Polimar wrote:Feauters:
Ancient Command and Supply System (based on the Wars in America system).
Someone can highlight me about that? Never played this game.
I should start by saying that I know nothing about what has gone into the game so my comments do no necessarily reflect anything in the actual game development.
Having said that, logistics in classical antiquity were a bit different from what we're used to in more modern times.
In AACW, for example, you worry about food and ammunition. In classical antiquity ammunition wasn't usually a big deal (except to Surena and Crassus), so all you really needed to worry about was food.
That's where the fun begins.
Now I have a few reservations about Don Engels' logistics model, but since we're living in a post-Hanson, post-Engels, and post-Peter Green world, his comments have to be taken into account.
The bottom line is that supply didn't really get moved around much in classical antiquity. It did sometimes move by water (as in the grain shipments from Sicily, Tunisia, and Egypt), but much of this was at a strategic level and outside of the scope of armies moving around. There is a possibility that certain navigable rivers played a role in shifting grain supplies around to support military operations, but much of this is conjectural.
The problem is that in antiquity people were interested in different things than we are, and wrote for different reasons than we do. The thing we call 'historical writing' would have been unrecognizable to someone in antiquity, and they probably would have wondered why anyone would bother to read such a thing. History, for the Greeks and Romans, was a form of literary entertainment, and that entertainment often included a fair amount of rhetoric. That's why there are so many made up speeches in Thucydides, which puzzles modern readers to no end.
But the real crux of the problem is that in antiquity people weren't really interested in reading about the nuts and bolts of how things were done, and one of the things that seems to have bored them to tears was discussions of supply and logistics.
So what it comes down to is that any modern discussion of ancient supply and logistics is by necessity conjectural, because our areas of interest were different from theirs.
The current way of thinking seems to be that armies tended to march from one well-supplied area to another, and when they did they probably weren't carrying more than a week or two of food at most. And some people will tell you that prior to more modern times they couldn't because their pack animals would have consumed their burdens after about a week (this is the part I have reservations about, but it can't be ignored -- it has to do with ancient vs. modern harnesses).
So what you did, well in advance of any campaigning, is you made arrangements for food stockpiles to be built in locations where you were likely to position your army.
The implications of all of this is that everyone's movement and campaigning was tied to the agricultural cycle.
Throughout much of the mediterranean wars were traditionally started in the late spring/early summer, because your troops had to bring in the winter harvest (if there was one) and do the spring planting. You wanted your army to arrive in enemy territory when the crops were ripe, partly because you wanted to prevent your enemy from gathering his harvest, and partly because you wanted to have something to forage.
What that means in game development terms, by the way, is that supply should not be generated in areas at an even rate but rather in spurts according to the agricultural cycle (which will be different for Western Europe, the north Mediterranean litoral, the north Mediterranean interior, North Africa, Egypt -- which needs its own special rules to reflect the flooding of the Nile --, and the Levantine coast and Palestine).