 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
A couple of points about Naval Movement/Combat:
1)The realism thing isn't really about the range of Naval movement so much as it is about the range of Naval movement vis a vis ground movement. Therefore another possibility would be to simply cut down on the ground movement. The problem there is that you can only cut down ground movement so much before it becomes unfun.
2) Movement is relative to the size of the world. So you could potentially keep the ground movement the same and double the naval movement, provided the world itself was double the size.
3) When you make the world larger, you're increasing the number of cities which would lead you into a greater micro nightmare.
4) However if you changed the optimal city placement in such a way that cities are less densely packed, you could increase the world size, keep the movement speed of ground troops and increase the naval movement.
-----
So in a convoluted kind of way, I think if you could encourage cities to be placed further away from each other, it would allow you to increase naval movement without some of the associated problems...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bleyn
|
|
I had a thought about a way to make scout/explorer units more useful and desirable in the early game. Have a movement penelty for moving into unexplored squares for regular units.
So a civ would have the following mapsquare statuses.
Unknown: Completely black. Here be dragons. No clue at all.
Unexplored: Squares that have come into the LOS of a unit, but your people have never travelled into the square. You can see something of what's there, but it's not mapped and the first unit to move through there is gonna go slow cause they don't know the best routes, watering holes, etc.
Explored: Been there, done that, got the tshirt and the stupid bumper sticker.
Of course, Fog of War would also be overlayed on this too. And any territory inside a civ's cultural borders would be automatically explored.
So in exploring with a regular unit, movement into an unexplored square would have an extra movement cost. But a scout/explorer unit would be exempt from the penelty. An early horseman with 2 movement might only be able to move at a rate of 1 through unexplored territory. A scout would be able to move at full speed everywhere.
In the early game scouts would be more useful. This could even be extended to the seas. If variable movement rates for water were implemented a form of this could be applied to water. Perhaps a transport with a scout onboard would gain the movement benifits of the scout.
Another potential aspect of this is in map trading. It could become a lot more useful with the increased informational benifits.
I was also thinking that perhaps map resources would only be revealed in explored spaces. Ie. if nobody's ever been there, no one will know that there's gold there, or oil or saltpeter.
I'm sure there's a lot more that could be done with the idea than I've outlined here.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
But this isn't such a big deal by the time that railroads exist. I've said that I believe that all units other than marines should have a 1 turn penalty to their defensive score upon landing. This would enable the defenders to throw off the invaders easily unless they use marines.
This is what happened historically. Naval movement was an advantage up to the invention of the railroad.
And as for your worries about defending against naval attacks. You are looking at it from the wrong direction. You don't defend your own coastline if you have the superior navy, you park up a stack of ships outside the other guy's ports or at choke points which close off his ports to the greater ocean.
This is exactly what Great Britain did to Germany in both World Wars and what Nelson did to the French. |
What if your navies are about equal? What if you want to prevent a surprise attack? Are you saying I should make a pre-emptive strike?  
Oh, and the thing about Marine defense - if you haven't noticed, in C3 at least they have a defense of six. By the time they come around the other side will have Tanks, attack 16. And giving Marines sufficient defense to withstand an attack unfortified in open terrain would make them possibly the most powerful unit in the game. Plus, as they are now, even -1 defense Infantry are better defenders
Oh, and finally, you're never going to attack an empty coastline with Marines - the whole point of them is to attack units directly from a transport, which most of the time means cities (the basic unit of territory in civ, so it works out).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
What if your navies are about equal? What if you want to prevent a surprise attack? Are you saying I should make a pre-emptive strike? |
Well then, you take your chances and blockade. This is just like the real world - so what's your point?
If you want to prevent landings, use naval bombers to interdict (my other suggestion).
quote:
Oh, and the thing about Marine defense - if you haven't noticed, in C3 at least they have a defense of six. By the time they come around the other side will have Tanks, attack 16. And giving Marines sufficient defense to withstand an attack unfortified in open terrain would make them possibly the most powerful unit in the game. Plus, as they are now, even -1 defense Infantry are better defenders |
I'm suggesting they be changed and that the penalty be much more than -1. A naval landing ensures that your troops are vulnerable, the game should recognize that.
quote:
Oh, and finally, you're never going to attack an empty coastline with Marines - the whole point of them is to attack units directly from a transport, which most of the time means cities (the basic unit of territory in civ, so it works out). |
That's why I favour morphing them into a general naval assault unit. They gain a bonus for naval assaults and a defensive bonus for holding beachheads. The aim is to make naval invasions more realistic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
What about making Marines super-troopers but upping their cost so that it just isn't economically viable to build more than you need to take a certain beach head?
Also, the more I think of it, the more I like the idea of a "shoals" type water tile that makes it so you can't land there. That would allow the defender to concentrate its forces on the "likely" landing spots.
Another posibility - we've talked in other threads about giving certain tiles a percentage chance of taking hp. What if ocean tiles have a percentage chance of using up an extra movement point. This wouldn't be too agrivating on a single ship, but when you are trying to move a whole invasion fleet, it would tend to string them out. That would force you to regroup before you actually launch the attack. To add to that, there could be a smaller percentage chance that you are"blown off course": if you want to go due E, there is a percentage chance that you go SE or NE.
Why would I want to force them to regroup? Because it allows you to increase there overall movement rate without runnning into as much of the leave port and attack on the same turn issues.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bleyn
|
|
One thought on the Marine vs. Armor question re. naval assault.
How about disallowing certain unit types from even landing outside harbored cities where they can unload. It would be realistic for mounted, wheeled and mechanized units to be limited this way.
Basically allow only foot units to land on beaches at all. The Marine amphib assault ability could also be made more worthwhile by giving them an attack bonus when attacking that way. So maybe they are an 8 in a regular attack, but a 12 in an amphib attack to represent their extra training and focus on this sort of warfare.
One effect of this in the modern era is that if one fully upgraded all of ones ground combat units, the Marine or the Paratrooper would be also be the only combat units able to hit the beaches. Mech. Inf. and Modern Armor would both be mechanized and not able to land that way. The only other option would be to not upgrade some of ones Infantry to Mech Infantry.
Something else that could also be included in this is a modern terrain improvement that acts like a harbor for unit landing purposes. With this an invader would have two options.
1. Land amphib/foot units and attempt to take a city that could then be used to land the heavy hitters.
2. Land amphib/foot units to secure a beachhead while workers/engineers build harborages to allow further landings.
This would also be somewhat realistic as those are exactly the options the D-Day invasion planners had. And ultimately they ended up going with option 2 and the brilliantly concieved Mulberries. The D-Day invasion troops were for the most part acting as Marines, and the majority of the armor did not land until the Mulberries were completed a few days later.
This simple restriction would also make the Paratrooper more appealing in certain variations of this situation also. Which would be nice.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-12-2003 00:11
Who would do that anyway
) and makes attack/defense too easy...
|