Apolyton Archive  |  Preserved copy of the Apolyton Civilization Site and its forums as they stood in September 2005. Read-only; nothing here can be posted to or replied to.  |  Forum index |  About this archive |  The 1998–2001 UBB forums
Today on Apolyton WARDELL INTERVIEW PROMO A.C.S. HISTORY CHAPTER 4 GET CIV4 /w FREE PLUS! A.C.S. PHOTO GALLERY GET A.O.M. V1.1
Apolyton Civilization Forums
main| civ2| civ3| civ4| smac| ctp2| ron| moo3| galciv| galciv2| alt| about|
ApolytonPLUS | register | search | faq | new posts | pm (-/-) | upload | members
hall of fame new! | civgroups | civgroups news | interviews | the column | radio | chat | directory | news | store | PLUS
Apolyton Civilization Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.0.3 Apolyton Civilization Forums > Miscellaneous > Archive > Civ3-General-Archive > A potential rule-change to promote the use of mixed forces...
Show a Printable Version | Email This Page to Someone! | Receive updates to this thread | Report this to Apolyton news!

bottom of page
  
Author
Thread    < Last Thread     Next Thread > Post New Thread     Post A Reply
bloodysmurf is offline bloodysmurf
Settler
Chicago, IL
Jan 2002
time: 05:17
Lightbulb  Old Post 13-01-2002 02:40 Visit bloodysmurf's homepage!
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
#1 Report this post to a moderator
A potential rule-change to promote the use of mixed forces... Suffering from ads?

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

I've been musing over the dilemma of the super-powerful horse-rush, and it occurred to me that one of the elements lacking from the game is a system that properly encourages the use of a well-rounded mixture of units. I find myself using only a small fraction of the available units in the game, which definitely makes things less interesting. Another layer of strategy could be added to the game if the following system was implemented:

Units should receive attack/defense modifiers based upon what other units are in the stack. For example, infantry supported by horseman could receive a 50% attack bonus, to reflect the strategic importance of horseman as shock-troops. Conversely, horsemen could suffer a 50% defense penalty when attacking without the support of infantry.

The first question raised by this sort of change would be: what is the cost of support? Taking my infantry with horse-support example, one could imagine that you could shuffle one horseman between several infantry stacks in the same turn to give them all the bonus. Some ideas on how support could be implemented (not all mutually exclusive):



  • Support could consume the unit's remaining movement points (or 1 point)
  • Use of a unit for support could count as the unit's attack for the turn. Therefore, a fast unit could possibly support several stacks, but it wouldn't be able to attack.
  • A supporting unit could be required to start the turn in the same square as the unit it is supporting.
  • A more complicated implementation would be to allow two units to attack simultaneously, thus allowing both units to complement each other, but also exposing both to the possibility of defeat.


In terms of how this could be implemented into the interface, it would be reasonably simple. When an active unit is in a stack with a unit that can serve as support, a keystroke of S could open a menu of available supporting units.

So, in summary, the possible advantages of this system would be:



  • Provide more strategic depth for combat
  • Encourage use of a diversified attack force
  • Help balance units by adding new strengths and weaknesses
  • Confine support relationships to units that share the same era, thereby helping to increase the gap between units. This reminds me, a good way to address the problem with spearman killing tanks would be to simply give units from certain eras penalties against those of later eras (as opposed to just jacking up all the stats of the later units)
  • Provides an opportunity to give units more character... distinguishing them by more than A/D/M
  • Opens up the possibility for new units... possibly even units that function exclusively as support units (e.g. combat medics, armorers/fletchers, prostitutes )


OK, I know the chances of this actually being implemented are virtually nil, but maybe a simpler option could at least be provided through the editor: allowing units to be assigned specific bonuses/penalties versus specific units (or classes of units).

Comments? Suggestions?

Peace,
Ollie

Ecthy is offline Ecthy
Emperor
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:17
  Old Post 13-01-2002 02:45
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
#2 Report this post to a moderator
Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Nice paragraphs you've got there, even in color. Very well done

bloodysmurf is offline bloodysmurf
Settler
Chicago, IL
Jan 2002
time: 05:17
  Old Post 13-01-2002 02:59 Visit bloodysmurf's homepage!
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
#3 Report this post to a moderator
hmmm... Put an end to popups!

Thanks, but I was actually hoping for feedback on the idea

GePap is offline GePap
King
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
Arrow  Old Post 13-01-2002 20:57
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
#4 Report this post to a moderator
No stacks Support Apolyton

Bloodysmurf (love the name):
The game today does not seem to be able to recongnize stacks that well, so I think it would take some serious new programming to get your idea to work. Besides that, Horsemen are always used as shock, with or without infantry support. You notion is more valid in the age of guns (like with Ney's charge at Waterloo) than in the age of knights.
I think there a re simpler solutions to the problem to be implemented with bonuses that always apply. As in SMAC, horses and quick units should get bonuses attacking units in open (grassland, plains, deserts) terrain. As in SMAC, infantry should get a small bonus attacking cities. Add to this a large penalty to fast units that attack cities, since fighting in cities robs them of their adavntage of mobility. No one ever used knights mounted to rush a castle (this was suicide), you surrounded it with men (infantry) and reduced them by siege (catapult or cannon). I think if horsemen got only attack 1 vas cities (50% penalty) while swordsmen still have 3, more people would bring up the inf. to take cities, whhich is historically accurate.

  < Last Thread     Next Thread > Post New Thread     Post A Reply
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17.
    top of page
Rate This Thread:
archivepost
Forum Jump:
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
 




Contact Us - Apolyton Civilization Site - Support Us!

Building a better Apolyton through better information. Click here and take our poll!
Non-US visitors, click here!

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.0.3
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

Page generated in 0.0433 seconds (87.77% PHP - 12.23% MySQL) with 31 queries
Page Loading Time:

Support Apolyton: Amazon USA | Amazon UK | Amazon DE | Amazon FR |
Support Apolyton and get FREE PLUS, Buy from Chips&Bits: Galactic Civilizations | Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition | Call to Power 2 | Civilization: The Boardgame | GURPS/ Alpha Centauri | Alpha Centauri | Civilization IV | Civilization III: Complete |


Front Page | Civilization IV | Civilization III | Civilization II | Call to Power II | Alpha Centauri | Master of Orion III
Rise of Nations | Galactic Civilizations | Galactic Civilizations II | Misc
Alt.Civs | Civ I | C:CtP I | About | News | Directory | Apolyton Store | Forums | Chat | Columns | Interviews | Newsletter
Scenario League | CSC | Clash of Civs | Spanish Site | CtP Maps | Cradle of Civ | WesW's Ctp1/2 Site | Civ3 Haven

apolyton.net | apolyton.com | civilization2.net | civilization3.net | civilization4.net | civilizationiv.info | calltopower.net | galciv.net | galciv2.net | moo3.net