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

121–130 of 172 posts

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

#121

Post by exar0815 »

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…

I can recommend the Wargame-Series (European Escalation, AirLand Battle and esp. Red Dragon). Sure, your logistics begin at the Map border, but you have to make do with the units given in the campaign, so losses are permanent. And you have to keep your units supplied and fuelled throughout the real-time battles. Quite a hassle.

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

#122

Post by ant6n »

Kinrany wrote: post #93
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…

Sid Meier's Colonization has this, to a degree. 1. Gold can only be used to buy from European powers. You can't buy goods or units in America, you have to physically move them there with ships or wagon trains. 2. Civilians and combat units are the same. Any civilian can pick up a musket and become a soldier. 3. Defeated units don't die. They rout and are "demoted": a dragoon loses their horse and becomes a soldier, a…

As a Civ i-iii player, I do not recognize the game you are talking about. edit: oops, reado

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

#123

Post by NickNameNick »

krapp wrote: post #30
_Microft wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that they do not have auto-aiming for their phasers and despite their advanced photonic torpedos, these are usually not homing either. (It might be that the Defiant 's phasers, which were shooting these bolts instead of the continuous beams, were auto-aimed) (Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved Star Trek. TNG and DS9 in particular).

Their torpedoes don't even have to be "homing." It should be possible for them to have onboard AIs smart enough to allow them to develop complex strategies, use swarming tactics, evasion, etc.

Would it be ethical in trek to build an AI whose sole purpose was to commit suicide?

John Carpenter's Dark Star covers this a little, but mainly for laughs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Star_(film)

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

#124

Post by hansthehorse »

Freak_NL wrote: post #27
krapp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have phasers with enough power to boil the oceans of a planet, and torpedoes that can travel faster than light. Yet every conflict takes place at extremely close proximity, often on the same plane, as if they were ships in the age of sail. They have force fields with a critical flaw (harmonic resonance means any energy weapon using the same frequency as the shields can just shoot right through them) but whenever…

Star Trek: TNG made a teenage me wonder why starships encountering each other always appeared to have matched their orientations. Was there some kind of prearranged signal? A diplomatic code adhered to even by enemies? Just a general preference on all sides concerned preventing headaches and vague unheimlich feelings of discomfort? So many questions… If I was harassing the federation I would keep my ship at an awkwar…

Or why all the ships have a front and a back. This why I like the Borg ships.

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

#125

Post by b0rsuk »

the_af wrote: post #47

Whether I agree or disagree with them, I find this kind of analyses of fictional battles very fun to read. And this particular blog seems to be full of fascinating articles (I recommend the one about how a "medieval/fantasy" battlefield ought too look like after a battle -- spoiler: most depictions are inspired by the aftermath of WWI battles; battlefields after medieval battles would look pretty much unspoiled). A f…

Be sure to check the ones about Paganism/Polytheism! The mind-blowing thing about paganism is that unlike the 3 major religions of today, it didn't start with a holy book (orthodoxy), but with rituals. It's like a caricature of scientific method. We did so and so, and the harvest was good. Therefore, the ritual works. There is little point in learning who exactly the gods are or what they think. The important thing is not offending any of them, knowing which is responsible for what, and making deals with them. As long as the (sacrificial) ritual seemed to work, it would be repeated with the slightest detail. If it didn't, they would experiment. They were very open to change in practice, because with no word of god to rely on they knew they could only take imperfect glimpses into nature of gods.

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

#126

Post by tobyhede »

Orc supply logistics is eased somewhat by the ability of the Orc armies to eat the defeated and if required, each other. In the latter case the strong orcs eat the weak, preserving the elite and veteran parts of the army. There is a strong hierarchy within the various Orc subtypes, and an argument could be made that the Orc army marches as its own supply.

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

#127

Post by gherkinnn »

mcguire wrote: post #88
tra3 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The book “On Killing” does mention this.

Killing seems to be a lot easier when done to a fleeing enemy. Something about running away makes one a juicy target.

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

#128

Post by Balgair »

Animats wrote: post #110

Operations is the level of analysis between tactics (how do I fight when I get there?) and strategy (why am I fighting at all?). The USMC calls that "campaigning". See MCDP 1-2 [1]. Campaigning is about which battles to fight and where. Strategy includes economic and diplomatic issues, but campaigning is purely military. Military history can be divided into two parts - before machine guns, and after machine guns. Bef…

> Military history can be divided into two parts - before machine guns, and after machine guns. Before machine guns, bunching up was good tactics. After machine guns, it was terrible tactics. Too much of WWI was about learning that the hard way.

Terribly good point! I want to refute you, but I'm not really coming up with much. Automatic rifles are just devastating. How did you come to this conclusion?

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

#129

Post by brianwawok »

mcguire wrote: post #83
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…

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.

Dream to play it someday

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

#130

Post by perlgeek »

tobyhede wrote: post #126

Orc supply logistics is eased somewhat by the ability of the Orc armies to eat the defeated and if required, each other. In the latter case the strong orcs eat the weak, preserving the elite and veteran parts of the army. There is a strong hierarchy within the various Orc subtypes, and an argument could be made that the Orc army marches as its own supply.

I don't think the book mentions any green, fertile farmland in Mordor, nor do the movies show any.

So even if the Orc-eats-Orc or Orc-eats-Man "supply" might work for a short campaign, the biomass must come from somewhere, initially.

Post reply on HN