Supply Rules - can you treat Civ2 like a wargame?

[Exile]

I could put together a Blenheim scen without too much trouble.

Fortress graphic made to look like one of the "medieval" city graphix to represent the little towns, like Blenheim, on the battlefield.

Simple map.

HQ=settler w/no movement, 1 for each side. No actual cities needed. No tech. No gold. No production. Use the events to stop communication.

It can be done squadron/battalion = 1 civ2 unit. I have the battle map w/the numbers.

Placement wouldn't be too difficult, once I had the map.

And then the Militarians around here could go to work on uniforms etc. They'd have a field day.

The only bad thing would be the time consumed cutting all the game links to techs, etc.

[techumseh]

I think you should go for it. I've thought about doing a scenario about the 3-day Battle of Leipzig (1813) for years, but it would only work as a non-AI wargame. I'll see how yours turns out.

[Exile]

Thanks, Brian, I needed that. Laughed so hard my chest hurt.

Is this a version of "good luck with that?"

Wait till I get done with this latest monstrosity. Got to do the events, which should be fun for a change, then run it to see if the numbers work.

The Blenheim thing should take a hour or two.

Anyone wanna volunteer a map? Just the area of the battlefield, there around Blenheim.

[techumseh]

I'm now working on the basis that Malaya-Burma will be several 2-person scenarios in one. I will put Cyrion and McMonkey down as the first 2-person playtest team!

Here's how I propose to handle supply: At the start of your turn, activate only those units adjacent to a supply unit which you wish to use. Put all others to sleep. Disband the supply unit. Move and attack with the units still "awake". Then waken and move all other "unsupplied" units 1/2 their MF (rounded up), without any attacks allowed. The turn is then over.

Each side has 2 types of supply unit. The Brits have truck supply and mules, which are air transportable and have off-road movement ability. The Japanese have trucks and elephants, which have off-road movement. All are supplied only by events, which allows historical limitations on offensive ability. Supply units can also be captured by bribing with special units.

These rules, I hope, will encourage the Japanese tactics of encirclement, countered from 1944 on by British air supply tactics.

A 3rd party judge (me) is required. Send your save game to your opponent and the judge, who will verify the legality of the move/turn. What do you think?

[McMonkey]

@Techumseh

I am 100% up for play-testing and hopefully helping you to perfect this new concept. I will be happy to play as either side. This is a very exciting new idea and I hope it works out as it will definitely give a new level of realism to the game and make the strategic planning of a campaign much more interesting!

@Exile

A Blenheim battle game would be brilliant. I have been getting into the War of the Spanish Succession over the past year so this would be great to play.

[Cyrion]

I would be glad to play-test it (and thrash McMonkey while doing it )

Sadly, as I am quite busy in RL, I have to put the following restrictions:
1) that each turn is much shorter than a Red Front one
2) that I am not expected to play a turn every day (but yes, I intend to play more than once a week )

[Cifer Almasy]

I like your idea of supply units, Tecumseh!

I think the only way of balancing the civ2-limitations out, is to work with house rules and cheat modus. This works - for sure - only in PBEM games, which are imho anyway lots more fun and challenging.

Perhaps similar to your idea I thought of some improving of Air Battle and strategic bombing: A long time people have been thinking about Air-Spys or diplomats to simulate these things, but I think it is a lot easier. For my own project, I wish to embed "Bombing orders" as units. This would work in the following way:
A light Bomber, e.g., with a 0 attack value and some little defense would fly next to an enemys city. There it would have to wait one turn. If not shot down (you could defend your bomber with a fighter for sure), you go to cheat menue and create a unit "Bomb" which would have an nice firepower and some medium attack. This Bomb would be destroyed after attacking. You would use the Bomb to vulnerate enemys defenders at strongpoints. Then your Bomber - if unharmed - could fly back.
Another option would be to do strategical bombing, creating a diplomat "Bomb order" which could try to destroy a factory or even some tank defenses or stuff. If succesful, your ways of strategical warfare would increase heavily. Just imagine preparing a large tank offensive with strategical bombing out of tank defenses.

For sure you could then increase the allowment of Bombs to be thrown. Like a Medium Bomber could bomb twice, a Heavy Bomber three times, just for example. All this would have to be tweaked for sure.

Aichi and Stuka would perhaps be allowed to throw a Bomb before waiting one turn, but their movement would be lower. So every unit would have advantages and disadvantages.

Also I thought about using some major ressources as requirements for units, like in Civ3. If the engine doesn't supplie these techniques, just use house rules: You would need 1 oil and 1 iron supply to build medium tanks for example. That way strategical ressources would be REALLY important in wartimes and not like in most games yet being Baku with a nice high value trade terrain "oil" which primary is useful to build nice trade goods.

Also this way you could make alliances with neutrals useful (as McMonkey introduced in his Rise of dictators). For example, Nazi-germany could have an alliance with Romania, which delivers oil, but wouldn't have to attack Bucarest to get a grip on it.

Just some ideas, which have to be developed more, but I guess this is the way to improve Civ2 to a higher level, as we yet can see, McMonkey did with his complex house rules at Rise of Dictators. Also nobody who plays PBEMs nowadays isn't used to use the cheat menue, it is common use today.

[McMonkey]

I really like the idea about special resources being required to produce units. That would definitely add another level to strategic planning. I have a game called "Hearts of Iron 2" in which you trade resources (EG. Copper for Oil) in order to balance your economy and build units. Trade is very important in most multiplayer games, but only for science and cash to rush build with. Adding supplies for operations and strategic resources would certainly push CivII into new and interesting territory. I may try to shoehorn both ideas into the next version of RotD along with summer/winter seasons.

Strategic bombing is another story. I think the first person who can get this to work effectively will deserve some kind of CivII medal. I have forgotten now if air units can be spies. If they can then strategic bombers could be used to destroy factories and economic improvements. I seem to remember we explored this and it was not possible though The problem with Heavy Bombers is that you have to make them really powerful to overcome defending SAM/Fighters in cities but this makes them far too strong when used anywhere else. In reality Heavy Bombers proved disapointing when used to support ground units during WWII. Notable examples would be Cassino where their bombardment of the Monestary merely created a rubble fortress for the German defenders, and Operation Cobra where the carpet bombing hit waiting US troops and caused a lot of chaos and confusion for their own troops. I don't recall the Allies trying this tactic again during the war!

Your Bomber/bomb idea is interesting but sounds a little bit complicated (Opening up the Cheat menu to add units does take time). Worth developing though. Its a pity air units cannot carry along range 1 bombs like they were flying aircraft carriers/transport ships. Troop carrying Glider units (parachute/transports) work well but of course they can go one way only. They could be used as airlift units between cities in scenarios with no Airbases/Barracks/Port Facilities, but I guess that is not what we are discussing.

Ramble over

[Cifer Almasy]

Heh.. I guess having it a bit complicated and time-consuming is the price which has to be paid. But on the other hand opening the game in Single Player mode at the beginning of the turn and pressing ctrl+shift+f1 for creating a unit is done quickly if you're used to it. After having placed your bombs at the beginning of the turn, you could easily go back to .net or .hot and continue playing normally. I guess it's not that much of extra-work.

One could also leave out the attacking "Bomb" unit and just use the "diplomat" for unprecise bombers and the "spy" for more improved ones, as you mentioned that Bombers in real WW2 were not useful against ground troops.

But perhaps Fighters/Dive Bombers could get a little bomb. I am not sure yet, but much people think it sucks, that Heavy Bombers are either so strong they destroy everything defending easily or get crushed easily by AA-Batteries like in Bk36. This way they would receive their real role the first time.

So perhaps soon you will have to hand me over this shiny medal!

My experience is that nowaydays CivII PBEM players are willing to accept massive house rules and use of the cheating menue due to improved game fun and realism. Who plays Civ2 these days most likely knows how to handle all these things, as we are all veterans.

[McMonkey]

True, most of the multiplayer crowd are willing to use the cheat mode to swap units and money as well as fixing problems. I just think that when it comes to moving/fighting with units it is better to keep things simple. I can't see what real improvement these bomber/bomb combos would be over just very strong Heavy Bombers. If the bombs are that powerful then you will have the same problem of a super unit that will clear a path for your ground units to follow. If they are not that powerful then players wont bother producing them.

If air units could carry missiles or other units then I think the idea would work, but I think the cheat mode method is just too fiddly to catch on.

Techumseh's supply convoy idea could work as the units are generated via events and all the player needs to do is disband them then move the supplied unit. This method involves some effort (mainly planning ahead and paying attention) but I think players would get used to it.

This is just my opinion, don't let me put you off experimenting with your ideas. I just know that I don't like using the cheat menu more than is absolutely necessary. Its a pity you can't just open the cheat menu in a hotseat game as you can in a save game. I guess they disabled it to stop people from (really) cheating, but if you want to do that then there is precious little to stop you other than Jiminy Cricket on your shoulder!

[Cifer Almasy]

True, most of the multiplayer crowd are willing to use the cheat mode to swap units and money as well as fixing problems. I just think that when it comes to moving/fighting with units it is better to keep things simple.

For sure it's more comfortable to keep it simple and it still has its nice sides to use Bombers as they have always been used. This is classic and has the old fashioned civ2 style. It's not like I wouldn't have fun with these games. But I wish to improve and bring in some of my own ideas.

I can't see what real improvement these bomber/bomb combos would be over just very strong Heavy Bombers. If the bombs are that powerful then you will have the same problem of a super unit that will clear a path for your ground units to follow. If they are not that powerful then players wont bother producing them.

In this case I have to disagree: First of all the main advantage would be the strategic bombing unit (diplomat/spy) which would give completely new possibilities (destroying factorys, defenses etc).
I see your point about having a super-unit again, imaginening a huge stack of bombers throwing bombs until the defender was destroyed. Instead of a bomb unit (missile) one could use the diplomat too, to use the (how is it called?) "scratch the enemys unit" order. I think this way the defender would never completely be ripped off. In fact Civ2 diplomats are much like Civ3 and Civ4 bombing options.
But still there would be a difference in stragegies: Do I wish to build so much Bombers (which are expensive) to clear a path in a very slow way or do I wish to hazard into enemy lines with a huge rush of ground units but with the risk of eventually big losses? I can't foresee all possibilities, but don't forget, that a Bomber wouldn't be able to conquer or defend a city (as natural for sure), also it wouldn't be destroyed during an attack of a Garrison, but by a scrambling Fighter. This fact alone makes all things more realistic. You would always need masses of ground units to finally attack, defend and stuff. You would also need fighters to shut Bombers down, BEFORE they attack, which is also more realistic.

Also I forgot to mention the idea of a pillaging order. I once spoke about that with Dario and Battosai. So I think your refutation brings me to some conclusion, while thinking about it: Bombers should get no Bomb (missile) unit, but only the diplomats/spys/ground pillage possibilty! :-/

Dive Bombers and Fighters could perhaps attack the old way - taking the risk to dive and having a "you or me" situation. Not sure about that.

If air units could carry missiles or other units then I think the idea would work, but I think the cheat mode method is just too fiddly to catch on.

Now you just contradict to your former arguments about the combo being another super-unit. At least it seems it's just the cheat menue that wouldn't be comfortable with you, as having an air unit carrying another missile is at least the same as cheating a missile in matters of strength. No offense, dude, just mentioning!

Techumseh's supply convoy idea could work as the units are generated via events and all the player needs to do is disband them then move the supplied unit. This method involves some effort (mainly planning ahead and paying attention) but I think players would get used to it.

Yes I like the idea too. But letting them pop up per event brings some problem: Who says, which nation gets how much? And even if you decide that for beginning status quo, the events would have to be changed for every single change in the game, e.g. Germany would have a bigger pool of supplys if France and Poland are occupied...

This is just my opinion, don't let me put you off experimenting with your ideas. I just know that I don't like using the cheat menu more than is absolutely necessary. Its a pity you can't just open the cheat menu in a hotseat game as you can in a save game. I guess they disabled it to stop people from (really) cheating, but if you want to do that then there is precious little to stop you other than Jiminy Cricket on your shoulder!

No sweat, I appreciate your comments. You're always welcome, thanks for your thoughts. But don't be afraid, I will keep it up!
About the cheat menue, I think it would be comfortable enough to reduce unit placing at the beginning of a turn, so that you wouldn't have to switch around several times playing the save.

[Cifer Almasy]

sorry for the double post, server was laggy last night ..

[McMonkey]

I see, so the bombs would be diplomats! That makes more sense to me now. I will be very interested in trying out your ideas when they are ready, then I can steal them for my own scenarios

[techumseh]

Yes I like the idea too. But letting them pop up per event brings some problem: Who says, which nation gets how much? And even if you decide that for beginning status quo, the events would have to be changed for every single change in the game, e.g. Germany would have a bigger pool of supplys if France and Poland are occupied...

The idea may not apply to every scenario; allowing supply unit builds iin cities is certainly an option. However, events may provide a much better control on the supply of supply, as it were. With ToT events, including flags, it is fairly easy to provide the appropriate number of supply units, in the right locations for all potential situations.