Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

{The List-} Movement, supply, etc.

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

  • #31
    Even with that, you should not have to station fifty billion destroyers along every inch of your coastline.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by skywalker
      Even with that, you should not have to station fifty billion destroyers along every inch of your coastline.
      Who would do that anyway
      First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

      Gandhi

      Comment


      • #33
        If you are going to be able to "intercept" under their model, that's what you have to do.

        Comment


        • #34
          I guess I know who you think of - but my answer is NO.

          You do not have do defend every inch of you coastline. I simply can't see the reason why to do that. With or without the ZOC. With or without stacked or "simple" combat....

          If an enemy continuesly annoys you - kill it (him/her if we are talking about MP/PBEM games).
          First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

          Gandhi

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by skywalker
            Naval units can't move much faster without completely destroying naval combat. It just makes it impossible to defend a coastline.
            It doesn't if ZOCs are reintroduced.
            Only feebs vote.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by wrylachlan

              Note that in the terrain forum, they're already talking about allowing some types of terrain to take hp from units, like deserts and swamps, so if they did that, the basic code to make this idea happen would already be in the game.
              If that ever is to happen, in which I doubt it will... your idea of the supply unit is great and should be brought along.
              This supply unit could have a flags too, one indicating it's supply range, and another numbers of dependants. Then, such a unit could be upgraded improving these numbers...


              My words are backed with hard coconuts.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Agathon
                It doesn't if ZOCs are reintroduced.
                Yes it does. You want me to station a destroyer every three tiles? Plus, it would be easy enough to destroy one of those and then move in the REST of the fleet to attack, minus a battleship.

                Comment


                • #38
                  railways and zero-cost movement - in my opinion this has to go, it's not realistic at all (the R word ) and makes attack/defense too easy...
                  Lernu la internacian lingvon!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    There's another thread JUST for that, actually and everyone agreed with you

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Actually, supply rules can fix the to-easy-to-conquer problem while leaving RR at no movement cost.

                      /me copies old Civ3 Movement, Supply, Etc. List
                      /me pastes here
                      (\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
                      (='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
                      (")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by skywalker


                        Yes it does. You want me to station a destroyer every three tiles? Plus, it would be easy enough to destroy one of those and then move in the REST of the fleet to attack, minus a battleship.
                        I don't think it makes much of a difference. I'd think that lengthening the LOS of naval units would help, as would a more intelligent map generator that generated more Choke Points.
                        Only feebs vote.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Naval choke points?

                          (yes, I know they exist, but they don't generally have the effect we want)

                          Also, increasing LOS doesn't fix the problem of ships being able to launch an attack on an enemy coastline the same turn they leave port which is what would occur if we significantly increased naval moves.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            A couple of points about Naval Movement/Combat:

                            1)The realism thing isn't really about the range of Naval movement so much as it is about the range of Naval movement vis a vis ground movement. Therefore another possibility would be to simply cut down on the ground movement. The problem there is that you can only cut down ground movement so much before it becomes unfun.

                            2) Movement is relative to the size of the world. So you could potentially keep the ground movement the same and double the naval movement, provided the world itself was double the size.

                            3) When you make the world larger, you're increasing the number of cities which would lead you into a greater micro nightmare.

                            4) However 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.
                            -----
                            So in a convoluted kind of way, I think if you could encourage cities to be placed further away from each other, it would allow you to increase naval movement without some of the associated problems...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I had a thought about a way to make scout/explorer units more useful and desirable in the early game. Have a movement penelty for moving into unexplored squares for regular units.

                              So a civ would have the following mapsquare statuses.

                              Unknown: Completely black. Here be dragons. No clue at all.

                              Unexplored: Squares that have come into the LOS of a unit, but your people have never travelled into the square. You can see something of what's there, but it's not mapped and the first unit to move through there is gonna go slow cause they don't know the best routes, watering holes, etc.

                              Explored: Been there, done that, got the tshirt and the stupid bumper sticker.

                              Of course, Fog of War would also be overlayed on this too. And any territory inside a civ's cultural borders would be automatically explored.

                              So in exploring with a regular unit, movement into an unexplored square would have an extra movement cost. But a scout/explorer unit would be exempt from the penelty. An early horseman with 2 movement might only be able to move at a rate of 1 through unexplored territory. A scout would be able to move at full speed everywhere.

                              In the early game scouts would be more useful. This could even be extended to the seas. If variable movement rates for water were implemented a form of this could be applied to water. Perhaps a transport with a scout onboard would gain the movement benifits of the scout.

                              Another potential aspect of this is in map trading. It could become a lot more useful with the increased informational benifits.

                              I was also thinking that perhaps map resources would only be revealed in explored spaces. Ie. if nobody's ever been there, no one will know that there's gold there, or oil or saltpeter.

                              I'm sure there's a lot more that could be done with the idea than I've outlined here.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by skywalker
                                Naval choke points?

                                (yes, I know they exist, but they don't generally have the effect we want)

                                Also, increasing LOS doesn't fix the problem of ships being able to launch an attack on an enemy coastline the same turn they leave port which is what would occur if we significantly increased naval moves.
                                But this isn't such a big deal by the time that railroads exist. I've said that I believe that all units other than marines should have a 1 turn penalty to their defensive score upon landing. This would enable the defenders to throw off the invaders easily unless they use marines.

                                This is what happened historically. Naval movement was an advantage up to the invention of the railroad.

                                And as for your worries about defending against naval attacks. You are looking at it from the wrong direction. You don't defend your own coastline if you have the superior navy, you park up a stack of ships outside the other guy's ports or at choke points which close off his ports to the greater ocean.

                                This is exactly what Great Britain did to Germany in both World Wars and what Nelson did to the French.
                                Only feebs vote.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X