No "pick the raisins from the cake" city-conquerings

[Ralf]

One thing that I didnt like in Civ-2 was the fact that you in late end-games (with most of the AI-civ tiles railroaded), rather easily could "pick the raisins from the cake" so to speak, by conquering vitally important (but also often deeply imbedded) AI-cities first.
You could, more or less, pick and choose what cities to conquer in that critical first turn attack-wave (later followed by a fullscale invasion round-up); The capitol city > the 2-3 most productive cities > cities with any war-effort helping Wonders.

The only units that should be allowed to attack/conquer any cities deeply imbedded within an empire (with surrounding still un-conquered cities) is the combination bomber/paratroopers. Any other of your military unit must have, either...

- Their own civ-empire border adjacent to the border-creating foreign city.
- "No mans land" adjacent to the border-creating foreign city.
- An allied AI-civ's border adjacent to the border-creating foreign city.
- Any ocean-squares adjacent to the foreign coustal city (all ocean-squares is neutral in terms of foreign city-conquerings - but, of course: NOT in terms of expected-to-hold diplomacy-rules).

... in order to conquer any foreign cities.

It is important to remember however that both land-, sea- and air-units can still move around freely (according to ZOC- and diplomacy-rules), and also attack enemy-units freely (anywhere and everywhere on the map). Above restrictions applies only to unit/city-attacks. Not unit/unit-attacks.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 27, 2001).]

[Adm.Naismith]

Ralf, IMHO this problem could be solved with easy if the railroad movement rules are changed to avoid "instant movement" everywhere during invasion.

Now that borders will be included (like in SMAC), we can at least ask Firaxis that movement inside enemy territory are somewhat limited: i.e. RailRoad working as roads for enemy units, roads only double movements, etc.

We can justify this with minefields, sabotage, attrition defense, limited form of ZOC etc., but the important reason is playability against dumb AI, as you correctly underlined.

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

[Chronus]

I have to agree with the Admiral. One of the few things I did like about CTP was the movement cost of railroads. They made movement easier than roads (as it should) but did not make it unlimited.

Perhaps railroads can reduce the movement cost to 1/6? Artillery can no longer simply land (using one movement point) and then nail an interior city some 5,000 miles away with its remaining, unrestricted movement point. The further in it goes, the weaker its "remaining" attack becomes. Even in non-combat situations; it's ridiculous watching a land unit zipping past all these air units from one end of a gargantuous continent to the other. :-)

And while I'm blabbing ... I can see spys/diplomats sneaking in some contraband items, but entire squadrons of tanks and artillery? This should be fixed (even though I enjoy using this tactic). Sorry, Ralf ... this last tidbit seemed to fit within your topic but perhaps not :-}

[Ralf]

ADM.NAISMITH QUOTE:
Ralf, IMHO this problem could be solved with easy if the railroad movement rules are changed to avoid "instant movement" everywhere during invasion.

Oops! Sometimes one goes for water on the other side of the creek. I agree: adjusting the railroad movement rules is perhaps a simpler/more direct way to deal with the described problems.

Quote: "Now that borders will be included (like in SMAC), we can at least ask Firaxis that movement inside enemy territory are somewhat limited: i.e. RailRoad working as roads for enemy units, roads only double movements, etc.

We can justify this with minefields, sabotage, attrition defense, limited form of ZOC etc., but the important reason is playability against dumb AI, as you correctly underlined."

I see your point! Although I think they should perhaps avoid shifting move-rates depending on if you are inside, or outside enemy-at-war territory. The reason for this is the feature-mistaken-for-a-bug problem. Not everyone bother to read manuals.

Or maybe it IS a good idea! Now I have become undecided.

CRONUS QUOTE:
"I have to agree with the Admiral. One of the few things I did like about CTP was the movement cost of railroads. They made movement easier than roads (as it should) but did not make it unlimited.

Perhaps railroads can reduce the movement cost to 1/6?
Artillery can no longer simply land (using one movement point) and then nail an interior city some 5,000 miles away with its remaining, unrestricted movement point. The further in it goes, the weaker its "remaining" attack becomes."

Railroads with a movement cost of 1/6 seems reasonable. About "the further in it goes, the weaker its remaining attack becomes" idea: I would add "The further in it goes within that same game-turn. I think that restriction is enough. Or is it?

However, this points the finger on another potential problem. A military-unit with a movement-rate of 3 can then move 3 x 6 = 18 turns on railroads. Its easy to lose count how many moves is still left, and how decreased the attack-bonus have become (by the way: what movement-decreasing attack-strenght rules should apply?)
Therefore I want to be able to right-click-and-hold any unit/unit-stack, and as a result; an automatic popup-window informs me about both fixed unit-values, and any decreasing attack-bonuses. Then I release the right-click, the pop-up automatically closes again.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 28, 2001).]

[Ferdi]

In the reality supply lines are essentials during warfare. Infiltrate an army inside the enemy territory without protecting the back side is a suicide.
An army which enter into an enemy territory and is isolated inside of the enemy borders should see their power drastically reduced.

To implement that, a military unit must claim the land when it moves on. This "claimed" land becomes an area controled by your civ (not your borders but controled by you). Each army should have a link with its civ borders or allies through these controled areas. If the link is broken (no more supply line) then the power of each units isolated inside the enemy borders should be highly reduced.
Claiming land should also take movement points in order to reduce units progession.

[raingoon]

quote: a military unit must claim the land when it moves on. This "claimed" land becomes an area controled by your civ (not your borders but controled by you). Each army should have a link with its civ borders or allies through these controled areas. If the link is broken (no more supply line) then the power of each units isolated inside the enemy borders should be highly reduced. Claiming land should also take movement points in order to reduce units progession.

I strongly agree.

[Chronus]

RALF QUOTE:

"Railroads with a movement cost of 1/6 seems reasonable. About "the further in it goes, the weaker its remaining attack becomes" idea: I would add "The further in it goes within that same game-turn. I think that restriction is enough. Or is it? "

Yes ... that is how I pictured it. The unit would regain all its movement points the next turn as usual.

Currently, moving on a road one square reduces an attack strength by 1/3 (assuming the unit is on its last movement point). With the 1/6 rule for railroads, a city further than 6 spaces from an artillery "landing" point will be safe. On a practical basis, cities even within 4-5 spaces of the "landing" point would be safe since the artillery's strength would be seriously reduced.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Ferdi on 01-28-2001 10:46 AM In the reality supply lines are essentials during warfare. To implement that, a military unit must claim the land when it moves on. This "claimed" land becomes an area controled by your civ (not your borders but controled by you). Each army should have a link with its civ borders or allies through these controled areas. If the link is broken (no more supply line) then the power of each units isolated inside the enemy borders should be highly reduced. Claiming land should also take movement points in order to reduce units progession.

If they can implememt this one, it would be great!
However, I am worried that the human player can take advantage of this much better then the AI-civs can.

I think the burden should be placed mainly on the human player, instead on the AI-civs. This would in practice mean: supply-lines needed for the human player = optional Yes/No, but supply-lines needed for any AI-civs globally = always No.

CHRONUS quote:

Currently, moving on a road one square reduces an attack strength by 1/3 (assuming the unit is on its last movement point). With the 1/6 rule for railroads, a city further than 6 spaces from an artillery "landing" point will be safe. On a practical basis, cities even within 4-5 spaces of the "landing" point would be safe since the artillery's strength would be seriously reduced.

Yes, I will only add/amplify:

In Civ-2 It was to easy for non-marines units (mainly howitzers) to land directly beside coustal-citys, and still have enough attack-strength left, to conquer that coustal AI-city. This should be tweaked to be more costly, if the player stubbormly tries to do this within that same turn. At least if the attacked AI-city have modern/reasonably good defence-units stationed in the city.

[Windborne]

Just a personal peeve but since when was anyone allowed to move entire tank regiments within a countries borders and expect to retain peace?

Think about this, why would the US allow mexico to move ten or twenty tank units into the country and set them down at various locations for years on end? We MIGHT let canada move units THROUGH our nation to attack mexico providing they didn't stay long, but we certainly would have those units watched and escorted even so, and if they tried it without warning us first . . . . well no more canada.

[wittlich]

A valid point Windborne

[down th' pub]

1/6th, how about 1/5th.
Wait, that seems familiar...

[Grumbold]

I'd rather not see rail movement curtailed in friendly territory - ther is no reason you can't ship units across a peaceful continent by rail in less than a year. In hostile territory having them act as road works for me. That gives an incentive for capturing cities as you pass them by, which is what appeals to the AI anyway. I also like the idea of having to create a supply route by capturing control of tiles provided this does not prevent naval invasions. They should be disadvantaged, but not impossible.