12-01-2004 05:13									#61
	Tired of ads?

Please guys... Stay civilized! We should try to be creative here.
Where is the list manager? Does not he/her have anything to say to this crappy conversation?

	12-01-2004 06:16									#62
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by TheBirdMan Ohh "dear" Skywalker. I might have misunderstood the whole idea with this forum. I had written a long mail, arguing, making things clear, telling you something. - well, now I have deleted it, even before I made it public... You are an Ironhead - a Cato - A "BonI". You will and do not accept changes to what you think know is the best. I thought, that this should be the place to come with ideas, suggestions... anything.... for an open discussion. But you returns with arguments like: It is not what a CIV-game should be I like railroad all-over the map Sid Maier didn't want it what way CIV2 did it just the right way CTP sucks CTP2 sucks even more ... I do not write, that I am pulling away from this forum just because - I am not - but I will just tell you, that you are more conservative than even the most concrete-communist from the old SovietUnion......

Find where I said any of those things. Especially the stuff about C2 (as I think C3 was a vast improvement ) and about railroads (I wanted an upkeep cost, no infinite movement, and no production bonus). Oh, well I guess I've said the stuff about CtP

	12-01-2004 06:31									#63
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by skywalker This was added in C3C a 25% attack bonus when attacking amphibiously

Ah. No C3C (or PTW) yet for me

Nice to know that they are at least working on making Marines more useful.

	13-01-2004 06:51									#64
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Now, I know what to do with supply!

Although I doubt Civ4 would be using Ctp-style stacks, I guess it the supply will have to be handled by tracing a clean route from the stack to a city or outpost, as with any serious strategy games. If it won't use that kind of stack system I don't know what to say. The Civ3 system was too boring.


Let's say we use CTP- combat stacks for Civ4... Ok, some special units might not need supply at all, but there could be a supply unit as mentioned aforehead or HQ in the army stack in which regular units disengaging from the stack could trace supply from. Or the army commander could just be that tracing HQ unit. You know... as a HQ unit in board games. The same should go with ships, a but flagship could be selected within the stack or they just use a supply ship. Such naval stacks should also work as a supply source for armies so that an expeditionary corps will have a supply source to trace from.


Units without supply, what do we do with them?
many options... Reduced movement and/or attack efficency, reinforcement (healing) in enemy territory reduced. Therefore you as a player would go into the field with a stack, and perhaps disengage units into the terrain when appropriate. Like we did in Ctp, without this supply system though. How to use stacks should be pretty much up to each player, IMO. Supply could even be reduced by the HQ (supply unit) not having a road/railroad going back home in adjacent square. Then friendly cities must work as HQ with a decent range of supply. That brings us to levels of supply:

- Supply sources would here be friendly cities, a fleet or a HQ with a clean route to any of these:

0: No supply sources in range, no route to a friendly city or other far away sources: (typically Stalingrad) Penalties would be highest.

1: No supply sources in range, clean route to friendly city or source outside range: Typical one by one unit scattering. Would have quite high penalties on attack and reinforement and therefore only suitable for unit of certain types with special capabilities, like Guerillas and such.

2: A supply sources (e.g. a HQ-stack) in range with route to friendly city or source, but no road: Typically expeditionary corps. Would have a slight penalty on reinforcement and attack.

3: A supply source (e.g. a HQ-stack) in range with route and road to friendly city: Typically first line defense. Would have no penalties.


So you would stack up and defend that damn HQ against air raids and nasty stuff. If you lose it you could end up disorganized, with all units pulling back home. And if you don't have a enough naval power your expetionary corps will have a risky supply source, and that would be realistic too. Of course... they should bring a new map mode, showing the supply situation.

That was my mere suggestion, but here is my guess:
I still think the diplomacy system is the first thing they will enhance in Civ4 and the silly interface of course. Using a simple and very boring combat system.

Last edited by ThePlagueRat on 13-01-2004 at 07:21

	13-01-2004 06:51									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

sorry, dp... this is going really slow here

	13-01-2004 06:52									#66
	Full PM-box? Change here!

argh, dp again

	13-01-2004 20:01									#67
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by skywalker quote: Not if the defence bonus only occurs for that one turn. Think about it. You unload a stack of marines who hold the beachhead. Any units that land on that beachhead in subsequent turns do not suffer a penalty as long as you have units there. The troops holding the beachhead effectively hold open the supply route. You never mentioned a defense bonus, just a penalty for non-Marine units.

I did in a previous post.

	13-01-2004 21:44									#68
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by ThePlagueRat Now, I know what to do with supply! Although I doubt Civ4 would be using Ctp-style stacks, I guess it the supply will have to be handled by tracing a clean route from the stack to a city or outpost, as with any serious strategy games. If it won't use that kind of stack system I don't know what to say. The Civ3 system was too boring.

Just on the outset, I am against the use of CTP-type stacked combat which requires the use of a tactical mini-game. I am very much in favor of using a stacked combat which gives a bonus for the use of combined arms, and which implements things like range, flanking bonus, etc. on the Main Map.

But all that is just preparatory to my real point, which is that I really disagree with the use of a complicated Supply scheme. Having a "trace route" will quickly get unweildy and , IMHO be more annoying than fun. Which is not to say that there shouldn't be some sort of supply model, but rather that specifically the "trace route" supply sytem isn't exactly my favorite.

What is the goal of a supply system?
1)To model the effects of overextending your army.
2)To provide a new strategic goal (cut off their supply)

In order to make #2 fun, I think the "supply" needs to be a unit or building which can specifically be targeted. A "trace route" system requires you to implement some sort of blockage system where to cut off supply you just put your unit in the trace route... where's the fun in that.

Instead I would advocate a Logistics unit which radiates "Supply" in a certain radius (perhaps Fortresses could also radiate supply...). "Supply" would then be a simple percentage bonus to AD, and perhaps also an increased healing rate.

The key would be to make Logistics units move slower than your fastest attacker. Therefore you could still do lighning strikes, but if you don't let the Logistics unit catch up to you eventually you'll be at a disadvantage = "Overextended".

In order to create the "sneak behind enemy lines and knock out their supply" dynamic, you would need the logistics unit to tend to hang out "behind" the front. An easy way to accomplish that would be for the Logistics unit to be one of the first defenders. So if I attack a stack with 10 offensive units, 10 defensive units, and 1 Logistics, there is a percentage chance that the Logistics unit is the chosen defender and gets killed. (this would represent the attacker going "hey, they left their food delivery trucks on the front line, hey guys, shoot over there!")

To balance it, they should be an expensive unit otherwise people would just build a bunch of them and send 4 or 5 with each stack. Ideally it should be balanced such that its best to just build the one, and defend it heavily.

	13-01-2004 23:00									#69
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

wrylachlan, I am still undecided about how I like supply, but your proposal is the best one I've seen so far.

The only part i don't like is the supply unit being sometimes defender.... and only because it assumes no stacked combat!!

In a stacked combat system I would like to see x% chance that the supply unit is destroyed in any combat that its stack is engaged in.


But I like your idea because it can let one unit "supply" potentially dozens of units (or stacks) spread out over a reasonable chunk of land. Perhaps limits of number of units each "supply" can handle could be introduced to the system.

It's simple, clean and understandable.

	14-01-2004 00:20									#70
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Fosse wrylachlan, I am still undecided about how I like supply, but your proposal is the best one I've seen so far. The only part i don't like is the supply unit being sometimes defender.... and only because it assumes no stacked combat!! In a stacked combat system I would like to see x% chance that the supply unit is destroyed in any combat that its stack is engaged in.

It doesn't assume no stacked combat. I'm in favor of stacked combat. Just not a minigame. My essential view is that combat is BOTH unit combat AND stacked combat. Attacking with a stack simply means that all the units in the stack attack in an intelligently coordinated manner which gives a bonus to combined arms. The possible outcomes are:
1)Stack A totally obliterates Stack B
2)Stack B totally obliterates Stack A
3)Both stacks loose some but not all units

As it pertains to supply units, if you either defend OR attack with a Logistics unit in your stack you stand a good chance of loosing it no matter who wins the battle.

	14-01-2004 00:26									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan Just on the outset, I am against the use of CTP-type stacked combat which requires the use of a tactical mini-game...

Just a note of clarification, for those who may not be familiar with the CTP setup - As it stands now, the CTP2 battle resolution does not use a tactical minigame. Combined arms are established as you compose the makeup of your stack, as you are already doing when you assemble the makeup of a civ3 force. (and it appears in c3c that there is already the use of combined bonuses taking effect in a battle with defensive archers - a step in the right direction, I might add...)

In CTP, units have natural tactical abilities such as flanking, frontline and range and automatically default to that primary ability when the command to attack is given. When you engage the enemy, players do not issue tactical commands to their units. The CTP battle screen is merely a visual representation of the battle - similar to what occurs in civ3 when you attack and see the health bars go down on the units. But rather than clicking twelve individual units, and sending each of those units into battle one at a time, you are resolving the fate of up to 12 units with one command.

And that screen can be turned off.

	14-01-2004 02:31									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

[QUOTE] [SIZE=1] Originally posted by wrylachlan
wrylachlan, got it. I had thought you liked stacks, but was just a bit confused by the post. All is cleared up (in my mind, anyhow) now.

Just for the record, I abhor the idea of a minigame myself.

I would support the Logistics unit never being in the front line when on the attack. It makes sense when on the defensive, since the defenders may not always know where the enemy will come from. But when you are bringing the battle to them it should be assumed that you stuck your supply trucks well behind the front lines.

I realize that simply keeping your logistics stack out of battle altogether is allowed in your proposal, but I would hate to make it such that bringing two stacks (one to fight, one to sit with the logistics) is always the better way.

	14-01-2004 04:42									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan Instead I would advocate a Logistics unit which radiates "Supply" in a certain radius (perhaps Fortresses could also radiate supply...). "Supply" would then be a simple percentage bonus to AD, and perhaps also an increased healing rate.

Ok, that is pretty close to the my thought about such units too.
But I would advocate the use of "supply route" to make that unit effective far away. If it got totally surronded on a far away mission it could provide some supply to it's stack, but not all.
That's why I brought up the different levels of supply... It would add more realism.

I don't think they will ever try to implement it in Civ4, though. Since they usually don't care much about realism.

	14-01-2004 05:49									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Fosse I would support the Logistics unit never being in the front line when on the attack. It makes sense when on the defensive, since the defenders may not always know where the enemy will come from. But when you are bringing the battle to them it should be assumed that you stuck your supply trucks well behind the front lines. I realize that simply keeping your logistics stack out of battle altogether is allowed in your proposal, but I would hate to make it such that bringing two stacks (one to fight, one to sit with the logistics) is always the better way.

My rationale is as follows:
What behavior do we want to mimic?
We want a defender to go around the main force, get behind enemy lines and try to "cut the supply lines".
If that's the behavior we want to encourage, then we have to put the target (the Logistics unit) behind the front line.
But if the Logistics unit is safer as part of a stack, no one will ever put it anywhere else, so you must make it less safe when part of your main attacking stack.
So if its less safe in the stack you'll put it behind the stack, but then you are vulnerable to bombardment.
Therefore, the Logistics unit's "Supply Range" must be greater than the bombard range of the enemy so that it can sit back a few tiles.

The resulting tactical play is that as a defender, if I can sneak a unit (preferably some sort of special forces unit)
around the main attacking stack, and get behind the line, I can take out the Logistics unit, which cuts down on the efficacy of the main stack.

	14-01-2004 06:10									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Well, wrylachlan... that works much like the HQ-unit in many boardgames, and it's quite easy and simple, but then it could also just be a leader giving bonuses to units within it's range. Without a real supply system... Anyway it would be an improvement over Civ3.

	14-01-2004 09:15									#76
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

wrylachen,

Actually, as it stands in CTP, your proposal would work very well in in a stacked combat setup. The supply unit would sit on the back line and would not be hit until everything else is destroyed. (Range units fire on frontliners - not on enemy ranged units) And in the current CTP battle screen, there is a third line of units in the very rear of the battle where the unconventionals sit (settlers, spies, slavers, etc). They do not move up until everything in front is destroyed. So a suppply unit could also sit on that line.

My guess is that in that setup, a special unit could also be created via coding that acts as a type of flanker with the ability to target a specific line of units.

So it could be pulled off for civ4.

	14-01-2004 19:33									#77
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian wrylachen, Actually, as it stands in CTP, your proposal would work very well in in a stacked combat setup. The supply unit would sit on the back line and would not be hit until everything else is destroyed. (Range units fire on frontliners - not on enemy ranged units) And in the current CTP battle screen, there is a third line of units in the very rear of the battle where the unconventionals sit (settlers, spies, slavers, etc). They do not move up until everything in front is destroyed. So a suppply unit could also sit on that line. My guess is that in that setup, a special unit could also be created via coding that acts as a type of flanker with the ability to target a specific line of units. So it could be pulled off for civ4.

The reason I don't like the mini game CTP setup, whether it is player controlled or not, is that it de-emphasizes terrain. If the "sneaking around the main force" is performed on the mini-map, terrain doesn't factor as much. If it is done on the main map, terrain becomes important (if your Logistics unit is on a mountain on the plains, it doesn't have to worry as much because it can see any enemy approach - if you know the enemy has nothing but wheeled units, your Logistics unit knows it won't get attacked from the mountains - etc. etc.). Ditto for flanking. Ditto for bombardment across a river.

For me, tactics means putting the right force in the right place at the right time. Therefore anything that de-emphasizes the importance of place is less tactical.

	14-01-2004 22:17									#78
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

All of this talk of flanking and HQs and logistics etc. puts me more in the mind of games like TalonSoft's Battleground series than of Civ.

One of the biggest problems I have with it in Civ is scale. In the epic game, the scales that are being dealt with are such that I just don't think these things make much sense. And honestly, I don't know how much fun they would be either.

Don't get me wrong. In the proper medium, I love this sort of thing. I have several of TalonSoft's Battleground series games, and Sid's Gettysburg/Antietam games. But those are games that are at a much finer scale. And they are all about the art of manuver.

I'm just not sure how much of this sort of thing would really work in Civ.

	14-01-2004 23:18									#79
	Attrition Support Apolyton

One of the things I dislike about Civ is the fact that by 1AD, the entire continent is totally mapped out, known, and nearly every tile is claimed. This is simply unrealistic and takes away from gameplay. I would prefer it be like it was historically where even the mightiest empires (Rome or China) knew only so much of the world and there was still vast stretches of virgin land available up to early modern times.

One way to prevent this is to implement attrition of units in hostile terrain. Thus every turn there is a, say, 50% chance of losing 1HP when a unit is so many tiles away from friendly territory. Then units could only move so far in the ancient era. This prevents the expand until every square is claimed by 1AD phenomenon and leaves much virgin land for grabbing later . Also it totally killls the race by human and AIs to pump out and expand and build as many cities as possible.

This should also be implemented for naval units too to prevent, say, the equivalent of Roman Empire from being able to sail to Japan in ancient era.

	15-01-2004 01:00									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It's easy to do that even in C3 by delaying map and communication trading (and slowing research).

	15-01-2004 01:10									#81
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by skywalker It's easy to do that even in C3 by delaying map and communication trading (and slowing research).

But how does this solve the problem of nearly every tile of land being claimed (or about to be claimed w/temple, etc) by some nation by 1AD?

	15-01-2004 01:32									#82
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Bleyn Don't get me wrong. In the proper medium, I love this sort of thing. I have several of TalonSoft's Battleground series games, and Sid's Gettysburg/Antietam games. But those are games that are at a much finer scale. And they are all about the art of manuver. I'm just not sure how much of this sort of thing would really work in Civ.

You are probably right. Civ-warfare is all about numbers, and having the right techs. But IMHO there should be a bit more to it in the next generation. Perhaps not as much as my first suggestion.

That means for more transparent rules, like modifiers and such... Supply modifier, leader modifier, and addon modifier (as I was mentioning in the Unique Unit thread) All transparent. The code would be complex, but not neccesarily the gameplay.

The supply level could also be determined by the defense budget , as it is in EU2. - Pretty cool feature: if you use all income for the navy and the research, and nothing for the army, they would be more ineffective when fighting.

	16-01-2004 04:55									#83
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Not sure this is the right List, but in conjunction with the idea to have hostile terrain as well as terrain far from your own or friendly territory take away HPs is that the map generator would need to be improved.

Thus we would need huge expanses of tundra, jungle, desert, mountains, etc that act just like oceans, at least until modern times, to prevent overexansion and overexploration. If the map were large enough then no ancient units penetrate into hostile terrain or even non-hostile terrain that was far from your nearest port or city.

This would be a natural way to basically have the game operate on "mini-maps". Then when the right technological advance comes, you could send explorers or other units to explore these virgin lands late in the game rather than have the entire world be claimed and occupied by 1 AD.

This is one aspect that really would improve gameplay tremendously and give that historic feel of exploring and settling the interior of Africa or sending ships to China or the New World, etc.

	16-01-2004 05:33									#84
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Nice... similar to EU. In that game you would probably lose a unit before they could reach unexplored land. Then you sometimes got an explorer leader who made these losses minimal.

Civ4 explorers:
In Civ4 they could use leader traits this way, by adding an explorer to a unit. (e.g. in a Unit Workshop) and make them capable of traversing mountains, jungles, deserts, and stuff without huge losses.

For instance, one HP per round should be the default for a desert so that fast units could cross a smaller desert without losses. A leader who is an explorer could eliminate this loss, making them able to stay in the desert until a fort is built. A fort should also eliminate these losses.

	16-01-2004 21:27									#85
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan The reason I don't like the mini game CTP setup, whether it is player controlled or not, is that it de-emphasizes terrain. If the "sneaking around the main force" is performed on the mini-map, terrain doesn't factor as much. If it is done on the main map, terrain becomes important (if your Logistics unit is on a mountain on the plains, it doesn't have to worry as much because it can see any enemy approach - if you know the enemy has nothing but wheeled units, your Logistics unit knows it won't get attacked from the mountains - etc. etc.). Ditto for flanking. Ditto for bombardment across a river.

My last post was addressing the way combat would be resolved in a CTP format, if supply units were part of the stack, and it was a straight-up battle.

The basic premise of the CTP mini-game is exactly the same as combat resolution in civ3. The CTP minigame is only a visual representation of (up to) 12 single-unit combat resolutions executed at one time instead of sending units into a battle one at a time. The tactical decisions (flanking, range) are made when you compose your army rather than when you commit to battle. Terrain is just as important in the CTP setup. So your proposal would work the same way in either setup.

The solution for a stacked CTP setup in the way you envision is very simple...

If you want to set up a situation to 'sneak around' and disrupt supply lines by taking out supply units in an adjacent tile, you can do that in a stacked combat model on the mainmap in the same way that unconventional units currently operate in CTP. In fact, you could give certain units the ability to target and destroy supply units in a stack and thus use up their combat ability for a turn.

And to take it further, the success rate can be based on the ability of the disrupting unit (set up a basic percentage chance - say 50%) with a possible small defensive modifier for the supply unit if part of a stack. Elements such as terrain/rivers can add to this modifier too.

As you pointed out, the important thing is to make it hard to defend these units, because if they sit in a stack and gain a defensive bonus, then that is where they will be. You can also take away any defensive benefit from sitting on a stack, but logically those supply units should gain something for sticking with an army. From a gameplay standpoint, you make have to make them gain no benefit from sitting in a stack, but that is an issue that is common to both a stacked and non-stacked format.

With either a hard or soft cap on tile occupation, and with attacking units that can hit supply units even within a stack, you gain very little benefit with keeping them up front, so most likely, they will sit as far back as possible behind your front lines, which is what you want anyhow. In fact, a hard or soft cap will make the decision even easier to keep them far back because your main stack on the front line will not want to use valuable unit slots for non-combat units that add nothing to your attack or defense strength.

And if they sit back behind your lines, then the attacker uses his movement units to sweep in and attack conventionally (which would be a slaughter if the unit was undefended) - again, this is what you envision.

	16-01-2004 22:34									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian The basic premise of the CTP mini-game is exactly the same as combat resolution in civ3. The CTP minigame is only a visual representation of (up to) 12 single-unit combat resolutions executed at one time instead of sending units into a battle one at a time. The tactical decisions (flanking, range) are made when you compose your army rather than when you commit to battle. Terrain is just as important in the CTP setup. So your proposal would work the same way in either setup.

Maybe I'm way off base, but I really don't think that terrain is as important in CTP unless I'm misunderstanding how it works (haven't played it). IF you implement flanking on the mini-map, then your ability to flank is determined only by the tile the battle takes place in. If you implement flanking on the main map, then a tile that is in a "valley" between two mountain ranges is relatively safer from flanking attacks. This makes strategic decisions on where to engage much more dependant on the terrain.

This also forces you to think ahead about battles, not just in terms of force distribution, but in the logistics of getting the right unit to the right place at the right time. If a defending army is sitting in the valley, assuming that I'll try for the one on one fight, but I instead send a unit the hard way over the mountains for a surprise attack...

I'm hard pressed to think of a terrain dynamic that isn't better modelled on the main map level than on the mini-map level.

	17-01-2004 00:07									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan Maybe I'm way off base, but I really don't think that terrain is as important in CTP unless I'm misunderstanding how it works (haven't played it). IF you implement flanking on the mini-map, then your ability to flank is determined only by the tile the battle takes place in. If you implement flanking on the main map, then a tile that is in a "valley" between two mountain ranges is relatively safer from flanking attacks. This makes strategic decisions on where to engage much more dependant on the terrain.

Go back to what I said about the CTP mini screen - it is merely a pictoral representation of (up to) 12 of your units simultaneously fighting a single pitched battle, instead of a single units fighting one at a time. This is the only difference in the basic combat resolution between CTP and civ - combat is resolved for multiple units as opposed to single units.

The bonuses are slightly different, in that CTP has a few more added to the mix. These bonuses are automatically implimented, so a player is not actually doing anything out of the ordinary, nor is he doing anything extra on the mini screen.

Here are the bonuses

1. There are conventional terrain/tile improvement/city building bonuses that are added to your units (+50% Hills, Forests - 100% Mountains, Forts, City Walls, etc.) - BTW, these are the same types of bonuses as in civ3 (...although in CTP there is no 'Across River' bonus in CTP, but that is a minor point not really relevant to the discussion).

2. In CTP, there is also flanking/range bonuses that are automatically implimented on the tile where the battle occurs and only when you initiate combat.

In the same way, CTP has limitations on unit movement based on terrain. For instance, certain units cannot cross unroadded mountains, so in your situation above, you face the same issue in both games.

If you are looking for some type of modifier bonus/penalty for taking a 'strategic flanking approach' to a battle (i.e., a flanking maneuver via mainmap movement), I don't see why this could not be implimented in a stacked-CTP format. The principle would still be the same.

	17-01-2004 00:20									#88
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I know its been said before but to repeat, I'd wish that Civ4 would elimininate the Road and RR sprawl. The only reason for this sprawl is due to bonuses. If roads/railroads had, say, upkeep, and/or bonuses were curtailed, then we wouldn't see this ugly sprawl.

It's just tedious to build and ugly to have roads and RRs everywhere. It'd be nicer to have mostly point-to-point roads and railroads.

And of course as has been said many times, RR infinite movement needs to finally go so that it is balanced with air movement and naval movement.

	17-01-2004 00:25									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

In a real battle, the differences in terrain across the battlefield effect the tactics. If you're in between two mountains, flanking becomes impossible. If the left side of the line borders a river, flanking on that side becomes impossible. As a defender you can exploit this to your advantage. If you know the enemy is approaching with knights, get into that valley and stack your archers behind a line of pikemen.

By implementing the flanking bonus at the mini-map level, those terrain differences are nullified because the army attacking in the valley is equally effective at flanking as the army attacking on the plains. As it is, the tactical and the strategic levels are essentially conflated in Civ, which I think is a simple and easy game dynamic to understand. As such, it should be accepted that tactics happen in the same map space as strategic decisions.

The alternative is to make the mini-game more robust in terms of differences in terrain across the front. But then you get into a situation where, in order to make the decision of "Where to engage", you have to zoom into the tactical level of each tile, which would quickly become unwieldy.

	17-01-2004 00:35									#90
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan In a real battle, the differences in terrain across the battlefield effect the tactics. If you're in between two mountains, flanking becomes impossible. If the left side of the line borders a river, flanking on that side becomes impossible. As a defender you can exploit this to your advantage. If you know the enemy is approaching with knights, get into that valley and stack your archers behind a line of pikemen.

Then all you need to do is impliment a penalty that would nullify your flanking bonus based on the terrain type (...and even possibly including the surrounding terrain and the terrain that you attacked from as part of the equation) Again, this does not hinder using your premise in a CTP stacked format. You would see the dilemma about terrain on the mainmap level and realize that your flanking ability on the local level is lost.