each unit has 100 supplies on its supply bar. The bar is normally blue. When the bar falls below 25% the bar turns purple and the unit moves at 50% (low on fuel, let's say). When the supply bar falls to 0, the unit CANNOT MOVE, receives -75% to ATT and -50% to DEF.

Gold is easy: every unit requires gold (wages) unless your SE settings make it so you don't have to pay them (Theocracy, for example), while other SE settings will make you pay them more (Democracy, I suppose). If you don't pay them for one turn, the unit is marked so that you can see it and an enemy with any scouting ability whatsoever can also see it, the unit is more easily bribed, and Mercenary units will disband/fight for the other side. After 2 turns, the unit fights at -25% for ATT and DEF, and after 3 turns, the unit disbands. Gold is subtracted automatically from your treasury, and is not affected by supply lines or anything of that nature.

x10. That was Maniac? Well, I agree it should be used.

Commodities should only matter for trade purposes. I oppose needing specific ones for unit/building construction.

Gold, shields, food, is good.

Do you have a formula for this, or are you pulling numbers out of a hat?

The thing about foraging, in the case of an army, is that in order to get enough to feed the army it has to be a farm.

You already have a good idea about how I feel about most of these combat missions. As for a supply bar, this can be assumed in the hit points of the unit. When it takes damage in combat part of that is consumed supplies.

Well, as I said, I would like discussion of resources and unit support costs moved to the economics thread.

I want this thread to concentrate on movement and supply ideas; let me quote my proposal [stepping up on soap box].

quote:

---

Supply has no effect on unit support costs, only on effectiveness of that support reaching the unit. Supply is a generalization of whether that unit has instantaneous access to supplies (the resources modeled as well as unmodeled) and communications, and whether the unit has freedom to move unhindered. Supply rules are a nod of recognition that the supply line of a fighting unit is far more vulnerable than the unit itself.

---

Another point, especially pertinent by the time your civ would have armor units and RR, is that support need not physically come from Anchorage (using your example). Instead, although Anchorage foots the bill, they can buy with money and trade their goods for support from sources nearby the armor unit. Especially when NYC and Anchorage are the same civ! If support materials are to come from a friendly power there might be some slight inflation of the cost, while a neutral or wary state might add a significant surcharge (but probably never equal to the unmodified support cost). This too, can be dictated by the supply conditions.

First, I'll finish up, then I'll address the issues posted so far.

AIR SUPERIORITY:
Enemy air superiority will greatly increase the ineffeciency with which resources reach your troops. Air superiority is determined by:
-distance of enemy aircraft from your unit(s)
-ATT strength of enemy aircraft
-quantity of enemy aircraft
AND the same three factors in relation to your aircraft, allied aircraft, and neutral aircraft.
Quantity x Avg. Distance x Avg ATT Strength will give both your and the enemy's Air Power Factor (APF). Allied aircraft will add their full APF to your total. Neutral aircraft will only add to your APF if they are at war with your enemy (they'll knock down his aircraft, if not in defense of you, then just for the sake of knocking them down). Ground AA does not add to APF but decreases the other side's APF. Enemy APF - Your APF gives the effeciency modifier, which cannot be negative (if your APF is greater than the enemy's, then air superiority has no effect on your supply lines).
I don't know what numbers should be used here. Let's say, the enemy has APF 20 greater than yours, so your effeciency decreases by 20%. This CAN reduce effeciency to zero!

SEA SUPPLIES:
Distance and movement rates are the greatest determinants of supply effeciency. For sea supplies, I'll say that the MP's required for supply movement are (1/MP's of fastest vessel).

AIR SUPPLIES and ZOC's:
If enemy ZOC's completely surround your unit, effeciency drops to 0%, UNLESS you have discovered flight. If you have discovered flight than supplies can be airdropped in. This is a much less effecient method of transport, however, due to the danger and the fuel used. If you must resort to air transport, then enemy ground AA will add to the enemy's APF (instead of just subtracting from your own) and if the enemy has a greater APF than you your effeciency will drop by ((what it would normally drop by) x 1.5). This is because your supply 'copters are being damaged and/or shot down, and you must expend greater resources (shields) towards their repair/replacement. This is in addition to a penalty incurred from the simple fact that air drops are being used (fuel expenditure). This last penalty is significantly decreased if there is an Airport TI or friendly city within range of your stranded unit(s).

CITY IMPROVEMENTS: Supply Depot and Ammo Dump. I have no idea what these should cost for upkeep or shields, or what techs should be required for them. What the Supply Depot and Ammo Dump do is increase effeciency for all supplies doled out by the city they are located in.

TERRAIN IMPROVEMENTS:
Airport: Same as usual, except that they affects the effeciency with which air drops are carried out. IMO, they should also decrease ineffeciency for ALL supplied units in range of them, but this is highly debateable (not that everything else I've said isn't )
Port: Increases effeciency for sea supplies. Takes awhile to build, costs money to build, and can be destroyed from sea (even from units that don't bombard).
Train Station (these have been suggested as ways to prevent getting onto and off of railroads from anywhere): Increases effeciency for rail supplies (or maglev supplies, if it's a Maglev Station).
Relay Station: Increases effeciency for all ground supplies. Doesn't take as much time to build as a railroad, costs money to build.
-Purpose behind having TI's playing a part in supply: If the Raid order is used (see Combat) and/or if Bombard units can destroy TI's, then these would give extra targets to be wiped out; cut the enemy's supply, the unit dies/is easy pickings for your bombers. Additionally, the Relay Station would serve the purpose of increasing effeciency for field operations where there might not be time to build enough infrastructure to have effecient supplying. Also good if the enemy is using a scorched earth policy.

Theben:

Yup, I'm pulling numbers out of a hat. Take all numbers I give with a grain of salt--they are meant only to be used relative to each other. I have no idea how many supplies a tank needs, but it seems to make sense that they need more than explorers, that's all. Also, for the different unit orders requiring different supplies, that was to demonstrate that some orders will be "safe", i.e. will leave the army prepared to fight a long drawn out engagement, while other orders will be "dangerous", or will leave the unit ripe for a counterattack. For example, if you have a tank unit that Blitzes 3 times, it now only has 10 supplies left. A couple of enemy partisans can reduce that down to 0 supplies, and now the tank is as good as dead. Food was identical--the x10 system makes it possible to feed an army. If you feed an army 1 food and your plains produce 20, no problem. If you feed an army 1 food and your plains produce 2, that's a problem.

As for the Supply Bar, I still contend that supplies are different enough from combat damage that they should have a separate bar. Supplies are used up even if the unit isn't damaged at all--bullets get used up, swords get blunted, etc. What's more, an undersupplied army can still fight fine, just not as well, and being undersupplied is more easily fixed than being damaged. An infantry unit without bullets (0 supplies on the supply bar) is in trouble, but is still alive. In one turn, with adequate supplies and adequate effeciency, that unit can get all the bullets it needs, and is now at full fighting strength (100 supplies). However, if everyone in that unit is missing a leg and an arm (10% health), it doesn't matter how many supplies you give them, they're still going to be screwed the next turn (maybe a few of them grew new arms. Great. Now they're at 15% health). And finally, Blitzing (and other supply-intensive orders) does not damage the attacking army, it just leaves it open to attack.

Don Don:

Don't worry, I'm not pretending that I know how many supplies every unit should get. I was just giving a few fr'instances for the sake of comparison.

As for strictly having reduced ATT/DEF instead of increased supply costs, I'll check that out in greater detail, but I'm a little opposed to the idea. Just because an infantry unit is far away doesn't mean that it doesn't have enough bullets to fight (reduced ATT/DEF), it just means that you've got to work harder to get the bullets to where they're supposed to go (you've got to burn coal to fuel your trains, so you expend more supplies).

As for the Anchorage/NYC problem: if Theben's idea is used and you can instantly change the unit's "home city" at any time, then you would just make it so BOTH tanks are supplied from NYC. No problem. The example I gave is assuming that, for whatever reason, you don't have enough war materiel being produced in NYC to support both tanks, so you have to make Anchorage the second supplying city.

As for buying supplies from friendly/neutral Civ's to decrease ineffeciency, I like this idea. Spend gold, get shields and/or food. But, this is assuming that the other civs have the war materiel to sell to you (not every general store has tank treads). Solution: you work out a trade agreement (I know, wrong thread!) with the other Civ stating that that Civ will provide X supplies for Y gold each turn. If you spend too much gold and have extra supplies, tough luck. If the Civ doesn't own up to their side of the bargain, and they do so repeatedly, it is reason to declare war, even in Democracy. This would allow for supply buying in both single and multi-player.

Only thing I would change is to pool all the supply produced in a region or your civ. Supply is automatically distributed in the most effecient manner, and the surplus is stored in your cities (decays gradually) like food and resources. If supply runs out there is a preference to set to automatically begin using gold/production.
It is a big pain having to worry about which city your unit is home to to get the best effeciency.

If that takes too mcuh CPU time, just calculate the effeciency based on the nearest city and give a modifier based on overall transport infrastructure.

We could also require supplys to be used to repair units. This would tend to take much more than general mainenance (~ 4-10 x, depending on the repair rate)

Want to add something, but I don't know if it belongs here (Support is not in the thread's title).

If you build a unit, 100 or 200 (x10) food icons should be deleted out of the food storage box to simulate the loss of population by men leaving the city and going in a military unit.
So building military units all the time, seriously slows pop growth.
If there are less than 20 food icons left, in the box the population of the city could decrease!

Didn't know if you'd be looking at the TM's Check In thread, but figured you'd notice if the 25 day old Movement thread got bumped...

You want me to start on the summary for this here thread? You'd stated previously that you were having difficulties.

3.2) "Air units in transit between stations pass over ground/sea units, cities, and bases w/o attacking or landing."

Just checked the summary, nice work, but is the deployment model in there? I didn't see it, but I could have missed it...

I was assuming they meant when you move a plane unit over a ship. If we use deployment the hole situation is avoided, as you don't move the actual unit, you just tell it where to go.
That is probably the biggest plus of deployment, you don't have to watch every bloody armour move from one end of you civ to the other every turn when doing a blitz, you just tell them to go there and they appear the next turn.

I think your comments were on one of the older threads, which I only skimmed to give ideas a chance to jump out at me. If Yin delays to allow those with too much time on their hands to summarize delinquent threads that can be amended.