Problems with new world exploration

[Michael Dnes]

A serious problem with realism in the civ series is how, to explore, you just move a unit towards the black. This is woefully inaccurate.

Columbus completed four voyages over 12 years, but he was lucky. Cabot, the 'discoverer' of continental America made one successful voyage. Despite having an able crew of his voyage of five vessels only one, which turned back, survived.

However in Civ you can pack a caravel full of settlers, set sail west (or east) and set up a toehold in the new world. It doesn't matter what the currents or winds say, you can go straight against them.

Also it is far too easy to found a colony. Many people think that once Columbus returned from the Caribbean people set off to found colonies. This is not true. In 1585 a group of colonists tried to settle in Virginia, and disappeared without trace. The first successful colony in the modern USA was founded in 1607. You do not land, found and conquor as soon as you find a continent.

The solution as I see it is that all sea exploration outside of, say, three squares of a friendly city has to be carried out by an exploration, produced in a city that goes off into the black, showing a passage to a new area or fully mapping an area. You could also build an expedition, a military attack on proper aztec-like civilisations, which has a chance of arriving and a chance of success. The exploration should have a chance of disappearing as well. You could also build a colonist unit, which has a much lower chance of success, but with the chance increasing with each friendly colony on the continent, and with improved ship building.

[Urban Ranger]

Your point is valid except for one thing: time scale. If you get to only move once very ten or five years, it seems reasonable that your units would receive adequate supplies and other sorts of support.

Then again, maybe not

[Slax]

Perhaps more early ships should have a chance of being "lost at sea", not just the trireme.

[UltraSonix]

quote: Perhaps more early ships should have a chance of being "lost at sea", not just the trireme.

Maybe the emphasis should be on the civ size. So for civs of say, up to 15 cities, all shipd have a chance of getting lost on the high seas. The same can also apply to non-combat units (eg those settlers) that venture outside or close to the civ's borders.

[phunny pharmer]

UltraSonix: That's a really cool idea! This would help stop empires from sprawling, especially since it is currently quite easy to send a settler off into the blackness to build a city somewhere else. For instance, every ground unit more than three squares of a friendly city would have a 15% disappearance chance. Empires would be much more dense, and it would be harder to make a quick kill.

However, there are huge disadvantages to that system. First of all, you can't really explore, and the game is based on exploration. Second, you can't find enemies that easily, and if you do, it would really suck to watch your army just disappear, and wonder why your enemy's does not.

One advantage of that system, however, is that it would allow more players on a certain map size. Since there is a penalty for exploration, empires will most likely remain quite small, centralized, and weak until the specific tech is reached. Thus, on a large map, you can have double the amount of players on the same size map.

Interesting...

[Michael Dnes]

There are few examples of armies doing the exploring. Other than some ancient examples the only times I can think of is when they are attacking an empire, such as the Aztecs. Unless you're after an empire the army should stay out of the black, although I havn't a clue how you'ld do this fairly.
btw: Great idea about the settlers, a way to show that natives arn't going to sit back and be subjegated.

[Adm.Naismith]

I'm growing a need to solve problems using game tools we already have.

As I suggested some time ago about movement on unfriendly type of terrain, use of routes etc., Firaxis developed in SMAC the use of "strenght points" to reproduce unit damages after combat.

We can suggest to extend this concept to loss and damage taken during exploration of unknown parts of the world.

If a unit is wandering around, it will take (e.g.) 5% of damage every turn it spent outside of known terrain. Sea units as trireme can take more damage, to reproduce the previus concept of risk loosing a trireme far from shores (shores will be considered "known" for this use).

To avoid cheat as a chain of units moving "one over the others shoulders" the check about "known terrain" must be done with previus turn status.

Explorer and fast units will have benefits, the former because more trained to explore, the latter because they move quicker in proper terrain (same damage taken by any turn, but exploring more).

If you use a fast unit on plain terrain you can go outside for a square (now marked as known), then go back to safe terrain. We must decide if it can be allowed, surely it make exploration a choice from more risky attivity or a slower one.

For me, any tactical decision a player must do is some spice added to this kind of game. Do you agree?

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[phunny pharmer]

Wow, Adm.Naismith. I LIKE that.

However, I think one turn is a little short. I think that the system should be either three turns or when two of your units have passed over the specific terrain. This will encourage units (such as explorers) to band together. Horsemen (and other units with two movement) will still be a problem.

I also think that after a certain distance, you should not get the "you have discovered an advanced tribe" or "wandering settlers choose to join your civ". When did that ever happen? (btw, I'd like to see a post discussing 'goodie huts') This would make exploring less profitable, however, so there would need to be some new hut feature(s) to encourage players to explore the blackness.