 |
| |
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
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. |
quote:
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. |
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". |
Maybe you should read my entire post and then consider all the points acting in concert, because there is a synergy to them. If you just look at one point, then you miss this synergy, and you fail to see how the point does anything.
Now, if you can use another persons rail, and if rail gives no bonus to resources the square generates, then there is little reason to put the rail everywhere. The former reason that existed (bonus shields/trade) no longer exists, and additionally putting it everywhere allows the enemy easy access to it. Stupid on both counts.
Now, with limited rail movement there is no chance that the enemy will take over your entire continent in one turn. It simply can't happen. With ZOC (at least for cities and forts--or perhaps some sort of attrition for units passing by), you have ways of controlling enemy movement through your territroy, which means you can further control their access to your rail system, assuming you control where you place it.
Naturally, when you do this, it is going to be easier for artillery to get in range, and you still have the issue of the enemy massing many, many troops and being able to pick from many nearby cities which to attack. They can do this in a way that emphasizes the weakness of a TBS, namely that you can't react to anything until your next turn. Give a "Defend" order, which isn't that complicated, there could even be a menu command to show the radius around a selected unit, and you can partially alleviate this. Allow your artillery to counter-attack enemy artillery, and you also further alleviate this. This is a relatively simply function that adds more depth to the game; taking out enemy rail lines becomes more necessary, but had more trade-offs, and with some of my other ideas, it becomes more difficult.
Anyhow, I would appreciate it if you considered the points as a set of changes, and not as individual changes that could be taken piece-meal. They are part of one coherent idea, and they compliment each other, and address each other's problems.
quote:
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 |
Sure, it makes it less useful, but perhaps it is too powerful now, ever consider that? It needs to be toned down, it needs to be less powerful, and it is part of the cohesive plan that I am proposing. Changing this increasing the thought and strategy required in the late-game, when you have rail connecting all your cities. No longer will you be able to move your troops from one side of your massive continent to the other in one turn. No longer will you be able to respond to potential aggression instantly. Instead you'll have to think, you'll have to plan, you'll have to prepare.
quote:
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). |
Again, that doesn't work because we are trying to decrease road and rail sprawl. To do that we need to lessen the need for road and rail everywhere, and part of that is making sure you don't buiild it around your cities to make improving the tiles easier. Hence, make movement around improved tiles easier. (though a Public Works system would address this too).
There is no need to give workers infinite movement, and I don't think it should be encouraged to move all your workers about willy-nilly. You should need some thought about how you are going to order them about, and where you are going to locate them.
quote:
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... |
Maybe it seems that way because I mentioned how it would work if stacked combat is used. Basically this is an order that holds the unit in place, and makes them rush to defend a fort or city with no defenders, so long as it is in their defend radius (which will be a certain number of squares, and there should be a command to see this). Once they've moved, somewhat like sleep, the defend order disappears.
Anyhow, I think this is a good thing to implement, as it resolves some TBS issues. Just because I am flexible on the implementation doesn't mean it is too complicated (and certainly not "way too complicated"). Ruminating over wether the troop should have a rail connection to the city or how the enemy can combat the system is not the same as making a complicated system.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Except that in many cases only the fast-movers will be able to attack (often, not even then, because you can have two tiles of buffer). |
And when you get tanks, you have that 3 movement, and some cases you don't need that. Anyhow, it fits into my overall picture of how things should be changed.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
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). |
Guess what? So does real life. |
It doesn't make for a fun or balanced game if you are playing a peaceful Civ.
Additionally, first strikes don't necessarily give you an advantage. First strikes that are done in suprise or against an unseen weakness do. Germany against France in WWII, if they hadn't gone around the line, they wouldn't have done nearly as well (perhaps they wouldn't have even taken France).
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
Now, if you can use another persons rail, and if rail gives no bonus to resources the square generates, then there is little reason to put the rail everywhere. The former reason that existed (bonus shields/trade) no longer exists, and additionally putting it everywhere allows the enemy easy access to it. Stupid on both counts. |
Putting the rail in at all allows the complication your suggestion creates, specifically the ability to blitz through your entire empire.
quote:
Now, with limited rail movement there is no chance that the enemy will take over your entire continent in one turn. It simply can't happen. With ZOC (at least for cities and forts--or perhaps some sort of attrition for units passing by), you have ways of controlling enemy movement through your territroy, which means you can further control their access to your rail system, assuming you control where you place it. |
They can still take over a large portion of it. And any units with ZoC would only be minor obstacles, if that, given that the person is breaking your defenses anyway. This exacerbates the thing you're pissed about - offensive blitzing.
quote:
Naturally, when you do this, it is going to be easier for artillery to get in range, and you still have the issue of the enemy massing many, many troops and being able to pick from many nearby cities which to attack. They can do this in a way that emphasizes the weakness of a TBS, namely that you can't react to anything until your next turn. Give a "Defend" order, which isn't that complicated, there could even be a menu command to show the radius around a selected unit, and you can partially alleviate this. Allow your artillery to counter-attack enemy artillery, and you also further alleviate this. This is a relatively simply function that adds more depth to the game; taking out enemy rail lines becomes more necessary, but had more trade-offs, and with some of my other ideas, it becomes more difficult. |
1) This isn't a weakness. This is real life.
2) This makes defending trivially simple (though not exactly easy) - just dump some units their and hit "auto-defend" or whatever, then forget.
3) If anything, C3 rail makes defending EASIER.
quote:
Sure, it makes it less useful, but perhaps it is too powerful now, ever consider that? |
That's not my point. I'm saying it doesn't target the specific aspect of rail that you're complaining about, that is, rails everywhere.
quote:
Again, that doesn't work because we are trying to decrease road and rail sprawl. To do that we need to lessen the need for road and rail everywhere, and part of that is making sure you don't buiild it around your cities to make improving the tiles easier. |
Actually, I just think rails shouldn't be everywhere. Roads actually are everywhere.
quote:
There is no need to give workers infinite movement, and I don't think it should be encouraged to move all your workers about willy-nilly. |
Micromanagement.
quote:
You should need some thought about how you are going to order them about, and where you are going to locate them. |
Fine. You play the Industrial and Modern ages without infinite worker movement. I dare you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
And when you get tanks, you have that 3 movement, and some cases you don't need that. Anyhow, it fits into my overall picture of how things should be changed. |
Actually, when you get Modern Armor (or Panzers, but the ability for the to blitz into enemy territory is kinda the point...). And by then, yes, warfare now really and truly IS like that.
quote:
It doesn't make for a fun or balanced game if you are playing a peaceful Civ. |
OMFG you actually have to work to defend yourself! You can't just label yourself "peaceful" and leave it at that 
quote:
Additionally, first strikes don't necessarily give you an advantage. |
Generally, they do, because you have the initiative. If you screw it up, obviously they don't, but that's not relevent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
It doesn't make for a fun or balanced game if you are playing a peaceful Civ. |
OMFG you actually have to work to defend yourself! You can't just label yourself "peaceful" and leave it at that |
Well, thank you for taking what I said out of context. Try to consider my words before declaring whatever gut reaction you had.
Yes, you have to work on defense if you are peaceful, but generally in Civ games the best way to defend yourself is to take on enemy civilizations.....
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
Additionally, first strikes don't necessarily give you an advantage. |
Generally, they do, because you have the initiative. If you screw it up, obviously they don't, but that's not relevent. |
Hence my point, I am glad you made it for me. In Civ this generally is true, so the best way to be "defensive" is to be offensive and take out enemy cities. The fact that good defensive units are not good offensive units goes into this as well (though I supposed this could be changed with stacks into a combined arms approach).
However, I concede this did change more that I initially remembered with Civ 3. I still have some concerns. For instance, if there is stacked combat then there will be some limit to how many units you can have on a tile (in all likelihood). This will unfairly penalize city defense, and I don't think the solution is to up defensive values from structures. This is a real problem that will occur with stack combat.
Rather, there would need to be a way to increase the number of units you can use to defend a city with; more specifically the cost of defending a city. A multi-stack interface for cities would be cumbersome, and I think the formation of armies is a bit cumbersome as well. One way I see to modify this is my previous suggestion, which is to allow certain units to be given the "defend" order. If you don't like the idea of them moving long distances, then have it limited to 2 or 3 squares in distance (or even 1) connected by road or RR, and they defend unfortified and lose their action on the next turn.
Another idea is to allow automatic conscripts in a city to replace fallen units. However, the penalty would have to be some sort of nation-wide one, as a city penalty is unfair if the city is taken.
Anyhow, I think the stacked combat issue needs to be addressed, for while it is a good improvement to have, it does bring with it its own issues.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Putting the rail in at all allows the complication your suggestion creates, specifically the ability to blitz through your entire empire. |
Allowing everyone to use all road and RR is more realistic, and there are ways to balance it so it is fun and doesn't harm the game. When you can give things a more realistic feel without sacrificing fun, I think you should. If you don't like the enemy using your roads and RRs, then destroy them or build defended forts about on them. Again, the problem is further handled with certain other changes.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
Now, with limited rail movement there is no chance that the enemy will take over your entire continent in one turn. It simply can't happen. With ZOC (at least for cities and forts--or perhaps some sort of attrition for units passing by), you have ways of controlling enemy movement through your territroy, which means you can further control their access to your rail system, assuming you control where you place it. |
They can still take over a large portion of it. And any units with ZoC would only be minor obstacles, if that, given that the person is breaking your defenses anyway. This exacerbates the thing you're pissed about - offensive blitzing. |
I wouldn't say "pissed," but rather "concerned." As I said, there would need to be a way to enhance border defense. One part of it is limited rail movement, which penalizes the enemy for throwing a ton of troops into one conflict. Now they can no longer rush them back for a war on the other side of the world.
One of my other ideas was the "defend" order, which doesn't eliminate strategy. There is the placement of troops, the formation of your line, and the fact that "defend" troops get no fortification bonuses. Additionally, as I have said, the radius could be quite limited (just a couple squares), and can further be alleviated with the destruction of rail connections to a city. (hmm, perhaps the ZoC idea wasn't a good one). All in all, defending has much more depth, and you are actually *Defending*.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote:
...They can do this in a way that emphasizes the weakness of a TBS, namely that you can't react to anything until your next turn. Give a "Defend" order, which isn't that complicated, there could even be a menu command to show the radius around a selected unit, and you can partially alleviate this. Allow your artillery to counter-attack enemy artillery, and you also further alleviate this. This is a relatively simply function that adds more depth to the game; taking out enemy rail lines becomes more necessary, but had more trade-offs, and with some of my other ideas, it becomes more difficult. |
1) This isn't a weakness. This is real life. |
No, real life is being caught with your pants down because your didn't have your troops ready to mobilize against an enemy attack. If you know where they are coming from and prepare, then things are different.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
2) This makes defending trivially simple (though not exactly easy) - just dump some units their and hit "auto-defend" or whatever, then forget. |
Nope, as I said, no fortification bonuses are received, so that is far from an optimum strategy. Additionally, this becomes a more pressing issues with stacked combat, and there are other complexities to be had. It makes combat more interesting, and finding a weak spot in an opponents defense (or tricking them about where you will attack--think D-Day) more important.
All this does is provide a secondary, less effective, layer of defense.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
3) If anything, C3 rail makes defending EASIER. |
For one because there are so many rails, and they are largely useless to the enemy. But we don't want a rail glut, and part of that is improving the defense of a smaller number of rail lines.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
Sure, it makes it less useful, but perhaps it is too powerful now, ever consider that? |
That's not my point. I'm saying it doesn't target the specific aspect of rail that you're complaining about, that is, rails everywhere. |
As a whole, my plan targets it quite well. You haven't indicated anywhere it doesn't work against this. If necessary some additional constraints such as tile-to-tile rail connections or more expensive/time consuming rail production could be added.
I merely added some more dynamic features to the rail system so that it would be more interesting. Hmm, however, I will grant you that ZoC was perhaps ill-conceived. At least as far as stopping movement. Attrition damage should be sufficient.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
Again, that doesn't work because we are trying to decrease road and rail sprawl. To do that we need to lessen the need for road and rail everywhere, and part of that is making sure you don't buiild it around your cities to make improving the tiles easier. |
Actually, I just think rails shouldn't be everywhere. Roads actually are everywhere. |
But not highways, which is what roads basically represent, long term. Farms and the like have smaller roads, less suited to the movement of military units and the like. Hence my suggested modification for them. This will be realistic, and allow for a cleaner and nicer view of the map.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote:
There is no need to give workers infinite movement, and I don't think it should be encouraged to move all your workers about willy-nilly. |
Micromanagement.
quote:
You should need some thought about how you are going to order them about, and where you are going to locate them. |
Fine. You play the Industrial and Modern ages without infinite worker movement. I dare you. |
If you have to build less roads, then they are not going to have to run around as much building things. Additionally there are other, better ways to fix micromanagement without making special rules. Having a work order queue on improvments (which workers automatically follow) or using Public Works in some form are but two examples.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So don't go with stacked combat.
Personally, I hate it.
My idea is simple - rail gives no economic benefit, rail costs upkeep, rail has infinite move BUT rail has a capacity (not including workers). Thus, you have a network that allows you to redistribute a limited portion of your military each turn, which over several turns has a similar effect to simply reduced movement cost but retains the realism. |
If they are eliminating building upkeep, then rail upkeep isn't going to get added in. Rail upkeep strikes me as too unwieldy and messy a system. For when you get more territory, suddenly the upkeep can soar, and unlike Sim City, what rails deteriorate when you don't pay the costs matter a great deal. Additionally, it seems to me that making it so that you can eliminate rail anywhere at anytime (which you would need) would have its own issues as well.
And I can't believe you called my "defend" system too complicated when you are proposing a limited use rail system.
As I have said before, all movement is unrealistic. In 1 year you could use roads to go anywhere you want as well (or heck, even just use a horse to go really, really far). Many civ turns are longer then this. Rail is just faster than Road, but it isn't infinitely faster, and this is how it should be modeled, given the necessary unrealisms in the game.
Most people are in favor of stacked combat, as it adds realism to the game (archers feel like archers) and the combat makes more sense.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lajzar
I regard the fact that the defenders need more men than the attackers as a valid strategic choie that has to be made, not as a chore tht needs to be gotten rid off. |
Might as well make more attacking units then, as a "defender" and go and take the enemy out. Then you get more cities, and so forth.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Kuciwalker, we might just have to agree to disagree...we seem to be taking over the thread and going almost nowhere. : )
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:37
|
|
What about the following combination:
1. Destroy rail+road on being destroyed command for units
2. Everyone uses rails
3. No tile bounse for rail
4. around 1/9 to 1/18 movement for rail, free for workers.
5. ZOC
6. No building improvements on someone else's land
7. Maybe a new type of terrain improvement that slows units down. (mines of the blow uppy kind?) Perhaps with upkeep/usage cost?
This way an defender can stop a bad blitzkreig in its tracks by controlling the terrain but a failure to do so can allow allow attacks to run around fairly fast. After all, only the most impressively manned fortifications can withstand an well planned massed assault and the most common strategy in defense is to trade space for time to mobilize. If the attacker fails to break the defenses for one turn than the counter attack can be deadly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lajzar
Someone proposed rail tiles cost 1 gold a turn upkeep and provide unlimited movemnt. However, this seems like it will be a heavy processing overhead, as the comp must count all the rail tiles every turn. |
Actually, it would be sufficient if the computer just updated the number everytime a new railroad is built or destroyed. The bigger problem is: How do you decide which piece of railroad belongs to which nation? Does it become impossible to build rail outside your cultural border? Can I build railroads for another nation with my workers?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Well, I think rails tend to be a bit more abstract than "railroads" per se. They also represent highway systems. As everyone should know, the only way to prevent someone from using your highway system is to destroy their access to it, or keep them away from it. I would like this in the game, but I guess it isn't necessary. To me it adds to the strategic depth, so long as other factors are added in to enhance ones ability to guard your rails.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
akulla
|
|
Washington, DC
Nov 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
RailRoads should be based on capacity, if you move a few units in a turn they maybe infinite because the railroad can handle it, but if you start moving a large amount of units the distance they can move is reduced based on the capacity of the railroads. (This would reflect real life better.)
Also, there should be more grades of roads, like dirt road is 3 movement, brick road(Roman Road) would be perhaps 5, Medeval Highways 7, modern 10 etc., also maintanence costs should be figured into the situation as roads get more complex, and capacity still needs to be accounted for moving 100 units down a dirt road should significantly reduce movement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Some comments:
1. Half or more of the movement benefits associated with the modern age are inthe units. Keep that in mind when suggesting new roads and whatnot. There is a very real limit to how much a road can speed up people on horse, and people on foot.
2. I don't care for the load/unload rail ideas. It is cumbersome, unrealistic (hey, movement is unrealistic enough as-is, no need to delay it for another turn or two) and unfun.
3. The "limited capacity rail" ideas aren't really any better. They are cumbersome--which RR have used up their capacity and how will you easily distinguish between the various states between? They are more realistic, but then you run into the road issue, which also has a limit to how many people can use it. This is another largely unfun addition, and it would also encourage RR sprawl (for more capacity).
4. Rails like Airports would have its own difficulty. Programing it would be a bit annoying, and you'd get unrealistic issues. If two cities have a rail building, then how come you can't get off near one of the cities en route. Also, how come you can go to that fairly new city which is unconnected by road to anything, and in the middle of a jungle, surrounded by enemy troops? Too many issues.
5. As such, the rail system is going to be roughly similar to what Civ2 and Civ3 had, so I would suggest you make suggestions in line with those system. Keep most of the stuff the same--perhaps with some improvements--and only a couple new tweaks at most.*
-Drachasor
*I like to think I have done this, but I'll double-check to make sure...after I sleep.
Last edited by Drachasor on 20-07-2004 at 21:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
Then get rid of the load/unload movement penalties for seafarring vessles... It's just as unrealistic and unfun as you seem to think it is. |
With vessels it is different, as you don't waste a turn on anything. Also, the units get no penalty if they load in a city and unload in a city. It is also very clear when the units are on a vessel, and when they are not. Lastly, the point of Rail is quick movement across the continent, and quicker defense of your cities. That point is eliminated if you have to waste a turn loading your troops. The point of ship transport, on the other hand, is getting across the ocean. The issues are quite distinct.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-07-2004 20:46
|