 |
|  |
 |
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001 time: 05:24
|
|
You know, Zulu, you must be a MIND-READER . Ever since I heard about the "Ignore Movement Cost" function, I've been salivating over what changes I might make in order to make movement more "realistic" (a purely subjective notion, I realise). Like you I had thought of increasing the movement costs for both Desert and Tundra to either 2 or 3, to reflect the difficulties of maintaining supply lines in these sort of terrains (unless you really used to them!) Then I'd allow Cossaks and Russian Infantry to ignore Tundra movement costs, and allow the Keshik and Arab Units to ignore desert movement! (To explain the Keshik idea, Ghengis Khan suprised the few remaining defenders of Samarkand by heading out INTO the desert, going around the city, and coming at it from the rear , meanwhile, another Mongol force was keeping the bulk of the Samarkand army busy via a frontal assault-which lured the army out from the protection of the city!! Absolutely ingenious!)
Anyway, also like you said, I would make modern motor units ignore desert movement costs, but I'm still in two minds over the Tundra movement issue (remember that it was a winter campaign which partially cost Hitler the war on the Eastern Front!)
Anyway, GREAT IDEA Zulu-if I don't say so myself .
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sheik
|
|
That's an interesting idea zulu and I believe that if it were done properly it could really increase the realism.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
annoyed
|
|
I was hoping to make mountains impassable and create valleys using some resource icons, but cannot be done. I would have to futz around with wheeled and none -wheeled units which does not seem to be practicable.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ozymandias
|
|
quote: Originally posted by annoyed
I was hoping to make mountains impassable and create valleys using some resource icons, but cannot be done. I would have to futz around with wheeled and none -wheeled units which does not seem to be practicable. |
On a real Earth map (Tet's, modified) I am indeed making those mountains which have historically been all-but-complete barriers to military units impassable. I'm using one-tile-access hills to simulate the St. Bernard Pass etc. My overall goal is to see how closely I can get to Civ3 terrain reproducing historical military "funnels".
If it's any help, as I mentioned elsewhere, if you edit any terrain to have 0 commerce added for roads then roads cannot be built in that tile type. No roads / railroads and high movement costs definitely make mountains much more imposing barriers.
-Oz
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ozymandias
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Willem
An easier way would be to give most of your units the Wheeled flag, so you have to build a road before they can cross the mountains and jungles. |
Hi Willem,
I'm playing with using the Wheeled flag for other uses -- everything's still experimental at this stage.
Basically, across the board, I'm taking a step back from the Civ flag labels and just looking at what they do.
A quick example -- for my purposes, that the "Religious" trait limits anarchy (which, BTW, given the number and violence of internecine religious wars ESPECIALLY during revolutions, strikes me as ridiculous) might, just by itself, be extraordinarily important. So -- again, as an example -- what happens if no Improvements are flagged as "Religious" and the "Religious" attribute is used to simulate a society which is relatively very stable over time? (Although -- as an aside -- IF it works, I think I have an extraordinary approach to modding both religion-religion AND religion-secular strife at the same time ... stay tuned ...)
Insofar as the Mountains question goes, my main thrust is to avoid entire armies decamping into Central Asia via a Trans-Himalayan Railroad. More to the point, for example, even though they are now crossed by roads and railroads, the Pyrenees have ALWAYS represented a formidable military obstacle and thereby cultural frontier. So, on the map I'm experimenting with now, the Pyrenees are three tiles across with one way around, at Barcelona.
Of course, I'm also reevaluating what "Mountains" and "Hills" are in game turns -- so places where one might "reasonably" expect mountains (the St. Bernard pass) will be hills -- one tile wide passages which should be very easy to defend. Likewise resources normally found on Mountains are now on Hills, etc. (BTW, if you look at a combined elevation and resource atlas, you'll find -- again, an example -- iron in what would be Plains tiles; etc.)
All The Best,
Oz
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrtn
|
|
Stockholm
Apr 2002 time: 06:24
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker: "Then I'd allow Cossaks and Russian Infantry to ignore Tundra movement costs"
The Cossaks were from the Ukraine. Ukraine does NOT have any tundra, though they produce Schampanjskoje, ukrainian fizzy wine. The infantry idea is good though.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ozymandias
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Optimizer
To add difference between infantry units, one could double the movement rate of all units, except units supposed to be really heavy | ...
... Or really inexperienced.
-O.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|