Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

enemy units in enemy territory

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • enemy units in enemy territory

    When two nations are at war and there are enemy units in the other nation's territory there needs to be more of an effect. As it is now you're not able to harvest that tile the enemy unit is in. I don't think that is enough. I think that all surrounding tiles should lose 1 food, 1 shield, and 1 trade. To not make it too extreme, only once can a tile be effected by surrounding enemies. So if two enemies were on seperate tiles but surrounding a same tile that tile would still only lose 1 food, 1 shiled, and 1 trade. This isn't exactly that far fetched of an implementation, either.

    Currently almost all the wars only take place in the cities, since there isn't much benefit fighting outside of the city. Well, this will make it a big loss having enemy units inside your territory. You will be almost forced to go attack those units and get them out of your territory. This will finally give more effect to being in enemy territory.
    However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.

  • #2
    Good idea Techwins.

    But even though it'll force players to fight a bit more in open field, I don't think this idea will change as drastically the way a war is fought in Civ. The stake of a war is indeed to conqer or raze cities, and as such it is normal that cities are the center of attention. Besides, at least in Civ3, you wouldn't want to leave enemy units astray on your territory, because they could easily pillage that resource tile you need so much, or this small road connecting two parts of your empire (this is a concern at least during ancient and eraly middle ages).

    But otherwise, I think it is a good idea. Gotta hate to see your production pruned by a little bunch of enemy soldiers
    "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
    "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
    "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

    Comment


    • #3
      Hey, nice to see you around again TechWins- I haven't seen you since the old Civ III ideas posting days (I think)

      I don't know about making all surrounding tiles lose one food, trade, etc. but how about making one citizen unhappy in the town for every enemy unit present in their area- and if a section is pillaged- then there is a chance for plague in the city... 10% chance each turn to lose one population until the enemy unit is expelled?
      -->Visit CGN!
      -->"Production! More Production! Production creates Wealth! Production creates more Jobs!"-Wendell Willkie -1944

      Comment


      • #4
        Nice idea, though I'm not certain if that is the best way to apply it. It is kind of game dependent, as Spiffor says in Civ3 there are more reasons to fight outside, and the bonus to being inside a city is not as marked as some games.

        Comment


        • #5
          Nice idea. It gives you a great incentive to immediately attack any enemy unit in your territory.

          Asmodean
          Im not sure what Baruk Khazad is , but if they speak Judeo-Dwarvish, that would be "blessed are the dwarves" - lord of the mark

          Comment


          • #6
            Sounds like a good idea but on a flipstde troops should suffer attrition when in enemy territory as a balance.
            A proud member of the "Apolyton Story Writers Guild".There are many great stories at the Civ 3 stories forum, do yourself a favour and visit the forum. Lose yourself in one of many epic tales and be inspired to write yourself, as I was.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hey, nice to see you too, DarkCloud. I still posted a lot up until around 5-6 months after Civ3's release. After that I've been pretty quiet.

              But even though it'll force players to fight a bit more in open field, I don't think this idea will change as drastically the way a war is fought in Civ
              The whole point of this would be to add an ultimatum to the player. You can either sit back and wait in your cities until the attacker comes to attack you, but the attacker is going to severely hamper that city's food, production, and trade. The other choice would be to go out of your city and attack the attacker yourself instead of staying in a completely defensive position. It adds more strategy to a war for the defender and the attacker. It adds more depth to a war, while keeping it relatively simple. As of now I don't think the occassional resource you have to protect is enough. There needs to be more done to add depth to a war, and I think this would do just that.

              how about making one citizen unhappy in the town for every enemy unit present in their area
              That would work; it would still eventually give the effect of less food, production, and trade since you will be forced to turn one of your citizens into an entertainer in order to keep your city from going into civil disorder. However, on larger cities it would not do much damage like I think it should. Your idea might be simpler to understand and calculate within the program, so in that side of it, it actually might be better.

              It gives you a great incentive to immediately attack any enemy unit in your territory
              Exactly!

              on a flipstde troops should suffer attrition when in enemy territory as a balance.
              That would require a completely new aspect to the game. I'm not sure if even the next Civ installation will have that.

              However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.

              Comment


              • #8
                Wouhou!!
                This seems like a simple way to implement sieges! Sieges are sooo important throughout history and have such a prominent place in wars that it seems unconceivable to not including them in Civ.
                Go GalCiv, go! Go Society, go!

                Comment


                • #10
                  I think that we couldn't just implement this without adjusting some other things too so that we balance the whole thing. But this is nothing exceptional: each time you put a feature into a game you have to balance correspondingly.

                  PS: Panag, nice to see you sometimes write some posts that actually mean something!
                  Go GalCiv, go! Go Society, go!

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    But this is nothing exceptional: each time you put a feature into a game you have to balance correspondingly.
                    No one is stating that it is exceptional, but what sort of balancing is needed for it? The whole idea is adding more depth to war. To counteract the damage it does, you simply attack the enemy and force them out. There's balancing for ya.
                    However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      I was answering to panag's question. I think that you'll probably need to make so that such a siege doesn't put your supplies so fast that it doesn't have the effect of a siege where it takes some time to really have its effect. You'll have the balance the effects of sieges.
                      Go GalCiv, go! Go Society, go!

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        That idea is good, coupled with the possibility of unhappy ppl, it would add another level to the game that would just make everything seem just that little bit more nice, and it adds the 'deffence through offence' strategy more likeable
                        why no revolution :(

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          I think I love this idea -- interesting.
                          A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X