battleships: Round the world in 45 years

[Yog-Sothoth]

I to see this as a gameplay issue, not a realism issue. It will become extremely tidious on huge maps to move naval units. And the difference between land units moving on RR and naval units will make the naval units so much less usefull on larger maps.

I simple option where you select a naval unit movement modifier would solve this problem. For example: 1x, 1.5x, 2x etc.

Or you could just change the movement rates yourself of course.

Will there be a possibility to select different rulesets to use, or do you have to manually overwrite the rules everytime you want to play with different ones?

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth
I simple option where you select a naval unit movement modifier would solve this problem. For example: 1x, 1.5x, 2x etc.

This could be really great if they could make that

[dainbramaged13]

naval units moves should be increased.

-words of wisdom from the Mind of Sam

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Blake
...
Then again I disagree with the bonus incured by roads, on flat land, what exactly is the difference between grass and a muddy track? That ones always puzzled me
...

The main advantage of roads, especially on 'clear' terrain is that they lead you to where you want to go. You waste a lot less time trying to go from point A to point B, only to find that there is an impassible ravine in the way.

During the North Africa campaigns in WWII, roads were little better than the surrounding desert, but they were VERY essential.

[Blake]

The main advantage of roads, especially on 'clear' terrain is that they lead you to where you want to go. You waste a lot less time trying to go from point A to point B, only to find that there is an impassible ravine in the way.

Ah, good point.
I guess in Civ2 that was how the explorer worked, he had a good enough knowledge of the land / how to guide by sun/compass etc, to know where he was going without the beneift of a road.

[Cre8engr]

Originally posted by Darkknight
Why dont you mod the game so that the game lasts a year and that every turn is called a day?

Why not stop in at Aussieland on the Round the world trip?

Can have some of your scientist? In January, they start out in the Stone Age and discover Space Flight by December.

[Roland Ehnström]

Phutnote, you have a very good and important point. With the larger maps, the movement rates of many units will feel very slow late in the game (and I am talking game-play wise here, not "historic-accuracy" wise).

It seems to me that Firaxis really need to up the movement rate of some of the modern units, and especially the naval units, so I hope they are listening to this thread... Or maybe they are way ahead of us and have already dealt with this problem?

Peace!
-- Roland

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Roland Ehnström

It seems to me that Firaxis really need to up the movement rate of some of the modern units, and especially the naval units, so I hope they are listening to this thread... Or maybe they are way ahead of us and have already dealt with this problem?

-- Roland

Well, Since they are playing Civ for quite some time now (testing.... yeah right! ) I guess they will have encountered this problem already indeed. As supposed earlier this tread, I also think the movement rate of the air units should depend on the size of the maps. (If their code is set up a bit properly this should be no problem, just a formula instead of a hard value).

[Sava]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
dude... thats one of the most important things that anyone MUST realize about civgames... of COURSE its not realistic.. but how fun would it be if a. you had really small maps or b. you had to play months upon months to finish one game because turns are only a few days long.... its not realisitc, but this is THE prime example for gameplay over realism, and i think it NEEDS to be accepted

This is the prime reason why it needs to be changed. Ships should be used like air units in Civ3. On a mission type basis. I think that you should be able to appropriate scouts (a la Colonization) to automatically scout territory. If you think about it, exploration isn't a very time consuming task (relatively speaking). North America was explored by 1700. That's 200 years, or ten turns in Civ 2 at that time.

I don't mean to offend you daimbramaged, but people like you are preventing the progression of games to the next level by saying, "oh no that would be stupid" when you can't envision what another person's suggestion would be like.

Gameplay is the first priority. But the job of the programmer is to tailor realism so that it's fun to play while retaining realistic qualities. Firaxis was probably too scared to change things because of people saying, "That's lame, I'm not buying the games" when they haven't even played it. They will solely dismiss the game because it was made more realistic, without even stopping to think that, "Hey, maybe it's just as fun if not more fun this way."

In a field where innovation is king, it's a shame that so many conservative gamers scare companies into anti-progress.

Again, this is not a knock on you dainbramaged, I think you are cool and I enjoy your posts. This is just my opinion on the concept of gameplay/realism.

[Adagio]

Just curious, why does some people think that realism only destroys the game? Just because it's more realistic to move a little faster doesn't mean it doesn't improve gameplay. It just seems like when more realism is mentioned everybody shouts out loud that the point is to make the game have a high gameplaye rate instead of fun...agree to that, but why do people not think twice and see, "hey maybe this adds more realism, but it does also add much to the gameplay area"

I just don't get it

[Sava]

Originally posted by ADG
Just curious, why does some people think that realism only destroys the game? Just because it's more realistic to move a little faster doesn't mean it doesn't improve gameplay. It just seems like when more realism is mentioned everybody shouts out loud that the point is to make the game have a high gameplaye rate instead of fun...agree to that, but why do people not think twice and see, "hey maybe this adds more realism, but it does also add much to the gameplay area"

I just don't get it

This is the smartest post in the history of Apolyton!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by ADG
Just curious, why does some people think that realism only destroys the game? Just because it's more realistic to move a little faster doesn't mean it doesn't improve gameplay. It just seems like when more realism is mentioned everybody shouts out loud that the point is to make the game have a high gameplaye rate instead of fun...agree to that, but why do people not think twice and see, "hey maybe this adds more realism, but it does also add much to the gameplay area"

I just don't get it

I don't think the problem lies with people who are interested in better gameplay. If someone comes up with an idea that is both historically more realistic AND improves the gameplay/balance, then I am totally for it.

I would agree that all movement rates could use some tweaking. But that's what the editor is for! I would always alter the movement rates in Civ2 via the rules.txt file when I wanted to play on massive maps. So there is validity here.

I DO have a problem with people who rant about things being unrealistic but what they offer does not enhance gameplay one bit, or in fact would make it worse (see the satire thread and the "America shouldn't be in the game" or whatever thread for some good examples.).

Cheers.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I DO have a problem with people who rant about things being unrealistic but what they offer does not enhance gameplay one bit, or in fact would make it worse (see the satire thread and the "America shouldn't be in the game" or whatever thread for some good examples.).

Cheers.

Totally agree...It's a strange world we're living in

[monkspider]

What I don't get is how some people think increased movement rates would be detrimenal to gameplay

[Jaybe]

Realism "vs." Playability

The trick is to add your realism in an elegant fashion which provides appropriate feedback and does not force the player to keep track of things, or memorize all sorts of mundane minutae, uh, details.

For instance:
Supply status and supply lines of units could be kept track of by the computer, and units that are low on supply (or losing strength because of lack of supply) could be indicated like the unit's strength is shown. But then you would have to explain in the documentation as to how it is calculated, and if you give the wrong amount of info (too little or too much), the player either has the opportunity to not know what the bleep is going on or to try to calculate supply needs for each of his units.