Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#81

Post by wjmao88 »

dragontamer wrote: post #80
wjmao88 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scale/scope of most of the RTS games is that of a battle, not that of a war. I remember there was an old game, Napolean 1813, that has some level of supply management in the form of needing to build a chain of supply stations in different cities to support nearby troops. The map of that game stretches from Paris to Eastern Europe. Another game that has supply management is Hearts of Iron, where the map is the ent…

> The scale/scope of most of the RTS games is that of a battle, not that of a war. Hmm, but even "Civilization" magically aways logistics for the most part. Units require "upkeep gold", but there's no real supply-chain that has to be built for units. -------- The "Rigs" in Advance Wars delivered oil to the frontlines. But its still simplified logistics, because "Rigs" had infinite oil in them. Still, it was a legitim…

The supply system for Europa Universalis (which is part of what I referred to as "other Paradox titles") is actually very barebone, consisting almost entirely of "you can only keep a certain number of troops in a province without attrition", where the number of troops depends on terrain, friendly/enemy territory, etc. Hearts of Iron has actual supply chain management.

As for Civilization, I've always treated it as a battle chess game rather than an actual strategy simulation game.

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#82

Post by yk »

gwd wrote: post #66
dragontamer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass killings of troops certainly happened: Hannibal's famous "Battle of Cannae" actually destroyed an entire Roman Legion (70,000 killed, 10,000 captured out of ~80,000 troops). They were just very rare. Another point: After losing so many troops in a singular battle, the Romans changed their tactics. Instead of grouping their entire army as a massive 80,000-man strong Phalanx, they split up their armies into smalle…

To be clear, the key word in the quote above is medieval . He specifically says large battles were far more common in the ancient world: > Pitched battles were far more common in the ancient world (think Persia, Macedon, Rome, etc) – this is a product of the larger size and greater organizational capabilities of those armies.

That is actually wrong. For a battle to occur, both sides need to agree to battle, except in rare circumstances. So, usually what happens is, that the general in a weaker position avoids the other guy, until he finds terrain suitable to his advantage. The other guy then of course is a lot less inclined to attack in for him unfavorable terrain. Compare that with a siege, the attacker knows where he needs to go, and what he wants to do, and for the defenders their fortifications are a lot better than moving somewhere else. (It should be mentioned, some armies could force a battle. The Mongols for example where just so much more mobile, that they could actually catch an enemy who tries to evade them.)

Consequently also in antiquity, most engagements where sieges rather than set piece battles.

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#83

Post by mcguire »

wjmao88 wrote: post #78
xg15 wrote: post #73

Slightly OT: I'm surprised that more sophisticated management of supply lines never seems to have caught on much in RTS games. The basic practice still seems to be that logistics are handwaved away and your units just spawn wherever you want (or where your factory is) provided you have enough money in the bank. I could imagine a game quite fun where you actively have to transport troops and resources to the front and…

The scale/scope of most of the RTS games is that of a battle, not that of a war. I remember there was an old game, Napolean 1813, that has some level of supply management in the form of needing to build a chain of supply stations in different cities to support nearby troops. The map of that game stretches from Paris to Eastern Europe. Another game that has supply management is Hearts of Iron, where the map is the ent…

Ahem. The "Best supply chain simulator game" of all time award goes to The Campaign for North Africa (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4815/campaign-north-afri...). And I'm not just saying that because of the logistical effort required to move and set up the game itself.

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#84

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

dragontamer wrote: post #55
Waterluvian wrote: post #26

"Let’s be clear on this point: ancient and medieval warfare was mostly about sieges." I also learned years ago that when medieval battles actually happened, the goal was to rout the enemy, not actually fight them and kill each other. I find these points illuminating because it reminds me that people back in the day were not primitive idiots. There was a very sensible logic to how they waged war. Ultimately, everyone…

Mass killings of troops certainly happened: Hannibal's famous "Battle of Cannae" actually destroyed an entire Roman Legion (70,000 killed, 10,000 captured out of ~80,000 troops). They were just very rare. Another point: After losing so many troops in a singular battle, the Romans changed their tactics. Instead of grouping their entire army as a massive 80,000-man strong Phalanx, they split up their armies into smalle…

I think Hannibal's a special exception. I'm not sure which hannibal you are talking about, but they weren't they all engaged in a generations-long blood feud that lasted 300 years? I mean, this was not some simple faction conflict. It was a war between two rival states to decide the fate of the entire known world.

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#85

Post by firethief »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #61
dreen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, although the books indeed don't mention it I don't think it's entirely out of the question. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Middle-earth) > Tolkien indicates that Orcs are "always hungry".[24] Orcs eat all manner of flesh, including men and horses, and there are frequent hints of cannibalism among Orcs. Grishnákh, leader of the Mordor Orcs, accuses Saruman's Uruks of eating Orc-flesh, which they…

> Grishnákh, leader of the Mordor Orcs, accuses Saruman's Uruks of eating Orc-flesh, which they angrily deny. As you note, this is good evidence that cannibalism is not practiced by the orcs. > In Cirith Ungol, Gorbag suggests that Frodo (recently poisoned by Shelob) should "go in the pot"; Shagrat indicates that Gorbag could be "for the pot" for making such a suggestion. This isn't good evidence; the insult is sugge…

>> Grishnákh, leader of the Mordor Orcs, accuses Saruman's Uruks of eating Orc-flesh, which they angrily deny.

> As you note, this is good evidence that cannibalism is not practiced by the orcs.

Institutionalized cannibalism is characterized by strict taboos about who can eat whom, when, and how. It would make sense for an insult between two related cannibalistic societies to be based on either "you fail to observe the taboos we both recognize" (a heavy put-down) or "you don't recognize our taboos / you have specifically disrespected us in the way you violated a shared taboo" (insults with deep roots; a likely casus belli). In either case, angry denial seems like an orcish way to counter the insult without escalating a potentially volatile situation. So while cannibalism-related insult is consistent with societies in which cannibalism is never acceptable, among societies where the practice is formalized absence of such insults might have been more surprising.

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#86

Post by spelunker »

xg15 wrote: post #73

Slightly OT: I'm surprised that more sophisticated management of supply lines never seems to have caught on much in RTS games. The basic practice still seems to be that logistics are handwaved away and your units just spawn wherever you want (or where your factory is) provided you have enough money in the bank. I could imagine a game quite fun where you actively have to transport troops and resources to the front and…

You could try your hand at board game that involves logistics, the infamously-complicated Campaign for North Africa: https://kotaku.com/the-notorious-board-game-that-takes-1500-...

"The Italian troops in World War II were outfitted with noodle rations, and in the name of historical dogma, the player responsible for the Italians is required to distribute an extra water ration to their forces, so that their pasta may be boiled."

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#87

Post by make3 »

xg15 wrote: post #73

Slightly OT: I'm surprised that more sophisticated management of supply lines never seems to have caught on much in RTS games. The basic practice still seems to be that logistics are handwaved away and your units just spawn wherever you want (or where your factory is) provided you have enough money in the bank. I could imagine a game quite fun where you actively have to transport troops and resources to the front and…

it arguably moved the other way (to infrastructure not being a part of the game at all), as MOBAs have taken over RTS

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#88

Post by mcguire »

tra3 wrote: post #59
Waterluvian wrote: post #26

"Let’s be clear on this point: ancient and medieval warfare was mostly about sieges." I also learned years ago that when medieval battles actually happened, the goal was to rout the enemy, not actually fight them and kill each other. I find these points illuminating because it reminds me that people back in the day were not primitive idiots. There was a very sensible logic to how they waged war. Ultimately, everyone…

> the goal was to rout the enemy Had to google this one. > A rout /raʊt/ is a panicked, disorderly and undisciplined retreat of troops from a battlefield, following a collapse in a given unit's command authority, unit cohesion and combat morale (esprit de corps). Wikipedia has more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rout

The general consensus about ancient and medieval battles is that the battle itself was not especially dangerous. Most casualties came when one side collapsed and routed---they would be pursued and slaughtered by the victors.

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#89

Post by thaumasiotes »

firethief wrote: post #85
thaumasiotes wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Grishnákh, leader of the Mordor Orcs, accuses Saruman's Uruks of eating Orc-flesh, which they angrily deny. As you note, this is good evidence that cannibalism is not practiced by the orcs. > In Cirith Ungol, Gorbag suggests that Frodo (recently poisoned by Shelob) should "go in the pot"; Shagrat indicates that Gorbag could be "for the pot" for making such a suggestion. This isn't good evidence; the insult is sugge…

>> Grishnákh, leader of the Mordor Orcs, accuses Saruman's Uruks of eating Orc-flesh, which they angrily deny. > As you note, this is good evidence that cannibalism is not practiced by the orcs. Institutionalized cannibalism is characterized by strict taboos about who can eat whom, when, and how. It would make sense for an insult between two related cannibalistic societies to be based on either "you fail to observe t…

If the accusation is just "eating orc-flesh", the only cannibalistic taboo that would be violated by that unqualified act would be eating those who aren't members of your group.

A practice of eating your own kind -- but not other people -- would be consistent with everything mentioned above, but would be incredibly bizarre for humans. We are much more likely to eat other groups while never eating our own.

Orcs could be weird that way though. It's not hard to lay a basic conceptual foundation for eating your own kind and prohibiting other groups from eating your own kind.

Re: The Siege of Gondor, Part I: Professionals Talk Logistics

#90

Post by [deleted] »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #84
dragontamer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass killings of troops certainly happened: Hannibal's famous "Battle of Cannae" actually destroyed an entire Roman Legion (70,000 killed, 10,000 captured out of ~80,000 troops). They were just very rare. Another point: After losing so many troops in a singular battle, the Romans changed their tactics. Instead of grouping their entire army as a massive 80,000-man strong Phalanx, they split up their armies into smalle…

I think Hannibal's a special exception. I'm not sure which hannibal you are talking about, but they weren't they all engaged in a generations-long blood feud that lasted 300 years? I mean, this was not some simple faction conflict. It was a war between two rival states to decide the fate of the entire known world.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN