 |
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
Yep, that is an excellent compromise system that I would be more than happy with. In addition, though, if the extra maintainance costs of units outside their OR outstrip your budget, then those units should either have a combat penalty and/or be at risk of being disbanded.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
I think that Operational Ranges are important as they differentiate exploratory and Spec Ops units from more standard and/or high maintainance unit types.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MattPilot
Anyway, forget Operational range for a sec.... |
I'm inclined to agree with Aussie on this one, OR is just too important to distinguish exploration units and others unless, of course, there was a flag for "half" maintenance or something (perhaps even just a percentage of maintenance for each unit). This flag could be toggled for scouts and other units that deserve reduced maintenance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Platypus Rex
Food for thought:
Why not have the supply unit just beeing the cash you pay to extend the range |
I thought of doing this at first, instead of disbanding since it is a reasonable idea. It just seems to me that some people (myself included, at least some of the time) might find it a bit of a headache to have to figure out which units can move where based on their current costs for maintenence... too much MM involved, IMO.
-Edit-
It also takes out the possiblity of disrupting the supply lines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
Build up your cities perhaps? Just a thought. As I said above, though, its NOT as though people wouldn't be able to explore-its just that it would be a risk in the same way as galleys are!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
If expansion is made slower in Civ4, I demand that the sames rules are applied for the AI!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Kuciwalker: Large scale exploration would be gone. You wouldn't be able to see territory until you expanded near it, for practical purposes.
|
That's a good thing. Look at real history (yeah yeah yeah). Look at maps from the ancient era, or the medieval era, or even the industrial era. They're ridiculous when it comes to distant lands. It's not sensible to be able to know the whole world and all the civilizations in it in 1AD, but it's possible in civ. That makes exploration basically over before the game even gets going. It divides the game into separate phases of exploration and building. Limiting early exploration means that you do more building earlier and more exploration later, rather than shifting modes, making the game more dynamic.
quote:
Kuciwalker:
At which point all the fun out of early exploration is gone.
|
Replaced by the fun of exploration the whole way through the game.
I don't think I heard it mentioned, but ships should be tied to operational ranges as well. Then consider what happens when a ship is carrying a unit. I don't think it's reasonable for a ship to drop a warrior in Venezuela and have it explore all of S. America.
quote:
The_Aussie_Lurker: 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.
|
The map should be tinted according to the operational range of the active unit. Untinted tiles are within OR. Yellow-tinted tiles are in the yellow zone, and red ones in the red zone. You'd know at any point where you were, how far you were from the various zones, etc. before you moved. Nothing would sneak up on you. I prefer a yellow zone where the unit has a chance of losing 1 HP each turn, but cannot lose its last HP, and a red zone where the unit is guaranteed to lose 1 HP per turn and can lose the last one. Living off the land should be possible to slow the decline, but it shouldn't be able to reverse it.
Operational range isn't just about supply. Don't you think it's weird that in 1000 BC you can have a unit effectively 12,000 miles away (19,200 km ;-) and yet get reports and send commands instantaneously? Operational range also models your limited ability to communicate with and thus command and control your troops.
Operational range also reflects morale. People don't like going thousands of miles into unknown territory away from their homes. We're modelling other emotions in city residents, why not fear and agoraphobia in troops? Alexander the Great's armies rebelled when he wanted to cross into India because they were homesick.
Operational range models reinforcement as well. There's sickness, accidents, getting too old, etc. When you're within your operational range, you can pretend that such attrition is automatically replenished, but if you're some isolated off in the middle of nowhere far from home, you're going to dwindle over time. I know, I know, more realism, but still.
Supply wagons are too much micromanagement. Just count the number of move points from your nearest city. skirt enemy units. If enemy units are blocking all paths back, you're in trouble. Ditto if it goes through unfriendly territory. Move points because roads should extend your operational range. If you are 10 unimproved squares from a city, you are effectively further away than if you are 20 road squares away. The imaginary couriers and supply wagons trundling back and forth would use that infrastructure (if they existed), after all. They're like gravitons.
Operational range should be from the nearest friendly city. Alliances mean that can be yours or your ally's. Large scale exploration would be gone. You wouldn't be able to see territory until you expanded near it, for practical purposes.
Operational range isn't just about having power, but the ability to project that power. China today has a larger army than the United States, but they cannot project that power nearly as well because they don't have the global network of bases that the United States has.
I believe that most battles and wars were won long before they were even fought because one side or the other couldn't get its army in the field or couldn't get it supplied well enough to fight effectively, even though the soldiers themselves might be numerous and high quality. Read about Sweden's Charles XII's disastrous attack into Russia in the early 1700s, for instance. In real military history, the actual battles are almost an afterthought compared to all the staging necessary to enable them. WWII US General Omar Bradley said, "amateurs talk about strategy; professionals talk about logistics." Keeping an army going is incredibly hard and expensive and thus requires good planning and making tough choices. Civ should reflect that.
Don't just focus on the one thing this takes away from the game. Look at all the things it adds. Map trading is actually useful (though you should be able to get an idea of what you're buying and selling). Trading contacts is useful. Alliances are essential for fighting wars at a distance. Exploration continues throughout the game. Wild grabs for land are less practical. Nations across the world declaring lame wars against you are meaningless (reducing AI foolishness). Scorched earth tactics that destroy your land and infrastructure in front of an invader's armies slow them down. This is one of those times when being limited increases your options rather than reducing them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
You get absolutely no argument from me whatsoever, Sophist. In CFC, Commander Bello even came up with a brilliant, and deceptively simple, model for determining supply-it was pure genius.
The thing is that, along with limited capacity for Railroads, a Supply system will not only reducing REXing, but will also make combat far more than a sheer numbers game.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
My thoughts on railroads are summarized in this post in another thread. Basically, infinite movement between cities, but it costs a move point to go through a city, and you always have to go through a city. That's a little off-topic, though, since it doesn't have much to do with supply lines.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2005 05:19
Do you mean pay extra upkeep on units that are outside their operating range? That could be an option instead of just disbanding or damaging the unit. For instance, if a unit is outside its OR, its upkeep could be doubled. If it's outside 2x the OR, upkeep could be tripled. Etc.
Whiner!
|