Simple "Supply" System

[Kuciwalker]

In fact, I completely disagree with the idea of slowing down exploration. I love moving my warriors around exploring the map. I don't care that it's unrealistic

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker So now you just send a supply unit with your stacks. Whoop-de-do.

i'm with the schmoo

ok i know i proposed the idea of wagons in the first place. but if it's just another unit in the stack, it doesn't change the dynamic, except now you have to spend an extra 30 shields or whatever before you set out. doesn't pass the realism test for me either, i mean who supplies the supplier?

i much prefer the idea of a chain of fortresses. it adds something new. it also seems quite realistic.

combat and exploration then gets a new dimension to it; first, there is the dynamic element of units moving around on the map. second is the static element of building infrastructure to go out and supply those units.

i would suggest that it shouldn't matter if you are on enemy territory or if there are enemy units in the way. if they want to disrupt supply, they should have to storm your forts.
(this approach should also be simpler, i mean who wants to go back every turn and check whether one stray enemy unit happens to have disrupted your line-of sight/supply)

i can certainly sympathise with the " no mm" point of view. but let's face it - an army runs on it's intestines. the fact that there is no implementation of what is a crucial area of military planning makes the whole game less realistic to me.

Originally posted by Solver So, the easiest way to implement supply in Civ4 would also be healing. Say, units don't heal at all outside cities

i don't like this aproach at all.

one thing i find very stodgy about the combat system is the way you have to work your way across enemy territory one city at a time. the current rules for not healing in enemy territory enforce this. every civ invasion ends up looking much the same - start at one end of the territory, and gobble up the empire one city at a time. there's just no room for creativity. that's the one thing i really like about c3c armies, they allow you to try slightly different approaches.

what if i turn your suggestion on it's head?

say units can heal inside enemy territory if they return to a 'supply' fortress?

I love moving my warriors around exploring the map. I don't care that it's unrealistic

schmoo too

couldn't count the number of games that get played until i discover the map, then abandoned

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I am REALLY sad to hear that Kuciwalker . I always felt that the ability to send any unit to almost ANY part of the landmass you are on is one of the SINGLE biggest contributors to REXing as a successful strategy. REXing is also a MASSIVE contributor to what I call the 'Snowball Effect' and the 'Modern Age malaise', where the final victor is all but decided by the end of the Industrial Age (at the latest), thus making the modern age not much more than 'going through the motions'.
If units had a limited 'range of operation', then not only would parts of the map remain unknown for longer, it would also make units like scouts, explorers and paratroopers much more important (as they would have larger OR's). Additionally, the less explored map would allow for a more accurate 'Exploration/Colonization Age' around the Middle or Late Middle Ages. This will, in turn, help to reduce the incidence of 'Modern Age Malaise', especially if combined with a good system of secession.
Lastly, having supply lines for units will give weaker opponents an alternative to frontal assaults against large stacks of units. Instead, such a player could try and outflank an opponent and trying to capture/destroy one of the enemy's supply points.
As for it requiring micromanagment, it should actually be quite easy to indicate if a unit is in or out of supply. If the circle around a unit is white-then it is in supply, if its yellow, then it is Marginally out of supply, and if its red, then it means it is DANGEROUSLY out of supply. Very simple really. I just feel this will add sooo very much to every aspect of the game.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Solver]

The snowball effect can also hopefully be countered by other stuff, such as a good AI and nice espionage options, and clever AI-to-AI diplomacy. So that even if you're big and powerful, two countries will form an alliance against you that may beat you.

[Kataphraktoi]

simply having all the ai's attack you at once is very lame,and hasnt worked in civ3\2.

As for it requiring micromanagment, it should actually be quite easy to indicate if a unit is in or out of supply. If the circle around a unit is white-then it is in supply, if its yellow, then it is Marginally out of supply, and if its red, then it means it is DANGEROUSLY out of supply. Very simple really. I just feel this will add sooo very much to every aspect of the game.

the close combat series had something like this. low levels of sypply meant less ammo and fuel. maybe combat strength could be affected(just like when you attack with 1\3 or 2\3 move points)

[Solver]

Not AIs attacking you at once, but cooperating against you if needed. So if there are 6 civs left, and 2 of them hate you, they should form an alliance. I want realistic diplomacy - also, smaller civs should seek to sign protection pacts with bigger civs so that they would be protected.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lebensraum
i much prefer the idea of a chain of fortresses. it adds something new. it also seems quite realistic.

combat and exploration then gets a new dimension to it; first, there is the dynamic element of units moving around on the map. second is the static element of building infrastructure to go out and supply those units.

That makes ancient invasions much more difficult, as well as removing some of the "lets wander units around the map" ancient age fun. Given the timescales involved, realism kinda flies out the window anyway.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Well, I am REALLY sad to hear that Kuciwalker . I always felt that the ability to send any unit to almost ANY part of the landmass you are on is one of the SINGLE biggest contributors to REXing as a successful strategy. REXing is also a MASSIVE contributor to what I call the 'Snowball Effect' and the 'Modern Age malaise', where the final victor is all but decided by the end of the Industrial Age (at the latest), thus making the modern age not much more than 'going through the motions'.
If units had a limited 'range of operation', then not only would parts of the map remain unknown for longer, it would also make units like scouts, explorers and paratroopers much more important (as they would have larger OR's). Additionally, the less explored map would allow for a more accurate 'Exploration/Colonization Age' around the Middle or Late Middle Ages. This will, in turn, help to reduce the incidence of 'Modern Age Malaise', especially if combined with a good system of secession.

Then what am I supposed to do in the early game? Just keep hitting "enter" waiting for my units to build, maybe moving my worker? That's one of the few "things to do" at the beginning - wander around the map.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker Complex combat is bad.

I agree, as my post implied

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And the religion system looks very simple - in a good way.

Well, as I said in my post you were quoting, I cannot speak from experience, as I have not played Civ4. It was mere comment based on very limited knowledge. And to me, the religion thing looks complicated. I hope its not.

[Mace]

Re: Slowing-down exploration

Originally posted by Xorbon
If you want to slow down exploration because you think it's currently too fast, I've got an idea that doesn't involve supply. How about, when a unit moves through unexplored territory only the tile it moves into becomes revealed. In order to expose the surrounding adjacent tiles, you have to force the unit to rest for one complete turn.

? ? &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Hmm in my opin that would be very very tedious

[GeoModder]

It would. Besides, if a 'unit' can't move far in the '10 years' a turn takes in the beginning of the game, then I don't know it anymore.

[Kataphraktoi]

bigger maps and more distance between citys would be good. but imo the whole concept of civ should be tossed out the window and started over.the game as civ3 was,is partly obsolete.

something like RTW's campaign map,striked me as being a good idea.forget tiles maybe?

and use simultanious turns,but make it so unit orders arnt carried out till 'end turn' is hit...

[Solver]

bigger maps and more distance between citys would be good. but imo the whole concept of civ should be tossed out the window and started over.the game as civ3 was,is partly obsolete.

something like RTW's campaign map,striked me as being a good idea.forget tiles maybe?

and use simultanious turns,but make it so unit orders arnt carried out till 'end turn' is hit...

That's what I fear the most, that they will someday radically change the game. It doesn't need to be done. Civ, with the concept as it is, is the best strategy game ever known. They should work on that concept and keep improving it, but abolishing turns, tiles, cities or anything like that would be a horrible idea.

[Kataphraktoi]

my idea was simultanious turns,and then all orders carried out at once. IIRC if u clicked fast enough in civ3 mp with simultanoius you could keep guys out of danger by moving them

that's what I fear the most, that they will someday radically change the game.

and here i am,fearing a second craptastic-civ3 game unless they drastikly changed it from civ3,i cant see how it would be a success :/

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
bigger maps and more distance between citys would be good. but imo the whole concept of civ should be tossed out the window and started over.the game as civ3 was,is partly obsolete.

something like RTW's campaign map,striked me as being a good idea.forget tiles maybe?

and use simultanious turns,but make it so unit orders arnt carried out till 'end turn' is hit...

go play a Paradox game, then. We are talking about Civ. If you think it's obsolete, why are you posting here?

It's like complaining about Pong, saying it should include 4x elements...