 |
| |
|
|
Stuie
|
 |
Have a beer!
Sep 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
The Problem: originally written by alexman...
The often-stated problem with ship movement in Civ3 is that it takes forever to move around larger maps. But if you increase the movement of ships, it creates an unfair tactical advantage for seaborne invasions and raids. Increase movement too much and defending fleets and airpower have no chance to intercept the attackers before they drop off their passengers, bombard their targets, and vanish into the fog of war or into home ports in the same turn. [/alexman]
I would only amend the above by saying that retreating into a home port is no longer an attractive option, given that ships can be easily sunk when bombarded in a port.
Possible Solutions:
Increase the movement for all post-sail ships by 1 or 2 (or more...?). This would allow ships to traverse larger maps in a more realistic time-frame. It would have to be balanced with the need to keep movement low enough for Tiny/Small maps.
more stuff lifted from an alexman post...
One solution is to make movement in Ocean cost less than movement along the coast. That would allow rapid movement across oceans, with more movement spent in tactical operations near the enemy. This has been adopted over at the GOTM with success, but the problem is that it allows ancient Galleys to discover the World much faster.
What if we did the following:
Galley and Caravel are unchanged, with Galleys needing two movement points to enter Ocean. After this point, we double movement of all ships, but charge extra for movement in Coast (3), Sea (2), and ignore the extra cost of Ocean. That way exploration in the Ancient Age is still hampered, but later ships can quickly cross oceans, without removing the chance of naval/aerial combat near the shore.[/alexman]
Any other ideas? Comments? Please share your thoughts for the AU mod!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
This might not be doable, but what if entering a rival civ's borders slowed you down the same way it does with ground units & roads?
If you have RoP, you still zip right along, if not, you're down to full/increased movement costs?
Is that possible?
I've never understood why roads magically stop working when I cross an imaginary line, but the gameplay reasoning does make sense.
Any chance of making un-hostile territory in water act like un-hostile roaded land and hostile/non-RoP waters act like hostile-non-RoP land? I like the consistency it would bring, but realize it may not be feasible.
I do like the idea of putting a 'wrinkle in time' for later ocean travel, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
donZappo
|
|
Didn't Conquests add some movement to post ancient era ships already? I think I remember this change being implemented, but am not 100% positive. If so, are these proposed changes taking this additional movement into account already?
My initial thoughts, without testing anything, are that if you double ship movement and make oceans cost only 1mp then that is way too fast even if sea/coast are made slower to traverse. Destroyers and Transports would then have, what, 14 movement points? If you have one coastal and sea square than these ships could move 9 squares in the ocean and then offload the troops. This is fine if you do want to give such units 11 movement points to balance them, but it strikes me as being a bit too fast.
I agree with an increase post-sail ship movement by 1 or 2 points and still make coast/sea tiles slower for them to move through. That way they could still skate around a continental mass at a good speed, but would have to slow down to go in for (or retreat from) an attack. The galleys would be fine since it appears that they're going to cost 2mp to go through ocean squares and this movement penalty could just be ignored by post-sail ships.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nor Me
|
|
This proposal would make it much harder to stop transports before they arrive. They would typically only enter one tile of sea and one of coast and it doesn't matter for the purposes of unloading whether it ends it's turn on the coast tile or not.
Skywalker, so that would give seafaring civs an extra 3 movement? That might be desirale but only if the movements were very large to start with. Having a submarine that moved 50% faster might be overpowered or at least difficult to balance between seafaring and non-seafaring civs. Unless that's the aim or we were considering giving them blitz then I can't seeany point now in giving ships all terrain as roads.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Risa
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stuie
They're still too slow for my taste, but I usually play on large+ maps. I'd prefer at least giving them another movement piont....
|
Aha, THAT is the problem. As I always play standard maps, I am quite comfort with the stock rule.
Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on this matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
geniemalin
|
|
I play small or tiny maps, and find ship movements work well. I'd hate to try to send a fleet across the map on a standard+ map....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Madine
|
|
I think that the AI would be much more dangerous in the late game if transports could carry more ships, and the movement rate of ships was increased.
The AI is inferior at long term planning, and efficiently using its units. Humans are much better at planning and executing an amphibious landing, giving them a significant advantage in industrial and onward.
Even if it was easier to land an amphibious force without having the transport sunk first, consider that industrial nations tend to be covered in railroads, allowing the defenders entire army free movement to counterattack or defend.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
Actually, as much as I hate capacity-6 transports, I actually think that benefits the AI - the AI blows at naval invasions, rarely sends full transports, and always escorts transports with far more escorts than I ever use.
I also think faster ships would - for the same reasons - not benefit the AI much, if at all, but would help the human.
Add the fact that many human players will be fully railed and have a big ole stack of Arty and a bunch of leftover Cavs to easily take out any invasion force, and I just don't see the whole sea-borne AI attack benefitting whatsoever.
The main reason I see as a plus for increasing ship movement and transport capacity is that it would make IC invasions easier for the human... less of a burden... less painful. I just don't see any evidence that this sort of change would do anything to help the AI in a meaningful way.
That's just my opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
I agree with ducki. AIs are so inept at intercontinental invasions that faster transports would almost never make a real difference when they invade humans, at least when they invade our home continents. In island invasions, who would benefit more would depend on how many transports each side has to deliver reinforcements and where the transports are, so which side would benefit more would be up for grabs.
Human players would get a real benefit a lot more often. Situations where transport speed would actually tip the balance in a war would be relatively rare, but could happen. Consider the implications of having reinforcements arrive a turn sooner against a heavy AI counterattack, or of being able to land two waves of troops per transport instead of one in the initial invasion (unloading, returning to a city, loading, and then going to the landing site and unloading again). More often, the difference would just be one of helping the player win a bit more quickly, but winning one war more quickly help provide a stronger position for the next.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Madine
|
|
I have seen the AI land full transports. More often than not they are full in games I have played.
I usually see 3 escorts for a transport.
There are three main reasons why I think an increased transport capacity benefits the AI. The human is much better at long range planning, and can calculate, "I need/want to invade with X units, so I need Y transports". Also, the AI tends to build more units than the human, and an increased transport capacity benefits that strategy. Finally, an increased transport capacity reduces the need/effectivenss of a simoultaneous landing of many transports.
Even if the AI isn't able to effectively invade the human main continent effectively, wouldn't an increased transport capacity help stronger AIs defeat weaker AIs, as well as invade islands?
quote:
Consider the implications of having reinforcements arrive a turn sooner against a heavy AI counterattack, or of being able to land two waves of troops per transport instead of one in the initial invasion (unloading, returning to a city, loading, and then going to the landing site and unloading again). |
I don't understand why those scenarios wouldn't benefit an AI invasion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
If the first wave of an invasion dies before the second wave can arrive, the timing of the second wave makes little difference. Whether the second wave comes a turn sooner or a turn later, it is an entirely separate attack and can be dealt with as such.
In contrast, when the initial invasion wave cannot be defeated immediately, the timing of reinforcements is a lot more critical. Consider the following scenario:
A player underestimates how strong an AI is and lands 20 infantry protecting 10 artillery. The AI counterattacks, but does not have the forces to destroy the entire stack right away. After the second turn of the AI counterattack, the player is down to half a dozen infantry, none of which has more than two hit points left.
If the player can land another 30 units before the AI gets to strike again, the AI counterattackers will have to go up against fresh infantry with artillery support. At that point, the success of the invasion is all but guaranteed.
But if the player cannot land the reinforcements until the turn after that, chances aren't bad that the remaining infantry will be killed and the artillery captured. The loss of half a dozen additional infantry that could have healed to fight another day, and the loss of ten artillery at least until they can be recaptured, would be a very serious setback - especially if the player has little spare artillery in reserve.
Granted, players usually do a good enough job calculating what they need for a successful invasion that they succeed. But every now and then, AI resistance proves to be unexpectedly strong. (That's especially true when playing on a higher difficulty level than a player is accustomed to.) In one AU game back in PtW, I had an invasion force that had to hang on by the skin of its teeth for a while before additional (and more advanced) reinforcements could arrive to help out, and in an experiment on Deity (a level I don't normally play), my initial attempts to invade one of the AIs were actually repulsed. So borderline invasion situations definitely do happen.
Regarding landing multiple waves per transport in a single turn, that's a standard trick in my own playbook when land masses are close enough to allow it. I've even been known to build a city for the sole and specific purpose of putting me as close as possible to the enemy land mass in order to pull that trick. But in years of playing Civ 3, I don't recall ever seeing an AI do that to me. So I view making that trick available more often (as would be the case if transports moved faster) as something that would definitely favor human players.
Regarding the capacity of transports, I view the reduction from earlier versions in C3C as something that makes intercontinental invasions clearly more challenging for me. Transports can only be built in coastal cities. Coastal cities tend to have lower production than inland cities, so not only do they take longer to build a unit of equal cost, but they're generally lagging behind inland cities in city improvements. On top of that, coastal cities have more city improvements to build - such as harbors and commercial docks. And transports have to compete with warships for space in shipyards.
Put all of that together and the result is that I virtually never have the capacity to build as many ships as I'd really like to, at least until well into the modern era, without diverting cities away from other things I want them to build. So with each transport carrying less, I have to either divert more production away from city improvements and/or warships to build transports or settle for less transport capacity than I'd really like to have. That is the sort of interesting strategic choice that I'm inclined to think that the AU Mod should not undermine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Risa
|
|
Just for the sake of change?
Group movement can sync them up pretty well, without any change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
I agree with Risa, using the J-key to move a stack/pair together works just fine, and the extra movement points on the non-transports gives you an opportunity to have your escort attack without getting away from you sometimes.
I say leave them as is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ision
|
|
quote:
Does anybody else find this intensely annoying? I'd say leave Destroyers at 8, and change everything else to 6. |
hell yes ! very annoying
please DO submit this for consideration-
Ision
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-2003 18:55
|