Supply

[Neutrino 123]

I'll start this thread with a question:

Do you think that the Germans had many casulties due to non-combat attrition while the French were all diseaseless and happy during WWI on the west front?

The answer is clearly no.

Supply and non-combat attrition modeling in Victoria seems to be very flawed, but a simple and hopefully easily-implementable fix is possible that would at least bring it up to EUII standards.

You see, in Victoria non-combat attrition (henceforth refered to as simply attrition) is modeled as though the units were foraging for supplies solely in the province they are in. This was the case at least partially in many battles in the era, but later on, most importantly in World War One, armies mostly obtained all supply directly from their homeland.

Here is my proposal. The attrition system would remain the same except for the following changes:

1. The only units that suffer attrition in friendly controlled (not owned!) provinces are those adajecent to enemy units.

2. The stacking limit (before an additional stacking penalty is incurred) is increased to say, roughly 10.

If there is any interest or chance that these ideas can be implemented, I will post some more detailed explanations and rational for them.

 

[Waffen9999]

I agree that if hostilities exist between nations than yes troops facing each other across provinces should suffer some kidn of attrtion. >could be represented as random artillery fire or raiding parties back and forth< But if in peace time I wouldn't like the idea of suffering attrition along the borders. The computer would have no problem restaffing it's armies >the computer lines up the borders in preperation of trench warfare<

 

[Neutrino 123]

Ah, but I said 'enemy' units, not neutral. Don't forts work sort of like this too?

 

[Memnon]

Ah, but I said 'enemy' units, not neutral. Don't forts work sort of like this too?

Yes, they do.

 

[Darkrenown]

If there is any interest or chance that these ideas can be implemented, I will post some more detailed explanations and rational for them.

I don't know how likely a change to the supply model is, but post more details

 

[Memnon]

Don't forget that attrition also represents desertion, which would affect units in friendly-controlled provinces.

 

[Jerzy_I]

Not to mention disease that was a killer when large bodies of men were together in field conditions.

Would be nice if this sort of thing was implemented .

 

[Memnon]

Not to mention disease that was a killer when large bodies of men were together in field conditions.

Would be nice if this sort of thing was implemented .

It is. The more troops in a province, the higher attrition gets. In large wars, it's not uncommon to see armies with attrition rates of up to 33%

 

[Darkrenown]

3k posts. Congrats, Memnon

 

[unmerged(30848)]

Yes, most of the attrition in Victoria is due to desertions. Guys don't like to be stationed overseas, and they'll sneak off if they can. This is why leaders with a reliability bonus often decrease

I would like to see a supply model more akin to that of HoI: supply is traced from the unit to the nation's capital via land and/or convoys. If no intact supply line exists, then the unit begins to decay. I would also like to see a reduction in the monetary army maintenance cost, while making each unit consume a basic amount of canned food, clothing, alcohol, and ammunition.
Attrition checks should be made more often, like once a week. There should be an separate maintenance slider for each unit, so that the army is not overly rigid in its capabilities.

How about, up until Statistics or Logistics (under Military Science) is researched, units basically forage in their current province, with the cost of their upkeep inversely related to the provincial life rating, infrastructure, RGO level, % of population of national culutre, and proximity to large friendly cities. Attrition would be increased by swamp/desert/frozen terrain, proximity of enemy forces, stacking penalty, and high militancy/revolt risk in the province, and would be decreased be good leaders and medical techs. Units being transported by ship should suffer a loss to org rather than to strength, and their combined strength ought not to exceed the combined strength of the transports carrying them.

After the aforementioned tech has been researched, unit maintenance would become even cheaper if a supply line via rail or convoy could be traced to the capital. Base attrition would decrease, and stacking penalty be decreased as well.

Before Naval Logistics, naval units should suffer increased attrition while blockading, in stormy seas, and after having been at sea too long. Attrition would be decresed within a certain distance of a friendly port, and with good leadership. After Naval Logistics, friendly ports will decrease attrition from a farter distance, and unit maintenance costs less in cash and goods.

 

[unmerged(26608)]

I agree with the original post in theory. It's a good point. But here's a counter-point:

We would expect units in enemy owned territory, whether friendly-controlled or not, to experience higher attritition than units stationed on own-territory.

As pointed out, it would be a pain in the ass to have to continually reinforce units who were heavily entrenched on inactive fronts.

Maybe then we can think of the 3% attrition being the excess attrition over the own-territory attrition? Yes, units in own-territory would experience attrition, (say 3%), but if units in enemy-territory would really experience 6%, it may make sense to change 3 and 6 to 0 and 3.

 

[Neutrino 123]

Don't forget that attrition also represents desertion, which would affect units in friendly-controlled provinces.

Compared to disease, desertion is historically a small factor in attrition. Also, it would apply to all units during wartime (and sometimes peacetime), not just those next to enemies. It would mostly happen during actual battles, too. Due to these factors, I would say that desertion is too complex to model corretly in a reasonable amount of time and wouls also have to small an effect to be worthwhile.

Combat desertion is probably already handeled by morale.

 

[Neutrino 123]

Not to mention disease that was a killer when large bodies of men were together in field conditions.

Would be nice if this sort of thing was implemented .

This already is. All armies of decent size, say, 10,000 would suffer attrition from concentration (disease). However, a much larger army would suffer only a somewhat hight percentage of attrition (more chance to start a disease). Thinking about this, I suggest:

Instead of changing the stacking limit to ten, make the penealty for overstacking an additional .1% rather then 1%. . This would be much better.

Consider the following example of my proposal:

The Army of the Potomac faces off the Army of Northern Virgina and is camped in Manassas. The Army of the Potomac is of roughly historical size, say 120,000, and sits for a year because the Union player was so very absorbed in the west that he forgot about them. The leader has no attrition or reliability modifier, so the base attrition in the normal game is 3%. The Union player has 12 divisions, so is 8 over the stacking limit. That's 11% attrition monthly! By the end of the year the army is reduced to a measely 30,000. The army of Northern Virginia is in home territory, though, so it takes zero attrition regardless of size.

With my supply system, the Union army is next to an enemy army in a friendly controlled area, so it does take attrition losses. Eight over the stacking limit adds .8% to the base 3%. Therefore, the Union army is down to 75,000. The Army of Northern Virginia is in home territory, but is not happily sheltered. It is facing an enemy army, so it takes attrition. Assuming a leader with no attrition bonus (if Lee has an attrition or reliablity bonus, he is on vacation in Hawaii), the Army of Northern Virginia is 70,000 strong, 3 over the attrition limit. Therefore, it suffers 3.3% monthly attrition bringing it down to 55,000 at the end of one year.

Note that north lost 360,000 men is the Civil War of which 250,000 were due to 'attrition' (our definition). The south lost 260,000 men of which 166,000 were due to attrition.

By the way Cro-Magnon Man, those are good ideas, but there are some additional things that would neccerily increase the complexity even more if we implemented them. I am trying to keep things as simple as possible.

It seems to me that reliability has too great an effect on attrition, but I suppose that is another topic...

 

[Neutrino 123]

I agree with the original post in theory. It's a good point. But here's a counter-point:

We would expect units in enemy owned territory, whether friendly-controlled or not, to experience higher attritition than units stationed on own-territory.

As pointed out, it would be a pain in the ass to have to continually reinforce units who were heavily entrenched on inactive fronts.

Maybe then we can think of the 3% attrition being the excess attrition over the own-territory attrition? Yes, units in own-territory would experience attrition, (say 3%), but if units in enemy-territory would really experience 6%, it may make sense to change 3 and 6 to 0 and 3.

If both countries have firmly established supply lines and similar living conditions, why would the territory fought over matter to attrition?

It is true that a unit on garrison duty would suffer more attrition then a unit stationed in home territory (both units not on the front lines), but this difference would probably be rather small. Both would have similar accomadations, but the one in enemy territory still might have some duties to attend to. Nevertheless, both units would be less likely to suffer from disease since they would have good lodgings (no large concentration of me in poor conditions).

Thinking a little more, I now say that units in enemy owned territory (not next to enemies) are still subject to overstacking attrition, but the base attrition is zero. In enemy controlled territory with no adjacent enemy units, the base attrition is 1%. No perfect, but better.

Possibly more later. Any more questions/comments? Esspecially on the feasibility of implementing this system

 

[unmerged(30848)]

By the way Cro-Magnon Man, those are good ideas, but there are some additional things that would neccerily increase the complexity even more if we implemented them. I am trying to keep things as simple as possible.

It seems to me that reliability has too great an effect on attrition, but I suppose that is another topic...

The German in me is saying "Complexity, yes, yes ... the more the merrier!" I'd prefer a more complex system that I thought modelled reality more accurately. I can't command a 19th Century army, so Vicky is all I gots. My more complex suggestions are usually intended for people who might be responsible for a Vicky 2.

I think reliability ought to affect the desertion modifier only. During war, all friendly units ought to suffer a 1% desertion rate (3% is too boku), while units in enemy-owned territory ought to suffer an additional 0.5 - 1% occupation rate (due to the activity of partisans and bushwhackers). Units adjacent to enemy units might suffer another 1% skirmishing modifier.

 

[unmerged(30848)]

Anybody else think it odd that Level 4 fortification causes attrition? I mean, look at the picture. It's a freakin' hole in the ground. Level 3, on the other hand, has guns sticking out of it all over the place. Clearly, Level 3 should cause like 18 million percent attrition.

 

[Memnon]

Anybody else think it odd that Level 4 fortification causes attrition? I mean, look at the picture. It's a freakin' hole in the ground. Level 3, on the other hand, has guns sticking out of it all over the place. Clearly, Level 3 should cause like 18 million percent attrition.

Well, I think it's a bit of a mistake that they used trenches as a type of fortification. i prefer to think of the higher levels of forts as just more massive buildings rather than more intricate holes.

 

[Neutrino 123]

I like complexity too, but the more complex a proposal, the less likely it is to be implemented. By the way, it is my opinion that adajecent forts should NOT affect attrition at all.

For desertions, I found that the Confederacy lost about 104,000 troops, but of those, about 1/3 returned, so say 70,000. I couldn't find the Union figures. Compae this to the percentage of Confederates killed by disease. It is pretty small, and the percentage shrinks more when one realizes that there were probably several soldiers inflicted with disease that did not die, but were not returned to their units. Therefore, desertions should be about 1% for the Civil war. However, I don't think there should be any desertion attrition in the game (the base 3% would represent disease). This is because that more soldiers deserted in the civil war then in other major wars (because of large numbers of soldiers in a protracted campaign near their homeland and before good monitering). In addition, if the 'spikes' in desertion are counted (shortly after soldiers are recruited and very close to the end of the war) this percentage drops even more.