13-03-2003 10:36									#31
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The two move/defense problem could be solved by the addition of SMAC-style ground transport units. I've never tried something like that -- is it possible under either version of Civ III?

	13-03-2003 11:00									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

roads/railroads should be used to incerase trade between cities, they shuld not affect tile production directly. This would also avoid having to saturate the entire terrain with them.

Railroads should have the following property: units can "load" and "unload" in cities and transport would take one turn. Kinda like rebasing an aircraft.

Then we could have highways which would reduce movements from 1/3 (road) to 1/6 or 9.

	13-03-2003 14:52									#33
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen roads/railroads should be used to incerase trade between cities, they shuld not affect tile production directly. This would also avoid having to saturate the entire terrain with them. Railroads should have the following property: units can "load" and "unload" in cities and transport would take one turn. Kinda like rebasing an aircraft. Then we could have highways which would reduce movements from 1/3 (road) to 1/6 or 9.

That's definitely the way I'd like to see it done, with some terrain upgrade for more food and production. Maybe something like hydro wires when you discover Electricity. All operations become more efficient with hydro, and so produce more.

	14-03-2003 01:35									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Willem That's definitely the way I'd like to see it done, with some terrain upgrade for more food and production. Maybe something like hydro wires when you discover Electricity. All operations become more efficient with hydro, and so produce more.

hi ,

agreed but then we should reset some values for the food and shields or we get mega cities the size of 50 with a thousand shields or so , ....

some adjustments would be needed

who knows maybe in the next XP , ......

have a nice day

	14-03-2003 01:58									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

we also need CANALS!! urgently!!

	14-03-2003 02:01									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by panag agreed but then we should reset some values for the food and shields or we get mega cities the size of 50 with a thousand shields or so , .... some adjustments would be needed

Why? All that's doing is replacing Railroads with another terrain improvement in order to increase food and shields. Railroads would be used strictly for transportation purposes, not for production.

I like the idea of the rebase thing once a city is connected by railroad. That would probably help shorten some of the turn time since we wouldn't have to actually see that unit travel the rails. It would just disappear from one city and reappear at it's destination.

It would also make rails more strategic; just blow out a scetion and you greatly hinder the enemy's ability to counterattack.

	14-03-2003 02:04									#37
	Got spare money?

quote: [SIZE=1] Originally posted by Master Zen we also need CANALS!! urgently!!

This, is a great idea.

	14-03-2003 02:07									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen we also need CANALS!! urgently!!

hi ,

at first it seemed we where going to get it true a small wonder , then true the editor only and then , nothing at all , .....

except this ; "no comment" when asked in a chat , .....

who know's , maybe the next XP , ......

have a nice day

	15-03-2003 10:45									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Yep. Countless examples in the medieval age. More recently, I will refer to Villers-Bocage and the battles of Caen during the Normandy Campaign.

American pop-culture victim here- villians took some baggage camping in northern France? I'm just wondering if army units have the same chance of retreat at 1 HP as normal units.

So, why are canals a big concern? You have a fair aproximation of them as it is with cities, no?

	15-03-2003 21:51									#40
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Yes, but only an approximation... Ships can't cross a two tiles chokepoint using cities. This would open a lot of inland seas, which is a good thing...

--Kon--

	18-03-2003 00:08									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I've increased the movement rate of the following:

-> paratrooper, submarine, and nuclear submarine by 1

-> increased operational range of paratrooper and helicopter by 2

	19-03-2003 04:01									#42
	Re: Unit Movement Increase Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by TriMiro Ancient Empires were quite large as teritory, yet they could move units much faster than one tile per 50 years.

Yup I agree with you the movement should be alot faster. Did soldiers moved in reality like in this game the Romans would just arrived at France to battle against the Gavul yesterday

	19-03-2003 19:03									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: have already changed modern ships to have 'all terrain as roads', and am adding points from infantry on up.

A brilliant idea. Works fine, thanks for the concept

	25-03-2003 04:27									#44
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Do you mean to say that in the real world, if a nation is surprise attacked, it will be able to amass its entire military force against the attacker immediately?

There might be an interupt in the war. If a nation makes a surprize attack then the "victim" nation might have an interupt extra "half-turn" to react. By half turn I mean that all the units can be moved only with half their speed, and the player cannot attack enemy units. Also any movement will be deducted from the movement of the coresponding unit in the next turn (so that no extra movement is gained overall). This will give the ability to react to the attack and rearange the defence.

I know this is going to be difficult to achieve in multiplayer (especially for e-mail games) but for a single player it should be OK.

	25-03-2003 10:06									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, I know I've said this before but, yes I think that MP's should be increased-by as much as a factor of 4 or 5. However, I think that a concept of Operational Range should be included in the game. That is, the range that a unit can go OUTSIDE FRIENDLY TERRITORY!! Ranges should always be highest for non-combat and specialist forces (like marines and paratroops), followed by foot-soldiers, then horse units and, lastly, mechanized units (Reflecting the extent of supply to keep the units maintained). Also, a unit from a more modern age will always have a range of 1 higher than a similar unit in the preceding age (though the base movement rate of an industrial age unit should be higher than a modern age unit-to reflect the longer turn values)! If a unit finishes it's turn outside this range, then it will lose 1 hp until it returns to within it's range. This way, a unit could move very rapidly within it's own territory-quickly bolstering defences where needed, etc but, in hostile or unknown territory, they can travel shorter distances, due to supply line constraints! Nations with ROP agreements, outposts, fortresses and airbases would count as friendly territory for range considerations. A newly captured city would also count as friendly territory (option only count as friendly if NO RESISTORS present). Travelling on friendly roads would add +2 to range, and travelling on enemy roads would add +1 to range! Under this system, it might be possible to give expansionist civs a "civ bonus" granting them a +1 to the range of all their units!
What I think makes this a better idea is that it would eliminate the problem of "Takes 50 years to move between two of my cities" complaint, whilst not unbalancing the conquest side of the game. It would also add a new strategic element to the game, as you could capture an enemies fort, stranding the unit deep in enemy territory, and thus cut off from it's supply lines! Or you have to catch a vital enemy city just outside your units range, before the turn is over, or else risk losing hp!
Anyway, that is, in my opinion, a good compromise!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

	25-03-2003 20:52									#46
	Remove this text

Great job The_Aussie_Lurker. This was good.

This will gove bonuses for more defensive game and will make it little bit more non-militaristic. Jaybe do you agree on that?

Again great idea The_Aussie_Lurker.

	26-03-2003 03:00									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Hi,

Thankyou for the words of encouragment . Another couple of things related to my idea are:

1) This idea would also give another great use for fortresses, as they would act, not just as defensive structures, but could also be forward "Supply points" for your invading forces!

2) If this idea were brought about, and if the editor were further improved, it would be good to have a "Combat Engineer" unit. This unit would have limited terraforming capabilites (Build outposts, forts, and roads only), would have the range of a Spec-op unit (i.e. quite high), with a low attack and a high defense (and low on hp!), but "treat all terrain as road". This unit, if it existed, could be forward deployed, ahead of an invading army, to build the infrastructure neccessary to increase the operational range of your forces.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	26-03-2003 03:49									#48
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think i prefer the MPs as they are.

I will have to agree with Panag and TheArsenal, concerning the removal of the RR instant movement. It just eliminates movement tactics, especially in the modern times, where the AI has completely covered its land with RRs, every single tile of it.

	26-03-2003 05:18									#49
	Tired of ads?

Hi Again,

Just thought of another idea which might make invasions more "realistic" (in addition to the idea I presented above!) For a captured city, fort outpost etc to count as "friendly territory", it must be connected to other "friendly territory" by either a road/rail or, in the case of a coastal city, a harbour etc. All of these infrastructure would, obviously, count as actual "supply lines" and would add another layer to the strategy of even the most militaristic game. Obviously, if these connecting infrastructure were in some way pillaged, or otherwise destroyed, then the area would no longer count as "friendly" for the units stationed there. Worse still, it would possibly leave the units outside their operational range, and subject to hp losses (until the can get back to a friendly area). This means that, aside from your invasion force, you'd also need to station mobile attackers to defend your roads and the outposts/forts that they connect!
Naval vessels should, in my opinion, also have an "Operational range". Military vessels would have the longest range, whilst transport vessels would have much shorter range. More modern vessels would, like land vessels, have longer ranges than those of previous ages, and most modern combat vessels would have a VERY high range, and would only suffer damage if they were an obscenely great distance from their home territory. This might reduce the "settler diarreah" by making settlement of very distant continents much harder until the late middle ages, as earlier vessels would start to lose hp on long ocean voyages (killing the settlers on board-think scurvy and other ship-board diseases!!)
On a final note, for the purpose of invading another continent, a transport vessel should count as "friendly territory" for the purposes of the operational range of the units being transported!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.