Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Civ 4 the List: Movement & Supply

Collapse
X
Collapse
  •  

  • Civ 4 the List: Movement & Supply

    Introduction

    Movement and supply? How do troops move? How do railroads function, and do units lose hitpoints when they're beyond national borders? All this and more is addressed in this thread.

    Summary

    Railroad infinite movement was a major issue, occupying over 90 posts of arguments in the main thread between a mulititude of posters. Other issues were how to implement supply with borders and whether naval units should have variable movement rates due to oceanic weather.

    Table of Contents

    1.0.0 Supply
    2.0.0 Speed of Units
       2.1.0 RR Infinite Movement
       2.2.0 Different transport infrastructures
       2.3.0 Naval Units
        2.3.1 Speeds of Naval Units and Other Issues
          2.3.13 Landing Troops from a Transport
       2.4.0 Speed on Land (Roads, Railroads, etc.)
       2.5.0 Air Units: Movement and Speed
       2.6.0 Speed, All Units
       2.7.0 Limiting Expansion and Ligtning-Speed Discovery
    3.0.0 Tactical Movement (Flanking, Between Mountains, Etc.)
    4.0.0 Coordinate System, Tiles, Movement System
    5.0.0 Other Issues
    Conclusion

    The Ideas

    1.0.0 Supply

    1.1.1 Use C3’s movement and supply

    Use C3's movement and supply (or the lack thereof) system. It's simple and it works.
    -Kuciwalker

    1.1.2 But- Supply solves issues

    supply rules can fix the to-easy-to-conquer problem while leaving RR at no movement cost.
    -Straybow

    1.2.0 Cost of troops in foreign territory

    military equipment and troops stationed in enemy territory cost 1 extra gold! The cost of resupplying these troops!
    -Tiberius

    1.3.0 Support : AI-driven support units or pillage

    There are basically two major groups in military (Iraq, Vietnam...): armed troops and support troops. Troops may also support themselves on the field, pillaging or else. But it is often better to support the troops. Without the player touching anything, some AI-directed support troops could relay between your territory and your troops in another territory. The player should place units to protect those from enemy interference. It would solve: War making more sense economically (pillage/support, cost) and tactically (difficulty of invading would make more sense, protecting could be useful...). Some factors could have an effect on the capacity to support or pillage: technology, money, terrain...
    -Trifna

    1.4.0 One supply unit, nothing else

    To go over my earlier suggestion, "supply" would be a simple % bonus that radiates from a supply unit. Units are still effective without supply, but they are better with it. The supply unit is also the 1st defender, and the 1st receiver of artillery bombard. This causes the player to always try to keep his supply unit 2 tiles behind his main stack.
    -wrylachlan

    1.5.0 Risks for ships in foreign waters

    Every turn a ship is outside your waters, there is a percentage chance it looses a hp. [...] You can use the exact same mechanism on land.
    -wrylachlan

    1.6.0 A normal unit doing the supply, and lack of supplies’ effects

    Let's say we use CTP- combat stacks for Civ4... Ok, some special units might not need supply at all, but there could be a supply unit as mentioned a forehead or HQ in the army stack in which regular units disengaging from the stack could trace supply from. Or the army commander could just be that tracing HQ unit. You know... as a HQ unit in board games. The same should go with ships, but a flagship could be selected within the stack or they just use a supply ship. Such naval stacks should also work as a supply source for armies so that an expeditionary corps will have a supply source to trace from.
    -ThePlagueRat

    1.7.0 Units without supply, what do we do with them?

    Many options... Reduced movement and/or attack efficiency, reinforcement (healing) in enemy territory reduced. Therefore you as a player would go into the field with a stack, and perhaps disengage units into the terrain when appropriate. Like we did in Ctp, without this supply system though. How to use stacks should be pretty much up to each player, IMO. Supply could even be reduced by the HQ (supply unit) not having a road/railroad going back home in adjacent square. Then friendly cities must work as HQ with a decent range of supply. That brings us to levels of supply:

    - Supply sources would here be friendly cities, a fleet or a HQ with a clean route to any of these:
    0: No supply sources in range, no route to a friendly city or other far away sources: (typically Stalingrad) Penalties would be highest.
    1: No supply sources in range, clean route to friendly city or source outside range: Typical one by one unit scattering. Would have quite high penalties on attack and reinforement and therefore only suitable for unit of certain types with special capabilities, like Guerillas and such.
    2: A supply sources (e.g. a HQ-stack) in range with route to friendly city or source, but no road: Typically expeditionary corps. Would have a slight penalty on reinforcement and attack.
    3: A supply source (e.g. a HQ-stack) in range with route and road to friendly city: Typically first line defense. Would have no penalties.
    -ThePlagueRat

    1.8.0 A supply unit within the stack

    What is the goal of a supply system?
    1)To model the effects of overextending your army.
    2)To provide a new strategic goal (cut off their supply)
    In order to make #2 fun, I think the "supply" needs to be a unit or building which can specifically be targeted. A "trace route" system requires you to implement some sort of blockage system where to cut off supply you just put your unit in the trace route... where's the fun in that.
    Instead I would advocate a Logistics unit which radiates "Supply" in a certain radius (perhaps Fortresses could also radiate supply...). "Supply" would then be a simple percentage bonus to AD, and perhaps also an increased healing rate.
    The key would be to make Logistics units move slower than your fastest attacker. Therefore you could still do lightning strikes, but if you don't let the Logistics unit catch up to you eventually you'll be at a disadvantage = "Overextended".
    In order to create the "sneak behind enemy lines and knock out their supply" dynamic, you would need the logistics unit to tend to hang out "behind" the front. An easy way to accomplish that would be for the Logistics unit to be one of the first defenders. So if I attack a stack with 10 offensive units, 10 defensive units, and 1 Logistics, there is a percentage chance that the Logistics unit is the chosen defender and gets killed. (this would represent the attacker going "hey, they left their food delivery trucks on the front line, hey guys, shoot over there!")
    To balance it, they should be an expensive unit otherwise people would just build a bunch of them and send 4 or 5 with each stack. Ideally it should be balanced such that its best to just build the one, and defend it heavily.
    -wrylachlan

    1.9.0 A supply unit within the stack, plus a supply route

    [I agree with the idea described above] But I would advocate the use of "supply route" to make that unit effective far away.
    -ThePlagueRat

    1.10.0 Supply units connected by their radius

    A "supply unit" could exist, with a certain radius. If its radius reaches the next supply unit, then they are connected. If one of your supply units is connected like this up to a "supply source", then all inter-connected supply units do have supplies and can support nearby military units. A supply source could be a city, a fortress... Also, the support radius from a supply unit to another may be different than the "supply unit-military unit" radius. A possibility comes though: if a enemy unit is between a military unit and its supplier, it may or may not be supported. Having supply would have the effects described in wrylachlan's idea above.
    -Trifna, modestly inspired by wrylachlan

    1.11.0 An attack command as “Pillage”: “Attack the supplies”

    If you want to set up a situation to 'sneak around' and disrupt supply lines by taking out supply units in an adjacent tile, you can do that in a stacked combat model on the mainmap in the same way that unconventional units currently operate in CTP. In fact, you could give certain units the ability to target and destroy supply units in a stack and thus use up their combat ability for a turn.

    And to take it further, the success rate can be based on the ability of the disrupting unit (set up a basic percentage chance - say 50%) with a possible small defensive modifier for the supply unit if part of a stack. Elements such as terrain/rivers can add to this modifier too.
    As you pointed out, the important thing is to make it hard to defend these units, because if they sit in a stack and gain a defensive bonus, then that is where they will be.
    -hexagonian

    1.12.0 Units in foreign territory should lose HP: refill by pillage

    [Units out of their territory should slowly lose HPs.]
    I would further suggest though that a better method than supply lines, or supply units or other complex concepts [...] would be the old pillage button. When in enemy territory just pillage an improved tile and fill your HP back up. Just like Sherman & Hannibal did!

    As for naval units, add the ability to attack (or raid) improved costal squares to refresh HP, and have increasing range (slower hp loss) with tech, with nuclear powered units eventually having unlimited range (e.g. no HP loss) I can already imagine a Viking UU that's special feature would be a very high success rate of pillaging costal squares. This would cause the map to be more slowly revealed to players as advances in naval technology would actually allow units to go farther from home, rather than simply getting there faster. shuttleswo, influenced by others (especially The_Aussie_Lurker) Healthy combination?

    Second, someone mentioned the idea of supply points, with units having full mobility over their supply range. I like this. Combine this with ZOC, and I seriously think you've got the movement and time problem of the scale solved.
    -keybounce

    1.13.0 Upkeep Suggestion

    would like to see units pay upkeep costs that depend on the difficulty of supplying them. A supply line could be traced to any friendly city. Supply lines can go on land through neutral and friendly countries, and also by water. For land units, normal land movement points could be used to figure out the "movement point length" of the path. The water path cost would generally be smaller, and would depend on naval technology.

    Normal supply cost would cover up to something like three movement points, so generally any place with in your civilization there would be no added costs. For every five movement points (actual value TBD) beyond the base cost, it would cost an extra gold to support the unit. Conquered cities could be used for supply, but not in the turn they are conquered.

    Using this approach, distant invasions would present significant costs to the player. The exact game mechanism for the player to determine how much to supply their army without inducing much micromanagement would need to be determined.
    I was actually reading this list item because we're working on military supply issues for Clash of Civilizations right now. If anyone is interested in contributing to our discussions. please check out the Army Supply and Supply Lines thread on the Clash forum.
    -Mark_Everson

    2.0.0 Speed of Units

    2.1.0 RR Infinite Movement

    (Note: Many posters addressed this issue in their suggestions)

    RR infinite movement needs to finally go so that it is balanced with air movement and naval movement.
    -polypheus

    2.1.2 Redundant Rails

    I also think that you shouldn't get a lot of revenue for some rails you built into the wilderness where you don't need them for transporting your troops (and neither would anyone else, in reality)
    -Max Sinister

    2.1.3 Rail Solution(s)

    Get rid of the per tile bonus, and instead give a decreasing percentage bonus per adjacent city connected by rail. So connecting city A to B gives city A +50% commerce. A to C = +40%. A to D = +30%, etc. etc. Then give each tile of rails an upkeep. It's really simple and creates an incentive to connect cities (the bonus) but a disincentive to sprawl (the upkeep). Furthermore, it creates a distinction between high commerce cities and low commerce cities, in that in low commerce cities, the percentage bonus may not be worth the upkeep of the rail road for more than a single connection, whereas a high commerce city you'll want to provide plenty of rail connections to.

    Note that this is totally orthogonal to the question of movement/capacity, but does deal exceptionally well with the issue of sprawl.
    -wrylachlan

    Get rid of the per tile bonus, and instead give a decreasing percentage bonus per adjacent city connected by rail. So connecting city A to B gives city A +50% commerce. A to C = +40%. A to D = +30%, etc. etc. Then give each tile of rails an upkeep. It's really simple and creates an incentive to connect cities (the bonus) but a disincentive to sprawl (the upkeep). Furthermore, it creates a distinction between high commerce cities and low commerce cities, in that in low commerce cities, the percentage bonus may not be worth the upkeep of the rail road for more than a single connection, whereas a high commerce city you'll want to provide plenty of rail connections to.

    Note that this is totally orthogonal to the question of movement/capacity, but does deal exceptionally well with the issue of sprawl.
    -Modo44

    2.1.4 Unlimited Rail Move City to City

    Still, the main points of the network are cities, right? So how about this simple idea: unlimited movement via rails, but only from city to city. In other places rails give a speed bonus, but not unlimited movement.
    -Modo44

    2.1.5 Limit the # of Units that May Cross A Tile

    Does anyone think it would be a good idea if Civ4 introduced something like "rail capacity": In every turn, no more than, let's say, 10 units may cross a tile with a railroad (you could use an upper limit for other tiles, too). Could help against the "blitzkrieg on rail" phenomenon.
    -Max Sinister

    2.1.6 Transport for Rails

    What about making railroads unlimited movement, but requiring you to build transports of varying capacity, that could load/unload units at cities? Sorry if it's been posted before.
    -#endgame

    2.2.0 Different transport infrastructures

    Tracks - 2/3 movement. Reflects dirt tracks basically. Available at start. Can only be built next to a city or an existing track.

    Road - 1/3 movement. Reflects roman roads, requires a late classical era tech. Note that roads are available much later in this model.

    Highways - 1/5 movement. Reflects 1950s tech. Can only be built over an existing road.

    Undersea tunnels - 1/5 move cost. Allows land units to enter sea tiles. All land units in connected sea tiles are destroyed if a connecting tunnel tile is pillaged. That should discourage paving the oceans too much. Can only be built on shallow tiles.

    Canal - Allows ships to enter land tiles. Can only be built on grass/plains/desert next to a sea tile. Ships in tile defend as if in a harbour, due to lack of maneouver space. If this connects a city to the ea, that city can now build ships. The largest ships (ie battleships, dreadnoughts, carriers) canot use a canal.

    Railway depot - A city improvement. For a small fee, allows a unit to instantly jump to any city that is connected by the road network and has a railway depot. This uses all the unit's movement for the turn.

    Maglev depot - As per rail. Cheaper move cost, but higher maintenance. Requires a near-future tech and highway connections.
    Airport - A city improvement. For a small fee, allows a unit to instantly jump to any city that has an airport. This uses all the unit's movement for the turn.
    -lajzar

    2.3.0 Naval Units

    2.3.1 Speeds of Naval Units and Other Issues
    2.3.1.1 Faster modern naval units

    Naval units need to move a lot faster than they already do. At least, later era ones need to. [...] give naval units the ability that coastal fortresses have [to permit naval combat.]
    -Lorizael

    2.3.2 Pass close to enemy: you are exposed to canons next turn

    [As in Colonization] If your ship is adjacent to another ship at some point during your turn and you then try to keep moving, there is a risk (depending on the armaments and maneuvrability of the ships involved) of having your ship halted, and exposed to the enemy's cannons next round.
    -Sore Loser

    2.3.3 Patrol option

    [If passing next to a ship permits some shoots on you] A patrol option could be added to ship commands, sort of like land fortify that would increase the penelties on enemy ships moving near by.
    -Bleyn

    2.3.4 Ignoring move cost for a terrain

    I do agree with the high moves cost for sea and ocean though. However, rather than high moves for modern units, just make them ignore moves cost for those terrains (this can even be done in C3).
    -Kuciwalker

    2.3.5 Movement bonuses based on history

    Instead of making the units move faster, give sea squares movement bonuses (like with roads and so). Perhaps higher movement bonuses to certain routes (for instance, in the Earth map, the currents Columbus used to get to America?)
    -Stefu

    2.3.6 Wider oceans, faster sea units, restraints when your units just landed from transport

    I think that, however fast sea units move, the oceans generated by the random map generator need to be wider than that. It should not be possible to land transports or get into bombardment range in the same turn you move out of port (unless you hold cities adjacent to each other on the same continent).
    -Kuciwalker

    2.3.7 Width of Oceans: map generator option

    Continents should be as close or far as they are. Perhaps a solution [...] would be to allow a player to specify something about continental drift when defining the parameters to a random map generator. Such as wanting close, medium, or distant drift or something like that.
    -Kramerman

    2.3.8 No long trips without supplies

    Ships can go round the world without risks other than enemy ships. I think cities should be able to produce "supply" units that must be brought on long sea voyages.
    -Sore Loser

    2.3.9 Less predictable sea travel

    What if ocean tiles have a percentage chance of using up an extra movement point. [...] To add to that, there could be a smaller percentage chance that you are "blown off course": if you want to go due E, there is a percentage chance that you go SE or NE.
    -wrylachlan

    2.3.10 The sea as a dynamic environment

    [The sea is a dynamic environment. Thus give different sea tiles different movement bonus/penalties for the following reasons:]
    - Ocean currents; they play a great role in a nowadays shipping, you can go from USA to Europe 2 days shorter than the other way (thanks to the Gulf Stream), each tile should have a bonus or a penalty to movement.
    - Storms and meteorological anomalieties; there are some places in the world where it is extremly dangerous to sail (take in mind Cape Horn in a unpleasant weather), so tiles should have a different look and a bonus or penalty...
    - Corriolis force (if I got that right); the general wind direction on a equatir is west -> so have that in mind while sailing your great fleets, you go west -> you get a bonus!
    - Ice, ice bergs, ice packs; it would not only give colour to this dull blue tile but also some strategic meaning of transportation, you can't go so fast in ice packs, in area of ice bergs you can damage your ship.
    Added by Bleyn:] Ocean exploration and exploitation would become more challenging. Suddenly one would want to hunt for the currents and the winds. Find the right course and that caravel that you daren't let end in mid-ocean will sail to safety with ease. Pick the wrong course and watch the ship go down.
    khai

    2.3.11 Automatic sea transport [as in Spartan]

    Any city that has a harbour structure should be able to instantly create a transport unit for any land unit that tries to move into the sea. This transport would be AI controlled, and can only move to a designated city you control; the AI will move it back to the home port if that city is captured. This way, you still have sea transport between your cities for minimal cost, but still have to build transports to do an assault.
    -lajzar

    2.3.12 Ships Moving up Coastline Rivers

    I've always thought it odd that smaller ships can't go a tile or two up a coastline river to reach an inland city.
    -La Diva

    2.3.13 Landing Units from a Transport
    2.3.13.1 Vulnerable troops after landing from transport

    A naval landing ensures that your troops are vulnerable, the game should recognize that.
    -Agathon

    2.3.13.2 Limits on sea landing, as on D-Day (paratroopers’ primary desorganization, infrastructure…).

    [From SpencerH: I propose a new function for an engineer unit (or worker) "build port" that would allow unloading at that location once the port is built.]
    [Resuming: Many units cannot go directly from transport to beach as easily as paratroopers or men. You need some installations, just as D-Day got its Mulberries completed in a few days by infantry. Otherwise, urban portuary installation can do.]
    -Bleyn

    2.4.0 Speed on Land (Roads, Railroads, etc.)

    2.4.1 Doubling-movement roads

    I like the movement system used in the double your pleasure mod for PtW. Roads in that one double the movement.
    -Kramerman

    2.4.2 All terrain as roads' units a bit faster on roads

    As an add-on, I think SOME units that have the 'all terrain as roads' feature, should move slightly further when moving on roads.
    -Kramerman

    2.4.3 Faster railroads with technology

    [Railroad speed could go] from infinite to increasing with technologies (steam, electricity, maglev).
    -Torkkeli

    2.4.4 1000 tiles railroads would at least be editable

    Geez if Firaxis is so in love with this 'feature' they could make rail movement 1000 tiles - at least it would then be editable.
    -hexagonian

    2.4.5 Naval vs ground movement

    it is about the range of Naval movement vis a vis ground movement.
    -wrylachlan

    2.4.6 Larger world for more spaced cities for better troop movement

    If you changed the optimal city placement in such a way that cities are less densely packed, you could increase the world size, keep the movement speed of ground troops and increase the naval movement.
    -wrylachlan

    2.4.7 Railways were used against enemies

    Many times in wars one of the strategic targets is acquisition of the railways and highways for use of the attacking armies. So I think if the home civ don’t want to allow enemies to use their roads they should have to pillage their own stuff to prevent it.
    -Rasputin

    2.4.8 Securing enemy movement infrastructure

    My idea is to introduce a new unit command called "secure" (or something similar). […]A player who 'secures' a tile in this way would be able to use the enemy road/rail in that tile. Securing a tile would use up a units remaining movement, and would put that unit into "secure mode". The player would have to keep the unit in 'secure mode' in order to keep using the tile's roads/rails. […]Securing land in someone's territory would be an act of war […] Optionally, securing could be required in order to be able to get the defensive bonus from fortresses in enemy territory. Airfields could also be 'securable' in a similar way (instead of being destroyed by moving onto them).
    -Xorbon

    2.4.9 Penalty for mountains with roads, and tunnels

    Even with roads, mountain movement should take twice longer, unless you Build Tunnel, which will take 100% longer to build than a road but will then reduce movement to any other road capability. Once a tunnel is built, railroads can use it, too.
    -La Diva

    2.5.0 Air Units Movement and Speed

    2.5.1 2 more flags to be enabled/disabled

    Add the following flags that can be enabled/disabled for all units: Can Attack Air Units, Lethal bombardment of Air Units.
    -shanorb

    2.5.2 Flying OVER units

    Allow planes to overfly ground/sea units [and vice versa]. When moving manually with the arrow keys, when an opponent is encountered, give the option to attack or fly over. When using the Goto command, automatically fly over any opponent units encountered. Ground units that can attack air units (and therefore see them) also have the option of attacking or moving under.
    -shanorb

    2.5.3 Air-air attack from bombers

    Bombers can't attack other air units, UNLESS, they are other bombers on the ground in a city or airbase. Grounded fighters at the bases would get airborn to fight the bombers. The older bombers w/ gun turrents would have a stronger defense than the newer bombers without armament [SIC?]. Stealth planes would have a higher defense due to their stealth.
    -shanorb

    2.5.4 Number of attacks limit for flying units

    Bombers can attack only once before returning to base and refueling, regardless of whether they attack on the first or second turns, because they theoretically drop all their bombs at the target site. Fighters would have the blitz flag on and can attack as long as they can stay in the air.
    -shanorb

    2.5.5 Air transport

    Airport - A city improvement. For a small fee, allows a unit to instantly jump to any city that has an airport. This uses all the unit's movement for the turn.
    -lajzar

    2.6.0 Speed, All Units

    2.6.1 Rails and air transport: limited by cost instead of movement per turn

    Note that rails and airports are not limited by number of units per turn, but by cost. This cost should be related to the weight of the unit - diplomats should cost less to transport than armoured battalions.
    -lajzar

    2.6.2 Units having “states” towards units passing close

    As "fortified", units could have a state. To counter units going pass you too fast, units (such as modern naval) could have a defence radius, exactly as Civ3 air combat was working.
    -Trifna

    2.6.3 Unit movement dependant on number of years included in a turn

    It is not the modern units (naval or not) that do not move fast enough, it is the ancient units that still move as fast when the game has 1 year turns. Their speed should correspond grossly to how much time a turn is. No trireme at speedboat speed, while modern navy goes only twice the speed. It would be an all-around solution to speed issues.
    -Trifna

    2.6.4 For more useful scouts

    Make scout/explorer units more useful and desirable in the early game. Have a movement penalty for moving into unexplored squares for regular units.
    -Bleyn

    2.6.5 Strategic Movement Mode

    Strategic movement gives a [given] multiplier to a unit's normal movement rate [depending on map size]. However there are restrictions as to when you can use strategic movement. Basically, the restrictions are that your unit has to start-off being a minimum distance from any enemy units, and the unit cannot come within another given distance of an enemy unit at any time while moving. This was to allow far-away units to catch-up to the frontline units. [Other restrictions to actins in this mode may exist.]
    -Xorbon

    2.7.0 Limiting Expandsion and Lightning-Speed Discovery

    Why:
    This is one aspect that really would improve gameplay tremendously and give that historic feel of exploring and settling the interior of Africa or sending ships to China or the New World, etc.
    -polypheus

    2.7.1 Risky moves in un-conquered territory

    [China and Rome had limits.] every turn there is a, say, 50% chance of losing 1HP when a unit is so many tiles away from friendly territory. Then units could only move so far in the ancient era. This prevents the expand until every square is claimed by 1AD phenomenon and leaves much virgin land for grabbing later . Also it totally killls the race by human and AIs to pump out and expand and build as many cities as possible. This should also be implemented for naval units too to prevent, say, the equivalent of Roman Empire from being able to sail to Japan in ancient era.
    -polypheus

    2.7.2 Leaders/explorers with added exploring capacity

    In Civ4 they could use leader traits this way, by adding an explorer to a unit. (e.g. in a Unit Workshop) and make them capable of traversing mountains, jungles, deserts, and stuff without huge losses. For instance, one HP per round should be the default for a desert so that fast units could cross a smaller desert without losses. A leader who is an explorer could eliminate this loss, making them able to stay in the desert until a fort is built. A fort should also eliminate these losses.
    -ThePlagueRat

    2.7.3 Units in foreign territory should lose HP: refill by pillage

    [This idea is copy/paste from the supply section (1.)]
    [Units out of their territory should slowly lose HPs.]
    I would further suggest though that a better method than supply lines, or supply units or other complex concepts [...] would be the old pillage button. When in enemy territory just pillage an improved tile and fill your HP back up. Just like Sherman & Hannibal did!
    As for naval units, add the ability to attack (or raid) improved costal squares to refresh HP, and have increasing range (slower hp loss) with tech, with nuclear powered units eventually having unlimited range (e.g. no HP loss) I can already imagine a Viking UU that's special feature would be a very high success rate of pillaging costal squares. This would cause the map to be more slowly revealed to players as advances in naval technology would actually allow units to go farther from home, rather than simply getting there faster.
    -shuttleswo, influenced by others (especially The_Aussie_Lurker)

    3.0.0 Tactical Movement (Flanking, Between Mountains, Etc.)

    3.1.0 Possibility to flank based on main map info (valleys…)

    I think this is much less intuitive than simply to ask the player to move the unit to do the flanking. If I have to move the horse, and I know the horse is incapable of crossing the river with enough movement points left to get around into a flanking position, I'd know that I can't flank on that side. If I knew that the mountains on either side use up so many movement points that I can't get to the enemy in time to do any damage, I'd know I can't flank in the valley. This seems a much more natural and fluid way of viewing the battlefield than having to deal with remembering that in certain situations I get a penalty to my bonus...
    It just makes more sense to me to put some of the tactical decisions on the main map.
    -wrylachlan

    4.0.0 Coordinate System, Tiles, Movement System, Etc.

    4.1.0 No more squares and greater movement rate variety

    No more squares! It will allow for a great deal more variety in movement rates, instead of 1, 2 or three. [...] We can have coordinates on the traditional flat map, but I think it would be even greater if implemented on a spherical map.
    -Fosse

    4.2.0 Sea squares into larger entities

    I'd amalgamate sea squares into larger entities. So a sea square would consist of about nine land squares rolled into one. This would reduce the problem of ships appearing out of nowhere, and would make coasts more defendable.
    -Sandman

    4.3.0 First give orders, then GO!

    You gave your units orders -- they did not move during the order phase. You took as much time as you needed; the AI plotted its movement orders at the same time that you were ordering your units. Eventually, you said "Go", and your units did your orders.
    [Added by Fosse: In the current turn model, when you're up to go the enemy is frozen and completely unable to respond to your unit movements. Unrealistic and kind of boring. […] You can move to head off an advance, guess which way his defenders are going to zig so you can zag around to their backsides, etc. You'll never be able to have an encounter be exactly the way you want it (i.e. your troops on mountains every time, with theirs on grass) every time. […] The next big thing... a huge boon to multiplayer.]
    -keybounce

    5.0.0 Other Issues

    5.1.0 “Gather” command to all (or many) units

    Have a command to automatically send all your fortified offensive units to a particular enemy city or a city of yours on their border. Or the spot on the border each seperately can get to the fastest. Be able to specify to send all but a particular number that you want to keep using for defending the city they are in. Be able to specify to send only those offensive units in cities with a particular number of defensive units. Be able to automatically send extra defensive units to the nearest border city for each.
    -Brent

    5.2.0 Asking a unit to move out of your way (with Go To command and else)

    When a unit is on GoTo movement and encounters a unit from another civ blocking the developed road/railroad, it would be helpful for it to stop, center the map, and wait for my decision: to have it move off the road and spend movement points (sometimes critical), or to contact the alien, get it to leave, and then tell my unit to proceed as previously directed. Ideally, once the blockage is gone, the unit should finish its turn as ordered without further action by me. Akin to that is the need to demand that any foreign unit get out of my way, including non-military units which now seem to be immune. Usually the first diplomatic request to leave is met with, "Okey-dokey," but it takes another turn before anything happens. There are times when this is simply not acceptable.

    Let there be a feature that if you contact the same unit (not the civ leader) 3 times in the same turn, it will have to move or declare war. Add the option on Contact Number 2 for the unit to move off the road to an adjacent tile (no problem if the foreign travel rate stays at unimproved terrain rates); then the unit can retreat peacefully on its next turn but still be out of my way. Of course, if the unit is there to start a war, obviously my requests go unheeded until the ultimatum is issued on Contact Number 3. For foreign units with RoP, we need to have the option to coexist on the same tile.
    -La Diva

    5.3.0 Moving in others’ lands

    Moving through another civ's lands doesn't have to indicate hostile intent.
    -La Diva

    Conclusion

    The main issues that need to be addressed in supply and movement are whether units lose power when they are beyond their national borders, and just how this should be effected, whether in moral or hitpoints, and also discussed were several ways to remedy railroad sprawl and infinite movement.
    Respectfully Compiled- Trifna

    Tags: the list, civilization 4, movement, supply
      Posting comments is disabled.

    Article Tags

    Collapse

    Latest Articles

    Collapse
    • Civ 4 the List: List of Threadmasters
      by DarkCloud

      The List for Civ IV was a project that could not have been accomplished without the hard work and dedication of the many Threadmasters and ideas-finders on the forums. While idea-suggestors are likewise important, I have compiled here a list of the volunteers who went above and beyond the call of duty to take on the task of threadmastering a thread for the List.

      And here they are, alphabetically:

      Asmodean- Former Administrator of the List
      Azazel- Government and Social Engineering
      DarkCloud- Administrator; Civilizations, General, Scenario/Map Editor; List Formatter
      Fosse- The Polls
      Ixnay- Space
      Lajzar- Units
      MattH- Cheats
      Nikolai- AI, Resources, Terrain
      Octavian X- Wonders
      Platypus Rex- Regional and City Menus
      TechWins- Diplomacy
      Trifna- Movement/Supply, User Friendliness

      August 31, 2012, 18:13
    • Civ 4 the List: Closing Remarks
      by DarkCloud

      And so now the list has drawn to a close. Thousands of ideas have been culled from the Civ III community at Apolyton. Hopefully the list that we propose here has been easy enough to search through and hopefully it will lead to a great parnership between the players and the corporation.

      Good luck with your struggles and please, keep civving!

      -DarkCloud
      List Administrator

      PS: Here's a link to the Civ III-Ideas List compiled by Apolyton Fans on July 14, 1999 - Civ III List in case you wish to compare it to the current creation

      August 31, 2012, 18:05
    • Civ 4 the List: The Polls
      by Fosse

      Introduction

      Realizing that some polls about hot topics have already left the top page, and that newcomers to the discussion seldom dig through the back pages in order to find out what's been discussed before, I've decided to compile a list of the Civ 4 List related polls.

      I've abandoned keeping a running talley of votes, as it's a great deal of work that is immediatley outdated, and if you really were interested in the results you would visit the poll and read the comments.

      Now... the polls:

      Stacked vs. Single Unit Combat: The Battle Continues
      Should units be stacked into "armies" that fight and operate as a single unit, or does moving them one at a time provide a boost to strategic considerations?

      Resources: How to Handle
      Is a system with stores and limits on resources a better simulation and more fun, or tedious micromangement?

      From Civ 3 to Civ 4
      More of the same, or a bold new direction for Civ 4?

      Squares, Hexes, Octagons...
      Pick your poison, the traditional Civ Map, traditional War Games map, or something else entirely.

      Eras in Civ 4?
      Is the new era system a great addition, or a stifling hindrance?

      Espionage & Assymetrical Warfare
      Does Bond get his own unit?

      To 2000 AD or Beyond?
      Civ, From the Ancients to the Stars; or Civ, The Whole of Human History.

      {The List} United Nations
      A resolution for change... do you Veto?

      {The List} What Should Happen to Civ Traits?
      Should Civ 4 have homogenous Civs or even more differences?

      Terrain Improvements
      "Give me Workers, or Give me Death" vs "Micromagement Gives me Death."

      Nomads and Chiefdoms
      Should Civ 4 let us wander the great wide open?

      Civ 4 ideas - straights and canals
      Do you want straigts? Or canals?

      Civ 4 idea: Armies instead of units
      Once again, armies or single units?

      Health in Civ 4?
      Should we have sick Civs?

      Emphasis on Age
      Which historical era, if any, should get a boost in Civ 4?

      Civ 4 resistance
      Do you want partisans from Civ 2? Resistors from Civ 3? Or something new for Civ 4?

      Fire and Movement
      How should firepower and movement rates affect combat in Civ 4?

      Stacking Limits Y/N
      Assuming we have stacks, what sorts of stack limits should there be?

      Improved Poll: When should Civilization IV end?
      What is a good time for the game to end?

      Future Techs in Civ 4
      Which future era techs would you like in Civ 4?

      What ARE wonders, anyway?
      Well? What are they?

      Pollution Managers:
      Would you like Pollution Managment added to city screen?

      Tech Transmission


      Here is some food for thought from Civfanatics.

      -Respectfully Compiled by Fosse

      ...
      August 31, 2012, 18:03
    • Civ 4 the List: Wonders
      by Fosse
      Introduction The concept of the great Wonders of the World in Civ is as old as the series itself. For years, civvers around the world have built Pyramids, Great Libraries, Magellanic Voyages, and trips to the Moon. And, as Civ has gone from I to II to III, wonders have been added, removed, or have changed in some way. With Civ3 came the idea of Small Wonders that each nation had the oppertunity to build individually, further widening the effect of these great projects. As Civ4 looms over the horizon, how will the concept of Wonders of the World evolve further? Summary As you can see, I'm still coming up with ideas already proposed and boiling them down into a list. The links I have found to all threads in this forum pertaining to wonders has been included. If you have some more links, or brand new ideas, please feel free to post them in this thread. Related Threads http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=75460 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=106609 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=107349 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=117222 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=107895 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=111317 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=114759 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=115569 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=117740 http://apolyton.net/showthread.php?threadid=117222 Table of Contents New Wonder Ideas Changes to Existing Wonders New Wonder Concepts Conclusion The Ideas I. New Wonder Ideas This section goes on the idea that the concept of the ‘wonder’ in Civ will not change from Civ3 to Civ4, that players will still accumulate production in a race with other civs in their attempt to build a wonder. Listed at those specific ideas for a brand new wonder. Statue of Liberty No so much a new wonder, but bringing back a great one from Civ2. A civ with this wonder, in Civ2, could switch to any government type, irregardless of possession of the prerequisite tech, with no anarchy time. In Civ2, it was rendered mostly useless by the fact that one could switch governments without penalty every four turns (the classic Odeo years).Arrian Banaue Rice Terraces >Ancient - allows irrigation on hills (weak, needs more benefit, maybe cut irrigation time or allow hills/forests/mountains to act as irrigated square for the purposes of irrigating next to it).Solomwi Channel Tunnel Modern/Late Industrial - allows ground units to move across single tile straits without ships.Solomwi Machu Picchu Late Ancient - allows settlement on mountains.Solomwi Attitude/Reputation Wonders Bring back some of the old ones from Civ2 that could modify relations with neighbors. (Eiffel, Marco Polo, etc.)Solomi Apian Way (Small Wonder) Originally Roman Empire, huge boon to trade (25-50% for every city connected by it) and unit movement along its length (4 tiles instead of three like other roads). For those who love micromanaging, the Wonder could cost a city less to "produce," but workers would return to existing roads for an additional one or two turns per tile, resulting in a straighter road graphic or a different color. Building the AW from scratch would take 25% longer than normal roads. The benefit would be only on city-to-city connecting roads, not on every city radius tile, but it would also apply to roads to Resources and to your civ's borders in anticipation of expansion by settlements or conquest. The benefit would continue until replaced by Railroads (not the Tech but actual construction). For those who despise micromanaging, give the option to pay more and have the work magically appear when the Wonder is produced. The entire cost would then be based upon X base plus y for so many tiles to link all cities with one road at the time of the Wonder's completion, meaning if you add more cities while in production, the cost continues to go up - but again, you dodge the microM. The Round Table (Great Wonder) A la King Arthur, this would make representative forms of government faster to discover and to implement with shorter or nonexistent anarchy. Lewis & Clark (SW) This would double Movement Points of all units exploring black-out tiles, except when barbarians have been uncovered, so you'd have to deal with them normally. Speed wouldn't be affected by another civ's units. Pony Express (SW) Faster communication improves Science and Culture and would reduce corruption in far away cities on the same continent. It would also speed up building the first Road between each city. Any additional city tiles worked for roads would still take the normal time. International Red Cross (GW) This would be a major diplomatic boost, as well as better treatment for captured units and faster healing for battle-wounded units. Recover...
      August 31, 2012, 17:58
    • Civ 4 the List: User Friendliness/ The Manual / Help Files
      by Trifna
      Introduction User Friendliness- what makes the game easy to play. The Manual- the guides to Civ I and II provided historical information and pull-out charts that gave the game character- will Civ IV have such things? Or will the manual merely be a cheap on-line PDF? Help Files- how easily can the owners of the game find their way around it once accessing the game itself? Summary While this wasnt the most glamours of sections, it is in some ways the most important because without easy accessibility, Civilization would be both unfun and impossible to play. Many ideas which could fall in this area were included in other sections, thus its sparseness can be explained by the universality in where these help information can be put in. Table of Contents The Ideas Conclusion The Ideas Historical Garbage: Forget the historical stuff about units. Most people never read it and it doesn't enhance gameplay.-Kuciwalker (It should be noted, however that a significant group of civvers actually appreciates these historical things and the fact that they are in the game makes it more educational and acceptable to teachers and parents trying to teach their children through learning. It also makes the game more 'intellectual' and provides a good reference.)-DarkCloud Generating Civlopedia Entries IN THE EDITOR:: Make it easy to generate Civpedia entries IN THE EDITOR.-Kuciwalker A "?" to click on and point at elements: I propose that somewhere at the top of the screen there would be a litte interrogation mark to click on. If you click on it, there will be a bunch of very visible interrogation marks each place on the present screen you can get a little text explaining how it works, what it is and everything that's nice to know. This would help many, without even bringing the need of a complete tutorial (though a tutorial can always be nice, and it could use the information put with this interrogation marks system).-Trifna "Hovered on" information: I also think that there should be, in the options tablet, a checkbox that when clicked, will cause the mouse button (when it's hovering over an object) to describe the object in a short description-DarkCloud Improved file save/retrieve: Would it be too much to ask to slightly improve the file save and file retrieve dialog boxes? I feel like I'm back in Windows 3.x with the spartan [...] file operation box. What I would like to see is a page ripped from Microsoft's book on this. First, make the box a little bit bigger. If I'm doing some file operation, go ahead and cover most of the screen. It's not like I'm playing the game while opening/closing a game. Second, I need to see some properties information displayed regarding my file saves. A small thumbnail of my map would be nice. Also, some information like: When was the file created (game started) Date last saved How many civs active Current scores/perhaps a histograph? Whether the game is SP, MP or PBEM Speaking of PBEM. Could a seperate interface be developed for keeping MP and PBEM games organized? I create seperate folders, but I think with minimal effort, a little nicer front end could be developed to make it easy to store, organize and launch games.One last thing...the manual makes it a point to say that it doesn't store email addresses. This is a pretty simple thing that would help the player tremendously.-Shogun Gunner Using the standard Windows open-file box: Why not use the standard Windows open-file box, with an extra part to display some info about the actual savegame you have selected?-Kuciwalker Mini-map, and opening a game in one click: A mini-map thumbnail is essential.I'd also like a way to open games with one click from the main menu.-MattH For a printed manual: The manual should be printed, not digital! I find it much nicer to be able to paw through actual paper.-MattH ...Digital is transient... paper is for all time-DarkCloud Being able to pause at any time: Be able to pause the game in the middle of anything it's doing to look at settings, etc. When it's cycling through automated or AI units. Be able to change orders in the middle. Be able to more easily observe what the AI is doing before it's finished.-Brent Conclusion This section is pretty explanatory and compact, but basically people want ways to easily determine what different sorts of data is on the map and to easily plunge into a game of civ....
      August 31, 2012, 17:55
    • Civ 4 the List: Units
      by lajzar
      Introduction This is meant as a discussion of two principal aspects of the game: what units should appear in the game, and the effects of the various unit attribute flags. Of secondary importance is finding a way to integrate unit statistics with whatever combat method is chosen; it is generally agreed that balancing stats will depend a lot on how combat (stacked vs 1:1 vs other) is implemented. Summary One recurring theme across the various lists for each generation of civ was for a unit workshop, similar to smac. I believe this would be bad for civ. While it could reflect the historical range of units if constrained with a uitably detailed complex ruleset, this rulset would be unreasonably complex for a game, forcing an extra level of management. In addition, it would make it extremely hard to mod the graphics, and all but impossible to create mods with fantasy units. Most people agree that civ3 had far too few units in the game. The big jumps in the capabilities at each critical tech gave an overwhelming advantage to teh tech leader, as well as giving a somewhat disjointed view of history. With assymetric units, there is clearly a strong desire for these functions to be implemented. The main debate is on whether or not units are the best means of implementing these functions. This a decision that should be made on a group by group basis. There is very little desire for religious units or lawyers, but worker functions are evenly split on whether units are the best method to put them in the game. Related Threads Civ4 Idea: Armies instead of Units Stacked vs. Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues Some sort of unit design allowed? Civ4 Units Table of Contents 2.0 Miscellaneous Thoughts 5.0 Units Conclusion The Ideas Organized by: Lajzar...
      August 31, 2012, 17:52
    View All
    Working...
    X