{The List-} Movement, supply, etc.

[La Diva]

Re: {The List-} Movement, supply, etc.

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.

... units that have the 'all terrain as roads' feature should move slightly further when moving on roads.

- Yes, and railroads. It doesn't make sense that my explorer can't use the same railroad MP benefit as other units.


As much as I love it, it's really unrealistic to let a unit travel all the way across a continent with no movement points just because there's a railroad. Trains do take some time to move, after all. Far better would be to give 9 or 10 MP to every unit on the rail.

Similarly, in the early years of flight, planes flew slower, so just because you have an airport in Siberia and one on the Cape of Good Hope doesn't mean you can send a unit all the way on a single turn. Just like military planes, airlifted units should have to land every 20 or 30 tiles' distance, even if it's handled by AI behind the scenes, GoTo style.

In the earlier years of slower flight, landing on a strip of grass was commonplace, so airports shouldn't be required until Advanced Flight. Add a cheap Airstrip City Imp, maybe 50 shields, to enable boxwing plane puddle-jumping with a maximum range of 10 tiles.
.. No planes are built but are an automatic adjunct of the Airstrip, and only one unit can be flown at a time, and no other can be dispatched from an Airstrip until the previous unit has reached its destination. While en route, the icon would be a boxwing plane, with a unit panel to the side (like ships) showing the unit on board. A boxwing can't cross mountains, and there must be unoccupied (but improved is okay) Plains/Grassland for the plane to land. Whether programmers want AI or the player to handle this doesn't matter, but you can cross the continent in two or three turns by choosing the landing points and a safe route. You can also click on the plane after landing to Unload the unit at that location if you change your mind. The boxwing would then return to its home Airstrip without further command.
.. Only cities with an Airstrip can initiate unit moves this way, but units can land anywhere, including taking off from a city without an Airstrip while en route to its destination. The more Airstrips you have, however, the more probability the unit will arrive safely, based on the logic of having fuel and replacement parts for the planes.

What Airports are built, allow at least 3 units to be flown from and/or to land in a single airport per turn. The current limitation is unreasonable.

Only a new Tech Teleportation would restore instantaneous transport across the globe, very late in the tech tree. Each use of the technology would cost something in shields or gold. Building Telepads would radically reduce the cost, though zapping from any tile to any other would be possible (Rt-Click or Order Bar item) as in StarTrek.

If the above suggestion about finite MP for rail is implemented, then when the Tech including oil is completed, rail MP should increase (from 3X road rate to 4X, e.g.), since diesels are faster than steam engines. If the Bullet Train (magnetic-hover technology, whatever that's called officially) would increase the MP by another 2X road rate (6X in this hypothesis). It's still not infinite MP, but it's getting close.

[La Diva]

Re: {The List-} Movement, supply, etc.

Regarding Water

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. They might need a reduced MP against the current but then get an extra MP as they head back toward the sea.

~+~+~+~

... higher movement [ocean] bonuses to certain routes (for instance ... the currents Columbus used to get to America)

This would be great if once an ocean current has been found, it remains marked on the map, maybe in a darker blue or add a hit of green, so we don't have to remember or have to find it over and over.

But then again, if Civ4 adds this kind of benefit, then it needs to add the negative influences, like storms and windless periods when the sailing ships can't move at all. No, it's all too much headache, if you ask me.

~+~+~+~

River transportation, suggested by wrylachlan (sorry I can't remember which thread):

This idea I LOVE. Very elegant and a real boon to playability. That said, MP should vary depending on whether you're moving upstream or downstream, so there would have to be a way to indicate direction if you can't see the headwaters or the mouth of the river. I can see either a small cursor hover pop-up or an arrow on the unit panel that appears when a unit next to a river has Focus.

[La Diva]

Re: {The List-} Movement, supply, etc.

Civ3's unit MP in another civ's (enemy) territory is too simplistic. Moving through another civ's lands doesn't have to indicate hostile intent. I still made use of the roads and rails of several European countries when I was there.

Reduce the MP, say 2 road tiles versus the usual 3. I support finite rail movement with a large number, say 9; so alien units would be able to move 6. When you're at war with the civ, then take MP down to inimproved tile factors. Since you have to move stealthily, the incursion should take longer.

In one game I tried bringing my workers into my enemy's territory to build my own rail system - AI wouldn't let them work. If the Supply Route idea is added, then I vote to let workers build the route to at least double the unimproved MP rate.

~+~+~+~

Not exactly a Movement issue, but related to not moving:

Bring back the Sentry command!

I loved posting units that would wake up when foreign units were nearby, thereby getting Focus to await new orders during my next turn. It was a real time saver to let them sleep most of the time but bring my attention to potential enemy plans when troops neared my border.

=====

Edit thought: MP limitations should depend on your diplomacy relationship. If they're polite or adoring, MP should be cut by only 1/3, as proposed above. If they're cautious or angry with you, you won't be able to move around as easily, so your MP is cut by another 1/3.

This would also mean that we human players need to be able to declare our attitude about the other civs, which will determine how easily they can encroach onto our territory.

Our attitude factor would be a good addition to AI's calculations. For a change, make the other civs have to earn my favor, instead of the other way around.

[MORON]

Okay, since I'm new to the thread:

1. Flanking on the main map: Too much work
Just give a bounse for every attack that outnumbers the number of defenders or something

2. Stacks: CTP is fine

3. Sea movement:

Two+ tile ZOC for some ships. Only work against hostile units or non-allied units within city limits.

Air Units that auto attack hostile units (the player can choose what type) that move into range. This makes Carriers dangerous and important

Landing costs all movement points except in friendly cities. Marines can still attack on landing however.

Large but limited range for fast industial era coal/oil powered ships. (to prevent a navy popping up across the globe in no time) Some sort of harbor tile improvement on land that can resupply ships and maybe some sort of supply ship that has its own range limit.

Direction Wind tiles Iceburg tiles

4. Supply

Supply unit: So I bring another unit with my army. So what, everything is the same.

Abstract Supply Route: messy computationally, both for the computer and the player trying to cut the route.

I'm thinking that supply range should be at say X tiles from a city or a supplied unit. A clear (not though enemy ZOC) road link to a supplied unit addes X tiles to that range. A supplied airbase or airport addes X supply range. Ground units can not use naval ship supply unless they are on a harbor tile improvement. (making beach assaults out of supply unit engineers make a harbor tile/cap a city)

So a player can relay supply from other supplied units and there is a visible target that one can hit to cut supply.

The effects of supply should be different for different units. A tank, mech infantry or artillery should suffer huge combat and movement penalities, while a alp inf should suffer only a little and a explorer should not need supply at all.

The problem with this is that this means more units.... I guess the only way to solve this is by limited supply rather than demand. (aka more expensive units)

5. Railroad

Attack use railroads. Add a "pilliage rail/road on destroyed" command to units, so that when destroyed they blow up all the road/rail on their tile.


6. Other
Ground/sea should be able to move under air units and air units over land/sea units, if we go by Civ2 air model.

Neutal powers moving military (ZOC excerting units) units into boarders should be an war declarable offense. (as in no diplomantic/reputation penalities) Explorer/carvan-type units should be able to move into non-hostile enemy units (and stack with them) and vice versa. One can not use opponent railroads (they won't let out) unless one declares war or have a treaty that allows them.

(I'm just pissed at those annoying computer freight blocking my railroads....grrrr)

[SpencerH]

I guess this comes under movement/supply.

I'd like to do away with infinite rail movement. In order to do that, and still defend a continent from naval invasions, we need a coast line that where modern units cannot just land anywhere.

Therefore I propose a new terrain type "unpassable coast" that prevents the unloading of modern army units from transports. In addition, 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.

Not only is this historically accurate, but as importantly, it would allow us to get rid of the infinite rail move and fundamentally change how we fight wars.

[Shogun Gunner]

Whew...that was a lot to read through....

I like the idea Xorbon forwards regarding "tactical" and "strategic" movement for naval units. That seems to be an idea that holds a lot of promise.

Regarding supply, any solution requiring supply has the potential to complicate or alienate a casual player. I'm for some implementation of supply (many of the ideas forwarded in this tread were good) since I'm used to this concept in board wargames.

Which brings me to my question. As we debate and brainstorm ideas for cIV, are we totally in the blind regarding Firaxis' current thinking/development for cIV???

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Whew...that was a lot to read through....

I'll have even more to read

Don't worry, don't worry... I'm gonna resume all this. I just finally settled down after a summer without computer

[Sir Og]

I haven't read the whole thread yet but I'll post some of my ideas regarding movement, supplies etc.

I think that all units should have higher movement but they should also have increased ZOC. For example if a unit with one movement point doesn't move one turn then this unit gets 1 square radius ZOC or if a unit with 3 movement points uses all of them then that unit would have no ZOC. Also the way ZOC works should be expanded from the Civ2 model. Units with ZOC should be able to intercept/attack units within thir ZOC.

With regards to supply, I think that it would be best if it is calculated on the basis of distance from borders. So if your units are within your borders they cost you 1 gold per turn if you move them into enemy teritory 10 squares away from your borders then they would cost 2 golt per turn to support, if you move them even furver it would cost even more. The supply cost and range is going to be modified by advances and leaders. For example discovering the wheel would double the range for supply or a military great leader would eliminate supply costs for the stack that the leader is part of (eg Alexander the Great). If you don't have enough gold to support your units that have ventured into enemy territory then they should start losing strengh/hitpoints untill they are reduced to minimum strengh/hitpoints (eg Napoleon in Russia).

[Trifna]

The "speed of units" problem:

It is not the modern units that do not move fast enough (such as naval units), it is the ancient units that still move as fast when the game has 1 year turns. their speed should correspond to how much time a turn is.

This is the true cause of the problem, and the logical way of solving this is to stop making nutshells navigate as speedboats and legions go in 100km/h running as in cartoons. Each unit should go at its normal "distance / year" speed for example, a modern infantry going obviously faster than a legion.

[Trifna]

Inspired by wrylachlan's idea of support units (but adding simply a route to supply these supply units...):


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 radius from a supply unit to another may be different than supply unit-military unit. 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.

[lajzar]

Um, why should modern infantry go faster that Roman legions? They are both relying on legwork to get anyway, and I don't belive human legs have changed all that much in 2000 years.

[Trifna]

What we call infantry is now supported on the field by mecanized units for transport, have some optimized gear, have some team work that may be organized differently, and so on. Except for mecanized transport, it may not change the world but one would need to check the km/day in Roman and modern times.

But my point was that speed may need to be adjusted, correspondingly to how much time "one turn" is. And this is the essence of the problem of these units not moving to normal speeds.


PS: If you want example of modern units, go at http://www.supremeruler2010.com/srmil_equipment.htm and give a look at infantry, then mecanized units (tanks...).

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Sir Og
With regards to supply, I think that it would be best if it is calculated on the basis of distance from borders. So if your units are within your borders they cost you 1 gold per turn if you move them into enemy teritory 10 squares away from your borders then they would cost 2 golt per turn to support, if you move them even furver it would cost even more. The supply cost and range is going to be modified by advances and leaders. For example discovering the wheel would double the range for supply or a military great leader would eliminate supply costs for the stack that the leader is part of (eg Alexander the Great). If you don't have enough gold to support your units that have ventured into enemy territory then they should start losing strengh/hitpoints untill they are reduced to minimum strengh/hitpoints (eg Napoleon in Russia).

Originally posted by TrifnaInspired by wrylachlan's idea of support units (but adding simply a route to supply these supply units...):

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 radius from a supply unit to another may be different than supply unit-military unit. 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.

To make my case for why I think my idea is better than the two above:

I think the reason you would add any feature is to cause the player to make interesting decisions. To me, the interesting decisions around the issue of supply are "How do I keep my supply lines defended?" and "how do I attack the enemy supply lines?"

As such, I think that a base supply cost of moving into enemy territory is a lot of agrivating number cruntching without it changing any of the tactics on the battlefield except to make lightning strikes even more cost effective than prolonged war. But war weariness already models the cost of prolonged war, so you would be creating a double whammy, which is a design decision I'm not sure I would want to make.

As for adding supply sources, and a "chain of supply", I think this adds more complexity without really changing the core interesting decision making. Having a single supply unit gives the enemy incentive to attack behind the lines, and the defender an incentive to protect behind its lines, which is, IMHO, all you're really looking for with a supply system.

[lajzar]

wrylachlan, I like the supply chain model, but I don't like the supply units. Forcing players to make an extra unit simply to use their soldiers isn't fun.

However, looking back on most games I've played, I have noticed that once cavalry and especially armour are available, I almost never build infantry units again. But even today infantry are the backbone of every army.

How about making infantry the "supply node" unit? They are generally weaker in defence, making them something to be protected, move slowly, acting as a brake on deep strikes, and now have a real incentive to be built.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by lajzar
wrylachlan, I like the supply chain model, but I don't like the supply units. Forcing players to make an extra unit simply to use their soldiers isn't fun.

However, looking back on most games I've played, I have noticed that once cavalry and especially armour are available, I almost never build infantry units again. But even today infantry are the backbone of every army.

How about making infantry the "supply node" unit? They are generally weaker in defence, making them something to be protected, move slowly, acting as a brake on deep strikes, and now have a real incentive to be built.

Infantry as the supply unit wouldn't work. If infantry was the supply unit, you would have your supply unit in the same stack as your main attack/defense force, which would totally negate the "sneak behind the lines and attack their supply" factor. Whatever creates supply must have a reason to NOT be part of the main attack stack.

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.

Its simple. It creates the tactical dynamic of trying to attack supply lines. It doesn't require you to pay attention to long chains of supply.