 |
| |
|
|
Woodmen Chief
|
|
The Great Forest, Finland
Jul 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
In Civ 2 units have basically no difficulties crossing a river or a mountain range. In real life they used to be safe borderlines which could not be crossed just like that. Think about the Roman empire, for example. The empire had hudreds of kilometers of "natural" borders, such as the river Danube, which couldn't be crossed by the barbarians. However, in Civ 2 these kind of natural borders are of no use. Any unit can simply walk over them without suffering any damage or penalties.
I suggest the movement modifier for mountains should be a lot higher and a unit crossing a mountain range should also suffer SEVERE damage, which would indicate the loss of men due to harsh conditions. Roads should of course decrease the damage suffered, but on the other hand building roads on mountain squares, especially in ancient/medieval period, should be very time (and settler!) consuming, a lot harder than it is in Civ 2.
As for rivers, you simply can not cross the Mississippi without a bridge or a boat. Of course you can send 1000 ancient warriors to swim over it and see how many of them makes it to the other side...
One kind of solution could be to make the rivers on the maps more realistic. The biggest rivers, The Amazon and the like, should be displayed with ocean squares. This would be realistic. There should also be two separate river terrain types. Small rivers could be crossed with small movement and damage penalties. Crossing large rivers would be harder, and the unit crossing them should suffer movement and damage penalties similiar to those that you suffer when crossing mountains. The bridge building advace could also be divided to bridge building, which would allow you to build a bridge over a small river, and advanced bridge building would allow you to build bridges over large rivers. Those HUGE bridges, like the one that connects Sweden and Denmark, should require advances like railroad, steel and the like.
------------------
Don't mess with me or my pet polar bear shall tear you to shreds! I'm a friend of the king of the penguins, too. Respect me!
[This message has been edited by Woodmen Chief (edited July 15, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
well, in CtP they had this feature that non-infantry untis couldn't pass mountains unless they had roads or railway on them
|
|
| |
|
|
|
you don't have to feel embarassed about this. you haven't played and so you couldn't know. that's no problem. many here haven't played CtP.
some even don't play civ2. (those spammer guys in the Off-Topic forum)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Woodmen Chief: ignore Par4.
Par4: ignore Woodmen chief
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Dan
|
|
Kaiser Wilhelm II In Training.
Nov 1999
time: 17:12
|
|
Well mountains should be crossed by anything...
There should be TWO river types - small river and large river. A large river would be the Danube, Mississippi, etc that units can't cross easily, and ships can move on (small ships however, no subs because they need to be low to be hidden, nothing huge like battleships because they're too heavy). Can be crossed once Civ discovers advanced bridge building.
Small rivers like the Darling river in Australia would be small rivers, no ships can enter a square containing it (apart from ports) and no unit can cross until bridge building is discovered.
The bridge building techs should enable a unit to cross without necessarily having an improvement like a bridge there...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
What about temporary bridges like in WW2? They could be added to a unit formation like e.g. a diplomat in CTP. Then you could cross a river with reduced damage.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
Ok, if you really urge to have that river crossing tactical problem, simply add the special funcion "engineer" for mines sweeping, bridges building, fortress making and the like (ability to balance with tech available, of course).
We can have this accomplished thru Unit Workshop as we already debated (I remember the thread about Romans), to add some engineer ability to common units (at a building price).
Firaxis used this in SMAC to add SAM ability to AI sea transports, just to help it do a better job instead of stacking transports with Aegis like ships.
BTW, I still will like that Special ability only add a partial benefit to a common unit, instead of the full dedicated unit.
I.e. a SAM unit should have more firepower than added SAM special ability to Infantry (you know, ligtht flak on truck and personal missiles like Stinger versus heavy flak and medium missiles on tanks), or some engineer ability like road buildings and trench digging versus dedicated engineers for railroads, main bridges, terraforming, main fortress.
------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Exactly the point I'm trying to make in my 'The map.. again' post..
Another example :- Importance of mountain passes.. All invaders who came to India were deterred by the Himalayas and Hindukush.. This made passes like the Khyber Pass very strategically important and well-defended..
------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Exactly the point I'm trying to make in my 'The map.. again' post..
Another example :- Importance of mountain passes.. All invaders who came to India were deterred by the Himalayas and Hindukush.. This made passes like the Khyber Pass very strategically important and well-defended..
------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Christantine The Great
|
|
Massachusetts
Jun 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
I think that an early sub (I.E. Pre-WWI U-Boat) should be able to traverse large rivers without detection because of their small size. Subs the size as WWII U-Boats should be able to go down a large river but be detectable. Large Nuclear Subs should not be able to go down a river at all because of their huge size.
Another point that should be mentioned is canals. They can let ships go through thin points on continents (i.e. Panama, Suez) or to connect rivers. These canals should come in different sizes since the land around the site is not always smooth and flat. There can be a lock-canal an an actual waterway. A lock canal can be used to transport ships over large hills and the regular canal would be used at flatter points.
------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1
|
|
| |
|
|
|
phunny pharmer
|
|
La Jolla, Ca, US
Jun 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Double Post!!!!!
[This message has been edited by phunny pharmer (edited July 29, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beyowulf
|
|
Hey, how about canals, that could generate tax revenue? Depending on how many moves it would have taken to otherwise reach the destination.
See what I am imagining as a canal is something a settler can build after x amounts turns. Now say you build a canal to reach a city built alongside a lake, that would otherwise be landlocked. That would even increase the revenue, because there would be no other way to reach it by ship.
Though I suppose the nation in questions economic strenght would also have something to do with it. If you have a canal, and no wants to trade with you, and no one uses it, its not going to generate much money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Christantine The Great
|
|
Massachusetts
Jun 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
I think that canals can only be built 2 squares away from a water source so the AI doesn't go crazy by completely canaling a continent (i.e. fields of railroads; continents of farms).
------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-07-2000 23:58
Whoops. Sorry, I havent played CtP and didn't know. How embarrassing... 
|