 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
wrylachlan
|
|
This was talked about extensively in another thread about supplying mechanical units with oil (gasoline). The general consensus was that the pathfinding algorithm would be prohibitively costly to the CPU.
That said, I would like to see supply lines in. The way I would work it is make military units have culture power - meaning if a military unit is standing on a tile of someone else's culture, that tile temporarily becomes your culture for as long as the military unit stays there. Then to supply your troops in enemy territory you would have to have a line of military units along the road so that you could pass supplies up the road. And the enemy could pillage out his own roads as he retreats to slow you down.
If this is implemented, however, I want all Military units to cost significantly more and have higher stats so that you have fewer of them. Because if I have to micromanage supply lines, and move hundreds of units, I'll go totally insane.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
fire_toad
|
|
Halifax, NS
Jun 2002 time: 01:20
|
|
I'm not sure if this is very practical when looking at how much slower the game will go. But, as an idea it is a very interesting one. The trade routes that existed in Civilization Call to Power could be modified as supply lines. A line would stretch from the unit to your city. Enemies, if the landed on it, could break the connection.
That would inteoduce a much more realistic spin on the game. Then the territory you are on, would be crucial, and flanking would be deadly. Because a weak unit could take a strong one out of action by taking out the supply line. This would also introduce vanguards, units for the sole purpose of guarding the supply line. It would also make individual strong units next to useless without backup. IF combined with a way to downsize the military, supply lines COULD be incorparated.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pythagoras
It would not be difficult to implement. Youve already got the trade network in place and superb (nearly flawless) path finding.
|
Um... not exactly. The trade network code is already a slowdown and if we then apply this same code to units which outnumber cities in many games up to 5 to 1 that would bring a CPU to its knees. And since the pathfinding algorithm becomes more CPU costly the greater the size of the map, the problem would only compound itself on large and huge maps.
Additionally there is more to coding a new function than making it possible. You also have to make sure that the AI knows how to use it well. My guess is that something as complicated as sneaking past an enemy to cut his supply lines would be pretty difficult to get across to the AI.
Please note that I'm not against this idea, I'd love to see some sort of supply lines code in... but I do think you are mistaken if you think coding this such that the AI could use it and it would run at an acceptable speed would'nt be difficult.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
rhenric557
|
|
Los Fresnos, TX
May 2002 time: 23:20
|
|
What if the supply line wasn't so much for the units but for the city. Say in times of war you hav to physically supply cities on enemy controlled continents. Say that airlift can get shot down like in CIV 2, and like wise the theoretical supply ships going to the harbors can get sunk. All based on there distance to enemy cities of course. Lets say that you have to Automate transports as supply ships for a city, then you'd have to have a navy to protect them, bringing in an actual need for a good sized navy. It's realistic but I doudt Firaxis will use such an Idea. There does need to be someway to make supply more difficult to maintain. being able to drop fifty plus units into an airport per turn makes it a bit to easy to get a foot hold on an enemy continent.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Coracle
|
|
Good idea supply lines. However. . .
The Civ 3 AI is not exactly a bright bulb as it is. It couldn't handle it even if any unit in enemy territory was considered out of supply UNLESS on road. or unless workers built a new railroad to it. Hell, this AI can't handle NAVAL trade routes being interdicted by subs and privateers (doesn't happen).
I think it might also slow down an already slow game.
I don't think it's practical, although a nice thought.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
As a builder, I'm against the idea. It will bring more micromanagement in the military part of the game, and I feel there is enough already.
|
But if you are building, not attacking, you shouldn't have to worry about supply lines. It is only the warmongers who will have to deal with the micromanagement when they invade enemy territory. And since it is the warmongers who are looking for more diverse military strategy, I bet they wouldn't mind.
quote:
And there is a problem : what about ancient / medieval wars, when there aren't roads everywhere ? Until late XVIIIth century, logistics played a minor role, troops rather took food directly from the land they occupied.
It seems that such an idea will greatly add to the late game tedium (increased micromanagement, increased waiting time) |
The easiest way to implement it in terms of the ancient medieval problem is to have each unit have a supply number which indicates how much it needs the suppy network to survive. Set the ancient units to zero, and no problem, they forrage off the land. Set Modern Armor to 5, and for every turn out of the supply network they temporarily loose 5 attack points... or something like that. Bottom line being that the play balance stuff could be worked out.
As for it adding tedium, yes the increased waiting time is a severe problem, but if it was worked out (super-efficient code or all civ players buy new CPUs) then I don't think the micromangement would be a problem, since you would only see it when you went on the offensive, primarily, so you builders wouldn't be troubled.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mikel
|
|
Scotland
Apr 1999 time: 05:20
|
|
Supply lines were one of the most debated features in the compilation of the Civ Wish List as I remember. people were discusssing everything from what constituted supply to how it could be implemented. I even remember a length debate on how to include Command and Control to some sort of supply structure.
In the end I think Firaxis tried to introduce something that gave us the tactical options the gamers were looking for with the simplicity of a Civ idea : Strategic Resources. The only issue is that they messed up the implementation by not correctly balancing the units and allowing builds to continue even after the resource has been lost which almost entirely defeats the purpose. They also missed out on giving us the tools and the feedback to make these strategic decisions ( like an easy fun way to implement Naval blockades http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=52183 ).
Now I know this doesn't allow small armies to cut off large armies and defeat a larger enemy in the way everyone has discussed, but if you would allow me to throw the Firaxian persuasion method back out there....
The enemy throw the bulk of their attack force into your territory and start to attack the border cities. The units take damage, which they can't start to recover until they retreat or take a city. Rather than meet them head on you send your smaller army to take a mountain that contains their only source of iron. Now if this stopped all production of iron dependant units that turn then you could be sure that few reinforcements would be on their way to help that invasion, and so that enemy army will die from the law of diminishing returns.
This doesn't help if the attacking army is so large it can power through your country without the need of reinforcements, but could you really have cut the supply of an army that outnumbers you by so much anyway?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mikel
|
|
Scotland
Apr 1999 time: 05:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Zachriel
When starting a new unit, the resources are allocated and set aside. This is a normal pipeline procedure. Destroying a mine does not destroy all inventories in the pipeline. |
I can't argue with the realworld scenario that you have pointed out, but if this was changed it would IMHO allow greater strategy depth within the game. It would be far more worth while taking out strategic resource if you know that it stops any new units of type X being created. On the flipside you would think far more seriously about taking and holding a resource if you knew that it wasn't enough to hold it for one turn and set all of your cities to build X then retreat. I think these tactics will be especially appreciated by the Multiplayer community.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|