21-03-2004 14:37									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

About stack limits:
It's possible to add a supply value to squares, value which is increased by the existence of (friendly) roads towards a city/base/headquarter. If you exceed the supply value, your troops start taking damage.
This would let supply lines exist as an abstraction: If the shortest path to a firendly city was 3 turns but suddenly becomes 5 because a hostile unit just sat on one of your roads, then available supplies drop from (f.e.) 5 to 3 and your stack of 5 units start taking damage which will stop only when 3 units are left or more supplies are available. (this is more or less what happens in the game Dominions II, but the pathfinding is easier in that game than it'd be in Civ).

	22-03-2004 15:41									#122
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As I pointed out earlier, North Korea* has what amounts to a stack of 100 uits in a single tile. Since it evidently isn't building 50+ units every year, it stands to reason that the supply limit for any given tile is probabluy more than would be useful as a game mechanic. I suspect DOminions II's rule was more a game balance mechanic than a serious attempt at realism. The number of units that can live on a single tile is surprisingly large.

* As a percentage of total population, North korea has the world's biggest army.

	23-03-2004 05:11									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

But lajzar, isn't that making huge assumptions about what a Civ 4 unit will represent?

Just teasing... but it bears consideration.

	25-03-2004 20:10									#124
	AMBUSH BONUS Enter the AD-FREE zone

We already know about the terrain defensive bonus, but I was thinking about an AMBUSH BONUS AS A SPECIAL ABILITY.

Ambush bonus can be a special ability for Guerrilla type units, under this point of view, a guerrilla type unit gets the defensive bonus of the starting tile as an ambush bonus against the other unit.

e.g. A guerrilla attacking from a forest gets 100 % of ambush bonus in its attack.

EDIT

I have just notice that my idea is very similar to aaglo's.

	25-03-2004 20:21									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Under a military Alliance combined with Right of Passage, allied units should be able to be on the same tile.

Supposing, English and French are Allied, English units should be able to occupy the same tiles the French units, even enter French cities where they can recover or help to defend them.

In addition, it would be good to be able to transport allies of different countries in the same ship.

I know this is difficult for the IA, but it is a great advance in Multiplayer.

	25-03-2004 20:54									#126
	Re: AMBUSH BONUS Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kramsib We already know about the terrain defensive bonus, but I was thinking about an AMBUSH BONUS AS A SPECIAL ABILITY. Ambush bonus can be a special ability for Guerrilla type units, under this point of view, a guerrilla type unit gets the defensive bonus of the starting tile as an ambush bonus against the other unit. e.g. A guerrilla attacking from a forest gets 100 % of ambush bonus in its attack. EDIT I have just notice that my idea is very similar to aaglo's.

I think the best way to work ambushes would be to give the attacker a bonus when the defender can't see him at the beginning of the turn.

Then you could give certain units invisibility in certain terrains.

i.e. Your scout on the mountain sees an enemy swordsman 2 tiles away from your Javelin Thrower in the Jungle. The Javelin Thrower (H)ides which makes him invisible. The Swordsman moves to the tile next to the Javelin Thrower, at which point the Javelin Thrower attacks. Since the Swordsman couldn't see the Javelin Thrower at the start of the turn, the JT gets a bonus.

This makes visibility/scouting more important since you have to know the enemy is coming in order to (H)ide.

	25-03-2004 20:55									#127
	Increase Your PM Length

Being able to stack allied units from different civs was possible in SMAC iirc. It really shouldn't be difficult to repeat something that has already been written, especially since the development team is from the same company(?), so they'll have access to the relevant source code.

Using transports from allies would be more complicated to implement, but if the ideas in the various maritime manifestos is implemented, it would not be necessary.

That ambush bonus is interesting, but I have a feeling it could be very unbalancing, especially as attack factors are typically higher, so that terrain multiplier suddenly becomes a lot more powerful than if it were applied to the defence factor as normal. Perhaps instead of directly multiplying teh attack factor, the attack is instead increaed by whatever teh defence would have been increased by with that terrain multiplier.

Example: Tank (10-5-3) with ambush flag, attacking from a mountain (x2 terrain bonus). If it were defending, the defence factor would become 10 with the terrain modifer, an increase of 5 points. So the modified attack factor is 15 when ambushing from the forest. Without this, it would be 20, which would almost certainly stomp anything within the same tech era.

A2 = A + ((D * terr) - D)

A2 - modified attack factor
A - base attack factor
terr - terrain modifer

	25-03-2004 21:59									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Perhaps we should limit it, I mean, ambush bonus is for defensive wars only, that is to say, it takes place only in your own territory.

It is supposed you know your territory better than your enemy, so your guerrilla type units get this bonus only in your territory.

Other alternatives that I have thought.

Extend ambush bonus to all units, but they receive only 50 % of the defensive bonus of the tile they attack from. (Guerrila type gets 100 % as a special ability).

With this 50 % we reduce an abusive attack modifier.

	26-03-2004 02:32									#129
	Support Apolyton

If we extend teh ambush bonus to all units at half strength and give "ambush flagged" units a full strength bonus, we may as well just halve the terrain modifers instead; it would have exactly the sme effect and reduce the calculations required.

I think you're on the right track in saying the ambush should only apply in your own territory.

	26-03-2004 03:22									#130
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What about setting the ambush bonus as the result of the difference between the defense bonus of the starting tile and the targeted tile?.

Last edited by Kramsib on 26-03-2004 at 03:35

	26-03-2004 19:26									#131
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kramsib What about setting the ambush bonus as the result of the difference between the defense bonus of the starting tile and the targeted tile?.

In your view what would make some one walk into an "ambush"? I mean if there isn't some sort of invisibility, then why doesn't the enemy just avoid the ambush and go around??? I think that invisibility has to play some sort of role, as well as the unit doing the ambush not moving on the turn before.

Maybe a the simplest way to do it is to have guerilla units that don't move for a turn in friendly territory turn invisible. You see them as a silouette or something, but the enemy doesn't see them at all. Thus the enemy marches right next to the invisible guerilla, who then attacks, getting the "ambush bonus".

Alternatively, the "ambush" could happen only if the enemy tries to move onto the tile with the invisible unit. The Guerilla then defends with an additional bonus.

Any way you slice it, though, I don't see how an ambush can be implemented without somehow preventing the enemy from seeing it coming (thus invisibility) otherwise it's not really an ambush...

	27-03-2004 00:32									#132
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I suspect DOminions II's rule was more a game balance mechanic than a serious attempt at realism. The number of units that can live on a single tile is surprisingly large.

Definitely. But the point is that, as a game mechanics, it works.
North Korea supports its army on its territory, but could probably not support it out of its territory considering its very special brainwashing regime. Considering its inability to povide electricity to its cities and other things like that, you could say that supporting such an army ruins the country.

	27-03-2004 01:41									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Definitely. But the point is that, as a game mechanics, it works. North Korea supports its army on its territory, but could probably not support it out of its territory considering its very special brainwashing regime. Considering its inability to povide electricity to its cities and other things like that, you could say that supporting such an army ruins the country.

Very true. Most of the country is in shambles and it is only a matter of time before they get pissed off and some military leader leads the army in a coup. This is inevitable as most of the Army in Korea are soldiers only for the privledges that it gives them of better food and living conditions; however, these soldiers also have families which are poverty stricken by their governments policies. They while well fed and treated are not without human hearts and depressing a soldiers family is not a very good troop morale motivator. It is only a matter of time before a stronger military leader takes control and returns some of the international prestige necessary to releave the wide-spread suffering of that nations depressed peoples. If the common peoples of North Korea knew of the way the rest of the world lives they would demand nothing less.

Enough geopolitics.

The ambushes system as I see it would be another new tag for units like the present fortify tag. Requiring at least one turn or several depending on terrain to prepare the ambush site in either friendly or enemy territory. Guerilla warfare units usually do not pay much attention to national boudaries and when the time scale is involved trained units can ambush in any terrain they have been trained to do so in as a year in the field is more than adequate time to acquaint yourself with the environmental surroundings. Once prepared the site must be manned which would be the invisble ambush setting unit once the ambush has been set. Attacking out of the ambush site is not realistic in my opinion as ambush sites are normally uni-directional not every directional and mostly only occur in the advantageous terrain not out of it into the surrounding countryside. Amushes should be allowed only in Forests, Jungles, and Mountains and once set must have the enemy unit actually enter the tile to be ambushed. Otherwise we are talking about ambush surprise and firepower on a force projection scale which is a totally different aspect of warfare entirely getting into stealth units and ZOCs. Projecting ambush power should be limited to only the tile that the ambush is set in and if the player wants to invest units into a line of multiple ambush sites then fine. One unit per ambush site to form each tile along the line and man it once a unit moves the ambush status is removed just like moving after fortifying. Thus to maintain ambush status the unit(s) must remain motionless for not only the intial time period to set the ambush but until the ambush is sprung by any other unit entering that tile. No force projection by ambushing forces this is something for attack choppers and stealth aircraft with stand-off ranged weapons not foot units in the bush in Indian country.

	27-03-2004 03:16									#134
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Awsric Armitage ... Enough geopolitics.

Agreed. N Korea was of course an extreme example, but any modern nation can comfortably stack more units in a single tile than would be realistic to restrict as a game mechanic. I believe Desert Storm involved a coalition stack of 500,000 soldiers. How many units would that be? And in a desert no less, which everyone says should have a particularly strict stack limit.

quote: The ambushes system as I see it would be another new tag for units like the present fortify tag. ... Attacking out of the ambush site is not realistic in my opinion as ambush sites are normally.

Congratulations! You have just redescribed the basic fortify command. Overall, I think giving units a bonus based on the tile the are attacking from is wrong anyway. The battle is taking place in the defenders' tile.

An ambush in real terms involves the attacker going for a fortified defender where the defender could not be seen. So how about the following...

Certain units (probably unique units, or possibly a benefit gained as a result of getting elite status or something. Shouldn't be too common though) are invisible in certain terrains. The classic example would be submarines in ocean. If a unit is revealed by an enemy moving into the tile, the ambush is triggered.

In 1:1 combat - the ambushing (ie defender) fights with the higher of attack or defence factor, and the usual fortify bonus is increased by an extra 50%.

In stacked combat - all units which can ambush get a set number of bombard attacks, then proceed as usual with stacked combat.

	27-03-2004 04:39									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Congratulations! You have just redescribed the basic fortify command. Overall, I think giving units a bonus based on the tile the are attacking from is wrong anyway. The battle is taking place in the defenders' tile. An ambush in real terms involves the attacker going for a fortified defender where the defender could not be seen. So how about the following... Certain units (probably unique units, or possibly a benefit gained as a result of getting elite status or something. Shouldn't be too common though) are invisible in certain terrains. The classic example would be submarines in ocean. If a unit is revealed by an enemy moving into the tile, the ambush is triggered.

If you would care to re-read my post completely before bashing it you would see this is exactly what it proposed.

	27-03-2004 05:02									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Bashing it? I thought I was praising it.

	27-03-2004 05:17									#137
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Congratulations! You have just redescribed the basic fortify command.

Took that as being in a sarcastic tone meaning that you thought there was little worth to the following explanations of no attacking out of the tile but bonus to offensive attack if someone enters the tile. In other words instead of a fortify command it is an ambush command giving offensive attack initiative and invisiblity to the ambushers while staying in the ambush position.


If I mis-understood your tone and the results of the rest of the post then I am sorry for misunderstanding your intentions.

Yes, I agree that subs should act in the same manner.

	27-03-2004 17:24									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Ok, let's talk about the Ambush concept.

Well, the idea is taken from Colonization and the strategic point is that as the Royal forces are stronger than the Continental Army, the units in your colonies have to take advantage of the terrain.

In Colonization, the ambush bonus is justified because Royal forces don't know the terrain as well as the colonists. This idea inspired me to limit ambush bonus only to player's territory. But here is a problem, if the enemy conquers one of your cities you cannot use ambush bonus to recover it, due to when a city is conquered the adjacent tiles are part of the enemy's territory. This fact prevent "Civ II Partizans" from working, in order words, I would like to combine ambush bonus with resisting guerrilla units rising after an invasion. This rising units should use their ambush bonus to make the invasion more difficult.

If the battle takes place in the defender's tile, Why give bonus for the starting tile?, it is easy, the unit who carry out the ambush, use the starting tile to hide, so, the better hiding properties the tile have, the higher bonus should be given. Attacking a grassland from a hill should have an attack bonus, higher than attack a grassland from another grassland. In "Shogun Total War" your armies were more powerful attacking a plain from a higher position.

Of course, invisibility is a good and an essential concept for an ambush. In Colonization your units weren't invisible but the ambush bonus worked anyway, but we should think more about it.

An ambush is based on surprise factor. You have to move stealthily, hidden by the trees of a forest or by the mountains.

So I am thinking about turning some units in an ambush mode, all the units with ambush mode on receiv ambush bonus but they have the following peculiarities:

1º. Stealth: Stacks, armies and noisy machines of war should not be able to be turned on ambush mode. Ambushes are carried out by small groups of guerrillas.

2º. Mobility: With ambush mode activated, your unit cannot use roads so you lose mobility bonus from them. Your mounted units have to go slower (their extra mobility is reduced to the same as feet units).

3º. Invisibility: Is only possible in forests, jungles, hills, mountains, ... When ambush mode is activated your units get invisibility on these terrain types but they are visible and vulnerable in plains, grasslands, ...

4º. Extra vulnerability: your units are vulnerable when discovered. If they are discovered your units lose defensive bonus.

	27-03-2004 18:42									#139
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: In Colonization, the ambush bonus is justified because Royal forces don't know the terrain as well as the colonists. This idea inspired me to limit ambush bonus only to player's territory. But here is a problem, if the enemy conquers one of your cities you cannot use ambush bonus to recover it, due to when a city is conquered the adjacent tiles are part of the enemy's territory. This fact prevent "Civ II Partizans" from working, in order words, I would like to combine ambush bonus with resisting guerrilla units rising after an invasion. This rising units should use their ambush bonus to make the invasion more difficult.

If you want partisan units to form from taking cities there is a way to accomplish this and have it also be linked to cultural influence which should symbolize the amount of local resistance to the changes. The initial cities cultural influence is used as a base line to determine how many partisan units are formed by the cities capture to join in local resistance. This makes sense as people culturally tied to the owners previous regime and culture resist intial city taking and can retake cities not garissoned with strong defenders as higher culture total gives more partisans units.

Second part, ambushes are static non-moving things not something that is a mode for units to enter into and have automatic surprise and ambush on every other unit as they move. An ambush is set in a certain tile and if sprung you get the bonus if not you can decide to remain hidden in ambush waiting for another victim to pass by or move cancelling the ambush status.

Also I do not think you are considering range into your ambush concepts. Two tiles of space, the one the ambushers occupy and the one the ambushies occupy is a very large space. Ambushes are smaller more localized events not grand ZOC type force projections over several tiles surrounding the hidden ambushers giving the ambushers an inherent mobility and adaptability that is not realistic. If the exact cirmcumstances do not occur that the ambush was set to take advantage of it will definately not be as powerful in effect if possible at all.

	28-03-2004 05:50									#140
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Another Idea from the Spanish Forum, from Alfonso.

"GET THE SUIT".

When a unit defeats another unit (which is in the same evolutive line), it has a chance to get its "suit".

e.g. If a warrior defeats a swordsman, and the warrior becomes veteran, it also gets swordsman status.

If a rider defeats a knight, and the rider becomes veteran, it also gets knigh status.

And so on, ...

NOTE: This ability only works until Nationalism is achieved.

	28-03-2004 07:57									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The get the suit idea is barmy. In my humble opinion.

Armour is supposed to 'die' in the process of protecting its wearer. That is why you should always buy a new bicycle helmet after having an accident. The internal structure is no longer good enough to protect you. Ditto with more ancient forms of armour.

Consider. You kill a knight wearing armour. The only way that will happen in the vast majority of cases is to cut open the suit somehow. You wanna wear a suit that has demonstrably failed to protect its wearer when new, and now has a big hole in it? You're braver than I am.

Now certainly, after any battle, a small amount of useable weaponry and armour can be scavenged. But this is never enough to even begin to equip an army.

A larger amount of material can be scavenged and later reforged into new arms and armour (or ploughshares...). But this is dependant n your own technology base. In effect, you still have to build the unit. That metal only has value as scrap in almost all cases.

Experience is one thing. Picking up the equipment from defeated enemies is another. Broken arrow, bent shield.

	01-04-2004 21:39									#142
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Interesting ideas continue to trickle in...

After having skimmed the latest additions, it occurs to me that we really need to define the scale of the units in the game. This would solve a couple of issues like stacking and the complexity of the logistics model.

From my perspective, it seems that the game in it's default form is based on division level units, hence the idea that it should be a strategic and relatively abstract thing. Having said that, this means that you are looking at units of roughly 10,000 bodies. This corresponds to about the maximum effective units size for basing your logistical and deployment decisions. And it has been a historically consistent grouping since ancient times. The Pharaohs had armies of 100,000 to 120,000 men when they campaigned around 1000 BC. The Roman Legions were about 10,000 men each, and even Sun Tzu's Armies had similar large groupings. Fast forward to WWI and WWII, and again divisions were roughly about 10,000 especially when you consider the logistics tail for Armour units and Aircraft.

Now this leads to the option of keeping smaller units that are cheaper to maintain, but much weaker in combat, much like many countries do. That implies Regiments and Battalions with reduced strengths. Add in the ability to combine these sub parts into a Division and you are starting to get somewhere useful. This would suggest allowing a Division to behave like an Army unit in the current game. With a stacking limit of say 12 divisions of all units in a given square (less for rough terrain like mountains and swamps) and you have something workable fof the developers to build into the game.

However, it means that you will need some better differentiation of units values. Having such close values for units like 1.2.1 and 3.2.1 makes it hard for you to reproduce how effective certain organizations are: putting your spearmen infront of your archers and having cavalry to protect your flanks. And it doesn't do anything for the effects of fortification or terrain. We need to improve the effects of these things to make it a more significant to the strategy you employ.

To that end, we really need more terrain types, and some details like river fords, mountain passes, and forests that make it impossible to form up cohesive units. Most battles take place at terrain features that give a decided advantage to one side or the other. Since we don't want to go down to a CTP style battle arena, then we need to have some more unit options for their offensive and defensive status. From a basic posted sentries, down to having dug in with prepared obstacles to mobile warfare.

This leads to the potential for more advances in Tactics and Organization to be added to the Tech Tree. In ancient times, units needed to form up in open ground to get the best results from their tactics and technology. If you were caught on the move, then you were likely going to get into the ambush scenario. Smaller units can fight effectively in certain types of terrain where larger units would be useless. This could mean that certain units would not be able to fortify properly and shouldn't be able to.

Get into modern times and mechanized units would not suffer any deficit in defensive strength for being attacked when on the move. Most training involves meeting the enemy while on the move. Again there are openings for tactical advances and technologies that allow improved communications and control which should improve a units performance in the field. The German Panzer Divisions usually had fewer and poorer quality tanks at the start of WWII, yet they rolled over superior French armour with ease, mainly because they had radios in each tank and better field control systems where as the French tanks were not equiped with radios and the C&C structure couldn't react quickly. Gotta love der Blitzkrieg!

As for Lajzar's idea of using captured equipment, it's not a bad idea. Not sure how to use it with a strategic level combat system though. It seems to me that you might get a bonus to production for a similar unit type for a nearby unit under construction, kinda like chopping a forest. Sun Tzu recommended adding captured troops who were willing to fight in a 3 of your own to 1 volunteer to keep units up to strength when on a long campaign. The Germans made excellent use of old Czech and Russian equipment to suppliment their meager production for their mechanized units.

But like I said, this is all dependent on what scale you want to have the units. If you want a division level structure, you can add the combined arms by making divisions like an army and allow divisions to stack into an army, and then prevent the Stack o' Death by adding a stacking limit that is partially dependant on the terrain.


D.

	02-04-2004 00:22									#143
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kramsib But here is a problem, if the enemy conquers one of your cities you cannot use ambush bonus to recover it, due to when a city is conquered the adjacent tiles are part of the enemy's territory.

One way to solve that problem is by introducing annexations rather than the single city capture-and-get, which is the current system. To annex one or several occupied cities you have to make the deal with the owner and offer them a peace treaty. If they agree to the treaty, they will have to leave you half of the occupied cities (perhaps even 2/3 or whatever balances out best) or they will pay indemneties which can be a tech or gold, and then reduce it to 1/3 of occupied cities... then you will get owner status and may start using them to production, etc. Or if you want you can occupy all their cities and then they will be totally annexed, but that should leave a big scar in your reputation.

This way cities, forts and colonies will be used at keypoints during the war. In real wars, the objective was either to just run in and destroy the enemy forces, or to control as many keypoints as possible while advancing.

[edit]
An occupied city could then be used as a supply cache for the advancing troops, as well as providing defensive bonus to infantry units, but the cannot be used to anyhing else until annexed by treaty. This will be more realistic...


Ok, outside the occupied city, RR and roads would have to be functional to the invader once their tiles have been "occupied". Think about the eastern front during WW2... Germany could use RR in Soviet after the territory was under control, therefore partisans blew it up and made a run for it.

There could also be new supply rules in "occupied" territory, where certain units are favorised. (such as partisans, guerillas, etc.) To get "occupied" status you could simply move into a tile and control it for say... one round. That could be hard for a fast and weak unit, so partisans could rather pillage it, thus break up the invaded infrastr. instead of trying to occupy it. Would that be a nice feature ?

	28-04-2004 08:24									#144
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Somebody (I can't remember who - I'm too lazy to look back ) made a passing mention of (re)introducing firepower and armor as unit stats. I'd like to endorse that idea. Firepower would be the (base) amount of damage a unit does when it wins a round of combat, while armor would reduce damage taken in combat. A unit's 'effective firepower' would therefore be its firepower minus its opponent's armor. Then, a unit's 'effective hit points' would be its remaining hit points divided by its opponent's effective firepower.

The way I envision it, attack/defense strengths would increase through the ages roughly the way they do now. Hit points would remain constant for most units thoughout the game, and would vary mainly by experience level (as it is in Civ 3). However, hit points would be much higher than they are now (being in the tens instead of single digits) to take into account the addition of the firepower stat. Firepower and armor would increase at roughly the same rate as each other as technology advances.

The 'effective hit points' and 'effective firepower' for units from the same era would stay roughly constant for each age. However, more advanced units would have a high effective firepower against more primitive units; and less advanced units would have a low effective firepower against the more modern units. For instance, firepower, armor, and hit points could be balanced so that tanks and infantry would have 5 or 6 effective hit points when going against each other. Meanwhile, in a tank vs. spearman battle, the tank could have 10+ effective hit points, while the spearman could just have a couple of effective hit points by balancing firepower and armor.

	09-05-2004 05:04									#145
	Formations Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The concept from risk could prove interesting?

different formations for attack and defend


What say thou

	12-05-2004 04:57									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Risk? You mean moving giant piles of units around the game board to conquer the world?

Or are we talking about a different game of Risk here?

	12-05-2004 08:49									#147
	Put an end to popups!

Solver, shouldn't you be collating ideas in the first post?

	12-05-2004 13:25									#148
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The Civ2 and Civ3 military handling is indeed very very poor. A definite drawback in a game where the poor diplomacy gets you so easily at war. A major disappointment to me and part of my opinion that Civ3 has a few interesting concepts, but is altogether badly developped.

- I know there is another thread for this, and I'll post my message on this part there also, but this issue is hard to keep apart from other military aspects: Armies of Civ3 are an improvement over Civ2, but: they give a tremendous and unfair advantage over non armied units or less advanced civilization, while armies have always existed and it is completely unrealistic to link their existence to the appearance of some Hero or the building of some late marvel. CTP2 seems near to perfect regarding the ability to assemble and fight in armies, with specialized units for front lines, back lines, and flanking units. Civ4 developpers: please just play CTP2 and get inspired.

- Unlimited number of units on any square is definitely unrealistic. I like the idea of limiting the number of units according to the landscape. Easier indeed to stack units in a plain than on a mountain. And I think the 12 unit limit of CTP2 is adequate. In that respect, a city, being already stuffed with citizens and buildings, should have a reduced unit hosting capacity.

- wouldn't it be necessary to introduce altitude location concept in unit positionning?
. ground is straightforward
. low altitude makes for air units that can bomb with relative acuracy but can be gunned at by infantry or even archmen
. high altitude makes for less acurate bombing but can only be hit by missiles, SAM or flak like units or defense improvments
. low depth allows submarines to attack ships, but also be attacked
. high depth allows submarines to go unnoticed.
In this respect, if you have a unit limit of 12 for instance for a plain square, you can still have low altitude air units that can give increased attacking power or defense abilities, and as well have high altitude units, participating or not in the fight, if fight there is.

With such a concept, of course, it would make sense that allied civs can have units on a common square or in an allied city. But it would also make sense that non allied civs, or even warring ones, be able to have units on a same square, if at different altitudes. Option should then be given to attack if within reach or to just let go, and same for the AI depending on its mood and evaluation of the local tactical situation. For display purposes, there would be need to be able to represent such melting pot of units: may be by showing units of the various civs close to different angles of the squares (or hexes) rather than always centered. That would make things more realistic.

- The blocking zone of control idea of civ2 has been abandoned and that is good for it wasn’t quite realistic. Civ3 does better but would do even better if the ZOC didn’t just result in a little shooting on the way, close to harmless in most cases. In fact, when an unallowed unit tries to pass by, we should be offered the choice to let it go, be content with the actual little bombing, or engage into full battle. In such case, all units with attacking capacity should be able to have ZOC ability, but if we choose to engage in full battle (and win it), only those with enough moving points can come back to their original position (a protecting fortress for instance, rather than stay exposed and vulnerable given that attacking units often have low defensive abilities...)

	12-05-2004 13:51									#149
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: . low altitude makes for air units that can bomb with relative acuracy but can be gunned at by infantry or even archmen . high altitude makes for less acurate bombing but can only be hit by missiles, SAM or flak like units or defense improvments

Also for considering air attack effectiveness is terrain height flight restrictions. Mountains should greatly reduce the ability to bombard from the air at lower altitudes for fised wing aircraft because of the limited attack approach and egress.

	12-05-2004 15:06									#150
	Risk Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The computer version
If you happen to see the game in a cheap pile some where, pick it up and you will be enlightended