31-05-2005 08:13									#31
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

In fact, I completely disagree with the idea of slowing down exploration. I love moving my warriors around exploring the map. I don't care that it's unrealistic

	31-05-2005 13:03									#32
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker So now you just send a supply unit with your stacks. Whoop-de-do.

i'm with the schmoo

ok i know i proposed the idea of wagons in the first place. but if it's just another unit in the stack, it doesn't change the dynamic, except now you have to spend an extra 30 shields or whatever before you set out. doesn't pass the realism test for me either, i mean who supplies the supplier?

i much prefer the idea of a chain of fortresses. it adds something new. it also seems quite realistic.

combat and exploration then gets a new dimension to it; first, there is the dynamic element of units moving around on the map. second is the static element of building infrastructure to go out and supply those units.

i would suggest that it shouldn't matter if you are on enemy territory or if there are enemy units in the way. if they want to disrupt supply, they should have to storm your forts.
(this approach should also be simpler, i mean who wants to go back every turn and check whether one stray enemy unit happens to have disrupted your line-of sight/supply)

i can certainly sympathise with the " no mm" point of view. but let's face it - an army runs on it's intestines. the fact that there is no implementation of what is a crucial area of military planning makes the whole game less realistic to me.

quote: Originally posted by Solver So, the easiest way to implement supply in Civ4 would also be healing. Say, units don't heal at all outside cities

i don't like this aproach at all.

one thing i find very stodgy about the combat system is the way you have to work your way across enemy territory one city at a time. the current rules for not healing in enemy territory enforce this. every civ invasion ends up looking much the same - start at one end of the territory, and gobble up the empire one city at a time. there's just no room for creativity. that's the one thing i really like about c3c armies, they allow you to try slightly different approaches.

what if i turn your suggestion on it's head?

say units can heal inside enemy territory if they return to a 'supply' fortress?

quote: I love moving my warriors around exploring the map. I don't care that it's unrealistic

schmoo too

couldn't count the number of games that get played until i discover the map, then abandoned

	31-05-2005 13:13									#33
	Put an end to popups!

Well, I am REALLY sad to hear that Kuciwalker . I always felt that the ability to send any unit to almost ANY part of the landmass you are on is one of the SINGLE biggest contributors to REXing as a successful strategy. REXing is also a MASSIVE contributor to what I call the 'Snowball Effect' and the 'Modern Age malaise', where the final victor is all but decided by the end of the Industrial Age (at the latest), thus making the modern age not much more than 'going through the motions'.
If units had a limited 'range of operation', then not only would parts of the map remain unknown for longer, it would also make units like scouts, explorers and paratroopers much more important (as they would have larger OR's). Additionally, the less explored map would allow for a more accurate 'Exploration/Colonization Age' around the Middle or Late Middle Ages. This will, in turn, help to reduce the incidence of 'Modern Age Malaise', especially if combined with a good system of secession.
Lastly, having supply lines for units will give weaker opponents an alternative to frontal assaults against large stacks of units. Instead, such a player could try and outflank an opponent and trying to capture/destroy one of the enemy's supply points.
As for it requiring micromanagment, it should actually be quite easy to indicate if a unit is in or out of supply. If the circle around a unit is white-then it is in supply, if its yellow, then it is Marginally out of supply, and if its red, then it means it is DANGEROUSLY out of supply. Very simple really. I just feel this will add sooo very much to every aspect of the game.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	31-05-2005 20:24									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The snowball effect can also hopefully be countered by other stuff, such as a good AI and nice espionage options, and clever AI-to-AI diplomacy. So that even if you're big and powerful, two countries will form an alliance against you that may beat you.

	31-05-2005 21:02									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

simply having all the ai's attack you at once is very lame,and hasnt worked in civ3\2.

quote: As for it requiring micromanagment, it should actually be quite easy to indicate if a unit is in or out of supply. If the circle around a unit is white-then it is in supply, if its yellow, then it is Marginally out of supply, and if its red, then it means it is DANGEROUSLY out of supply. Very simple really. I just feel this will add sooo very much to every aspect of the game.

the close combat series had something like this. low levels of sypply meant less ammo and fuel. maybe combat strength could be affected(just like when you attack with 1\3 or 2\3 move points)

	31-05-2005 21:14									#36
	Got spare money?

Not AIs attacking you at once, but cooperating against you if needed. So if there are 6 civs left, and 2 of them hate you, they should form an alliance. I want realistic diplomacy - also, smaller civs should seek to sign protection pacts with bigger civs so that they would be protected.

	31-05-2005 21:23									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by lebensraum i much prefer the idea of a chain of fortresses. it adds something new. it also seems quite realistic. combat and exploration then gets a new dimension to it; first, there is the dynamic element of units moving around on the map. second is the static element of building infrastructure to go out and supply those units.

That makes ancient invasions much more difficult, as well as removing some of the "lets wander units around the map" ancient age fun. Given the timescales involved, realism kinda flies out the window anyway.

	31-05-2005 21:25									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker Well, I am REALLY sad to hear that Kuciwalker . I always felt that the ability to send any unit to almost ANY part of the landmass you are on is one of the SINGLE biggest contributors to REXing as a successful strategy. REXing is also a MASSIVE contributor to what I call the 'Snowball Effect' and the 'Modern Age malaise', where the final victor is all but decided by the end of the Industrial Age (at the latest), thus making the modern age not much more than 'going through the motions'. If units had a limited 'range of operation', then not only would parts of the map remain unknown for longer, it would also make units like scouts, explorers and paratroopers much more important (as they would have larger OR's). Additionally, the less explored map would allow for a more accurate 'Exploration/Colonization Age' around the Middle or Late Middle Ages. This will, in turn, help to reduce the incidence of 'Modern Age Malaise', especially if combined with a good system of secession.

Then what am I supposed to do in the early game? Just keep hitting "enter" waiting for my units to build, maybe moving my worker? That's one of the few "things to do" at the beginning - wander around the map.

	31-05-2005 22:26									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Complex combat is bad.

I agree, as my post implied

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker And the religion system looks very simple - in a good way.

Well, as I said in my post you were quoting, I cannot speak from experience, as I have not played Civ4. It was mere comment based on very limited knowledge. And to me, the religion thing looks complicated. I hope its not.

	31-05-2005 22:28									#40
	Re: Slowing-down exploration Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Xorbon If you want to slow down exploration because you think it's currently too fast, I've got an idea that doesn't involve supply. How about, when a unit moves through unexplored territory only the tile it moves into becomes revealed. In order to expose the surrounding adjacent tiles, you have to force the unit to rest for one complete turn. ? ?

Hmm in my opin that would be very very tedious

	31-05-2005 23:13									#41
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

It would. Besides, if a 'unit' can't move far in the '10 years' a turn takes in the beginning of the game, then I don't know it anymore.

	31-05-2005 23:24									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

bigger maps and more distance between citys would be good. but imo the whole concept of civ should be tossed out the window and started over.the game as civ3 was,is partly obsolete.

something like RTW's campaign map,striked me as being a good idea.forget tiles maybe?

and use simultanious turns,but make it so unit orders arnt carried out till 'end turn' is hit...

	31-05-2005 23:33									#43
	Tired of ads?

quote: bigger maps and more distance between citys would be good. but imo the whole concept of civ should be tossed out the window and started over.the game as civ3 was,is partly obsolete. something like RTW's campaign map,striked me as being a good idea.forget tiles maybe? and use simultanious turns,but make it so unit orders arnt carried out till 'end turn' is hit...

That's what I fear the most, that they will someday radically change the game. It doesn't need to be done. Civ, with the concept as it is, is the best strategy game ever known. They should work on that concept and keep improving it, but abolishing turns, tiles, cities or anything like that would be a horrible idea.

	31-05-2005 23:43									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

my idea was simultanious turns,and then all orders carried out at once. IIRC if u clicked fast enough in civ3 mp with simultanoius you could keep guys out of danger by moving them

quote: that's what I fear the most, that they will someday radically change the game.

and here i am,fearing a second craptastic-civ3 game unless they drastikly changed it from civ3,i cant see how it would be a success :/

	31-05-2005 23:58									#45
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Cataphract887 bigger maps and more distance between citys would be good. but imo the whole concept of civ should be tossed out the window and started over.the game as civ3 was,is partly obsolete. something like RTW's campaign map,striked me as being a good idea.forget tiles maybe? and use simultanious turns,but make it so unit orders arnt carried out till 'end turn' is hit...

go play a Paradox game, then. We are talking about Civ. If you think it's obsolete, why are you posting here?

It's like complaining about Pong, saying it should include 4x elements...

	01-06-2005 00:07									#46
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Simultaneous turns isn't Civ. Whether Civ3 was bad or not, it's not because it had these standard turns and tiles.

	01-06-2005 01:00									#47
	Remove this text

iwasnt wanting than in cIV givin the lack of cIV on my\your hd i thought these threads were for discussion? excuse me if i was wrong

	01-06-2005 02:07									#48
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Eh, this is a cIV discussion forum. I think it's pretty obvious any thread in it would be about cIV.

	01-06-2005 04:17									#49
	Put an end to popups!

Getting back to "supply", I think the issue of early exploration and supply are related. I think supply would be an overcomplication for a stock Civ4 game. (but great for a mod). But I also feel that a "lack of supply" hindering units is kinda sorta already implemented in the Civ series.

Why? Because, lets face it, we don't have Cavalry, Explorers, Fighters, Frigates to do any exploring in the early game. All we've got are 1-move Warriors, or, if we're Expansionist, a 2-move Scout. So our units can't go too far anyway. Yes, they can go pretty far, I concede that. But they key is: it takes them 1,000+ years to do it. Not unreasonable representation of the scope of exploration and expansion in the ancient world, if ya ask me. How long did it take the native americans to go from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego?

I understand the Civ3 complaint (by some) of the too rapid early expansion (REX). Too some extent I agree with this complaint. I hope Civ4 has a fun method of early exploration and limiting of the "reach" of an ancient era civ's units. But not by any kind of "supply" system--more of simply having early units be incapable of this sort of global trekking. But how to limit this...that's the question.

	01-06-2005 05:26									#50
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Come on, Provost, you can do better than that. If it sounds 'unfun' to you, tell us WHY?? I want to click on my Warrior and hit 9 and have him move northeast. I don't want to check if I have supply, set up supply routes, move a supply wagon, whatever, all in order to be able to hit 9 and move him northeast without him suddenly losing hitpoints.

You would never have to "check" anything. The supply limit for that unit would show on the map, just like city radius shows on the map. Before you hit "9" to move the Warriors NE you would see clearly whether that move takes you outside the supply limit.

quote: Then what am I supposed to do in the early game? Just keep hitting "enter" waiting for my units to build, maybe moving my worker? That's one of the few "things to do" at the beginning - wander around the map.

What would you do if you were on an island and didn't have ships yet? Be a man, tough it out.

You can still move units out of the supply range. They risk disbanding or taking damage. Just like Triremes in the open sea.

I personally would not have a supply unit. Building forts or trading posts would be a better solution, especially if Civ4 allows military units build forts (or at least a low level equivalent).

	01-06-2005 05:39									#51
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: You can still move units out of the supply range. They risk disbanding or taking damage. Just like Triremes in the open sea.

The difference is, Galleys can still reach a large portion of the ocean, whereas I would be restricted to keeping my warrior within a few tiles of my starting city.

	01-06-2005 05:50									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: You can still move units out of the supply range. They risk disbanding or taking damage. Just like Triremes in the open sea. The difference is, Galleys can still reach a large portion of the ocean, whereas I would be restricted to keeping my warrior within a few tiles of my starting city.

But then you build more cities, forts, etc., all of which would extend the OR. Add to that bonuses from technologies, you'd have an ever increasing OR. You might spend a few turns hitting enter, depending on the situation, but a good balance would be the key to making it playable or boring... obviously I'll strive for the former.

Thus far, I haven't heard anything which changes my mind about the first post being the optimal system for Civ4. Additional complications can be added to it for mods, if needed/desired - as has been discussed here, but the simple system would work great IMO, and it'll most likely be my first mod for Civ4 or at least part of my first mod.

	01-06-2005 05:57									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

OK, Kuciwalker, I am just feeling like you are DELIBERATELY ignoring certain facts-such as:

1) A units operational range would be measured from the city's BORDER-not from the city itself.

2) Though a warrior unit might have a chance to disband beyond its operational range, it could probably get as far as 4-5 tiles beyond before that chance became significant.

3) Its not as though you can't build SCOUTS. Warriors should be used to defend and attack, not to explore. In this system, exploratory units might actually become IMPORTANT.

4) Leaving early exploration to scouts will make expansionist civs much better value to play (they are currently useless).

5) Given that distance from your border is important, then this system would encourage players to focus greater effort on building up their starting culture levels-to push out their borders.

6) This system would also make early and middle game diplomacy that much more important-as having an 'Open Borders'/'Alliance'/'RofP' agreement will allow the player to treat another nation's borders as their own for Operational Range purposes.

7) As I said in my previous post, in combat this system will give weaker opponents-on the defensive-greater options for repelling invasions. This works on both a historical and gameplay level.

8) As large scale exploration would be more 'specialised' maps will be much, MUCH more valuable in diplomacy (especially if you could choose to leave resources in or out of such maps !)

So, not only does this idea reduce the Snowballing effect by reducing REXing, it also makes a builder/diplomacy approach to the game MUCH more viable, as well as making previously pointless units MUCH more valuable!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	01-06-2005 06:04									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by alms66 But then you build more cities, forts, etc., all of which would extend the OR.

Yes, but that's no fun - to explore I have to build forts and cities outward, so my range of vision isn't really that far beyond what I've settled.

	01-06-2005 06:10									#55
	Get a bigger avatar today!

SCOUTS, KUCIWALKER, OR DIPLOMACY!!!!!! I REALLY DON'T GET WHY YOU INSIST ON IGNORING THE OBVIOUS!!! WARRIORS GOING TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH IN 2000BC is NOT FUN!!! BUILDING SCOUTS TO EXPLORE THE HINTERLAND, THEN SENDING OUT MY BRAVE COLONISTS TO SETTLE THE LAND IN THEIR WAKE-NOW THAT IS FUN!!!!
THE OTHER THING YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE IS THAT NOONE HAS SAID THAT A UNIT IS GOING TO DISBAND THE MOMENT IT GOES BEYOND ITS OPERATIONAL RANGE!!! MAN, I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT AN IDEA WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY REALLY HAVEN'T TRIED TO LISTEN TO THE FACTS!!!!!

Yours (in extreme frustration now),

Aussie_Lurker.

	01-06-2005 06:11									#56
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker OK, Kuciwalker, I am just feeling like you are DELIBERATELY ignoring certain facts-such as: 1) A units operational range would be measured from the city's BORDER-not from the city itself.

Does it matter? That doesn't extend the range all that much.

quote: 2) Though a warrior unit might have a chance to disband beyond its operational range, it could probably get as far as 4-5 tiles beyond before that chance became significant.

That still means I'm confined to a pretty small area, and I'm not about to risk warriors like that - they're a substatial investment.

quote: 3) Its not as though you can't build SCOUTS. Warriors should be used to defend and attack, not to explore. In this system, exploratory units might actually become IMPORTANT.

Scouts could only be built by Expansionist civs in C3. Plus, the warrior is traditionally the early scouting unit

Anyway, even if scouts can do so, this would effectively preclude a lot of very early war.

quote: 4) Leaving early exploration to scouts will make expansionist civs much better value to play (they are currently useless).

It would make them so vastly overpowered as to be game-breaking.

quote: 5) Given that distance from your border is important, then this system would encourage players to focus greater effort on building up their starting culture levels-to push out their borders.

Your borders wouldn't and shouldn't expand at anywhere near the rate a warrior can explore.

quote: 6) This system would also make early and middle game diplomacy that much more important-as having an 'Open Borders'/'Alliance'/'RofP' agreement will allow the player to treat another nation's borders as their own for Operational Range purposes.

You probably won't meet them until your pretty established, since you can't reach them without suiciding some warriors.

quote: 7) As I said in my previous post, in combat this system will give weaker opponents-on the defensive-greater options for repelling invasions. This works on both a historical and gameplay level.

If the range extends as long as you say, how would you actually manage to cut off supply to a stack? Even without this I rarely attack with deep strikes.

quote: 8) As large scale exploration would be more 'specialised' maps will be much, MUCH more valuable in diplomacy (especially if you could choose to leave resources in or out of such maps !)

Large scale exploration would be gone. You wouldn't be able to see territory until you expanded near it, for practical purposes.

quote: So, not only does this idea reduce the Snowballing effect by reducing REXing, it also makes a builder/diplomacy approach to the game MUCH more viable, as well as making previously pointless units MUCH more valuable!

It doesn't reduce REXing, since you can still pump out settlers. It just reduces fun, early game exploration and completely eliminates very early war.

There's also no plausible reason a party of warriors couldn't live off the land in the timescales involved.

	01-06-2005 06:15									#57
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Oh and, Kuciwalker, if you truly think that increased realism is so 'unfun', why don't you go and play 'Command and Control' instead-sounds like this churn-and-burn slugfest would be much more up your alley!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	01-06-2005 06:18									#58
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Eh, since I'm arguing to keep civ more similar to the previous versions, why wouldn't I just paly civ?

You're the one arguing that this significant change would improve the game.

I don't think realism is unfun, either, I just don't think it works in civ. I love HoI2, which has a far more detailed system for combat, supply, production, etc. than Civ - but it's a different type of game. Similarly, I don't argue to add FPS aspects to Civ just because I enjoy Halo.

	01-06-2005 06:57									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

OK, several key points:

Operational Range vs. Disband Chance:

Ancient Foot and Mounted Units have the lowest Operational Range, but the second smallest chance of disbanding-per square outside their OR (Scouts have the lowest).

Medieval Foot and Mounted Units (and Industrial Mechanized Units) have a higher OR, but slightly higher chance of disbanding.

Industrial Foot Units and Modern Mechanized Units have a higher OR again, but an even GREATER chance of disbanding.

Modern Foot units have the greatest OR, and have a Disband chance the same as their industrial age counterparts.

The terrain you are modifies your disband chance, whilst the terrain you have passed through modifies your Operational range. So, in forests and grasslands, disband chance and operational range increases, wheras it decreases in desert, tundra and jungle terrain-whilst being unaffected by either plains or hills.

All of this information would be condensed into whether or not your unit was White, Yellow or Red. White would be SAFE, Yellow would be MODERATE DANGER and RED would be extreme DANGER.

Hope that clarifies some of my key points.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	01-06-2005 09:10									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

For me I think having to keep track of "one more thing" while I play Civ would be "un-fun".. but then I ain't too smart sometimes...

Supply is an interesting concept worth doing, to be sure, and I would like to see it in a mod, but not stock Civ4. I would like Civ4 to be a sturdy skeleton upon which things can be added, if desired. I'm sure "supply" will be.