Simple "Supply" System

[Solver]

Simultaneous turns isn't Civ. Whether Civ3 was bad or not, it's not because it had these standard turns and tiles.

[Kataphraktoi]

iwasnt wanting than in cIV givin the lack of cIV on my\your hd i thought these threads were for discussion? excuse me if i was wrong

[Kuciwalker]

Eh, this is a cIV discussion forum. I think it's pretty obvious any thread in it would be about cIV.

[Mace]

Getting back to "supply", I think the issue of early exploration and supply are related. I think supply would be an overcomplication for a stock Civ4 game. (but great for a mod). But I also feel that a "lack of supply" hindering units is kinda sorta already implemented in the Civ series.

Why? Because, lets face it, we don't have Cavalry, Explorers, Fighters, Frigates to do any exploring in the early game. All we've got are 1-move Warriors, or, if we're Expansionist, a 2-move Scout. So our units can't go too far anyway. Yes, they can go pretty far, I concede that. But they key is: it takes them 1,000+ years to do it. Not unreasonable representation of the scope of exploration and expansion in the ancient world, if ya ask me. How long did it take the native americans to go from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego?

I understand the Civ3 complaint (by some) of the too rapid early expansion (REX). Too some extent I agree with this complaint. I hope Civ4 has a fun method of early exploration and limiting of the "reach" of an ancient era civ's units. But not by any kind of "supply" system--more of simply having early units be incapable of this sort of global trekking. But how to limit this...that's the question.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Come on, Provost, you can do better than that. If it sounds 'unfun' to you, tell us WHY??

I want to click on my Warrior and hit 9 and have him move northeast. I don't want to check if I have supply, set up supply routes, move a supply wagon, whatever, all in order to be able to hit 9 and move him northeast without him suddenly losing hitpoints.

You would never have to "check" anything. The supply limit for that unit would show on the map, just like city radius shows on the map. Before you hit "9" to move the Warriors NE you would see clearly whether that move takes you outside the supply limit.

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.

What would you do if you were on an island and didn't have ships yet? Be a man, tough it out.

You can still move units out of the supply range. They risk disbanding or taking damage. Just like Triremes in the open sea.

I personally would not have a supply unit. Building forts or trading posts would be a better solution, especially if Civ4 allows military units build forts (or at least a low level equivalent).

[Kuciwalker]

You can still move units out of the supply range. They risk disbanding or taking damage. Just like Triremes in the open sea.

The difference is, Galleys can still reach a large portion of the ocean, whereas I would be restricted to keeping my warrior within a few tiles of my starting city.

[alms66]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

You can still move units out of the supply range. They risk disbanding or taking damage. Just like Triremes in the open sea.

The difference is, Galleys can still reach a large portion of the ocean, whereas I would be restricted to keeping my warrior within a few tiles of my starting city.

But then you build more cities, forts, etc., all of which would extend the OR. Add to that bonuses from technologies, you'd have an ever increasing OR. You might spend a few turns hitting enter, depending on the situation, but a good balance would be the key to making it playable or boring... obviously I'll strive for the former.

Thus far, I haven't heard anything which changes my mind about the first post being the optimal system for Civ4. Additional complications can be added to it for mods, if needed/desired - as has been discussed here, but the simple system would work great IMO, and it'll most likely be my first mod for Civ4 or at least part of my first mod.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, Kuciwalker, I am just feeling like you are DELIBERATELY ignoring certain facts-such as:

1) A units operational range would be measured from the city's BORDER-not from the city itself.

2) Though a warrior unit might have a chance to disband beyond its operational range, it could probably get as far as 4-5 tiles beyond before that chance became significant.

3) Its not as though you can't build SCOUTS. Warriors should be used to defend and attack, not to explore. In this system, exploratory units might actually become IMPORTANT.

4) Leaving early exploration to scouts will make expansionist civs much better value to play (they are currently useless).

5) Given that distance from your border is important, then this system would encourage players to focus greater effort on building up their starting culture levels-to push out their borders.

6) This system would also make early and middle game diplomacy that much more important-as having an 'Open Borders'/'Alliance'/'RofP' agreement will allow the player to treat another nation's borders as their own for Operational Range purposes.

7) As I said in my previous post, in combat this system will give weaker opponents-on the defensive-greater options for repelling invasions. This works on both a historical and gameplay level.

8) As large scale exploration would be more 'specialised' maps will be much, MUCH more valuable in diplomacy (especially if you could choose to leave resources in or out of such maps !)

So, not only does this idea reduce the Snowballing effect by reducing REXing, it also makes a builder/diplomacy approach to the game MUCH more viable, as well as making previously pointless units MUCH more valuable!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by alms66
But then you build more cities, forts, etc., all of which would extend the OR.

Yes, but that's no fun - to explore I have to build forts and cities outward, so my range of vision isn't really that far beyond what I've settled.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

SCOUTS, KUCIWALKER, OR DIPLOMACY!!!!!! I REALLY DON'T GET WHY YOU INSIST ON IGNORING THE OBVIOUS!!! WARRIORS GOING TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH IN 2000BC is NOT FUN!!! BUILDING SCOUTS TO EXPLORE THE HINTERLAND, THEN SENDING OUT MY BRAVE COLONISTS TO SETTLE THE LAND IN THEIR WAKE-NOW THAT IS FUN!!!!
THE OTHER THING YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE IS THAT NOONE HAS SAID THAT A UNIT IS GOING TO DISBAND THE MOMENT IT GOES BEYOND ITS OPERATIONAL RANGE!!! MAN, I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT AN IDEA WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY REALLY HAVEN'T TRIED TO LISTEN TO THE FACTS!!!!!

Yours (in extreme frustration now),

Aussie_Lurker.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
OK, Kuciwalker, I am just feeling like you are DELIBERATELY ignoring certain facts-such as:

1) A units operational range would be measured from the city's BORDER-not from the city itself.

Does it matter? That doesn't extend the range all that much.

2) Though a warrior unit might have a chance to disband beyond its operational range, it could probably get as far as 4-5 tiles beyond before that chance became significant.

That still means I'm confined to a pretty small area, and I'm not about to risk warriors like that - they're a substatial investment.

3) Its not as though you can't build SCOUTS. Warriors should be used to defend and attack, not to explore. In this system, exploratory units might actually become IMPORTANT.

Scouts could only be built by Expansionist civs in C3. Plus, the warrior is traditionally the early scouting unit

Anyway, even if scouts can do so, this would effectively preclude a lot of very early war.

4) Leaving early exploration to scouts will make expansionist civs much better value to play (they are currently useless).

It would make them so vastly overpowered as to be game-breaking.

5) Given that distance from your border is important, then this system would encourage players to focus greater effort on building up their starting culture levels-to push out their borders.

Your borders wouldn't and shouldn't expand at anywhere near the rate a warrior can explore.

6) This system would also make early and middle game diplomacy that much more important-as having an 'Open Borders'/'Alliance'/'RofP' agreement will allow the player to treat another nation's borders as their own for Operational Range purposes.

You probably won't meet them until your pretty established, since you can't reach them without suiciding some warriors.

7) As I said in my previous post, in combat this system will give weaker opponents-on the defensive-greater options for repelling invasions. This works on both a historical and gameplay level.

If the range extends as long as you say, how would you actually manage to cut off supply to a stack? Even without this I rarely attack with deep strikes.

8) As large scale exploration would be more 'specialised' maps will be much, MUCH more valuable in diplomacy (especially if you could choose to leave resources in or out of such maps !)

Large scale exploration would be gone. You wouldn't be able to see territory until you expanded near it, for practical purposes.

So, not only does this idea reduce the Snowballing effect by reducing REXing, it also makes a builder/diplomacy approach to the game MUCH more viable, as well as making previously pointless units MUCH more valuable!

It doesn't reduce REXing, since you can still pump out settlers. It just reduces fun, early game exploration and completely eliminates very early war.

There's also no plausible reason a party of warriors couldn't live off the land in the timescales involved.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Oh and, Kuciwalker, if you truly think that increased realism is so 'unfun', why don't you go and play 'Command and Control' instead-sounds like this churn-and-burn slugfest would be much more up your alley!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Kuciwalker]

Eh, since I'm arguing to keep civ more similar to the previous versions, why wouldn't I just paly civ?

You're the one arguing that this significant change would improve the game.

I don't think realism is unfun, either, I just don't think it works in civ. I love HoI2, which has a far more detailed system for combat, supply, production, etc. than Civ - but it's a different type of game. Similarly, I don't argue to add FPS aspects to Civ just because I enjoy Halo.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, several key points:

Operational Range vs. Disband Chance:

Ancient Foot and Mounted Units have the lowest Operational Range, but the second smallest chance of disbanding-per square outside their OR (Scouts have the lowest).

Medieval Foot and Mounted Units (and Industrial Mechanized Units) have a higher OR, but slightly higher chance of disbanding.

Industrial Foot Units and Modern Mechanized Units have a higher OR again, but an even GREATER chance of disbanding.

Modern Foot units have the greatest OR, and have a Disband chance the same as their industrial age counterparts.

The terrain you are modifies your disband chance, whilst the terrain you have passed through modifies your Operational range. So, in forests and grasslands, disband chance and operational range increases, wheras it decreases in desert, tundra and jungle terrain-whilst being unaffected by either plains or hills.

All of this information would be condensed into whether or not your unit was White, Yellow or Red. White would be SAFE, Yellow would be MODERATE DANGER and RED would be extreme DANGER.

Hope that clarifies some of my key points.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Mace]

For me I think having to keep track of "one more thing" while I play Civ would be "un-fun".. but then I ain't too smart sometimes...

Supply is an interesting concept worth doing, to be sure, and I would like to see it in a mod, but not stock Civ4. I would like Civ4 to be a sturdy skeleton upon which things can be added, if desired. I'm sure "supply" will be.