Idea for future game: Unit attrition

[Optimizer]

Since the original thread about unit attrition hasn't been moved here, I'll start a new one here.

The concept is simple:
A military unit outside the national borders should risk damage each turn. The risk would be increased by hostile terrain, and decreased by technology, certain wonders or special training.

This would add both realism and strategic depth.

[MrBaggins]

Its a good idea, but it penalized island dwellers.

How about requiring an increasing additional support requirement the further from your borders that you get. If you can't pay... then there is unit attrition. I agree that hostile terrain, such as tundra or desert would work well, as would having wonders, techs and special units (the equivalent of special training... or do you mean veteran status?) should affect the situation

MrBaggins

[Trifna]

I guess it should start by simply diminishing the unit's quality. So over its hitpoints there should also be something called "unit's state" or something. This could also include morale, fatigue and so on if we wish.

[Trifna]

I guess it should start by simply diminishing the unit's quality. So over its hitpoints there should also be something called "unit's state" or something. This could also include morale, fatigue and so on if we wish.

[DrSpike]

Civ3 took the step of making it much easier to defend since only the owner could use a road network.......I'm not sure I'd want to take it much further.

Interesting idea though.

[Optimizer]

I think that unit attrition makes more sense than not being allowed to use the enemy's roads.

[DrSpike]

Well ultimately I don't care much about realism or sense, but gameplay balance. It is reasonable to have some defensive advantages, but you can't go too far or you risk making offensive behaviour too risky an option.

I would not mind swapping attrition for the road issue, but I don't like the idea of both.

[Jamski]

How about a simple abstraction of the supply lines, where a unit costs more to maintain the further it is from your borders. This is already being implemented in MoO3, and I see no reason why it wouldn't work in Civ games. No micromanagement, no wandering to the other side of the world for 100 years pillaging things either. Everyone's HAPPY

-Jam

[MrBaggins]

which is exactly what I said above.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well ultimately I don't care much about realism or sense, but gameplay balance. It is reasonable to have some defensive advantages, but you can't go too far or you risk making offensive behaviour too risky an option.

I would not mind swapping attrition for the road issue, but I don't like the idea of both.

Is reality unbalanced? No? Thus if Civ gets closer to something coherent (and immersive), then it is not supposed to become "unbalancable". If it's unbalanced, then there's a coherence problem somewhere and it has to be found.

[DrSpike]

I'm not getting into a reality debate. Civ is based on reality, but ultimately there are huge abstractions........it is a game. Hence I do not favour a move towards reality if gameplay is affected. I don't object certain aspects being made more realistic.......but gameplay must always IMO be the foremost consideration.

[Trifna]

Abstractions is not the same thing as invention. An abstraction is including everything but in a condensed model. The point I wanted to put out is that if something is put realistically and well abstracted it wont have negative impacts on gameplay.

[Urban Ranger]

What is the rationale behind unit attrition?

[Optimizer]

What do you mean with "rationale"?

[DrSpike]

He wants a justification for unit attrition.