Movement in Civ

[Nadexander]

Originally posted by The Rook
Movment rates in the early game are fine, but IMHO the later rates should be higher. If a warrior moves at 1, a tank should move at 10, but the way combat is related to movement, this is off balancing. If only combat and movement were separate.

No. Very Untrue.
A modern ground army (tanks, mechinized infantry) dont move any faster in a battle situation than an ancient army of mongolian horseman. In a non battle situation, railroads and airlifts cover modern transportation teqniques in civ just fine.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Nadexander


No. Very Untrue.
A modern ground army (tanks, mechinized infantry) dont move any faster in a battle situation than an ancient army of mongolian horseman. In a non battle situation, railroads and airlifts cover modern transportation teqniques in civ just fine.

Agreed. Plus, in terms of the game, increased movement wouldn't be very tactical or fun.

[yin26]

If only combat and movement were separate.

This is one of the things that makes Heroes of Might and Magic so much fun. Good idea for Civ, too, if you ask me...

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by Anunikoba


Agreed. Plus, in terms of the game, increased movement wouldn't be very tactical or fun.

Silly me. I alway thought there was more tactics involved with a mobile army then with a slow one... Oh well, live and learn.

With more mobility, wouldn't the need for blocking units and control be greater?

I see the movement=attacks argument however.

I find it interesting that you dismiss this so out of hand. Has anyone tried this with the editor? I'm not saying "I don't trust Firaxis." I do. I was just wondering what sort of an impact it would have on the game.

I've always though it was funny how it would take about a 100 years (5 turns x 20 years) to move a phalanx from Rome to Paris.

-Alech

[drake]

As I said, I think even playing 2x movement games thrwos off the balance of the stock civ game.

Adding moves means an almost completely offensive game. What good are defensive units if they arent gievn time to fortufy and prepare for attack?

I've always though it was funny how it would take about a 100 years (5 turns x 20 years) to move a phalanx from Rome to Paris.

Its a game
Surely you cant expect it to be realistic.

By the way, we have these things called roads....they effectively triple the amount of moves a unit has....and in modern times, these things called railroads.....they allow UNLIMITED movements.

If youre so intent, just edit the file for movement and give it a test.

[Spatzimaus]

I wondered the same thing, actually, in regards to the scenarios. If we're zoomed in on some part of the world, why don't the ranges for aircraft, bombardment, etc. scale up? Why is it on a small map a bomber can fly halfway across the world, while on a large scenario map they can't even go halfway across the country?

But, scaling up your map by a factor of X and increasing movement across the board by the same amount has other effects, some of which were mentioned above:

1> Each unit gets more attacks before the other side gets a chance to respond. If you played SMAC, it's like the difference between helicopters and jets; if you only ever used them for one attack they'd be equal, but against "soft" targets the copter was far superior.
This one could be solved by saying that attacks cost X movement points.

2> Zone of Control, spotting range, air intercept range, and bombardment range don't scale up, so it'd be more difficult to establish a defensive perimeter; the other side could always find a place to sneak through.
This one can be partially solved by splitting units into X "subunits"; so, the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment would be split into a few tank batallions, each of which would cover part of your border. It's still not the same, though, especially if you're using Armies (which have to be stacked and so wouldn't benefit). More importantly, an enemy tank that is attempting to defeat a static defensive emplacement could move in, attack, and back out of visual/bombardment range in one turn. Static defense sites (city, fort, colony) would be MUCH more vulnerable; you'd have to defend the borders. This might be a good thing.

3> The area of your city doesn't scale, so you're still limited to whatever resources are within radius. Of course, this would promote colonies, but thanks to the effects mentioned above they'd be harder to defend.

Of course, you could tweak all of this in the editor. If they allow you to define the number of movement points taken by each attack, it might even be workable.

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by drake
As I said, I think even playing 2x movement games thrwos off the balance of the stock civ game.

Adding moves means an almost completely offensive game. What good are defensive units if they arent gievn time to fortufy and prepare for attack?



Its a game
Surely you cant expect it to be realistic.

By the way, we have these things called roads....they effectively triple the amount of moves a unit has....and in modern times, these things called railroads.....they allow UNLIMITED movements.

If youre so intent, just edit the file for movement and give it a test.

Yes it is a game. So what?

Roads and Rail go a long way to help the situation, but...

The reason why I posted here was to see what you ppl think, before I go waste my time with something that is doomed to fail. From the posts here, it looks like a lot of you think it's a waste of time.

I think one solution could be to make defensive units cheaper than offensive units. Also re-adjusting the Attack vs. Defense values would be prudent.

As for Aircraft, I would expect their operational range to increase as well.

When I said increase movement by a factor of 10 across the board was perhaps a bit hasty. The object of this little exercise is to increase movement rates of most units by a significant factor. I have no idea how far one could take things.

The hope was to add more tactics and strategy to the game.

BTW, to fortify takes one turn right?

-Alech