Encirclement - Not Really (Supply Lines Actually)

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Encirclement - Not Really (Supply Lines Actually)

      Plenty has been said about this topic, and here's a different twist on the concept.

      When we're talking about Encirclement of units, what we are truly talking about is SEPARATING those units from their SUPPLY LINES. Leaving them without resources to continue fighting as they run out of ammo, spare parts, food, fuel and such....

      I'm not sure which which of these ways would be easier to implement, but her's the idea.

      Proposal

      New Building - Supply Lines (SL) / Supply Depot (SD)

      Cost - 50 Cargo, 1000 cash
      Maint - 0 cost
      Build Time - 1 hr
      Hitpoints - 10
      Building Requirements - This buildings must make a continuous "Line" to the Capitol of either the owner OR a coalition member. When connected to a PORT, they immediately connect via oceans to all other shores, and need a "Receiving" Port to continue on fronts overseas.
      Ability - Province with Supply Lines (Depots) + All adjacent territories = Units Heal (15% of all damage taken) at Day End
      Penalty - Any Province NOT adjacent to Supply lines = units can't heal and take 15% damage at Day End

      (e.g. - UK player Capitol is London, player builds Port and Supply Lines in PORTSMOUTH, and now all seas, and oceans are "conduits" that count as Supply Lines and any Overseas Port would be a continuation of these Supply Lines. If the Port gets destroyed, all units overseas would suffer damage if not "connected" to LONDON via Supply Lines at day change)


      B) This one would be more difficult to implement

      Same effects as above except instead of being adjacent to Supply Lines, units must be within certain range of nearest SL, for example the player's current Fighter Range.

      C) Final addition to the concept

      Additional Order available for TB units - Air Drop - Works same as "Attack" order, except it prevents unit out of reach of Supply Lines to be safe on NEXT day change.

      (e.g. UK player has a 3 unit stack outside of Supply Lines range/reach, but within TB range, so sets TB to Air Drop to unit during the day with 3 TB's and units are protected, if he only had 1 TB in range, he could only safe one of those units and the other two (chosen at random) would take damage)

      ---------
      This in effect DOES NOT actually represent the Encirclement tactics per se as used during WWII, but addresses a key feature that does play into the "Keeping your men fed, armed and fueled" that did play a key role during the war.

      ADDED NOTES

      ALSO - Supply Depots ONLY extend their Sphere of Influence to Adjacent Territories, they DO NOT RECEIVE that influence from adjacent territories, they ONLY receive that influence from Adjacent Supply Depots. (what I mean here is that to extend the benefit, you must have a CONTINUOUS series of adjacent provinces with Supply Depots extending uninterrupted back to the capitol, you can't build a Supply Depot, leave a province empty (byt under the influence of an SD, then build another SD on the opposite side of the "Gap".

      Example

      A* - A1* - A2* - A3 *- A4* - A5* - A6*
      C* - P1* - P2* - P3* - P4*- P5* - P6*

      B* - B1* - B2* - B3* - B4* - B5* - B6*


      C = Capitol
      * = Province under Effect of Supply Drop
      All Letters represent provinces which are connected horizontally, vertically and diagnally (P3 is connected North, South, East and West as well as diagonally to A2, B2, A4 & B4)

      Starting Capitol player builds Supply Depots in P1 - P2 - P3 - P4- P5, The Capitol (C) has an area effect on A, A1, P1, B & B1. Once the P5 SD is built, every province is now supplied and healing.

      If the P3 SD gets destroyed, the Effect would end at A3, P3, B3 since P4 has no adjacent SD connected to the Capitol and DOES NOT receive Effect from P3 (SD was destroyed)

      A* - A1* - A2* - A3 *- A4 - A5 - A6
      C* - P1* - P2* - P3* - P4- P5 - P6
      B* - B1* - B2* - B3* - B4 - B5 - B6
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by OneNutSquirrel ().

    • I love the idea. One thing I cam concerned is the new building, when conquering having that building will be a huge obstacle. You will have to build a lot and it generally slows you down. Do you think if it would be better if it is invisible "lines" that supply units?
      Ryan
      EN/ES/IT Forum Member
      Call of War Technician Fourth Grade
      Forum Brigadier General
      Training Alliance Leader
      Clash of Nation &Supremacy 1914 Forum Member
      Lance Corporal Supremacy
      Bytro/Dorado Fan


      Taking over the forum each post!

      It is almost Christmas! Hooray!
      "Truce happened during Christmas between the Germans and the British units, how is THAT believable?"
      -American Soldier
    • Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      Do you think if it would be better if it is invisible "lines" that supply units?
      I think that supply lines back to the country's capital would be probably the easiest way to implement this in software code for the developer ... In some of the 'manual' Avalon Hill games that I played when younger last century, I believe that there was a reduction of military capability for units cut off from their supply lines ... 8)
    • Supply line would then be better to be a "line" then a building. That way, there will be roads in the areas where you have access to the line. Maybe consider the "line" as a upgrade of an airport because a lot of resources are carried by plane.
      Ryan
      EN/ES/IT Forum Member
      Call of War Technician Fourth Grade
      Forum Brigadier General
      Training Alliance Leader
      Clash of Nation &Supremacy 1914 Forum Member
      Lance Corporal Supremacy
      Bytro/Dorado Fan


      Taking over the forum each post!

      It is almost Christmas! Hooray!
      "Truce happened during Christmas between the Germans and the British units, how is THAT believable?"
      -American Soldier
    • Think of the "Supply Lines" building as "Supply Depot" (going to change the name in original post...) which affects that province and all adjacent provinces. If you are not in it's "Sphere of Influence".. you are penalized.

      And the quick build of it was intentional so that it did not hinder advancement, yet easy enough to knock out as disturbances in supply lines were easy to disrupt (even though temporary and easily remedied)

      Added a little explanation for area of effect in the original post.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by OneNutSquirrel ().

    • Hmmm,

      I do not think this is a very good idea.

      Someone above said you must have a directly supply line, (either from yourself or by a coalition member), leading directly back to your capital. First, I would say it should be back to your core but even that I don't like.

      This obviously is for those that love Coalitions. I for one don't. So here is a question. What happens to those of us that like playing solo. How would I get a supply line from my core or capital if I am not in a coalition but only have say NAP agreements with my neighbors?

      I for one do not give out SM that often unless I have made an alliance with another nation. Don't get me wrong, I will join or form a coalition at times. For me though, I never join or start a coalition in the first 15 to 20 days of a map. I like to give it time to figure out who is who, who is going to go inactive and who out there is a bully, rude or obnoxious. I also want to see if I can win it as an independent first. For those of you that played this game before coalitions were implemented into the game, I am sure you understand what I am saying.

      Again, direct lines leading back to your capital or core is going to hurt people that play or at least start off as independents and help people that are in coalitions. It was a terrible idea to take away resource trading to all players that were not in a coalition but allow it between coalition members.

      It always seems like ideas come out to give an advantage of being in a coalition. The advantage is already there. You are part of a team that in concept, hopes and dreams that everyone in the coalition will help and support each other. How about giving some advantages to us independent players, (joking of course).

      Not sure what else to say other than why are we trying to throw out things that make the game more complicated? How does the newbie ever get ahead and not just get destroyed like they already do?

      Just my humble thoughts.

      General cdub
    • 15 times in your post you used " I ".... simply put, how you play or why you play the way you do was irrelevant to the reasons for this suggestion (as all of my suggestions have been so far) this suggestion was not about you, or anyone else's play style or lack or play with style...

      It was simply about trying to make the game realistic to what was happening during WWII and to add game elements which represent those conditions.

      Having Supply lines, a connection to food, ammo, parts and fuel was an element of any and every war since antiquity.

      Ignore your personal preferences for a moment and try to evaluate the suggestion on it's merits or lack thereof.

      Does this suggestion represent a realistic (in game mechanic terms) representation of the situation as it existed on the ground during WWII.

      [__} Yes
      {__} Maybe, some improvements are needed... this is what you could do...
      {__} No this doesn't represent anything close to conditions which existed during WWII

      As for Coalition Games
      Actually had not though about "Coalition" mechanics.... so yes, it makes sense that units benefit by being under influence of their own Supply Depot OR that of a coalition member.

      Connection to Capitol or Core
      Core would be easier and makes perfect sense. Also any infrastructure improvements outside the Core should automatically be a Supply Depot as well.

      NAP or Shared Map
      Hmm... Need to think about this one a bit, not sure ATM
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by OneNutSquirrel ().

    • I sir was only sharing my simple thoughts.

      I do believe that a wise squirrel once said in reply to another one of my posts that you yourself had the right to share your thoughts.

      I personally do not like the idea of this. Simple as that. I don't see how this works for all players playing the game as independents.

      Show us how anyone that plays the game as an independent gets a supply line to all of his provinces throughout any of the maps. With that, I may change my mind about it.

      I do think in theory it is a realistic idea of how things work in the real world. But, if it is not tied into something that is available to those players that play as independents and do not join coalitions, then it is not a viable option. Again, just my thoughts. As I said before, I don't give sm to just anyone and it is rare when I do in the first place. Yes, I said I, but I am sure there are many peeps out there that feel the same way.

      I mean no disrespect to you sir, just sharing what I think and how it would work for all players no matter what their game style of play is.

      General cdub
    • Again General cdub you can't seem to get past this ONE all important point, namely;
      ... your personal thoughts are irrelevant... I'm sure American troops didn't like getting shot at either, didn't see any proposals for German and Japan to stop using guns because the other side "didn't like it"..

      Bytro removed Nuke powered ships because they did not fit in with the tech of the time. They added paratroopers because they DID fit in and were different enough from existing units to warrant having a separate unit dedicated to it. Your liking or disliking either idea did not come into the picture.

      It's about realism not your personal likes, and weather the feature fits into the RTS/TurnBased mix Bytro has implemented (RTS - Movement, TurnBased - Combat Ticks (kind of))

      Again, your personal opinions and likes are completely Irrelevant. I'm sure no one likes getting shot at, maybe we should remove all representations of weapons from the game?

      As for Individual play vs Teams... I do recall a certain "Axis vs Allies" references to WWII... and that sounds like a team affair to me.

      Non Aggression Pact
      Having though about this and simply put; An agreement NOT to shoot at each other is NOT an agreement to help each other. So NAP's that separate or cut supply lines, would in fact break them. For example... 5 player coalition, with Player A having walked through his ally then claim territories on the other side of the ally. Player A benefits from being covered by Ally's Supply Depo's. Ally goes AI and gets kicked from coalition and gets set to NAP.... Player A no longer protected and benefiting for any units on other side of former ally.

      Shared Map
      Same thing as above... sharing intel is not formal Coalition and only coalitions should benefit from Supply Depots.

      Solo Play
      1) Learn to make friends
      2) Failing 1).. Kill'em All
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

      The post was edited 2 times, last by OneNutSquirrel ().

    • Hmmmm,

      My dear sir,

      It would seem to me that what you are sharing is also your personal thoughts and beliefs of what may or may not be best for the game.

      I could be wrong, but I do not believe that Nuclear Powered Navy was being removed because it did not fit into the time era but more because nobody used them. As far as them being removed, at last look, they have yet to actually be removed. At least from what I see in my Tech Tree. Not that I ever research them. In fact, I have not researched any Nuke Based items for well over three years. Games just don't last that long anymore. As far as paratroopers being added, it was not due to it being from that time era but a request from many players dating back to early 2016.

      As far as making friends sir, I don't see how you can say that to me when we have never played in the same map from what I can remember. I make plenty of friends in a map. Hence how I am able to do fairly well as an independent. As a matter of fact, I would believe that Coalition members do not make friends, they are just forced into a relationship they may or may not like. I believe that Independents have to be very good at diplomacy and making friends, much better than those that just join what ever coalition that will take them.

      I have stated my reasons for not liking coalitions or at least in the opening days of a map. It is not like I never join coalitions, I just give it time to sort out who is who in a map.

      As I stated, show how all players either in a coalition or playing as an independent can benefit and not penalized from your idea.

      It would appear to me that you just want the entire game of COW to turn over to one big coalition/team game.

      Maybe instead COW should just make every map a team game such as it is with Dawn of the Patriot or any other team map. So you know, I play those maps as well.

      I mean no offense to you sir but you have been playing this game for just a few months and it seems every time I state my thoughts, you always seem to have a problem with it. I should say, you have been playing with this account for only a few months. Is it possible you had another account that you dumped and have been playing for much longer?

      You keep referring to my statements that it is only good for me. Yet, in every game I play, including the World Map I am playing now, well over half of the players are independent with 20 nations part of a coalition. Three of those coalitions only have 1 nation in it.

      So I ask you again and all you have to share is a solution to this topic,

      How does the other 25 nations in the map I am playing now expand or get around this? I believe it is a simple question sir.

      General cdub
    • New

      Here we go again,

      Not sure what you mean by trolling.

      I have addressed the issue. I have stated that I do not believe the suggestion is good for all that play Call of War and should not be implemented.

      Now sir, if you have a suggestion about this topic that would make sense for all players, those that choose not to join coalitions, then please do share those ideas or thoughts.

      There is nothing more to be said other than a solution that benefits either players style of play.

      With all due respect,

      General cdub
    • New

      Too many words for you and you get lost... now I understand...

      Lets dumb this process down.. way down and try it one at a time.

      ------

      Do military units in combat need supplies? Food, water, ammunition or spare parts?

      [__] Yes

      [__] No

      One word answer please.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by OneNutSquirrel ().

    • New

      Wow, your words sir are so respectful,

      So let me answer your questions.

      Yes they need supplies

      Yes it represents in the current game by way of building up your provinces that you currently own.

      Now, let me put a little survey for you sir. Like you said, just a yes or a no.


      Does the requirement of having a direct supply line back to your Capital or Core Provinces hinder those players that are not part of a coalition or have share map with other nations?

      [ ] Yes
      [ ] No

      Would this overall hurt the game more and cause players to quit a map as they could not expand any further than going to war with neighboring nations to keep that supply direct supply line open?

      [ ] Yes
      [ ] No

      I will share with you sir my answers.

      Question 1 Yes
      Question 2 Yes

      Unless you have a solution to the problem of your idea for those people that are playing in a map that are not part of a coalition or do not have Share Map with their neighbors, I don't believe there is anything more to be said about this idea of yours.

      I am very sorry if I have in some way hurt your feelings because I do not think your idea is good for the future of Call of War. It is what it is. We will just have to agree to disagree.

      There are no need for insults Squirrel. It is just a simple difference of opinion.

      I mean no disrespect to you at all.

      General cdub
    • New

      Another way if you are really desperate is to create a conversation and chat there. (Just be nice ;) )
      Ryan
      EN/ES/IT Forum Member
      Call of War Technician Fourth Grade
      Forum Brigadier General
      Training Alliance Leader
      Clash of Nation &Supremacy 1914 Forum Member
      Lance Corporal Supremacy
      Bytro/Dorado Fan


      Taking over the forum each post!

      It is almost Christmas! Hooray!
      "Truce happened during Christmas between the Germans and the British units, how is THAT believable?"
      -American Soldier
    • New

      OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      Too many words for you and you get lost... now I understand...

      Lets dumb this process down.. way down and try it one at a time.

      ------

      Do military units in combat need supplies? Food, water, ammunition or spare parts?

      [__] Yes

      [__] No

      One word answer please.
      To whomever I may of offended,

      Please note that I try to always be respectful to everyone, whether it be in the game, here on the forums, in chat and in the newspaper.

      The above statement from Squirrel I thought was a little over the top and hence the way I replied but at the same time I thought I was still being respectful.

      If it was not, then I am very sorry.

      OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      15 times in your post you used " I ".... simply put, how you play or why you play the way you do was irrelevant to the reasons for this suggestion (as all of my suggestions have been so far) this suggestion was not about you, or anyone else's play style or lack or play with style...

      It was simply about trying to make the game realistic to what was happening during WWII and to add game elements which represent those conditions.

      Having Supply lines, a connection to food, ammo, parts and fuel was an element of any and every war since antiquity.

      Ignore your personal preferences for a moment and try to evaluate the suggestion on it's merits or lack thereof.

      Does this suggestion represent a realistic (in game mechanic terms) representation of the situation as it existed on the ground during WWII.

      [__} Yes
      {__} Maybe, some improvements are needed... this is what you could do...
      {__} No this doesn't represent anything close to conditions which existed during WWII

      As for Coalition Games
      Actually had not though about "Coalition" mechanics.... so yes, it makes sense that units benefit by being under influence of their own Supply Depot OR that of a coalition member.

      Connection to Capitol or Core
      Core would be easier and makes perfect sense. Also any infrastructure improvements outside the Core should automatically be a Supply Depot as well.

      NAP or Shared Map
      Hmm... Need to think about this one a bit, not sure ATM
      I was only trying to share my thoughts just as he shared his thoughts. He likes the idea of this "Direct Supply Line" where I do not like the idea.

      So with that, again I am sorry if I offended anyone and have said so many times.

      General cdub