Near Infinite Movement Point Model (for all modern units)

[polymths]

In several threads, I have been fighting the timescale literalists who insist on the literal interpretation of 1 turn=1 year (10 years, whatever). Because of this literal interpretation, they say that it makes sense for units to have infinite movement on railroads. I have countered that this is not in sync with other units NOT using railroads since even modern ships can circumnavigate the globe in a year's time.

But after some thought, I have come up with a model of movement that might satisfy the 1 year=1 turn literalists. That is we should have nearly all modern units have nearly infinite movement.

This is how it would work.
1. RRs have infinite movement.
2. All ships and planes have nearly infinite movement per turn, say on the order of 30 or so MPs.
3. Ships and Planes will have expanded zones of control. If you move a large fleet of ships or planes and unwittingly move into a hostile zone of control, your unit's movement is severely reduced (perhaps to 1 MP.) Thus you will be allowed to initiate an attack but simply cannot use large MPs to avoid detection and interception! (For those of you familiar with Sid Meier's Colonization this is the exact model used! In the presence of hostile ships, your own ships MPs were reduced to prevent simply running away from intercepts every time!)

Advantages:
1. Satisfies the 1 turn=1 year literalists. (I am not one of them BTW)
2. Since all units have very high MPs, satisfies balance of MPs between units.
3. Using the "Colonization" model, upon entering enemy ZOC, MPs are reduced severely so still models intercept capability. You can't just use high MPs to just bypass intercepts!
4. Speeds up game.
5. Strengthens AI by making routing and control of units easier (doesn't have to plan and coordinate many units over large distances spread out over several turns.)

What do people think of this near infinite movement, ZOC lowers MP model???

[Darkknight]

Diasadvantage : lowers gameplay value.
You shouldn't look at civ3 as a game lasting 6000 years you should look at it lasting 600 turns. It's a game it's not real.


------------------
" Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few "

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by Darkknight on 05-14-2001 05:51 PM Diasadvantage : lowers gameplay value. You shouldn't look at civ3 as a game lasting 6000 years you should look at it lasting 600 turns. It's a game it's not real.

I couldn't agree MORE!

As I have said many times, timescale should NOT be interpreted literally for unit movement and is only for marking technological progress.

The proposal is mainly aimed at those who insist on the infinite movement of units using RRs based on timescale argument. It is a scheme which allows for infinite MP using RRs but makes MP of all other units have nearly infinite movement so that all movement is balanced.

Therefore, if you are a fan of infinite movement using RRs, you should definitely consider this proposal.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Darkknight on 05-14-2001 05:51 PM Diasadvantage : lowers gameplay value. You shouldn't look at civ3 as a game lasting 6000 years you should look at it lasting 600 turns. It's a game it's not real.

Very true. All those realists should realize that turns are merely something to measure tech progress against, and should not be taken literally. Do you really want a game that lasts 144000 turns?

------------------
"Third option, third option!"
Let's have civ bonuses that YOU control!
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited May 14, 2001).]

[Ralf]

Good point, polymths! You put that "realistic time-scale" issue to its most extreme consequences, just to show us how ridicules it is to keep on demanding it. A middleway solution would be:

Allow infinite railroad-moves, but decrease combat-strength from full > 2/3 > 1/3 of full strength. This way you cannot move a howitzer half across a huge continent and STILL expect to be 100% combat-ready within that same game-turn.

Infinite railroad-movement, Yes - but the combat-strength decline should be the same as if the unit moves on roads:
[*] Tank road move-factor: 3. This means a max-limit of 9 squares on roads for tanks. At the end of that journey, the combat-strength has declined to only 1/3.[*] Tank railroad move-factor: Infinite. This means no move-limits, but the combat-strength nevertheless declines just as if the unit moves on roads; only 1/3 strength after 9 (and above) squares.

As for air-units moves; I think the move-rates where to lame in Civ-2 - at least double the move-rates for all air-units. Either that, or let them survive two turns without fuel-shortages.

-------------------- OBS!

PS: Come to think of it: All you who complains about the 1 turn = 1 year end-game time-discrepancy. Listen up:

What about ROADS? Why cant a modern unit; a tank or a freight, move more then 9 squares within 1 turn (a full year) in Civ-2? Is THAT realistic? My God - a full years of continued travelling, and only 9 stinking squares!!! You see - this is why its so stupid to get hanged up on this issue. It always going to be some reality-discepancys here and there - and you no what. It doesnt matter!

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 14, 2001).]

[polymths]

What matters to me is overall BALANCE of MPs. Thus either:

1. Roads/Railroads are toned down significantly to be in sync with movement of ships/planes. In other words, the number of turns/movement of all units is balanced with respect to each other somewhat realistically.
(My preferance).

OR

2. Near Infinite Movement Model (see first article in this thread). (Not my preferance but better than this inconsistency of infinite movement for RRs but relatively finite and small movement points for non-railroad movement).

The point though is BALANCE, BALANCE, and BALANCE!

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-14-2001 06:27 PM 1. Roads/Railroads are toned down significantly to be in sync with movement of ships/planes. In other words, the number of turns/movement of all units is balanced with respect to each other somewhat realistically. (My preferance).

Well, I would be happy with reduced RR-moves also.

Road-factor: 3
RR-factor: 5

Above would meant a respectable 3 x 5 = 15 squares of tank-travelling, but with only 1/3 combat-strength at the end of that journey. Isnt that enough?

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 05-14-2001 06:36 PM Well, I would be happy with reduced RR-moves also. Road-factor: 3 RR-factor: 5 Above would meant a respectable 3 x 5 = 15 squares of tank-travelling, but with only 1/3 combat-strength at the end of that journey. Isnt that enough?

Still unbalanced IMHO.
Tanks have 15 tiles/turn but planes would have only 12 tiles/turn???

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-14-2001 06:53 PM Still unbalanced IMHO. Tanks have 15 tiles/turn but planes would have only 12 tiles/turn???

Well, as I said in that other reply:

"As for air-units moves; I think the move-rates where to lame in Civ-2 - at least double the move-rates for all air-units. Either that, or let them survive two turns without fuel-shortages."

[ancient]

sure while were at it why not make citys/units to scale? i mean why should a tank be the same size as a city? why should a size 2 city be the same size as a size 22? the fact is that doing any of these things even if they are good for realism cuts on game play and it is a game isnt it? gameplay should always be before realism..

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by ancient on 05-14-2001 07:44 PM sure while were at it why not make citys/units to scale? i mean why should a tank be the same size as a city? why should a size 2 city be the same size as a size 22? the fact is that doing any of these things even if they are good for realism cuts on game play and it is a game isnt it? gameplay should always be before realism..

Are you talking about making graphics to scale when talking about making cities/units to scale??? I have no clue what you're talking about!

But what is the problem to scale movement points of units to be realistic relative to each other??? Howe does that detract from gameplay??? If anything I feel it adds to gamesplay!

Or put it another way, why is there better gameplay to have land units using RRs have way way more movement/turn (ie nearly infinite) than units not using railroads? I just don't understand what you're trying to say!

[ancient]

how do you go from wanting to get rid of roads and railroads to wanting free movement?

if you can can move units as much as you want in one turn., you could attack one side of the wordld from the other in one turn with very little work it would get rid of any timing the game has.. if you scale units with citys units would either be very tiny and take for ever to move or citys would take up the entire screen..

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by ancient on 05-15-2001 08:46 PM how do you go from wanting to get rid of roads and railroads to wanting free movement? if you can can move units as much as you want in one turn., you could attack one side of the wordld from the other in one turn with very little work it would get rid of any timing the game has.. if you scale units with citys units would either be very tiny and take for ever to move or citys would take up the entire screen..

Well, the question for you is do you like infinite RR movement or not?

If you do, then it is bizarre that you have no problem with them but then say that it is a problem if this were done with other units. Why is it good for RR using units and not for other units?

If you don't and agree that 1/5 movement for RRs is much better than the Civ1/Civ2 infinite movement system then we have absolutely no argument at all!

In any case what does scaling cities with units have anything to do with scaling RR movement with all other movement? (Not that I actually understand what you mean exactly).

The real point of this thread was to see what the Infinite Movement for RR supporters have to say if the concept was extended for all units. Evidently many have kept silent or have perhaps admitted privately that perhaps infinite movement is stupid after all!

[ancient]

poly.. your very weird.. and 1/5 movement for railroads isnt a bad idea.. i just never saw you say anything about that..

[me_irate]

I personally like the way the units currently move. but if i was to change them this is the way i would do it.


1. I believe that roads should be 1/3 terrain mov. so a horse could traverse 6 roads with plains on them. And 2 mountains with roads on them(3 mov to cross mountain=6/ 1/3 =2)

also i believe that railroads should be 1/6 or 1/9 and possibly not effected by mountains and terrain(not sure on that one though)

2. also i believe that ships mov should increase by 2-3 times their current movment. i find it dumb that a trimarines can only mov 2 squars and more modern ships only 5-6. i think ancient ships should be at least a min of 3/4 and more modern ships such as galleaons 6-7 and ships such as crusers 12-15. this would not only make navies much more effective, but also increase the ability to wage war across oceans.

3. airplanes should have infinate movs as long as they can get fuel. an airplane can fly around the world in a day. so i believe if they have 15 fuel, they could fly 10 squares to an airbase and get 15 more fly 12 more to a carrier then fly 5 more to attack and 5 back to the carrier all in the same turn. this would not only make seldom used carriers more effectove but would also make them more realistic.
[This message has been edited by me_irate (edited May 15, 2001).]