The Meaning of Victory (Play Systems)

[HexCode]

Topic Legitimacy

The Pub's description follows:

Place of the offtopic, funny or interesting threads, discussions about history, politics, movies and other war games.

Are "play systems"

1) . . . off topic ? It doesn't much matter, does it ? I mean, the expression "Place of the offtopic" should take care of "things", right ?

2) . . . funny ? Perhaps. However this won't be my angle under this new topic.

3) . . . interesting ? Well, some newcomer to these forums might think so.

4) . . . connected to "history, politics, movies" ? As far as I'm concerned, I've absolutely no desire to enter into such discussions, even if tangentially relevant.

Key Reference

Wargames vs. Wargaming Interests
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451#p6956

Other Wargaming Topics

[OPN] HexCode - Opinions
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=503

Chess & Wargaming: Musings & Angles
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=281

Content Design & Play Platforms
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=616

Historical Wargaming
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451

The AH Blitzkrieg Connection
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=605

Introduction

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

... my question is more general in nature and can apply to all PG games and other WW2 strategy games, as well.

In PG games, one scores a victory by seizing all designated victory hexes in a given number of turns. For the most part, victory hexes are cities; I've rarely seen one that is not. The balance of forces is not taken into account when granting victory to one side or the other. So, theoretically, it is possible to drop paratroopers on an empty victory hex and claim victory even though the surrounding hexes are all occupied by enemy units. This is an exaggeration, of course, but some victories are won by slipping a unit into the last enemy-held objective hex at the last minute.

However, this is not the main problem as I see it. The issue is that the defender can focus into turning his key cities (the victory ones) into fortresses. A setup of multiple artillery and air defense units, covering each other and lots of anti-tank guns and infantry makes the attacker's job a veritable nightmare. Taking the fortified victory locations one by one quickly turns into a grind; every scenario usually looks the same after breaking through the initial defending layout.

While, admittedly, some WW2 battles were just like that, the early Blitzkrieg victories were completely different. Real armies didn't "appreciate" being trapped in fortress cities, fighting to the last man; they were quite worried re: hostile encircling maneuvers and their communication (supply) lines being compromised.

I'm trying to come up with a radically different gameplay approach. My goal is to create a more dynamic battlefield in which maneuvers will have a more direct impact so that the gaming experience is not reduced to serially taking fortified cities, one after another.

[HexCode]

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

There are basically two elements around which one can create goals.
One is "territory"; the other is "units". Time establishes limitations as to when such goals should be reached. When it comes to territory, it is all about its control or outright ownership. Flags simply serve as indicators of ownership; one can introduce certain desired effects by different means such as color coding of hexes indicating ownership. Hexes would change color based on how units progress through territory. If the wargame is capable of tracking additional variables, there is going to be room for lots of flexibility. So, a player will need to be able to alter the scenario environment (map itself) by, let's say, burning a village, blowing up a bridge or destroying railroad tracks. If artillery can engage in area bombardment and alter the map in some meaningful way, a victory condition could be to bombard some empty desert hex or to avoid bombarding some town.

Units also offer quite a variety re: how many measurable elements one can have. An army's overall morale should not drop below a certain percentage, for example; or, eliminating a unit or preventing it from being eliminated; specific unit, unit type or unit class? Position-specific unit on some designated hex and maintaining it for a specified number of turns.

A unit's supply rating should not drop below some value n while it is defending designated sector z. Possibilities are endless here. They depend on what one can measure and practically indicate.

[HexCode]

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

Some of the early SSI board games used a combination of units and time to determine victory. A prime example is the mini-game "The Battle of Metz", covering Patton's 3d Army assault of the Metz fortress. Material greatly favored the American player so the design team came up with a very clever way to give the German player a chance for victory that combined time and unit-strength/loss ratio. With smart deployment, and vigorous defensive maneuver, the German player could move units (the unit size was regimental) off the edge of the board when they were no longer needed and this was credited towards the victory conditions (each unit, mechanized, artillery, or foot had a pre-determined value). When the time limit was reached, if the German player could successfully move enough units off the board while still retaining control of Metz, he could win the battle. The American player had to use their mobility and material advantage to keep pressure on the Germans hard enough to ensure that most German units had to remain on the board in order to hold Metz, and yet not incur heavier casualties than the Germans. A very clever scheme to determine victory.

[HexCode]

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

I'm still wondering how things work out in real world battles. When generals set objectives for a war, do they consider taking some key cities or destroying the enemy army? Or is it a combination of these two: take the enemy cities and crippling the enemy's army in the process? What good is holding a major objective if the enemy forces are much stronger than yours and they will counterattack soon?

Of course, the case is different for every scenario: Poland will have to hold Warsaw or else they will have nowhere to go; Soviets can lose Smolensk or even Moscow, but their industry has been relocated far in the Urals and they still have resources to continue fighting. In a grand strategy game, like Hearts of Iron, losing some key provinces will translate into less production, thus your capability to wage war is reduced. But in Panzer General, the prestige concept seems to be less related to any such rationale and this is sometimes frustratingly arbitrary.

Imagine that your offensive has surrounded a part of the enemy army but they can still reinforce or even buy new units in that pocket. The ability to bring replacements is only affected by the presence of enemy units on the adjacent hexes, so, if the pocket is large enough, the center hexes can still spawn units. Thus, there's no incentive for the defending player to force a link to his surrounded forces, either for retreating them or to provide a flow of supplies of any kind.

[HexCode]

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

Let's define a new feature: The supply line.

It'll be a line on the map going from hex to hex, like a road. This could be as simple as putting a unit on the supply line to block it (so defenders would have to watch for paratroopers, scout cars, guerrillas, etc.).

If a supply line is cut, neither would the city generate anything, nor could there be units deployed, repaired or resupplied there (unless a supply unit is available in the surrounded area). This would create a reason to actually form a defensive line to keep the enemies out instead of massing all units around a couple victory hexes - the besieged would bleed out or run out of ammo quickly if the enemy cuts the supply line.

AND

Instead of a line, we might define it as a clear path to the nearest "Supply Depot" (which is a predefined hex put on a map; captured Supply Depots would give ammo and fuel; only initial supply depots would give the opportunity to raise new units). A "clear path" would be a distinct line of hexes outside of enemy units ZoC between the unit that needs supplying and any friendly Supply Depot.

The amount of supplies available to the unit would decrease by a certain % for each additional hex of distance to the Supply Depot. Features such as roads or railways would slow down this supply diminution; rough terrain would accelerate it.

There could be units that act as mobile supply depots, with their Ammo and Fuel being "taken" by the units they resupply; once depleted, they would themselves need to be resupplied from the nearest Supply Depot hex. All regular supply rules would apply.

[Lettos]

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

Let's define a new feature: The supply line.

It'll be a line on the map going from hex to hex, like a road. This could be as simple as putting a unit on the supply line to block it (so defenders would have to watch for paratroopers, scout cars, guerrillas, etc.).

If a supply line is cut, neither would the city generate anything, nor could there be units deployed, repaired or resupplied there (unless a supply unit is available in the surrounded area). This would create a reason to actually form a defensive line to keep the enemies out instead of massing all units around a couple victory hexes - the besieged would bleed out or run out of ammo quickly if the enemy cuts the supply line.

AND

Instead of a line, we might define it as a clear path to the nearest "Supply Depot" (which is a predefined hex put on a map; captured Supply Depots would give ammo and fuel; only initial supply depots would give the opportunity to raise new units). A "clear path" would be a distinct line of hexes outside of enemy units ZoC between the unit that needs supplying and any friendly Supply Depot.

The amount of supplies available to the unit would decrease by a certain % for each additional hex of distance to the Supply Depot. Features such as roads or railways would slow down this supply diminution; rough terrain would accelerate it.

There could be units that act as mobile supply depots, with their Ammo and Fuel being "taken" by the units they resupply; once depleted, they would themselves need to be resupplied from the nearest Supply Depot hex. All regular supply rules would apply.

Great post! Finally, something that has been "floating" in the space of historical simulation for twenty years has been expressed here! I approve, support in every possible way, and would really like to see at least one supply line in at least one turn-based model / game in at least 50 years.
Although ... there was one real-time precedent: Knights and Merchants: The Shattered Kingdom - there were great carriers of bread and ham to the troops in their positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_a ... ed_Kingdom

[Ale]

in historical retrospective developers of PG (and later sequels) did not follow any, even distant, idea of supply limitations from the game it was hugely based on, Japanese Sega MegaDrive/Genesis games/series Daisenryaku. There units were able to resupply only in friendly towns... now while this idea is extreme and totally unhistorical as units on the offensive do not drive back to cities for ammo SSI developers completely abandoned idea of "advanced" supply limitations, made it "invisible", presume based on right market calculation of making it much more likable game aimed at broader public. Mission successful, popular PC game even teen like me was comfortable with, not complaint nor weakness of it.

in "modern games" it seems that various developers had chosen to make comeback to "supply agenda" - from depots, bigger and smaller giving supply only to limited range of hexes units must be on to resupply (in Strategic mind, which i tried) to some supply lines (in Order of battle, not tried) or "quasi-supply lines" in PC2 (not tried, but seen from videos that you can encircle enemy formations in big numbers forcing them to lose ammo and strength) and similar... in real time remember various supply units i.e. trucks in some games (like Sudden strike) and i did not play many RTS games..... AND of course, there are much, much more complex war games i can not even dive into despite will to do ; so i can't comment on their strategic options.

so choose your modding preference if you make some mods/improvements and if consider supply as part of it. logistics are important part of war/war games as option, also there are Open general options given - must say i didn't do much with game supply options and supply trucks since 2019. However generally speaking of games and for single player purpose, AI in any game must be up to the job with various options included, if it is unable to use functions in single player game, rich game options are useles and it greately impaired... An anecdote from one "empire building TB game" - wow, so many options, so many things to build or develop... after conquering one province controlled by AI - ah sh*t, it didn't use any of options game has, nothing built, few things developed etc. ;

...some history and some present day on supply theme in games of similar kind (except rts game i mentioned, and one Lettos mentioned)... to me personally even basic logistic in war game elevate challenge level and certainly one must give thumbs up to ideas of incorporating breaking formations by encirclement, cutting supplies or similar in "blitz" games - as mentioned above ; ...but i play game if it is fun (and known to even kill Orcs, or lead them rather than strict historical wargamer, i'll admit that) but decided to post this simply as indication of how developers approached it through time and how they do it in present if you don't follow, or to add to thread and those considering implementations. That much from me, have fun with developments or plans.

[hoza]

To my knowledge Hearts of Iron is the most complete war game of WWII with all these features ( building, supply etc.) incorporated. But I prefer the earlier
HoI 3 which has a tactical approach too to the new HoI 4 which is more on strategic level.

[Ale]

yeah - correcting myself with excuse ) - Advanced Daisenryaku from 1991, mentioned as PG "mother game" and main inspiration due to same ww2 theme, actually had after 2-3 scenarios also supply units/trucks available for purchase and deploy, enabling resupply to units in hexes next to it. Small but important correction for that "retrospective" and "gaming today" above - was tired while posting, talking nonsense about cities only and already forgot some game mechanics though i played it recently. Only for personal interest via emulator from abandonedware sites, never owned Sega MD...

Japanese title it is more in the field of console gaming, but interesting mention for gaming history and present, and for topic of supply mechanics "reborn" today... while i finished before, mere correction that seemed like blasphemy to such important "hexagonal influence" and piece of history, was worth another post for that correction alone.

[Lettos]

Talking about supply lines - well, you can apply a bit of graph theory here. Why would a Turn-Based game depict a procurement process that generally occurs continuously, like in real time?
But on the map there are not only supply nodes, but also paths. And these paths can be "cut" not only at the nodes, but also in the middle of the path.
This can still be implemented in the game interface, in 10-20 years.
The problem is different - to create an AI that understands this graph theory. With a blunt approach, this will never be done. If you think about it as a team - well, a year of work.

[Lettos]

To my knowledge Hearts of Iron is the most complete war game of WWII with all these features ( building, supply etc.) incorporated. But I prefer the earlier
HoI 3 which has a tactical approach too to the new HoI 4 which is more on strategic level.

Hearts of Iron from great Paradox team is a simulation of events on the scale of Army Corps or Army Groups.
Some words about scaling in PG/PGF/OG: viewtopic.php?f=95&t=516

[HexCode]

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

Supply rules from Talonsoft's "The Operational Art of War":

Each unit has its own supply level, a percentage value reflecting the unit's own internal supply stockpile (beans, bullets, gasoline, etc.). These supplies are actually in the hands of the troops, available for immediate use. A unit's supply level strongly affects its capabilities.

Each unit expends supplies as it acts to follow your orders. When necessary, units draw new supplies from their force supply stockpile, through their formation supply system. Units may begin a scenario with a level greater than 150%, but supply levels may not be increased above 150% during the course of a scenario. Any oversupplied unit (supply level greater than 100%) will lose its excess supplies if it moves. (For this purpose, participation in combat is not considered movement.)

Unit readiness for unsupplied units is limited to no more than the unit's supply level or the minimum readiness (33%), whichever is higher.

Unsupplied units with very low supply and readiness levels are subject to desertion effects. Deserting troops and equipment are lost permanently. They are not placed in the replacement pool. The number of deserters increases as supply and readiness levels decrease, and decreases with higher unit proficiencies. Desertions tend to start slowly (particularly in high proficiency units) and accelerate over time.

In order to receive normal re-supply, units must be able to trace a line of communication back to a friendly supply source. If the unit can not trace this supply line, its supply level will drop by an amount equal to the number of half days in a turn.

Supply is first traced through friendly controlled road, improved road, undamaged railroad, urban, airfield, and anchorage locations. Any location with an unbroken line of communication through these types of terrain to a friendly supply point is fully supplied - providing the maximum possible amount of resupply for units. This is called the fully supplied net.

Supply is then traced from the fully supplied net through friendly cropland, open, or arid locations. Any location with an unbroken line of communication through these types of terrain to a friendly supply point is normally supplied - providing 75% of the maximum possible amount of resupply for units.

Locations not fully or normally supplied, but able to trace a line of communication no more than a scenario dependent number of hexes long to any normally or fully supplied location are considered to have limited supply. Units in these locations receive 50% of the maximum possible resupply.

Locations not otherwise supplied, but able to trace a line of communication of any length to any friendly supply point are considered to have minimal supply. Units in these locations receive 25% of the maximum possible resupply.

Unit readiness for unsupplied units is limited to no more than the unit's supply level or the minimum readiness (33%), whichever is higher. Unsupplied units with very low supply and readiness levels are subject to desertion effects. Deserting troops and equipment are lost permanently. They are not placed in the replacement pool. The number of deserters increases as supply and readiness levels decrease, and decreases with higher unit proficiencies. Desertions tend to start slowly (particularly in high proficiency units) and accelerate over time.

This game uses HQ units so:

The level of re-supply possible for a unit increases by 50% if a cooperative headquarters unit is located with or adjacent to a unit. If a headquarters unit assigned to a formation is destroyed, or if any assigned support squads have been eliminated, the formation's supply distribution efficiency is reduced. You should protect your headquarters units to avoid disruptions to unit re-supply.

The game also figures air interdiction into supply (a hidden #) so gaining air superiority will benefit your supply situation:

Enemy air units flying interdiction missions impair supply distribution. This is determined on a location by location basis (local interdiction), but the average value over the entire theater (theater interdiction) is calculated for your planning use.

There is also a theatre-wide calculation (in the huge campaign scenarios like Barbarossa) for unused transport sharing (comes mostly into play for units that you are resting, ie. they utilize local unused transport to resupply).

Each formation has a supply distribution efficiency, a percentage value reflecting the formation's ability to distribute supplies from the force stockpile to units in the formation. This value is set for each formation in a scenario, and actually means different things for different types of formations. It takes into account everything from dedicated organic transport capability to the mindset of the troops responsible for getting the goodies to the troops.

Units that do not move and are not assigned a local or tactical reserve mobility status will temporarily lend a portion of their transport assets (equipment with a transport capability, such as trucks, horse teams, etc.) to their parent formation, (and possibly to others depending upon the formation support level) to aid in distributing supply to other units. Any unused rail, air, or sea transport capacity also contributes to re-supply efforts. This results in a boost to the formation's capacity to distribute supplies. Transport asset sharing has no negative effects.

The whole thing seems to work well, too. The most realistic supply/readiness system I've ever seen Sometimes, it works too damn well......

[Lettos]

Great post, Hexcode!

If the creator does not turn up in the field of practical application of these great ideas in games, we will wait another 50 years. Better late than never.
By the way, "Attrition" in Paradox games - it turns out that you can think both commercially and realistically.

[Lettos]

About attrition rate, even with good supply conditions,
from "Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front, 1941-1942" by Robert A.Forczyk:

The primary operational objectives of the four German panzer groups were Leningrad in the north, Moscow in the center and Kiev and the Donbas region in the south. The distance from their starting positions to their operational objectives was 800km for Panzergruppe 4, 1,000km for Panzergruppe 2 and 3, and over 1,200km for Panzergruppe 1. Hitler expected these objectives to be reached within about ten weeks of the start of Barbarossa, an unprecedented rate of advance in modern military history. However, it was questionable whether
German tanks could even move this far in this amount of time, even if much of the Red Army was destroyed on the border. As a general rule of thumb, about 5 per cent of tanks in a given unit will break down for mechanical reasons after a 100km road march, although most can be repaired within a few hours. Just three years before Barbarossa, nearly 30 per cent of the 2.Panzer-Division’s tanks broke down on the unopposed 670km road march to Vienna, along good roads.’ If the panzer divisions suffered a similar scale of combat losses as in the 1940 Western Campaign, no more than 10-20 per cent of the original panzers would be likely to reach their objectives.

[HexCode]

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

The supply zone is one of the features that I'm trying to implement in order to achieve the goals I've stated in the original post.

Supplies can be brought across any hex that is not subject to enemies' zones of control, and that means that roads/railways are not the only possible path. Mountains, forests or other difficult terrain types can still allow some supplied to pour in, but not to the same throughput level as that of roads. I don't think the implementation is all that difficult; basically, it's a derivative of the flood fill algorithm - like the one I'm using for determining the hexes a selected unit can reach. If you're interested, I will gladly provide more details on the algorithm.

Of course, the addition of the supply zone concept would make the game more interesting if the AI were able to make use of it; either defensively (attacking units that block the supply lines) or offensively (trying to cut attacker's supply lines, if the opportunity arises). This way, the defender can use its tank units in more appropriate ways than trying to dig in waiting to be assaulted.

As for the effects on the battle, right now I'm considering only limiting the ability to resupply (ammo/fuel) and reinforce (bringing the unit back up to full strength). Unity of Command goes a little further and decreases the fighting power of a unit that cannot be supplied; but right now I'll stay away from more radical changes in the gameplay.

[Lettos]

About attrition on large war theatres (some hundreds kilometers), from book "Die 14. Panzer-Division, 1940-1945" by Rolf Grams. Published in 1957.
Translated from edition in Russian by Google-translate with minor editing.

... the commander of the 3rd Panzer Corps, General Mackensen, to whom the 14th Panzer Division was subordinated from July 11, ordered to "pursue without respite" the enemy retreating east from the Aydar River to the Derkul River.

After building a pontoon bridge across the Seversky Donets, the division began pursuit in the following order: Trogger's group moved in front, followed by Kretschmer's group, and Seidel's group was in the rearguard. The first idea of ​​the difficult road conditions that awaited the division and which basically determined the pace of the pursuit was immediately given by the first section of the route east of the Seversky Donets, where there were no longer paved roads, as in an industrial area. Nevertheless, the offensive continued uncontrollably, and the weak resistance of small enemy groups was easily overcome each time.
<...>
"On August 3, from the area of ​​the station Remontnaya, Division began its last forced march, which was supposed to lead it to the very walls of Stalingrad. The fast 64th Motorcycle Battalion was again moving in the vanguard of the column. The tropical heat in the steppe, devoid of even the slightest shade, and impenetrable, dense dust forced people and motors to act to the limit of their capabilities. Only a short halt for lunch, and then the roar of engines resounded over the vast expanses of the steppe again. When night suddenly fell over the steppe, the advance detachment, passing the settlement of Zhutovo 2, reached its goal - a bridge near the village of Aksai. The road was found with great difficulty, as the maps turned out to be inaccurate. All hope was only on the compass. In 15 hours, 150 kilometers were covered. As it was proudly noted in the daily summary of the 36th Tank Regiment, "it was a daily march, which until now has not been possible for any tank regiment in Russia." But as a result, the fuel ran out! Our tanks were deeply wedged into the gaping gap formed in the enemy front, and now they could not budge!
<...>
... our 36th tank regiment was forced to pay tribute to the enemy and, to an even greater extent, the steppe dust that damaged the pistons of combat vehicles. Of the 200 tanks with which the regiment launched this offensive, by August 10, only 24 tanks remained in service. Most of the tanks remained in the workshops in Aksai. But things were not much better in other divisions of the division. "

[HexCode]

Over the years, historical wargaming has witnessed an important conceptual bifurcation. On one hand, adherents to "modeling for verisimilitude" have been insisting that "abstraction" should be banned altogether or, at least, be kept down to "some" absolute minimum. On the other hand, adherents to "modelling for effect" have been quite open and inviting when it comes to employing layers of helpful "abstraction".

With respect to armored vehicle breakdowns, SSI and their emulators opted for "effect". Namely, vehicle types historically more prone to breakdowns were granted lower maximum fuel capacity stats. A "verisimilitude" approach would've required at the minimum that the likelihood of breakdowns be explicitly incorporated into the modeling.

In a more general sense, another quite illuminating example is that of "Mass Attack". In traditional board wargame territory, the "Combat Results Table Column Shifts" approach has been quite popular. Within the context of the 5 Star General play systems (and their emulations), the dominant approach has been to tinker with the defending unit's initiative. Either way, from a "grognard's" standpoint, "verisimilitude" is debatable.

[Lettos]

With respect to armored vehicle breakdowns, SSI and their emulators opted for "effect". Namely, vehicle types historically more prone to breakdowns were granted lower maximum fuel capacity stats.

Yes, that's a good idea from SSI. Only they made big compromises from the principles of playability. Fortunately, this is customizable.

A "verisimilitude" approach would've required at the minimum that the likelihood of breakdowns be explicitly incorporated into the modeling.

Definitely to WISH-List!

[HexCode]

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

I think that Unity of Command has so much success because all the things are shown to the user: whether a unit is supplied or not; the front lines are so descriptive and it's obvious when pockets are formed. So if you surround a city but the enemy can still reinforce his units, maybe it would be better if the game displayed which supply lines are still open for the enemy.

The vast majority of scenarios in PG can be designed with supply points at the end of the map. For the Washington scenario (Moscow or Stalingrad, for that matter), the country's ability to provide reinforcements or supply is not concentrated in some major city (as it would be impossible for a city to sustain war production for a long period of time if completely encircled). The supplies would come from the unoccupied part of the country (Midwest/West coast for the USA, Urals and Siberia for the USSR) and not from the major city/capital that is under siege.

The exception is the case of smaller countries. It is quite hard to provide an acceptable design for, let's say Warsaw or Low Countries, since they wouldn't be able to hold out for long in case of an invasion.

[HexCode]

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

I would allow a supply hex in Washington on some factories, if the scenario would only last a week or two from the besieging, or if the supply hex is going to be overrun soon (putting enough enemies will guarantee that to happen, regardless of what the player does). Otherwise, the supply hexes would only be on roads/rails leading to off-map friendly territory. Cut these roads/rails off and Washington will need a support unit, or will be running out of time quickly.

As for the flood-fill method - it ain't realistic. Convoys of supply trucks will not be able to drive around the whole battlefield, in unknown territory, looking for a passage past enemy units. The reason behind this is that if they meet the enemy, they get blown up. They won't have a God's eye view of the battlefield, knowing exactly which area is OK to travel through, and there will be no game engine telling them there's an open path through some given locations.

Should the player wish to try to manually resupply a cut off area - that's where the support units come in. The player could try to sneak one in, or organize an escort and break through if needed.

AND

Indeed, in case a city is completely surrounded, there will be no case of supply trucks looking for an unguarded passage in. I was suggesting the flood-fill method in order to detect the supply throughput in other cases, namely when all the roads going into the city having been cut off, but there are non-road hexes that are outside enemy's ZoC that can still be used to supply the besieged army. Take the historical case of Leningrad (41-44) where they used the Ladoga Lake paths (ice-roads in winter, ship-routes in summer) to keep the flow of supplies going.

Personally, I don't like the idea of supply/support units because they make a game more complicated/tedious to play. Trying to fit everything in a game is not always a good idea, and deliberately simpler designs (like Panzer General or Unity of Command) are more successful.

[HexCode]

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...

Everything that is not within a friendly ZoC is off limits, unless it's on the friendly side of the front line. The reason for this is that it's not common practice to have dozens of supply trucks wandering around, looking for a passage, on unknown ground. All those hexes outside of enemy ZoC but also outside friendly ZoC will have to remain unchecked by the algorithm. If the algorithm will simply check for ANY path using all hexes that have no enemy ZoC, we'll end up having a supply line going past friendlies, into enemy territory, back to friendly, for a few hexes along no man's land, maybe behind the enemy line once more, and then around the besieging units, to the side of the city under siege that's furthest from the supply, back between the enemy forces, and into the city itself - because it happens that there's a few gaps in the enemy formation and there are no enemy units patrolling every second hex in their territory.

While the game engine knows the location of all units on the map, it should be assumed that the units on the battlefield only know about what's going on within their field of view. The General (i.e. the player) will know everything that all friendly units see, due to them reporting every contact.

Of course, all modeling approaches have their flaws.

The easiest way that won't goof is the supply paths marked on the map + manual ability to deliver supplies using special units. This method requires the scenario designer to be careful, or it might goof after all. It will add the mechanism of "blocking all routes = resources cut off", as well as "there's a supply unit that's alive and well inside the encirclement, because the player managed to pull off a supply operation = supplies are there".

The flood-fill will need to test if it isn't creating a supply line in areas where no supply truck would ever go; this would require much more coding than just finding a path. Without trucks being physical units on the map which could be chased down and destroyed by a scout car or patrolling aircraft, this additional coding is a must or we'll have supply routes generated through regions patrolled by enemies (their ZoC is much smaller than the area they could walk/drive/fly through during their turn). With supply trucks being present as units on the map, the coding would need to be there as well, or else enemy patrols would get lots of free experience points.

The realistic system would need better AI for logistics than the game currently has for combat, which IMHO is missing the point - PzGen is a strategy game focused on combat.

That's IT, gentlemen !

[Lettos]

I'm trying to come up with a radically different gameplay approach. My goal is to create a more dynamic battlefield in which maneuvers will have a more direct impact so that the gaming experience is not reduced to serially taking fortified cities, one after another.

Maneuver has two meanings: strategic and tactical.

Both have a common principle: strike from where the enemy is not waiting.
Differences: a strategic maneuver means hitting either the communications, that is, the rear of a large grouping of units, or several units from the rear. Tactical - only for the enemy unit already visible on the map.

Just a comment on the tactical strike:

A player's turn consists not of one, as it is now, but of two phases.
1) Move. 2) Make a turn.
All units now perceive the impact from all sides of the hex as if they organized a perimeter defense at the end of each turn.
This is very far from the reality of hostilities.

The player (and the AI) must have an incentive to hit the unit "from behind" or "from the side". In such directions, the coefficient of defense and attack of some classes of units should be greatly reduced.

Unit classes in the game model that can defend almost equally strongly in any direction:
Tanks, self-propelled anti-tanks, fighters, bombers, ships, anti-aircrafts.

The class of units in which a small reduction factor is applied to the defense from the ground / (and sometimes to the attack from the ground): Air Defense, self-propelled artillery.

Most vulnerable units: INF, Towed artillery, Anti-tank guns, forts.

After the movement of the unit, on the second phase of the turn of each unit, we indicate its specific hex, in relation to which the front of the unit will be. The front of a unit is either two faces of its hex, or three. Faces bordering the front, "right" and "left", are considered flanks. Depending on the location of the unit on the hexagonal map, it has either one or two faces, which can be called "rear".

The meaning of a tactical maneuver appears.

[HexCode]

Some of the matters raised / discussed under this topic will be further pursued under currently active topic

Historical Wargaming
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=451

As far as my contributions under the present topic go, well, this is the end of the line !