battleships: Round the world in 45 years

[Adagio]

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

By increasing movement in large maps it makes it faster to get to the enemies. See it this way: You play on a large map with the same movement rate, this means it will take forever to reach the enemies, which means you wont see most of the enemies before they have reached modern times, this means you play as a lonely country in the middle of nowhere through most part of the game.

I don't know about you, but playing a civ game alone most part of the game kinda kicks down the gameplay (try for instance to play a arcade game, where the only enemy in the game is the bad boss at the end of the level)

This is atleast how I see the problem

[monkspider]

I have agreed with you all along actually ADG, I suppose "Detrimental" isn't a commonly used English word in Denmark.

[monkspider]

...which is why I always played on small maps in Civ 2, and will most likely play 16 civs on a normal sized map in Civ 3.

[monkspider]

[Sabre2th]

I refuse to get caught up in this argument again, but I'm against any drastic changes to the system. Small increases are fine, but the civ2 movement rates weren't terrible and made for a fun game. In this case, with realism.

[Pembleton]

Why do you assume that the different map sizes should be approximations of the dimensions of earth? How can a small map and large map do that at the same time?

What if the map was representative of a planet like Jupiter? It would take much longer to go around the globe. Of course it wouldn't take 45 years but I think comparing the map to earth is a bad analogy to make.

Why does the largest map, by default represent earth?

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Pembleton

Why does the largest map, by default represent earth?

Who said it did? If you recall, they included 3 different world maps with civ2 and gave you the option to make much larger maps. I haven't seen anything that suggests Earth is the largest planet

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
Who said it did? If you recall, they included 3 different world maps with civ2 and gave you the option to make much larger maps. I haven't seen anything that suggests Earth is the largest planet

It's being implied. I can't be bothered to explain further. I'm all forummed out today.

Why else would the title suggest "round the world in 45 years?"

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Pembleton


It's being implied. I can't be bothered to explain further. I'm all forummed out today.

If you can't be bothered to clarify, I can't be bothered to answer.

Why else would the title suggest "round the world in 45 years?"

People make assumptions based on nothing (or very little). Larger worlds don't necessarily mean longer travel time. They could just mean finer detail.

OTOH, It could just mean it's a larger world with the same detail level. It depends on how each person interprets the information.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Sabre2th

OTOH, It could just mean it's a larger world with the same detail level. It depends on how each person interprets the information.

Not sure why you started an argument over such a nit when we agree on the basic issue: that they shouldn't change the movement of ships, although a small increase wouldn't be such a big deal. I've always been a proponent of gameplay over realism.

[ToD.MB]

Map size

The important thing, which we're perhaps digressing from here, is that a huge map, for all its possible bad points, surely has more good points - for example:

a map with a Britain that can hold 10-15 cities will allow a proper British-playing experience, instead of having 1-5 crowded cities and no world influence. A huge map will allow (hopefully 16 civs) to each have a decent chance to make a go of it, with huge diplomatic and military results - I think that each civ is likely to survive the initial ancient period and develop at least a country-sized empire by AD1.

Isn't this worth a few (admittedly) unrealistic elements to the game?

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Pembleton

Not sure why you started an argument over such a nit when we agree on the basic issue

It takes two to argue. I guess I should have paid more attention to my favorite quote:

Never argue with a fool, people may not know the difference

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Sabre2th

It takes two to argue. I guess I should have paid more attention to my favorite quote:

Touchy, aren't we? It also happens to be my favorite quote (posted here by a forumer, not of all time) . And you shouldn't judge people so quickly. Just because you disagree on one thing doesn't automatically mean they are a fool.

And like I said, we agree on the basic issue. So I guess fools aren't always wrong. Unless of course, we are both fools.

[Cyclotron]

The reasons I do not support the idea of increased movement are these:

1) The game is more tactically sound with a few moves here, a few moves there, etc. If you have 20 moves then 20 moves or something like that, you end up actually sacrificing the realism you want because ships might never even meet, let alone have to maneuver.

2) Blockades become useless. If a transport can cross an ocean in 2 or 3 turns, it's going to be extremely hard for anyone to stop that transport. In the interest of increased strategic latitude, blockades should be kept a viable part of the game.

3) A single powerful unit, having a lot of movement, can easily wreak havoc on enemy forces just because it happens to go first. Let's not forget that movement is also the amount of attacks a unit gets. It boggles the mind to think of how many destroyers a "movement augmented" battleship would have. One could clear out any city unlucky enough to be without a coastal fortress in one turn.

And that's my argument. Realism is fine if it doesn't detract from gameplay, but I believe this particular issue does.

[Phutnote]

wow, excellent points Cyclotron7

I agree with your first point. 20 movement points is too many, even on the huge map. To make the battleship move across such a map in 20 to 25 turns, it would need a move rate of something like 7 or 8. I think that's hittin the upper end of whats feasible for that unit, with destroyers and such moving a few more than that.

Point 2: with a move rate of 20, blockades would be much more difficult. But a movement increase on the super big maps that results in a proportionate movement change would result in the battleship arriving in the same number of turns as on a regular sized world.

point 3: A good point. An infinite number of attacks would make the battleship too powerful, which is why I suggested its attack number be half its movement number. That way it can get to a battle faster, but not have it's military capability way out of proportion.

On the other hand, I have found battleships generally ineffective against any city with a coastal fortress and modern fortified defenders. The point value of the battleship compared to the units it can kill before being knocked out isn't very high in the games I play.

On diety, the AI puts up an extremely vigorous defense to naval invasions, using hundreds of cruise missiles to batter ships down. Mostly I use battleships to draw fire and stack them with AEGIS cruisers. But the battleships are too slow on large maps in Civ II to be really worth the effort. Huge maps in civ iii will be a lot bigger than the largest in Civ II, which will make the battleship useful for little more than coastal defense.

And thanks, I appreciate your addressing the points I raised with a lucid argument.

Phutnote