{The List-} Movement, supply, etc.

[DarkCloud]

Just wondering Trifna, coudl you add titles to all the ideas so that they can be categorized and easily summed up by Firaxis- like the title that Brent provided in this quote?

Pausing Anytime

Be able to pause the game in the middle of anything it's doing tolook 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.

after you do that- I'd be glad to add them to the list.

Thanks

[Trifna]

Ok. It'll take a bit more time, but it'll be done. If you can find someone that is willing to give a hand though (like puting titles...), it'd be useful since I have quite a few things to do.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
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. [...]

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.

Why should a chain make things complicated?

1- If the AI does it automatically, it is just as complicated as it would be without; except you think about protecting it.

2- If you need a supply unit each 4 square to bring the supply further, well it is not very complicated neither. You count 1-2-3-4. More management? Yes: but is this drawback worth it when the consequence is that you can attack these lines and protect them? Up to be seen. And maybe that these units could move automatically just as workers on automatic mode.


To which extent is this really more complicated for the advantages it brings?

[DarkCloud]

trifna, I'd like to find someone, but it's almost impossible to do that, sadly

[Trifna]

Maybe you should put an "add" somewhere, asking for people to give a hand on the List project. You could then assign them a little task. This is of course not only for my specific case, but also for all the little things that are left, or threads still not taken (this is a bit bigger task if the thread is not huge).

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Trifna
Why should a chain make things complicated?

1- If the AI does it automatically, it is just as complicated as it would be without; except you think about protecting it.

2- If you need a supply unit each 4 square to bring the supply further, well it is not very complicated neither. You count 1-2-3-4. More management? Yes: but is this drawback worth it when the consequence is that you can attack these lines and protect them? Up to be seen. And maybe that these units could move automatically just as workers on automatic mode.

To which extent is this really more complicated for the advantages it brings?

I guess I'm just not sure it would be an advantage. The way civ works, with the cities the distance apart that they are, how often are you going to have a prolonged campaign in enemy territory without capturing a city? The vast majority of the time the longest chain you'll need is 1 anyways, so...

In order for chains to be worth it for me, you would have to have situations where 2 things exist:
1) An attempt to attack deep in an area where no supply exists.
2) A realistic possibility of the enemy getting more than 1 supply node behind the front line.

Any time after the ancient age, it takes so little time to make a settler, that there is very little chance an empty region will go unpopulated for long. It will almost always be more effective to throw down cities than to chain along supply units. And if you have cities, you should have supply. (unless you're considering the possibility that cities themselves need to be "in supply", which is IMHO needlessly complicated.)

My design philosophy is to go for the simplest solution that will create meaningful gameplay decisions. I think that the supply unit is simpler than the supply chain. And the difference in tactical decisions between attacking behind enemy lines(supply units), and way behind enemy lines (supply chain) isn't worth the added complexity.

[Trifna]

wrylachlan, I have to admit I had not thought about the effect of the cities' proximity. Of course, chain of supplies linking your troops to your cities are useful only in the case that a single supply with your troops is not enough, in long expeditions.

This case does exist though, especially when it comes to attacking a coast where you have no city. There are also some cases where you attack further inland (a good example is when you take a city that is not on your enemy's border: capital, wonder, better city, undefended city...).

Many conquerors went a looong way to reach the opponent. Think of the Crusades. Think of Napoleon, or think of America against Nazi Germany. And think of the kitten.

[wrylachlan]

Its impossible to talk about supply without the interelated issue of combat, cities, etc. so my apologies if people think this is the wrong forum but...

The reason Napolean's march on Moscow can't really happen in C3C is more than just the lack of a supply system.

For one thing, cities in C3C are more uniform than in real life. There is no way in a game scenario, you would attack Moscow without stoping to control the cities along the way, because the cities are more important in game.

Why are they more important? Because the ratio of unit speed to productivity is way off. I know that sounds out there, but think about this: could Napolean have trained reinforcements in cities he had captured in time for them to help his attack on Moscow? No. Nor could the Russians. Thus the army was more important than the cities.

Now in C3C it is much more cost effective to capture border cities to deprive the enemy of resources and to gain those resources for yourself. In fact, because of the ratio of unit speed to productivity, your captured border cities can aid the war effort before you reach Moscow.

Another problem is that the city defensive bonus makes it logical to house your armies in cities, which reduces the incentive to fight in the fields. OF course the defensive bonus is necessary because of a lack of ZOC and essentially homogeneous terrain which makes it necessary to defend a city from all sides.
------------------------
My solutions (and yes it does tie back into supply)
1)Get rid of the defensive bonus for cities.
- Give units a ZOC
- Make terrain more varied including more impassable terrain so that it is not necessary to defend every city from every angle.
2)Increase the base movement of units to 2.
3)Institute some sort of migration factor so that city sizes are more varied, especially make some cities significantly more strategic than others. (strategic resources is a good start, but needs more).
4)Remove RR spamming so that movement is more strategic, and increase the build time and cost of RR so that it takes longer to connect newly acquired cities to your grid.

What all of the above do is create an incentive to attack strategically deeper into enemy territory instead of taking an empire piecemeal from the borders in. Once this is in place:

5)Then implement some sort of a chain of supply system.
--------------------
However barring all of those other factors coming into play, I think the easiest solution to create a "fun" supply system is simply to make a single supply unit.

[Trifna]

Great post wrylachlan, you sum up everything in little place

Then I agree with you. I had not considered the priorities of implementation of different Civ concepts. Still, I believe that for these big conquests it could be implemented. But as you say, we face some limits here.


It may be easier to implement such things:

- The distance between cities was adjusted (cities could, with time, cover more, while there would be fewer spots real good from the game start)

- Units had an advantage to go on the field (a city hosting a maximum of units for example, and certain units not faring well in cities. Also, cities get damages from fights)

- Cities with citizens of another culture could not produce armies at will (Bagdad doesn't produce the bulk of US army); armies would be given back their importance, just as sometimes the army was taking more short-term importance than cities/economy in Rome.


This would simply make more profitable to introduce support in the way of a chain (automatically done by the AI, or as units). I still believe support can be introduced in some more limited way now, and still bring something. Espescially when supporting troops on the other side of a water space (support to build advanced base, food...).

[Straybow]

Originally posted by 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.
...

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.

All units include whatever supply and support personnel and equipment they require. The reason why the Phalanx can kill the Armor is because they can devise an attack on the fuel dump and turn your tanks into landmarks.

Modern non-mechanized infantry depends mostly on trucks, not foot-speed. Roman legions depended on foraging, pillaging, or buying local supplies. When they could not do so they were limited by the distance horse- and ox-carts could haul supplies effectively. Somewhere I read that it was ~120 miles, which is one tile on any but the largest maps.

A major factor in a modern army is that armor units cost more to maintain/supply than infantry units. In truth, units cost about as much to maintain in one year of moderate action as the original construction cost. In heavy action yearly maint/supply of a mechanized unit can be double the original construction cost.

Air units flying multiple sorties per day from an aircraft carrier can build up triple the original equipment costs of $2-3 billion for the carrier, $2-3 billion for the aircraft, and another few billion for the support fleet (destroyer screen, AEGIS cover, and supply ships).

That's why the US needed $60+ billion for a few months of fighting and the balance of a year in occupation of Iraq over and above the three or four hundred billion military budget.

This is a radically different production/supply model than civ1-3. I doubt we'll see it in Civ4.

[Straybow]

I do agree that Civ4 needs ZOC. Definitely one reason I didn't like and didn't buy (note bene, Firaxis) Civ3. In the Civ3 List I proposed supply rules based on distances from cities, touching unit positions, forts, and interdicted by enemy ZOCs.

All the complicated stuff is handled by the program. The display will show Supply limits with an outline, similar to city radius and SMAC borders. Uninterdicted "in Supply" movement costs are halved. Units not touching an uninterdicted in-Supply tile take damage each turn.

[ThePlagueRat]

I agree with strayboy here on supplies. Reintroducion of ZOCs is a thing that I doubt will happen to civ4 though. It may not appeal to the "new audience". In the official statements they repeat the word "simplify". Simplification of the gameplay, could mean better playability, but does not neccesarily mean simplification of rules and subsystems, such as combat, tech, supply. e.g. the tech/trade subsystem would be devastating to simplify even more! And new supply rules could be introduced without making gameplay complex.


Anyway, I hope they will reintroduce more things from civ1 and civ2 and SMAC and less from civ3, a game which I think was not a major improvement. A plain simplificaton of civ3 system with a modern 3D interface would be a horrible deal IMHO. I and many other fans are most concerned about the gameplay issues and a 3D interface would only be a minor enhancement. I hope those involved with Soren and his team will also share my opinion on this, so they focus on the important things.

[Trifna]

They said that a good rule of thumb is "1/3 improvement, 1/3 innovation, 1/3 stays the same". So it is not like if nothing will be introduced, but simply that it will be kept simple. I think that if we show simple ideas, or perhaps a global model for the "availability of supplies availability from A to B", it may then be potentially interesting to them. If we bring complicate stuff, there's little chance I'd guess.

So all I wish now for this: a simple supply model. From a city to another, or to an army, but somehow a supply system. For a game including armies, it seems crucial since it forms a very high proportion of what war is all about.

[Straybow]

Except that the improvement and innovation wind up being mostly things that nobody cares about, and replace 2/3 of the things that we liked (the commodity trade system) instead of things that didn't matter much.

[Addled Platypus]

MORE PATROLS.!!!!

If aircraft can, why not ships, tanks

thank you for your time

Expense of keeping armies/fleets at peace.
Have a military budget for training and war time
Save during peace, dont blow it all for one war?

The US has 14 carriers, each one in service(not all in service at once) estimated cost 1 mill each a month at peace time, so if 7 are afloat....

Would ZOC change with scale of world map?