{The List-} Movement, supply, etc.

[ThePlagueRat]

Please guys... Stay civilized! We should try to be creative here.
Where is the list manager? Does not he/her have anything to say to this crappy conversation?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by TheBirdMan
Ohh "dear" Skywalker.

I might have misunderstood the whole idea with this forum.

I had written a long mail, arguing, making things clear, telling you something. - well, now I have deleted it, even before I made it public...

You are an Ironhead - a Cato - A "BonI". You will and do not accept changes to what you think know is the best.

I thought, that this should be the place to come with ideas, suggestions... anything.... for an open discussion.

But you returns with arguments like:
It is not what a CIV-game should be
I like railroad all-over the map
Sid Maier didn't want it what way
CIV2 did it just the right way
CTP sucks
CTP2 sucks even more
...

I do not write, that I am pulling away from this forum just because - I am not - but I will just tell you, that you are more conservative than even the most concrete-communist from the old SovietUnion......

Find where I said any of those things. Especially the stuff about C2 (as I think C3 was a vast improvement ) and about railroads (I wanted an upkeep cost, no infinite movement, and no production bonus). Oh, well I guess I've said the stuff about CtP

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by skywalker

This was added in C3C a 25% attack bonus when attacking amphibiously

Ah. No C3C (or PTW) yet for me

Nice to know that they are at least working on making Marines more useful.

[ThePlagueRat]

Now, I know what to do with supply!

Although I doubt Civ4 would be using Ctp-style stacks, I guess it the supply will have to be handled by tracing a clean route from the stack to a city or outpost, as with any serious strategy games. If it won't use that kind of stack system I don't know what to say. The Civ3 system was too boring.


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 aforehead 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, a but 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.


Units without supply, what do we do with them?
many options... Reduced movement and/or attack efficency, 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.


So you would stack up and defend that damn HQ against air raids and nasty stuff. If you lose it you could end up disorganized, with all units pulling back home. And if you don't have a enough naval power your expetionary corps will have a risky supply source, and that would be realistic too. Of course... they should bring a new map mode, showing the supply situation.

That was my mere suggestion, but here is my guess:
I still think the diplomacy system is the first thing they will enhance in Civ4 and the silly interface of course. Using a simple and very boring combat system.

[ThePlagueRat]

sorry, dp... this is going really slow here

[ThePlagueRat]

argh, dp again

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Not if the defence bonus only occurs for that one turn. Think about it. You unload a stack of marines who hold the beachhead. Any units that land on that beachhead in subsequent turns do not suffer a penalty as long as you have units there. The troops holding the beachhead effectively hold open the supply route.

You never mentioned a defense bonus, just a penalty for non-Marine units.

I did in a previous post.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Now, I know what to do with supply!
Although I doubt Civ4 would be using Ctp-style stacks, I guess it the supply will have to be handled by tracing a clean route from the stack to a city or outpost, as with any serious strategy games. If it won't use that kind of stack system I don't know what to say. The Civ3 system was too boring.

Just on the outset, I am against the use of CTP-type stacked combat which requires the use of a tactical mini-game. I am very much in favor of using a stacked combat which gives a bonus for the use of combined arms, and which implements things like range, flanking bonus, etc. on the Main Map.

But all that is just preparatory to my real point, which is that I really disagree with the use of a complicated Supply scheme. Having a "trace route" will quickly get unweildy and , IMHO be more annoying than fun. Which is not to say that there shouldn't be some sort of supply model, but rather that specifically the "trace route" supply sytem isn't exactly my favorite.

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 lighning 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.

[Fosse]

wrylachlan, I am still undecided about how I like supply, but your proposal is the best one I've seen so far.

The only part i don't like is the supply unit being sometimes defender.... and only because it assumes no stacked combat!!

In a stacked combat system I would like to see x% chance that the supply unit is destroyed in any combat that its stack is engaged in.


But I like your idea because it can let one unit "supply" potentially dozens of units (or stacks) spread out over a reasonable chunk of land. Perhaps limits of number of units each "supply" can handle could be introduced to the system.

It's simple, clean and understandable.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Fosse
wrylachlan, I am still undecided about how I like supply, but your proposal is the best one I've seen so far.

The only part i don't like is the supply unit being sometimes defender.... and only because it assumes no stacked combat!!

In a stacked combat system I would like to see x% chance that the supply unit is destroyed in any combat that its stack is engaged in.

It doesn't assume no stacked combat. I'm in favor of stacked combat. Just not a minigame. My essential view is that combat is BOTH unit combat AND stacked combat. Attacking with a stack simply means that all the units in the stack attack in an intelligently coordinated manner which gives a bonus to combined arms. The possible outcomes are:
1)Stack A totally obliterates Stack B
2)Stack B totally obliterates Stack A
3)Both stacks loose some but not all units

As it pertains to supply units, if you either defend OR attack with a Logistics unit in your stack you stand a good chance of loosing it no matter who wins the battle.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
Just on the outset, I am against the use of CTP-type stacked combat which requires the use of a tactical mini-game...

Just a note of clarification, for those who may not be familiar with the CTP setup - As it stands now, the CTP2 battle resolution does not use a tactical minigame. Combined arms are established as you compose the makeup of your stack, as you are already doing when you assemble the makeup of a civ3 force. (and it appears in c3c that there is already the use of combined bonuses taking effect in a battle with defensive archers - a step in the right direction, I might add...)

In CTP, units have natural tactical abilities such as flanking, frontline and range and automatically default to that primary ability when the command to attack is given. When you engage the enemy, players do not issue tactical commands to their units. The CTP battle screen is merely a visual representation of the battle - similar to what occurs in civ3 when you attack and see the health bars go down on the units. But rather than clicking twelve individual units, and sending each of those units into battle one at a time, you are resolving the fate of up to 12 units with one command.

And that screen can be turned off.

[Fosse]

[QUOTE] [SIZE=1] Originally posted by wrylachlan
wrylachlan, got it. I had thought you liked stacks, but was just a bit confused by the post. All is cleared up (in my mind, anyhow) now.

Just for the record, I abhor the idea of a minigame myself.

I would support the Logistics unit never being in the front line when on the attack. It makes sense when on the defensive, since the defenders may not always know where the enemy will come from. But when you are bringing the battle to them it should be assumed that you stuck your supply trucks well behind the front lines.

I realize that simply keeping your logistics stack out of battle altogether is allowed in your proposal, but I would hate to make it such that bringing two stacks (one to fight, one to sit with the logistics) is always the better way.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by wrylachlan

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.

Ok, that is pretty close to the my thought about such units too.
But I would advocate the use of "supply route" to make that unit effective far away. If it got totally surronded on a far away mission it could provide some supply to it's stack, but not all.
That's why I brought up the different levels of supply... It would add more realism.

I don't think they will ever try to implement it in Civ4, though. Since they usually don't care much about realism.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Fosse
I would support the Logistics unit never being in the front line when on the attack. It makes sense when on the defensive, since the defenders may not always know where the enemy will come from. But when you are bringing the battle to them it should be assumed that you stuck your supply trucks well behind the front lines.

I realize that simply keeping your logistics stack out of battle altogether is allowed in your proposal, but I would hate to make it such that bringing two stacks (one to fight, one to sit with the logistics) is always the better way.

My rationale is as follows:
What behavior do we want to mimic?
We want a defender to go around the main force, get behind enemy lines and try to "cut the supply lines".
If that's the behavior we want to encourage, then we have to put the target (the Logistics unit) behind the front line.
But if the Logistics unit is safer as part of a stack, no one will ever put it anywhere else, so you must make it less safe when part of your main attacking stack.
So if its less safe in the stack you'll put it behind the stack, but then you are vulnerable to bombardment.
Therefore, the Logistics unit's "Supply Range" must be greater than the bombard range of the enemy so that it can sit back a few tiles.

The resulting tactical play is that as a defender, if I can sneak a unit (preferably some sort of special forces unit)
around the main attacking stack, and get behind the line, I can take out the Logistics unit, which cuts down on the efficacy of the main stack.

[ThePlagueRat]

Well, wrylachlan... that works much like the HQ-unit in many boardgames, and it's quite easy and simple, but then it could also just be a leader giving bonuses to units within it's range. Without a real supply system... Anyway it would be an improvement over Civ3.