20-02-2004 10:22									#61
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I believe complexity and realism are more what is needed than more abstract and unrealistic modeling that limits tactics and enables unrealistic work-arounds by way of those very abstractions of flawed game mechanics. Any one for checkers?

If I wanted hyped up Candy Land or Chutes and Ladders than thats what I would play and its high time some real strategy was breathed into the Civ series with a little more detailed attention paid into the combat system. It is very antiquated and needs to be replaced or updated to be on par with its competitors.

Realism not overly complicated but abstracted not counting down to the individual bullets and arrows but more clips, quivers, or artillery rounds but this is the only realistic way to incorporate combat supply lines situations into the combat system. Even the First Person Shooters have a better grasp on the combat supply model than the current Civ combat system. Once the soldiers and platforms exists it is more a matter of resupplying the bombs, guns, and missiles expended in war than reinventing the actual units during peactime build-ups. Arms-races are almost automatically assured and can be linked into the diplomatic models of percieved image and strength. Small changes can round-out and flesh-out the missing pieces of the game.

I do not want a beer-and-pretzels Civ but rather a more realistic game that takes some thought and challenge to be able to play on the higher levels. Re-introduce some challenge and thought process to the strategy not just stacks of tiles that have no connection to each other eccept that they fly the same banner. Link them into cohesive fighting forces of combined units giving the player more meat than more cheese.

Unless under the 'acceptable' abstracts we increase the support costs for units not deemed in-supply and stay with non-realistic your sword against my repeating rifle situations because of abstractions. Very unrealistic.

I also understand those with proven reliable work-around abstraction enabled strategies are put off by having to actually think again when they play Civ but is that not the point of making something more challenging and new and alive once again. I do not think we want to go backwards but rather forwards with the game mechanics and systems and its high time a distinction is made in between ranged and hand-to hand combat. Ranged combat revolutionized and advanced warfare strategy and tactics in its advances much more so than hand-to-hand combat ever did. It is time the game that claims to be a historically based empire builder picks up on this fact.

As always change is resisted at least initially until adpated to and then the norm has changed as well.

	20-02-2004 12:59									#62
	Remove this text

My take on resupply:

Units in a city heal at 20%. Possibly as much as 50% if the city has hospital type improvements.

Units within the nation borders heal at 10%.

units outside the nation heal at 0%.

Ther above numbers should be modified according to unit type. Infantry should always be able to heal regardless of terrain. Ships should only ever heal in port. Air only ever heals on turns where they don't run a mission.

That's about as far into resupply concepts as the game should get.

	20-02-2004 18:57									#63
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Awsric Armitage I believe complexity and realism are more what is needed than more abstract and unrealistic modeling that limits tactics and enables unrealistic work-arounds by way of those very abstractions of flawed game mechanics. Any one for checkers? *SNIP*

First, Civ is already chess... not checkers... and yes... I'll take Civ chess, as will Sid Meier, and just about everyone else.

Secondly, Civ is defined by explicitly simple rules that become complex in their combination. The city/cultural system don't have more complexity that the combat system or the trade system. If you add an additional layer of complexity to combat, this would infer adding an additional layer of complexity to other systems... and the game starts to become MOO3 *shudders*.

Sid Meier (and Brian Reynolds) has been really clear on this... he's had the opportunity to include wargame like systems in Civ, but has declined, not because he can't do it, but because it breaks the cardinal rule of individual system simplicity.

The additional reason to not do it, is that it involves some amount of finese that the AI won't manage, and that the human will...

E.G. AI builds whole bunch of units. They are supported either by X support units or are in the scope of Y city. The human, knowing this, doesn't attack them directly, but attacks the support unit or supporting city, and the supported units become ineffective.

Humans are much better able to attack specific targets than the AI, due to better understanding of planning and coordination, and recognition of the map. While it might be realistic, it breaks game challenge, and thus is undesirable.

In fact, this whole topic is just about the biggest waste of air possible, since Sid undoubtedly will be producing Civ4, and he's categorically not putting war game functionality in Civ. If he wants to build a war game, he'll make "Sid Meier's Gettysburg2".

	21-02-2004 07:25									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

One way to increase the complexity and realism of the game is to attempt to assign deeper meanings that can still be assigned into the "simple" catigories needed to produce and AI that can survive.

When you really break the game down, there's only a few types of units. Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, etc etc.....easy catigories to understand.

Each unit you build would be unique to your civ, and the location of the city where its built. Alot of factors could go into the "quality" of the unit. You just choose the type of unit you want, "make infantry" "make cavalry", etc......and you get a unit. Since we can work with tiny fractions of numbers in the computer, each unit will be different from the last one. Strategic resources, road connections, technology, etc.....these things can all just be factored in without asked the player.

Instead of building a 1-1-1 warrior, or a 1-2-1 phalanx......your civ builds some infantry. They might be 1.3-1.5-1.1, when you open a new iron mine next door, they might jump to 1.8-1.6-1.1.

Eventually you get to "breakpoints" where the improved conditions of the units are displayed as changes in graphics. Like in the case before, you might see the unit now holding a shiny sword.

After all, you never really know how good a unit is before the war starts.

	21-02-2004 07:32									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The inconsistancy might be a problem for MP players.

	21-02-2004 08:00									#66
	Suffering from ads?

Well, simply allow for funding to modernization. While civ3 finally gave into the idea that units can be rearmed, they have yet to give in to the fact that they can also be retrained. This allows you some uniformity within the units.....

Also, in a spread out empire for example, you might raise some basic troops in the country side, then send them to the capital to be armed and trained in the better conditions there.

Last edited by Frank Johnson on 21-02-2004 at 08:05

	21-02-2004 12:22									#67
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Also, in a spread out empire for example, you might raise some basic troops in the country side, then send them to the capital to be armed and trained in the better conditions there.

That is already modelled in civ 3. You buy a basic unit in the outlying areas, then send it to the barracks in the big city for the upgrade to modern weapons.

I'd like it so that older units never actually go obsolte, but players can hide the unit from the construction list. After all, just because we don't actually build war chariots today, it doesn't mean we actually can't.

	21-02-2004 12:45									#68
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Even though 'ammo' units seem undoable for complexity sake of the AIs inability to handle the strategic and tactical implimentation. I still would like to have some form of military control radius similar to culture that expands around fortresses that can lay claim to lands by military means rather than by cultural means. Cities would not convert because of this presence but the ownership of the border lands would remain secure from encrouching cultures other than those of the fortress creator rather than the fortress becoming the property of the culturaly stronger opponent, at least not intially.

Yeah, this belongs pobably in the cultural section not the combat sections.

Supply alernatively could be linked to these military zones created by the fortresses lowering maintenance costs or providing free bonus maintenace to those units under it's influence radius that does not expand like culture does. Call it a military patrol radius or something. Units linked by roads to cities would be similarly effected by reduced maintenance costs.

This I think simulates supply in acceptable game terms of simplicity. No new units just expansion of and slightly different application of an existing concept of cultural influence into military influence as well. Think like the ancient roman fortresses built to watch over the expanding empire. If culture does not eventually catch back up to them then the military outpost could not stem the tide of culture forever but merely delay it for some time.

	23-02-2004 05:36									#69
	Remove this text

OK, I'd DEFINITELY like to add my 2c worth to the combat debate ! THe absolute first thing I'd like to say is that I agree 100% with the idea of a 2-phase combat system-involving orders/movement, followed by combat!

On another point, I have a couple of issues which are related, but tangential to, combat!

1) Balancing movement:

(a) OK, first of all, I DON'T think that there should be just one form of roads, but that you should be able to 'upgrade' roads in each era! Perhaps from 1/3mp to 1/4mp to 1/5mp (where they become superceded by rail anyway!) Of course, better roads entails more cost!!

(b) If infinite RR movement is to remain, then it MUST be conditional! Either units moving along RR squares cannot attack from said squares (and are more vulnerable to attack!) OR the inifite movement only applies when you move onto RR's from a city, colony, fortress, outpost or airbase square! In fact, I'd be tempted to say BOTH conditions should apply! An extra RR constraint could be that every city or tile improvement(see above) that you move through, along the RR, should deduct one mp from that unit-to reflect disembarkment/embarkment!!

c) Naval units should be able to 'rebase' between friendly cities containing a naval base improvement-within a certain range-and be able to do the same between 'naval base' tile improvement! This will, in my opinion, help to make naval power MUCH more relevent well into the industrial/modern ages!

Well, thats THOSE issues dealt with, but I will have more DIRECT combat issues I'd like to deal with later!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	23-02-2004 06:40									#70
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: c) Naval units should be able to 'rebase' between friendly cities containing a naval base improvement-within a certain range-and be able to do the same between 'naval base' tile improvement! This will, in my opinion, help to make naval power MUCH more relevent well into the industrial/modern ages!

Hmm, navies do need to move faster (much faster), but I don't think rebasing ships is the answer. They still aren't as fast as aircraft after all.

I proposed an idea whereby harbour improvements would give a limited rebasing ability similar to cvi2 airports. This could be intercepted by warships.

	23-02-2004 07:27									#71
	Put an end to popups!

That's correct, but the rebase range would be much, MUCH shorter than for aircraft AND it would be easier to intercept them halfway!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	23-02-2004 07:51									#72
	Inflate your Upload Space

OK, I would now like to discuss the issue of SUPPLY!
First up, I DEFINITELY feel that some form of supply line system is needed for civ4 (and Civ3, if I might make so bold !!) It doesn't have to be too complicated in order to add a fantastic new element to the game, though!
First of all, if you are within your own borders, you are considered 'In Supply'. If you move outside you borders, however, you run the risk of ending up outside your supply lines!
At the risk of sounding repetitive, your 'supply range' or 'operational range' will be ultimately dependant on the type and tech level of the unit! SpecOps and non-combat units would have quite long range (indicating an ability to 'live off the land', wheras cavalry and motorized units will have much shorter ranges.
This basic 'OR' would then be modified by terrain factors! Harsh terrain will shorten 'OR's', wheras good terrain will improve it. The presence of a road and/or farmland (whether they're yours or not) will help to improve OR's. In addition, certain units might possess something similar to the 'Ignore Movement Cost' flag, in that they ignore the 'OR' effects of certain terrain types.
In order to increase OR's into enemy territory, you would need to either capture an enemy city-and connect it to your trade network, or build a road connecting your empire to your 'supply points' (basically, just fortresses!) Being outside your OR has two effects: (a) You have a chance/turn of losing hp (morale??) from each of your units which are outside their range and (b) They cannot heal any damage-AT ALL-until they are back within their OR!! Any unit which loses all of it's hp's by being outside supply is either (i) DEAD or (ii) becomes a 'marauder', a regular barbarian unit that attacks anyone and anyone-and pillages like hell, I might add!!! Oh, and I also agree 100% with lazjar's suggestions about healing rates in various places, with the supply bit being the next step down!!
BTW certain techs, like replacable parts and the like, would all help to improve OR's
Anyway, that's the end of 'part 2' of my combat discussion! Hope to have more later!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	23-02-2004 12:40									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

OK, these are the stats which I think units should potentially have:

1) Attack Strength/Defense Strength: A units ability to dish out/avoid an attack from close quarters.

2) Ranged AS/Bombardment Defense: A units ability to dish out/avoid attacks from range.

3) Firepower: The base amount of damage the unit can dish out. Ranged units might have 2 FP's-one for ranged combat and another for close-in!

4) Range: The 'relative' range from which the unit can hit oncoming enemies. This number-the range of the enemy signifies the number of 'free' shots the former unit can get before they 'slug it out'!

5) Armour: An indication of the relative 'toughness' of a unit. This number is deducted from enemy damge before being applied to HP's

6) Hit Points: A combination of the raw amount of damage a unit can sustain, as well as general 'morale'. Should range from 1-20, 1-50 or 1-100! Units starting HP's are based on general unit type and TL, and can increase according to troop experience!

7) Operational Range: The # of hexes outside friendly territory that the unit can operate in. Each hex beyond this range increases the chance of the unit losing HP's!

8) Favoured/Shunned Orders: A short list of the orders which will give a bonus to attack/defense strength, and those most likely to reduce it.

9) Favoured/Shunned Terrains: Just like the above, but for terrains.

10) Special Abilities: This includes things like Anti-Air, bonus vs. certain units, terraforming etc.

Well, there you have it, my definitive view of how combat should operate in Civ4!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	23-02-2004 12:53									#74
	Increase Your PM Length

That supply system seems a bit complicated to explain to an AI.

I always imagined that the speed of supply lines was keyed into the movement rates of the units. After all, a modern tank can do 60 mph no problem, while infantry do about 4 mph. Yet tanks don't have a move of 15. I figure it is the supply line that causes the slowed movement.

	23-02-2004 13:10									#75
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Yes, but in the abstractions of the supply lines they are protected from interuption and thus are not a valid target for an enemy. This should not be and they should be able to be disrupted adding another dimension to the combat tactics.

As for the AI, I say reprogram it rather than make excuses for not reprogramming it. A much better AI is a must have for improving the quality of play. A much better and additional idea that has been offered for other games is for a company to actually add additional AI patches to compensate for known player cheats or work arounds based off the customers own tactics.

No one has been willing to support such an idea to date that I know of. It would make the game play more interesting as the AI in effect learned to counter the human moves by adding the patches.

	23-02-2004 13:16									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't think it would be THAT complex! Mostly it's just telling the AI that it can move freely within friendly territory, but make it increasingly reluctant to stray further from it's maximum operational range. You would also tell the AI to bee-line to it's OR the moment it starts to recieve damage! As for attacking supply lines, in order to strand enemy units outside their operational range, the AI pretty effectively attacks roads and rail links inside enemy territory, so it shouldn't be too hard to tell the AI to attack such targets inside their OWN territory-especially if faced with a seemingly unbeatable opponent! Also healing inside enemy territory, if within your supply line, should be about 5%, rather than 0%-another factor which should encourage the AI to use it!
Ultimately, though, I do feel that MP's would need to be increased a bit, at least for mounted and motorized units, to make up for their shorter OR! This would reflect their ability to rapidly strike a target, then fall back to within their OR! I just want situations where you can defeat those awful SoD's, simply by dashing behind their lines, and severing their lines of supply! Just as was done to the Russians in Afghanistan, Hitler in Russia, and Napolean in Russia!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	23-02-2004 13:22									#77
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

ok, how about this for supply:

Each unit has a supply attribute. For special forces and other live off the land units, this will be high. For tanks and other high maintenance units, it will be low. Each turn the unit spends outside the national borders, it loses 1 supply. Supply is replenished in full when entering a friendly city.

If a unit reaches 0 supply, it takes 0-100% (randomly determined) of its maximum health each turn.

I know it is easy to say reprogramme the ai to make it identify mobile supply points as valid targets. But if you can do this, you'll have made history in wargame design.

	23-02-2004 13:41									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: ...Just as was done to the Russians in Afghanistan, Hitler in Russia, and Napolean in Russia!!

In Russia, it wasn't anything the Russians did that smashed the supply lines - it was the weather. And the Russian armies were suffering just as badly.

Well, the French could have lived off the land in that, if the Russians hadnt conducted a scorched earth policy as they retreated to Moscow. But I think pillaging your own improvements to prevent the enemy having a supply line during a harsh winter (the only time that would be effective) is going a bit too far into exceptional circumstances. An intelligent commander limits his campaigns to summer.

	23-02-2004 13:42									#79
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I know it is easy to say reprogramme the ai to make it identify mobile supply points as valid targets. But if you can do this, you'll have made history in wargame design.

I would have to disagree with the amount of difficulty that apparently people are attaching to programming the military AIs behavior. Classifying targets as hard and soft targets has been done repeatatively successfully for many games with differing target parameters. this would be a simple (x,y) system. Add the additional elements of target priority assignments to known and identified targets and then command and control recieves a 8 to 10 on a 10 point scale, supply receives a 7 to 9, high attack strength armored units if armed with armor piercing or effective weapons gets a 5 to 8, etc. Just because the programming gets complicated does not mean it is beyond doing and workable and just that someone has not does not mean that it cannot be done. Just think outside the (x,y) planar geometry of combat AI and enter the (x, y, z) of adding target prioritization to the combat AI.

	24-02-2004 11:40									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Actually, Lazjar, Napolean did have a very effective supply line, but it was attacked and destroyed by the Cossacks, which just goes to prove my point! The situation Russia faced in Afghanistan is an even better proof of my point, though!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	24-02-2004 19:58									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

There's an extensive discussion of supply in the (drumroll please) Supply Thread. But just to recap some of my ideas from there, since it does relate to combat:

What is the behavior that we want to emulate in the game? We want to create a situation where it is advantageous to get behind the line and attack the "supply lines".

So there needs to be a target behind the main lines, which is worth something to the troops. Since building a supply depot every time your troops move is prohibitively tedious, it stands to reason that the target should be some sort of "Supply Unit".

I think that the simplest way to implement this is to create a "Supply Unit" that radiates something along the lines of a 3 tile radius of attack/defense bonus (maybe 25%). Then you need to create a mechanism that keeps this unit behind your main stack. It does no good for gameplay if players just keep the supply unit in the stack with the rest of the units.

A couple of mechanisms will keep the Supply unit a couple of tiles behind the main stack:
1)Supply units defend first. If you're dumb enough to put your supply guys on the front line when you're being attacked, you deserve to loose them.
2)Bombard does extra damage to supply units and the bonus is based on a percentage of hit points. Once you get range 2 bombard pieces, this guarantees that Supply units stay 2 tiles behind your main stack.

While this isn't a perfect representation of the way supply works in RL, it will create gameplay that mimics RL strategic concerns i.e. sneaking around behind the lines to attack the supply.

	24-02-2004 20:23									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Another thought about combat.

I don't like the gameplay that the current A/D initiative system creates. The fact that a fair fight, on level ground between two equal units (say swordsmen) overwhelming favors the agressor creates some funky gameplay. No one wants to close with the enemy, because you give the other player the initiative. So you end up with this standoff, where you circle around each other waiting for one to move in.

Its even more exasperating with something like archers. Are you telling me that in a 1 on 1 battle, the advancing archers are going to beat the defending archers??? No way. At the very least, it's a fair fight, if not slightly balanced in the defenders favor.

The only way I can think of to fix this is to make 1 on 1 fights perfectly 50-50. But allow terrain, fortification, etc. to adjust this. Initiative would still play a role, in the fact that if you allow them a turn to fortify, you are loosing out. But it wouldn't be as drastic as it is now.

	24-02-2004 21:27									#83
	Support Apolyton

If each round of combat has both sides attack and defend, then the problem is solved. Initiative to the attacker means that the damange he causes the defender is calculated first each round, meaning he has chance to kill the defender in any given round before the defender can counterattack.

This is more realistic, and would create the 50-50 situation that wrylachlan has brought up.


I'd like to point out that I want this to be the type of system that is used to resolve stacked combat.

	29-02-2004 05:21									#84
	Got spare money?

CtP style combat is great. There is no weird advantage to defenders or offense, so you can move units in range without fear of losing them immediately. It prevents people from using only strong attack units by providing support fire (a strong attacker vs. a strong defender wins, but the odds are reversed if both have support fire), and flanking is present too, making for some real combined arms tactics.
Note if you don't like stacks, using simultaneous moves (orders phase/moves only solved when end turn is pressed) lets you have stacked combat without stacks.
Some supply line mechanism is definitely needed.

Sieges should be handled too. Fortifications are the only reason why people built catapults in the first place, and the main reason firearms (cannons) were developped. City walls should not just add a bonus to defense. They should bring huge defense bonus until they are breached, or breaching them should be necessary before fight actually takes place. If you want simple systems like civ always had, you can add a breach figure in every unit. f.e. archer/swordsmen have 1, while catapult has 10, and it takes 10 breach points to take out an ancient wall, 20 a medieval fortification, 40 a star-fortification, 80 a WW2 bunker.

	29-02-2004 05:58									#85
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Siege trains and siege equipment for breaching walls has significant historic change and progress through out the ages.

Catapult to later Trebuchet.

Even the first recorded biowarfare of launching diseased carcasses over the walls to infect the defenders. Much, much, more....including fire and its effects. Boiling oil and Wall Archers.

IMHO supply needs to be expendable and replishable and transportable. All three need to be present so units run out of supply, can be replinished by land or even later remote air-drop and sea for those units beyond your borders on foreign shores. Lastly transportable along with all other commodities including food but not shields and research as those are local. Transporatable so that these resources can be intercepted by barbarians and robbers or bandits and enemy units if not protected. Also one cities abundant harvesting of local fields with the proper storage and transportation technology could support other cities not so well off geographically for farming but do have other valuables to trade for the food internally generating extra trade incomes for both cities. Valuable lines for supply and also for commerce. Very viable tatgets for any would be attacker. Actually wars have begun over such routes.

	29-02-2004 06:32									#86
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If you want a detailed ammunition supply model, I believe there are plenty of games that can do that. battle Isle III is a bit old now, but does a fine job. There are doubtless others.

However, focusing on the war side to this level of detail distracts from the real charm of Civ - making a civilisation.

On the idea of having supply lines as separate units: No thanks. Adding an extra unit which does nothing on its own is called micromanagement. In addition, the proposed range of the expanded supply from such units is roughly equivalent to having a city there. It makes about as much sense simply to conquer the enemy city first. And if you're going to use them to wander across Siberia to attack, well, thats unrealistic.

Having a supply unit that increases combat stats by 25% is also silly. Why not just call it a "field marshal" unit? That would have the same effect, and be for more exciting. Which gets your blood pumping more; moving your generals or moving your supply trains?

Here's my proposal:

First, units cost maintenance. Civ2 had shields, Civ3 had gold. The basic maintenance should be in both gold and shields (these can be different), and varies depending on the unit, so carriers cost more than phalanx to maintain. Modern armies especially place a horrendous drain on resources that just isn't adequately expressed by just charging one or the other of gold/shields.

Gold costs are taken from the treasury. Shield costs are taken from the unit's home city. If a unit's home city falls, each surviving unit from that city automatically switches to the city nearest to where they are at that moment (ancient govs where the loyalty is to city before nation will still disband in this situation). This can still result in cities supporting too many units, resulting in units being disbanded due to lack of shields. Lack of gold too can cause unit disbanding.

Any unit that starts a turn in hostile territory costs 2x normal maintenance. Hostile is considered to be within the borders of a civ that you are currently at war with.

Units also have a supply range statistic. For primitive melee units, this will be unlimited. For tanks, this might be 15. Any unit that is more than [supply range] tiles from a friendly/allied city suffers a x0.5 penalty to attack.

For unit healing, there are 2 general categories:

Vehicles - Heal at 20% in a city. No healing outside cities. Improvements appropriate to the vehicle type can increase the healing (repair) rate. A Seaport should repair ships faster, an airport can repair aircraft faster.

Foot/Horse - Heal at 20% in a city. No healing in hostile territory (within the borders of nations you are at war with). Heal at 10% in all other areas. Battlefield Medicene small wonder allows healing in hostile territory at 10%. Hospitals increase city healing rate.

We could also have field doctor/mechanic units that provide 20% (equal to an unimproved city) healing/repair to units stacked with them. In all cases, maximum city healing should be 40% or so. No insta-healing.

Regarding combat, I favour CTP style, with the extra change that the stack size that can engage in combat is determined by how effective your military leadership technology is.

	29-02-2004 07:14									#87
	Suffering from ads?

quote: On the idea of having supply lines as separate units: No thanks. Adding an extra unit which does nothing on its own is called micromanagement. In addition, the proposed range of the expanded supply from such units is roughly equivalent to having a city there. It makes about as much sense simply to conquer the enemy city first. And if you're going to use them to wander across Siberia to attack, well, thats unrealistic.

You are forgetting the tactical combat implications of cutting supply lines and capturing enemies supplies to be used as your own forcing defending your supplies. An army has and will always travel on its stomach and empty gas tanks and no ammo means no war and no taking that city to base your supply from. Also other commodities have been proposed to also be transportable and thus are also valid targets for interception. However, I do agree that a system of automation can also exist to minimize micro-management once assets have been set-up and allocated to fullfill this role.

A city will not fall if the attackers cannot breach its defenses. This takes time and efforts hence the siege trains and equipment to lay siege to the cities and starve them out during that particular era of warfare and civilization development.

What actually gets my blood pumping is realistically modeled but yet still simple to comprehend and manage combat systems that enhance both tactical and strategic levels. I also want enhanced leaders and unit training facilities with trained units coordinating tactics better with units that they have previoulsy drilled with or fought besides. Additionally battle honors for units and organizations also needs to be included so the history and signifigance of some units and formations are a source of pride to the civilization and the player.

Going backwards with unit support coming from the home cities is just, well, going backwards. Militaries are supported by and created from the resources of the entire civilization not just the city of origin or base. Ancient slavery and choices of fight or die might well cause some interesting game play challenges as well.

Regarding building civilizations that is the name of the game and no one is disputing that fact. This is the combat thread afterall and that is what the discussions have rotated around. However, protecting that civilizations advancement through out the changing technolgical fields of warfare and city improvements through out that time period also needs to be modeled. Warfare has changed throughout the history of civilization but almost invariably the civilization that can out produce its rivals in either materials or raw population reserves will eventually win any war of attrition. Cases proving this are too numerous to mention. So economically you must develope your society technologically, militarily, and culturally to survive. No one has debated that these need to be balanced and adding more realism to all aspects needs to be done more thoroughly to improve on the existing games model of this trek through history.

	29-02-2004 10:30									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

OK, I've had another idea regarding Supply Lines in Combat. How about you simply click on a unit (or stack of units), and have one of the commands for the unit be 'assign supply point'. You then click on a city, tile improvement or possibly even a UNIT, which then becomes your 'Nearest' point of supply! As your unit moves outside of friendly territory, a thin line appears (like a tether), which 'attaches' the unit(s) to their supply point. A unit which has not done that has a half normal operational range! Basically, any friendly or captured city can be a 'supply point', as can airbases, naval bases, outposts, fortresses and colonies. It might be possible to have a slow unit which can act as a mobile supply point-but this is just optional! Of course, if an enemy wants to hurt you, then they will have to either a) Capture and/or destroy the city or tile improvement which is acting as your supply point or b) sit on the 'line', attaching your units to that supply point, for a whole turn! All my other ideas relating to supply (such as terrain effects, Operational Ranges and recieving and repairing damage) should, in my opinion, be retained !

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	29-02-2004 10:38									#89
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Awsric Armitage You are forgetting the tactical combat implications of cutting supply lines and capturing enemies supplies to be used as your own forcing defending your supplies. An army has and will always travel on its stomach and empty gas tanks and no ammo means no war and no taking that city to base your supply from. Also other commodities have been proposed to also be transportable and thus are also valid targets for interception. However, I do agree that a system of automation can also exist to minimize micro-management once assets have been set-up and allocated to fullfill this role.

I agree that attacking and capturing/destroying enemy supply lines is a valid tactic. I just feel that creating supply units is going the same way as the CTP lawyer unit. It just doesn't seem like an exciting way to implement it. I'm all for a supply model which does not involve creating a non-combat unit.

quote: What actually gets my blood pumping is realistically modeled but yet still simple to comprehend and manage combat systems that enhance both tactical and strategic levels. I also want enhanced leaders and unit training facilities with trained units coordinating tactics better with units that they have previoulsy drilled with or fought besides. Additionally battle honors for units and organizations also needs to be included so the history and signifigance of some units and formations are a source of pride to the civilization and the player.

Well, I want general units to give a combat bonus for, say, every unit within 1 tile (or an enhanced stack limit if stacked combat is implemented). Creating a unit history where you can name units is also cool. Barracks are cool too. I'd even go so far as to suggest that certain uits should require a particular city improvement as an optional flag. No knights without stables for example.

quote: Going backwards with unit support coming from the home cities is just, well, going backwards. Militaries are supported by and created from the resources of the entire civilization not just the city of origin or base. Ancient slavery and choices of fight or die might well cause some interesting game play challenges as well.

I agree that in a modern context, having support coming from specific cities and losing armies that came from that city if the city falls, well, is crazy.

But in the context of ancient civilisations and primitive government systems, it makes perfect sense. If the soldiers identify more as being citizens of a particular city than as being citizens of an entire nation, your generals are going to have a very hard time maintaining discipline once the soldiers believe their wives and children are in danger. That's why I proposed that only ancient governments would have this issue. I'd amend that further to say that once nationalism is researched, this will no longer be an issue at all.

	29-02-2004 13:58									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

JUst a thought...

How about this:

All cities act as supply sources. I think we are all in agreement on that point anyway. All infantry units act as supply nodes. A supply node/source provides supply to all units within 3 tiles.

I specifically state only infantry acts as a supply node to represent the fact that only infantry can hold ground effectively. This also helps to encourage a mix of units; infantry to hold the ground (either as supply nodes or guarding captured cities), cavalry for the assault, and artillery to crush tough defences. Let's face it, infantry get short shift in the late game.

Under this model, if you are making a deep assault without capturing cities (supply sources), you'd leave behind a string of infantry along your advance path.

This is basically The_Aussie_Lurker's proposal, but without those extra funky graphics on screen to represent the supply lines.