 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trifna
Why should a chain make things complicated?
1- If the AI does it automatically, it is just as complicated as it would be without; except you think about protecting it.
2- If you need a supply unit each 4 square to bring the supply further, well it is not very complicated neither. You count 1-2-3-4. More management? Yes: but is this drawback worth it when the consequence is that you can attack these lines and protect them? Up to be seen. And maybe that these units could move automatically just as workers on automatic mode.
To which extent is this really more complicated for the advantages it brings? |
I guess I'm just not sure it would be an advantage. The way civ works, with the cities the distance apart that they are, how often are you going to have a prolonged campaign in enemy territory without capturing a city? The vast majority of the time the longest chain you'll need is 1 anyways, so...
In order for chains to be worth it for me, you would have to have situations where 2 things exist:
1) An attempt to attack deep in an area where no supply exists.
2) A realistic possibility of the enemy getting more than 1 supply node behind the front line.
Any time after the ancient age, it takes so little time to make a settler, that there is very little chance an empty region will go unpopulated for long. It will almost always be more effective to throw down cities than to chain along supply units. And if you have cities, you should have supply. (unless you're considering the possibility that cities themselves need to be "in supply", which is IMHO needlessly complicated.)
My design philosophy is to go for the simplest solution that will create meaningful gameplay decisions. I think that the supply unit is simpler than the supply chain. And the difference in tactical decisions between attacking behind enemy lines(supply units), and way behind enemy lines (supply chain) isn't worth the added complexity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
Its impossible to talk about supply without the interelated issue of combat, cities, etc. so my apologies if people think this is the wrong forum but...
The reason Napolean's march on Moscow can't really happen in C3C is more than just the lack of a supply system.
For one thing, cities in C3C are more uniform than in real life. There is no way in a game scenario, you would attack Moscow without stoping to control the cities along the way, because the cities are more important in game.
Why are they more important? Because the ratio of unit speed to productivity is way off. I know that sounds out there, but think about this: could Napolean have trained reinforcements in cities he had captured in time for them to help his attack on Moscow? No. Nor could the Russians. Thus the army was more important than the cities.
Now in C3C it is much more cost effective to capture border cities to deprive the enemy of resources and to gain those resources for yourself. In fact, because of the ratio of unit speed to productivity, your captured border cities can aid the war effort before you reach Moscow.
Another problem is that the city defensive bonus makes it logical to house your armies in cities, which reduces the incentive to fight in the fields. OF course the defensive bonus is necessary because of a lack of ZOC and essentially homogeneous terrain which makes it necessary to defend a city from all sides.
------------------------
My solutions (and yes it does tie back into supply)
1)Get rid of the defensive bonus for cities.
- Give units a ZOC
- Make terrain more varied including more impassable terrain so that it is not necessary to defend every city from every angle.
2)Increase the base movement of units to 2.
3)Institute some sort of migration factor so that city sizes are more varied, especially make some cities significantly more strategic than others. (strategic resources is a good start, but needs more).
4)Remove RR spamming so that movement is more strategic, and increase the build time and cost of RR so that it takes longer to connect newly acquired cities to your grid.
What all of the above do is create an incentive to attack strategically deeper into enemy territory instead of taking an empire piecemeal from the borders in. Once this is in place:
5)Then implement some sort of a chain of supply system.
--------------------
However barring all of those other factors coming into play, I think the easiest solution to create a "fun" supply system is simply to make a single supply unit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trifna
|
 |
of anchovies
Jul 2001
time: 13:32
|
|
Great post wrylachlan, you sum up everything in little place 
Then I agree with you. I had not considered the priorities of implementation of different Civ concepts. Still, I believe that for these big conquests it could be implemented. But as you say, we face some limits here.
It may be easier to implement such things:
- The distance between cities was adjusted (cities could, with time, cover more, while there would be fewer spots real good from the game start)
- Units had an advantage to go on the field (a city hosting a maximum of units for example, and certain units not faring well in cities. Also, cities get damages from fights)
- Cities with citizens of another culture could not produce armies at will (Bagdad doesn't produce the bulk of US army); armies would be given back their importance, just as sometimes the army was taking more short-term importance than cities/economy in Rome.
This would simply make more profitable to introduce support in the way of a chain (automatically done by the AI, or as units). I still believe support can be introduced in some more limited way now, and still bring something. Espescially when supporting troops on the other side of a water space (support to build advanced base, food...).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lajzar
Um, why should modern infantry go faster that Roman legions? They are both relying on legwork to get anyway, and I don't belive human legs have changed all that much in 2000 years.
...
However, looking back on most games I've played, I have noticed that once cavalry and especially armour are available, I almost never build infantry units again. But even today infantry are the backbone of every army.
How about making infantry the "supply node" unit? They are generally weaker in defence, making them something to be protected, move slowly, acting as a brake on deep strikes, and now have a real incentive to be built. |
All units include whatever supply and support personnel and equipment they require. The reason why the Phalanx can kill the Armor is because they can devise an attack on the fuel dump and turn your tanks into landmarks.
Modern non-mechanized infantry depends mostly on trucks, not foot-speed. Roman legions depended on foraging, pillaging, or buying local supplies. When they could not do so they were limited by the distance horse- and ox-carts could haul supplies effectively. Somewhere I read that it was ~120 miles, which is one tile on any but the largest maps.
A major factor in a modern army is that armor units cost more to maintain/supply than infantry units. In truth, units cost about as much to maintain in one year of moderate action as the original construction cost. In heavy action yearly maint/supply of a mechanized unit can be double the original construction cost.
Air units flying multiple sorties per day from an aircraft carrier can build up triple the original equipment costs of $2-3 billion for the carrier, $2-3 billion for the aircraft, and another few billion for the support fleet (destroyer screen, AEGIS cover, and supply ships).
That's why the US needed $60+ billion for a few months of fighting and the balance of a year in occupation of Iraq over and above the three or four hundred billion military budget.
This is a radically different production/supply model than civ1-3. I doubt we'll see it in Civ4.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
frekk
|
|
National Infrastructure rules for railroads. I don't think infinite movement is the really unrealistic part, depending on how long you think of a turn as being. I think infinite capacity is the really unrealistic part. Moving your entire national army on trains? How many locomotives do you have???
Here's an idea I came up with to model a capacity system for rails, that is simple enough in play to be practical for large empires - at least as practical, if not more practical, than slowing unit movement in the modern era to a "mass crawl".
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=125673
Check it out, tell me your opinions.
Last edited by frekk on 21-11-2004 at 23:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
frekk
|
|
On second thought, I've just read all this business about lists and I want this idea to get better exposure to more minds, so I'll reproduce it here.
Rail Capacity Transport Model - The rules behind it
-Rail Capacity limits the number of units that can be moved in a given round.
-Rail Capacity determined by playtesting, but low enough that you couldn't move very much in a single round.
-Infinite movement, limited capacity (as opposed to limited movement, infinite capacity).
-Rail Capacity represents how many locomotives you have and the kind of technology you have. Different advances would help to increase it, eg a "Diesel-Electric Engine" advance or it could be tied to existing advances.
-Possibly, Government might affect Rail Capacity (large bonus for Fascism for instance). It might also be scaled to map size.
-Small countries have the same Rail Capacity as big ones, dependant on technology. This is to reflect the fact that huge empires always have infrastructure problems. It also limits the ability to overwhelm smaller countries with sheer numbers as you will both have the same Rail Capacity. It can still be done, but takes planning.
-Units that don't use Rail Capacity don't get any movement advantage for being on the tracks. It's treated as road.
-Excess Rail Capacity will be vital to the economy. Any unused Rail Capacity generates revenue. Using Rail Capacity to its limit every round will be prohibitively expensive, but moving units will not cost money out of the treasury per se. You just won't make any money.
-Total Rail Capacity will not be high enough to defend or attack using a flow of units on the tracks. In the era of tanks and infantry it might be 10-15 points, perhaps less. Forces for an invasion - or defensive forces - will have to be built up slowly, over time, with much planning.
-In war, if a border collapses due to invasion, you'll be in serious trouble, but not necessarily doomed. If you have more than one front you'll be doomed if your defences are weak and you're relying on railroads to supply defensive reinforcements. If you can only move a limited number of units you'll be forced to choose where they go. Pulling forces from defences on other borders will be difficult because you will not be able to build them back up there again in one, two, or three rounds, and if they are then also attacked ...
-If you are expanding into enemy territory, you'll use your rail to transport new recruits from the homeland to the front, but the advance of your main force will occur by road and overland. Rails will just help somewhat to replenish your forces, but rails alone won't sustain an advance - you'll have to build up a large force during peacetime.
-In peacetime, you'll be building up defensive forces and attack forces using your rails. This will take time and planning because you'll have to choose where, and if you choose wrong, it won't be possible to change easily. It will take many rounds to correct. Also, using too much rail will hurt your economy.
Rail Capacity Interface in the Game - What you'd see in the game
-Rail Capacity Remaining displayed in the side box, where the Treasury and global warming and all that is, but also visible when a unit is displayed in that box.
-When Rail Capacity is available and a unit is on the tracks, a small Entrain button appears in its options (just like the current buttons for Fortify, Sentry, Load, and all that). Clicking on Entrain changes the graphic of the unit to a locomotive (the type, perhaps, would change according to Advances), and allows it rail movement, at the cost of 1 Rail Capacity.
-As soon as the unit leaves the tracks or engages in combat, it loses the locomotive icon and its rail movement is considered to be over, there is no need to "unload". If guerrillas/insurgents have been changed in the game as some have proposed, and you can't see them all the time, then if one surprises you on the track you are in trouble, fighting at a severe penalty.
-Finally, depending on certain factors, it might be possible to affect or manage your infrastructure, if so, it should be done at the national level (simpler) through a new minister, the Transportation Minister.
Last edited by frekk on 21-11-2004 at 23:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xorbon
|
 |
Guelph, ON
Jul 2003
time: 00:32
|
|
Not a bad idea, Frekk!
As another alternative, how about charging 1 gold per unit per 'X' tiles moved. So if X=16, it would cost you 1 gold to move a unit up to 16 tiles by rail, 2 gold to move between 17 to 32 tiles, etc. 'X' could be affected by technology level and whether you have sufficient 'fuel' resources. For example, for fuel resources: if you have coal X is normal; if you have oil (and the combustion engine advance) X is +50% of normal, and if you have no fuel resources, X could be 2/3 or 1/2 of normal. The exact numbers are just examples of course.
So, you'd still have infinite movement, but it'd cost you to use it. Perhaps workers could use it for free.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
frekk
|
|
I really hate real world comparisons as to specifics like timeframes, distances, unit numbers. Civ is deliberately abstract this way for a reason. If it wasn't you'd either have infinite movement for all your units even offroad, or be waiting 10 000 turns for an advance. Germans might have been able to move whole divisions, but isn't that just a single tank unit in the game, possibly? The size of units and timescale and distances, all really don't mean a thing.
One thing they couldn't do is put the entire Germany Army on trains at any one time. But I do agree in a month they could transport divisions to a pretty much unlimited distance, just not all of them. I'm against getting rid of infinite movement for this, and micromanagement reasons (the tedious "mass crawl" effect).
Also, it is more for gameplay considerations ... to prevent the buildup of the "One Big Army" in the middle, but also, to encourage a distribution of forces in sort of a reasonable manner. It's a polar opposite, I guess, to finite rail ranges because it still allows an infinite range that, with some work, should be able to keep up with unit production, but disallow all the forces across an entire empire from, say, responding to a beachhead all at once.
I don't like the idea of charging money to use the rails. The problem there is, that when you have no money and you are at peace the game will be very boring! Better to have the rail network generate revenue; less revenue if it is heavily used. So you can still use it without having a big treasury. Plus it just adds extra complication to worry about fuel and distances and all that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
Trifna:
I just read the list, and saw your question in regards to tactical movement. Most of what I was talking about was in response to people calling for tactical bonuses in a mini-map. To summarize:
Instead of having tiles cost a certain number of movement points, it should be transitions between tiles. i.e. Plains to Mountains costs X points, Mountains to Mountains costs Y points, etc. This allows things like plateaus, cliffs, impassable mountains, etc.
As for the tactical bonuses, I think that flanking bonuses should be implemented on the main map scale. Simply put a defender can only defend in the direction he was first attacked from or adjacent directions. For example: With 3 Spearmen and a Catapult in a certain tile being attacked by 5 Warriors and 1 Ancient Cav. The first three warriors attack the spearmen, establishing the direction of their front line. If the remaining 2 warriors attack from the same direction, the spearmen defend. If, however, the Ancient Cav uses 1 movement point to get into a flanking tile and then attack, the Catapult defends, and gets killed.
This makes the terrain, play an important role in tactical combat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
frekk
|
|
In the game, that could be represented by the Germans having a very high rail capacity.
The Soviets certainly didn't. Capacity was a huge factor. It's easy to find one example to prove or disprove a model.
I don't mind the idea of supplies, but I would expect rail bonuses for tiles are probably on the way out to limit sprawling rails and create true lines.
Also, it is an abstracted model to get rid of the strategy of building one huge army that can teleport anywhere instead of dispersed regional reserves behind defensive garrisons. The only other solution to this problem is to limit the distance you can travel on rail, which I hate and which is gained alot of popularity despite what I think is inaccuracy and will result in a tedious "mass crawl" of units and silly strategies involving banks of airfields.
Also, if you really didn't like the parameters of the rail capacity, you could just set them higher so you wouldn't have to worry about it much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xorbon
|
|
Guelph, ON
Jul 2003
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by frekk
I don't like the idea of charging money to use the rails. The problem there is, that when you have no money and you are at peace the game will be very boring! Better to have the rail network generate revenue; less revenue if it is heavily used. So you can still use it without having a big treasury. Plus it just adds extra complication to worry about fuel and distances and all that. |
A while back, someone mentioned an idea for an upgrade to roads: highways. Highways would allow (something like) 1/9 movement for units using them. That way, units could still travel fairly far without having to use the rails. On top of that, workers (and certain other units) could be allowed to use rails for free.
So during peacetime, your military units could be redistributed as you can afford, and workers would be able to go where needed for free. Since there isn't the pressing need for moving armies across the continent during peacetime, you can save a lot of money by using highways, or if you're simply impatient, you can spend the money to get your units where you want now. Using highways means you'll have more money in your coffers, and more money to spend on science, luxuries, or whatever. To me, this seems quite similar to your idea. It's just a different implementation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
frekk
|
|
It's a good solution, something to think about. What we always have to remember about all solutions is that values are supposedly going to be really customizable, so if you didn't like to pay to move stuff you could set it to 0. Same thing with the rail capacity - if you didn't like limited rail capacity, you just change values to really high numbers.
Still, I like the idea of unused rail capacity generating revenue better. It would be essentially the same idea - in effect, you would still "pay" to use the rails - just with the difference that there would be other incentives to develop capacity than just unit movement. Also, its difficult to imagine what economy the use of rail is disrupting if the rail doesn't generate any revenue - if revenue is unchanged before and after rail exists.
I like the idea of using the highways in addition to the rails though. I think it would help take up the slack for bigger empires and so reduce the "mass crawl" effect. The other thing I like about using the highways, is that people opposed to infinite rail movement of even a limited capacity, could simply remove rails from their game and play with just highways. If they were concerned about getting rapid movement earlier in the game, they could use the rail graphics for the highway and then tie it to the rail advance. Etc etc. I really could care less about default rules as much as I could care about rules which support many different variations and styles.
Last edited by frekk on 22-11-2004 at 10:02
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-10-2004 06:25
No?
Attachment: 
|