c177# WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF MY SHOE?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Chevin,

I for one don't misunderstand you. Like you I have been quite bloodthirsty when playing Civ II but, then again, the AI often doesn't let you do it any other way. Therein lies part of the problem, the ease with which the AI and other players can launch a war against you (often if you're doing TOO well). This is why I want to see a model for conflict which, though not making war too difficult, should at least give people pause (i.e. make them consider all options before going to war!):
1) a better diplomacy system that allows stronger alliances with AI Civ's etc.
2) Better modelling of a populations reactions to protracted or costly wars
3) A system of unit supply and unit attrition that force players and AI's to construct and defend supply structures in enemy territory in order to extend your range of activity.

I think that, if all of these things are included then we warmongers can still have a blood and carnage but, like any real leader, will have to balance this against our long term strategic interests.

The_Aussie_Lurker.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Chevin
I know this feature is going to be in the game so I yield my ideas and accept that I wont be buying this game after all.

What feature?

The feature where people must be happy to fight a war? The feature where we have to gage their opinions much more?

I for one don't believe it is going to be in the game. Sure diplomacy and culture is going to be a bigger part of the game. But Sid said it himself, warmogering quickly became the biggest part of the civ series and with that in mind they are tweaking that aspect of the game. It does not appear to me atleast that it is going to become that much harder to wage war, while I may be wrong, I don't think its going to happen.

Just because someone wrote a column saying he wished it was more realistic and the rest of us feel the same way, means that:

a) Firaxis is going to implement it.
b) It is even possible to implement
c) This opinion was stated early enough for a change to the game

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually tniem, I do remember seeing an interview with Firaxis concerning the Diplomacy model for CivIII. They issued a warning about forming Mutual Defense Pacts saying something along the lines of ..."if that Civ is later attacked, and you're not mobilised for war, then your people could get very unhappy". I can't remember the details, but I can see what Chevin might be referring to. It is all very vague, and I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays in the game.
For my part I do hope that CivIII has population models which give the feel of ruling over REAL people (both in War and Peace) and not mere abstractions (ie. population points who occasionally get upset until you build a colluseum et al), but again I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Chevin
Now many of you have probably written me off as a warmongering bloodthirsty moron who can't tie his shoes.

(snipped by me - Adm.)

I don't want you all to think I am just trying to flame, I just wanted to offer my opinion and point out that not all of us are interested in managing our people to such detail. And maybe firaxis will make the interface so easy that the extra features will be easy to comprehend at a glance and manage.

No, I never think of someone here at Apolyton as a moron, as long he/she act within netiquette, as I think you do, politely writing your opinion.
Warmongering in Civ is OK, of course: not my way of playing it, but as correct as any other strategy AFAIK.

I prefer to play pure wargame when I want to wage great detailed battles, Civ (or SMAC) when I want to play as a great leader, but it's only a matter of personal preference.

You aren't flaming anyone, IMO. Don't worry!

[Recurve]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
3) A system of unit supply and unit attrition that force players and AI's to construct and defend supply structures in enemy territory in order to extend your range of activity.
The_Aussie_Lurker.

I love the idea of logistics, but how could you introduce such a system without harming playability? You've got me thinking (a painful experience).

Your Propaganda advance would also be a nice touch - to take it one step further, this advance could activate a Menu (nothing too complicated) so you could tweak the nature of the message going out (like Stalin did). Or you could leave it to the appropriate AI Adviser.

If you've just lost a few thousand men in battle you could intensify the message to help prevent unrest, but take the Propaganda too far and your people will cease to believe you (mass unrest at home and poor morale on the battlefield).

But I believe it should be available from around 1 AD, not the 19th century (Octavian launched a very successful propaganda campaign against Anthony/Cleopatra).

[Recurve]

Originally posted by Chevin
Larger maps
More civs per game
more military units to use
a longer tech tree
more resources
more things to build in cities

Too right Chevin. Let's have more of all of the above (I notice you listed map size first).

For your sake I hope there will be an option that curtails the social aspect, but I doubt it very much. I reckon you'll adapt to whatever Civ3 throws at you and find an effective way of keeping the people down (consider it a challange).

If you choose an icon for your name, make it a leather boot!

[Zealot]

I think that the Demographics should help us to see if we have a balanced civ. Civ 2's demographics were pretty incorrect and useless.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Recurve,

Thanks for the feedback. I just thought I'd explain my views on unit supply and attrition to you, so you can see that they need not effect playability. If you have any further questions after this, I'd be happy to answer them.

Basically, units would have a Range stat. This would be the number of hexes they can go into enemy/unknown territory (the range would be measured from your nearest border/city). If you exceed this range, then your unit begins to Immediately (ie. that turn) lose HP's (probably based on a formula like: # of hexes*turn length(years)*maintainance index(eg tanks require more maintainance than foot-soldiers)). Obviously HP loss would also effect Firepower, Morale, Attack strength etc. Civilian and Spec Ops units would have the highest range, and mechanized units would have the shortest, and range would be modified by terrain in the same way as movement.
"How do you increase a units range so you can continue your invasion?" I hear you ask: there a 2 ways: 1) Capture and subdue an enemy city with at least 1 barracks and 1 granary or 2) Build a fortress in enemy territory and connect it to a friendly city by a road/RR (this fortress becomes a de-facto supply depot). Obviously the deeper you penetrate into enemy territory, the longer (and more vulnerable) your supply lines become. This makes capturing cities close to your border vital, even if they have no greater strategic significance because, if a supply fortress or its connecting road/RR are destroyed or captured, then your units will start to suffer the range penalty mentioned above (which is what happened to Napolean on his trek to Moscow!).
Anyway, thats my idea in a nutshell, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Recurve]

Hi Aussie_Lurker

Yeah, sounds like a very workable model indeed. It wouldn’t interrupt the gameplay in any way, and would be simple to introduce.

You’d be forced to secure your lines of communication, particularly in a large territory (I also refer to Moscow). This would make units like Partisans far more potent (blow away a few bridges and your units will suffer big time). With the shoe on the other foot, you could blow your own bridges, remove sections or road (wait there)?!? Coming to think of it, this system wouldn’t work if you could take away whole sections of road instantly, as is the case now. But of course you could fix that by making pillaging take 2-3-4 turns (as long as it took to build the improvement in the first place maybe). But bridges could be blown instantly!

In any case, the system you propose is workable and would enhance gameplay tremendously. I only hope someone from Firaxis has stumbled on the same idea!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Recurve,
Actually, the model is still workable if the following changes were made to the movement system:

1) Give all units MORE MP's, especially at the beginning of the game (This won't unbalance the game, as your units will be limited by their range).

2) Make building and pillaging cost MP's instead of taking multiple turns (eg. a mine might cost 3 MP's to build, instead of 3 turns).Each additional unit helping out will reduce the MP cost (but never below 1 MP).

3) Split the turn up into 3 phases: Movement, action, finish movement. Basically everyone moves. Then combat and other actions are performed and lastly, any units with MP's remaining can finish moving.

Anyway, Again I'd be interested to hear what you think of this.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[Grumbold]

I don't want to make a huge post so i shall keep to only one point

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
1) The reason that bushels has been suggested for modelling unit cost is as follows:
"x bushels=1population point and 1 pop. point=x people, then 1 bushel=x people"

One of the key problems is that the number of people supported by a bushel changes dramatically as the game progresses. A '1 bushel' unit would represent vast quantities of people in later eras. If the game used actual population numbers rather than 'heads' and the scale remained linear then it would be much easier to devise as good support and morale model.

[Recurve]

Hi Aussie_Lurker

I will have to engage my brain on this one.

[Mech Assassin]

I really think, there should be a difference between offensive and defensive war. I mean, who would not be willing to defend their country (from Nazi Germany in WW2 for example).

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Recurve
Hi Aussie_Lurker

I will have to engage my brain on this one.

Gee Recurve, your brain really need a vacation! It's been seven days, and you still didn't post your oppinion!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Again,

Grumbold says that the problem with using bushels to model the cost of military units is that each bushel supports a different number of people in different eras.
I don't see this as being a problem, as you'd simply have units in modern eras cost less (in bushels), than a similarly sized ancient/medieval unit-problem solved!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker