 |
|
Drachasor
|
|
At first I was skeptical of your idea, Nova, but now I think it could work very well. I was worried about the interface issue, but now I see that wouldn't be a problem. When you build a railroad, you just select where you want it to go from the current square. You then spend some time in the starting square, then the worker moves to the destination square to finish it. This would take a bit of time, but that' the idea.
It should really cut down on railroad sprawl if done, as it would just take too much time to put it everywhere.
I think this also makes sense for roads too.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
But if Germany had Railroads, the allies would have been stuffed. |
From a Civ standpoint that would definitely have been true.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Enigma's idea, I believe, was that railroads would work largely the same as they already do, with the following differences:
1. When you build a railroad it connects two tiles along one edge.
2. Thereafter you can go between those two tiles at the standard RR movement cost.
3. Every tile can have up to 8 connections like this, each connecting the tile to one of its neighbors.
4. If you have two lines of railroad running parallel to each other, you can't move between them, even if they are next to each other. This is not true if you build a connecting rail between tiles.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
^two unconnected rail lines, right next to each other.
Basically you get a guaranteed benefit whenever you make a RR, that benefit is between the two tiles it connects. To connect a railroad to the 8 neighbors of one tile though, it takes 8 turns
So if you have a space of 3 by 3 square tiles:
OOO
OOO
OOO
It takes 20 builds of railroad to connect them as thoroughly as in CivII/III
OOO
OXO The Middle one takes 8
OOO
XOX
OOO The corners take 2 each to connect to the
XOX non-middle.
OXO
XOX The rest require 4 to connect along the diagnals.
OXO They are already connected to the middle and corners
This would greatly reduce railroad sprawl, as it would simply take too much work to connect everything in the CivII/III fashion.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
But you'd need four or eight times more memory for this admittedly more realistic road/rail system. That's a disadvantage that outweighs the advantage. Sorry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Max Sinister
But you'd need four or eight times more memory for this admittedly more realistic road/rail system. That's a disadvantage that outweighs the advantage. Sorry. |
Actually the road system should take up very little of the used memory.
Now, you'd basically have 4 connections per square. Each of those can have a road, railroad, or neither. That is 12 possibilities, so 4 bits can handle it. Let's say you have a 20,000 square world (which is a lot), then that's 80,000 bits, which is 10,000 bytes, which is 10k (roughly). That's hardly anything.
Even with a world 1000 squares by 1000 squares, you are only using 500,000 bytes, which is just half a meg of ram.
Bad computers these days have 128 Megs, my computer has 512. I have a friend with a gig. The above numbers pose no problem.
Now, pathfinding would need to be more advanced, but I don't think this would pose much of an issue either.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
Yes that's true. Or it would be true if the programmers designed it that way. I've always suspected that they've been a bit sloppy in this way. Why does a savegame in Civ3 need several megs space if you needed less than 200k in Civ2? The only new concept is culture...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Hmm, you need construction dates on all culture producing buildings for one. Maybe they are lazy and also save the culture levels and other things that can be deduced from construction dates too. Hmm, if they are lazy in a few other areas, then that could account for it.
However, I don't see how they could get all that lazy with the tile-edge road system. Not to the extent where it would add much to current saved games.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
Hmm, you need construction dates on all culture producing buildings for one. Maybe they are lazy and also save the culture levels and other things that can be deduced from construction dates too. Hmm, if they are lazy in a few other areas, then that could account for it. |
Yes, I've guessed something like that... if you've got to save every culture level for every civ on every tile, that's a lot of data...
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
However, I don't see how they could get all that lazy with the tile-edge road system. Not to the extent where it would add much to current saved games.
|
Maybe it was the path-finding algorithm or so...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lajzar
|
 |
Japan
Jun 2003
time: 14:37
|
|
*deleted by Bob for national security reasons*
Last edited by lajzar on 11-07-2004 at 03:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
I missed a lot of this thread, but add me to the "infinite with option to change it" camp.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
No! No more taking over an entire civ in one turn with howitzers! |
Well, listen to my entire idea next time. I wanted non-infinite RR movement, and non-sprawled RR. Additionally I advocated that you should be able to set soldiers to auto-defend nearby cities (say within a turns movement radius given non-infinite RR movement).
All these together would mean you couldn't take out an entire Civ in one turn. You might be able to conquer some of it, but you couldn't get too far because of spread out auto-defenders. If you pushed yourself too far, then you'd have to deal with the counter-attack (and attacks on parts of your empire). Since you wouldn't have unlimited RR movement you wouldn't be able to toss most/all of your army at one person.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
quote:
Originally posted by Deathmerchant
Please explain your argument further, I don't understand why we can't make it just a better road. It would allow a 3 or 4 turn delay from forces that are tied up elsewhere. I would think that this is perfect. A sneak attack on a border city shouldn't be able to get a 'rush order' of your entire army into the city within seconds. |
Micromanagement. Plus, you'll still probably have RR every tile. |
No, there are plenty of ways to eliminate the need and desire for RRs on every tile:
1. Allow anyone to use anyone else's rail and road.
2. Restore ZOC (right of passage eliminates ZOC issues though). At least restore ZOC to units in forts and cities.
3. Eliminate everything but movement bonuses from having a rail line through a tile. (Instead have bonuses for having a city connected to other cities).
4. Reduce the rail bonus from infinite movement to something more reasonable, like 1/6 at first and later upgradeable to something like 1/9 or 1/12.
The above 4 things alone would make it unadviseable to waste your time building rails everywhere. Not only do they give no tile benefit, but they'd make it easier for the enemy to move around your territory.
Some other points could aid this even more:
5. Let all tile improvements that aren't roads give 1/2 movement (upgadeable later if roads get an upgrade). This means that your workers can move around more easily in the improved radius of a city. This represents that road support network that would exist, and how it would be less efficient for unit movements compared to the main roads.
6. Add a "defend" order to troops. This acts like fortify/sleep in that you have to cancel it to give the troop another order. The effect of "defend" is that the troop would move to defend any fort or city within some X square radius if all the defenders there were beaten. If stacked combat is used then this order would be given to the entire stack. Lastly, if the troops couldn't get to the location in 1 turn, then they can't defend it (perhaps have this be the limited factor as opposed ot the X square radius).
7. Similarly, allow artillery that is fortified to counter-attack enemy artillery that is within ranged. This includes attacks by enemy artillery on your improvements (such as roads), which aren't directly against the counter-attack unit.
Six and seven in particular helps a fairly significant problem in TBS's. The fact that you can get blitzed by someone only because you aren't allowed to mobolize your troops until it is your turn again. This makes the game more dynamic, and it makes defense more important, since you can defend more effectively (almost as effectively as you can attack).
All the points together change late game combat dramatically. As you can't count on blitzing someone, as they will have more capable defenses at their borders, and ones you can't easily get around. Also, you can't rush an assault on someone and not watch your back, since you no longer have the crutch of unlimited RR movement to rapidly move troops to the opposite side of your empire.
Naturally you'll have less roads because they are less needed, and less vulnerable to being knocked out. If you want them even less vulnderable to being knocked out you can add in this point:
8. Allow the building of roads/RR upon already existing roads/RRs. This "doubling" (and even "tripling") up means that it takes that many more successful artillery blasts to knock out.
This isn't anything I haven't said before, but I think I've put it is less spread out than it was (at least 1 or 2 of the points are).
Oh, and the corollary of needing less roads is that you'll have fewer workers, since you don't need to be building as many tile improvements.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deathmerchant
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
*Snip
6. Add a "defend" order to troops. This acts like fortify/sleep in that you have to cancel it to give the troop another order. The effect of "defend" is that the troop would move to defend any fort or city within some X square radius if all the defenders there were beaten. If stacked combat is used then this order would be given to the entire stack. Lastly, if the troops couldn't get to the location in 1 turn, then they can't defend it (perhaps have this be the limited factor as opposed ot the X square radius).
*Snip
-Drachasor |
I like every one of your ideas, (great ideas, btw), except this one. I just don't like the idea of having units auto-move to cities under attack. Seems to.. cheezy. If you didn't have enough defenders in the city, or you underestimate the size of the opponent, you deserve to lose the city. Its an idea, for sure, just one that I wouldn't like to see in the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deathmerchant I like every one of your ideas, (great ideas, btw), except this one. I just don't like the idea of having units auto-move to cities under attack. Seems to.. cheezy. |
Agreed. It should be up to the player to defend his territory, rather than simply dump a bunch of troops into centrail cities. Please no auto-moving defenders!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Well, the only problem with non-autmoving defenders is that it gives the attacker a huge advantage. If they can choose between any 10 of your cities to attack, and you have to split your defenses among those 10 cities, then they'll end up going through quite a number of cities. Unless I am missing something.
Perhaps you two would feel more comfortable if the defending radius was much smaller? Anyhow, my thought was that you could combat this as the attacker by destroying the rail lines into the city. Hmm, anyhow, the disadvantage would be they'd be defending unfortified.
Anyhow, the idea was to balance the mobility of the attackers with increased defender mobility. The main problem you get with a TBS is that attackers can get a huge advantage because they won't meet any response to their attack until after they have moved all of their units. It could do with some sort of improvment.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
If, as a defender, you have to spend a lot more time and resources defending yourself, then you might as well attack. If you attack you get more cities, which means more of everything.
Basically the current system really favors a first-strike, and I don't care for that much. (This sin't as evident with the computer AI because it is really bad at massing troops).
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
No, there are plenty of ways to eliminate the need and desire for RRs on every tile:
1. Allow anyone to use anyone else's rail and road. |
Not only does this not work (this provides a disincentive to any rail network), but it's ****ing stupid. Maybe you do, but I don't want to go back to the days of "take over an entire country with howitzers in one turn".
quote:
2. Restore ZOC (right of passage eliminates ZOC issues though). At least restore ZOC to units in forts and cities. |
This doesn't have anything to do with it.
quote:
3. Eliminate everything but movement bonuses from having a rail line through a tile. (Instead have bonuses for having a city connected to other cities). |
That wasn't part of your original proposal. I've supporteed this since the beginning.
quote:
4. Reduce the rail bonus from infinite movement to something more reasonable, like 1/6 at first and later upgradeable to something like 1/9 or 1/12. |
That just makes rail in general less useful. People
quote:
5. Let all tile improvements that aren't roads give 1/2 movement (upgadeable later if roads get an upgrade). This means that your workers can move around more easily in the improved radius of a city. This represents that road support network that would exist, and how it would be less efficient for unit movements compared to the main roads. |
Or just give workers infinite movement on roads, with a certain tech (probably the same one that gives RR's).
quote:
6. Add a "defend" order to troops. This acts like fortify/sleep in that you have to cancel it to give the troop another order. The effect of "defend" is that the troop would move to defend any fort or city within some X square radius if all the defenders there were beaten. If stacked combat is used then this order would be given to the entire stack. Lastly, if the troops couldn't get to the location in 1 turn, then they can't defend it (perhaps have this be the limited factor as opposed ot the X square radius). |
Way too complicated...
quote:
7. Similarly, allow artillery that is fortified to counter-attack enemy artillery that is within ranged. This includes attacks by enemy artillery on your improvements (such as roads), which aren't directly against the counter-attack unit. |
It already gets a chance to - arty moves at one square per turn, so in fact the defender gets the first shot.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2004 00:19
|