MOVEMENT, SUPPLY, ETC. (ver1.0): Hosted by don Don

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Well, agreement on one out of two is better than I usually get...
The limitations on ancient contact would be realistic, not prohibitive. If two civilizations are on the far side of a desert, they don't make contact easily: central Africa behind the Sahara stayed largely terra incognita for over 5000 years while Trade contact across central Asia over a much greater distance was established by 100BC between Rome and China. The important difference was the terrain, not the distance.
Ancient Conquest was difficult over rough terrain, but it would be no more difficult in the game than it was: Map Editors should not build Mountain Ranges without passes - there's always one or two - and unless you build a city nearby, it's almost impossible to guard all the passes against all comers: barbarians constantly came through the Zagros Mountains into Mesopotamia from 2500BC until 1300AD, and while the Alps have been durned difficult, they have not been impossible for armies to cross: see Hannibal, Napoleon, Suvorov, etc.
I think (and I admit, it needs to be playtested) that my suggestion would extend the duration of the Exploration period in the game, so that, requiring better Tech to penetrate some areas, a Great Age of Exploration could still take place as late as the 15th-19th centuries AD, as they did historically.

[Flavor Dave]

Didorius--I've seen alot of your posts, and I have some advice for you. Every time you think of a change/suggestion, ask yourself not "will this make the game more realistic?" Ask yourself instead "will this make the game better/more fun/more challening?"

If you've played alot of civ (have you?) think about the parts of the game that need improvement. At certain periods, are you forced into a particular development path? Are there certain units that have unrealized potential? What are the gaps in the game?

[Ecce Homo]

I don't believe this is brought up here:
Maintenance costs must vary between unit types!

Ancient and medieval armies could mostly forage or plunder the food needed. Modern armies are just too large for doing so (except for guerrillas).

Shortage of fuel and interchangeable parts would stop armoured vehicles, while infantry could go on.

So: Large armies should need food. Catapults, cannons, vehicles, ships and planes should need resources - some of them more, some of them less.

[Flavor Dave]

I like the idea of higher maintenance costs for modern armies. Any land unit over 50 shields costs 2 shields upkeep. Or maybe over 60, so it only applies to howies and armor. Or, one food in addition to the one shield. That would force you to build supermarkets in your big army producing towns. The offense in late game is too strong, and this would be a wonderful way to re-balance the scales.

But NOT for your navy. The game already over emphasizes the army late, what with rails making instant cross-globe movement of your army possible, while it takes several turns for your navy to do the same.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Dave, I've played more than my share of CivII, and I have the list of sleepless nights to prove it! Also enough CtP and SMAC to find what I likes and didn't like about those games. Right now I'm into my first wrestling matches with "Birth of the Federation", but that's another story.
I also played board games for ovder 10 years, have painted and played miniatures for over 20, have done background research for computer, board, and miniatures game companies.
What makes a game "fun, challanging, and playable" is an INDIVIDUAL decision by the gamer. My answers will never be quite the same as yours, and I don't expect them to be. I certainly don't expect any large percentage of my ideas to be accepted by the majority of gamers.
But
I think at least part of our job here is to provide as many of the outrageous, peculiar, particular, or just plain wierd ideas for CivIII as possible. They will all be whittled down and modified to fit in the game, because the game designers not only need a game that appeals to us individual types, but to as broad a public as possible, and is programmable in less than several million man-hours, and can be marketed and sold.
It's all about compromises, and to my way of thinking, if we don't throw up the outer limit stuff here, there won't be wide enough startng points for the final compromise.
And, who knows, somewhere between us is probably the best answer from the point of the final game, but, you've got to kiss a lot of froggy ideas to find a prince of a game.

[don Don]

Diodorus Silicus: Hmmm, a troopship… postwar occupation army, maybe?

Mountains/Desert (and I would add Glacier and Jungle) inflicting damage. Even with roads crossing a major mountain range took a toll on an army. Interesting idea! (But I think the problem with finding the source of the Nile was the unfriendly native population.) Suvorov? Who he?

Limits to going outside city radius due to supply… did you check out the Movement 1.0 proposal (link at top of thread)? Section 4 covers some Supply ideas, but I hadn't fleshed out how to gauge damage to out-of-supply units.

Would ships have to return to port, or just to friendly waters? I for one already hate the way aircraft movement is done in Civ/SMAC, and wouldn't want more of the same. (The suggestion will be in the list… I'm just wondering whether you think return to port is critical.)

Ecce Homo n Flavor Dave: Support is different from supply. I've been trying to think which thread has some stuff about support in it.

[Theben]

Diodorus, Flav dave, don Don,

As an early subscriber of damage to units due to unfriendly terrain I must support Diodorus da Sicilian. Chariots, armor passing thru mountains w/o roads? Don't think so! And Hannibal spent months recruiting new soldiers from northern tribes after crossing the Alps because his army was so depleted.

Okay, fine, but what about playability, you say? I say, as a player, that I believe those mountains to the east and the desert to the west should protect ME from invasion, not give the enemy great defensive positions to attack my city from(unless I garrison the mountains!) or allow easy access to my empire (desert=no penalty to movement). The defender loses playability as it currently stands in civII, because bad terrain usually gives you poor resources. Balance would prevent the enemy from doing the above; as it is the defending city gets penalized twice.

Now not every unit should be penalized the same, nor should all terrain be equal in penalizing movement and/or damaging units. FE, chariots & tanks trying to traverse MT's w/o roads or passes would be denied. Trying to pass through swamps, jungle, would cause damage (bogged down units and disease) and loss of movement. Regular infantry could cross MT's and such with less damage than chariots and tanks would receive. Alpine units can traverse mountain, glacier, and tundra, w/o penalty(but no "as road" mutliplier); marines, in addition to amphibious capabilities, could pass thru jungle & swamp w/o problem as well. Explorers, settlers/engineers can travel thru all terrain w/o damage(settler/engineer because they improve the land; if another unit will do these functions then I'd transfer the abilities to it). Just my 2 cents.

[Theben]

BTW, no port maintenance.

[don Don]

ATTENTION, PLEASE!

The initial submission for this topic being due soon, I can't guarantee suggestions posted after midnight today, June 10th will make the cut. (I'm sure we'll continue to monitor these threads and send more to Firaxis later on.) I thank everybody who has contributed to date and will post a summary when completed.

------------------
*a friendly note from your favorite heretic

[Ecce Homo]

Moving armies overseas usually means lots of micromanagement. Civ 3 should include
"sealifts"
which would work like airlifts, but not necessarily be instant.

By the way, what is the difference between supply and support?

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ecce Homo (edited June 10, 1999).]</font>

[VaderTwo]

I also like the idea for possible damage to units for moving through certain hostile types of terrain (mountains, jungles, swamp, glacier) but I wouldn't limit it to land unit damage. As I posted earlier (although I don't know if it was here), also include icebergs and reefs in the sea zones to possibly create damage as well.

[don Don]

Support is long term unit maintenance cost in resources modelled (in Civ2, shields). Supply is a generalization of whether that unit has instantaneous access to supplies (the resources modelled as well as unmodelled) and communications, and freedom to move unhindered. Supply rules are a nod of recognition that the supply line of a fighting unit is far more vulnerable than the unit itself.

[wheathin]

don don:
even though it was totally ignored by most of the contributors to this forum, make sure to include my SeaLanes idea from June 4.

wheathin

[don Don]

I am going to a galaxy far, far away to learn at the feet of the Jedi masters (2½ weeks max; I'm a quick study ). The rigors of this training may not leave me time to spend on Apolyton, and as I pack and prepare my aged starfreighter for the journey I will be lucky to get a thorough topic summary to Yin. I'll leave this thread open until such time as I can start a new thread with a decent summary.

Fear not wheathin, it was not overlooked

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by don Don (edited June 11, 1999).]</font>

[korn469]

i think the way units are supported should be changed. i think that a certain number of units should create a soldier specalist. it could be handled on a national basis so that depending up your support level that would be the number of soldier specialist spread throughout your empire. the soldier specailist would be like all other specialist(scientist, tax colloector, entertainer, doctor, engineer, transend)...one population of a city not working the land and this would represent the logistics and people need to keep a military machine running. like specialist in alpha centauri the soldier specialist would modify labs and economy.

the modifier would be -2 economy -2 labs

support level

three 4 units create a soldier specialist 6 units to a soldier no penalties for the first solider

two 4 units create a soldier 6 to a soldier

one 3 units create a soldier 5 to a soldier

zero 3 units create a soldier 4 units to a soldier

minus one 2 units create a soldier 3 units to a soldier

minus two 2 unit creates a soldier 2 units to a soldier

minus three 1 unit creates a soldier 2 units to a soldier

minus four 1 unit creates a soldier 2 units to a soldier each soldier specialist has a -3 labs/-3 economy modifier

for example if 2 units create a soldier and there are four units to a soldier, you build one infantry man you don't have any soldiers, on your second infantry man you get a soldier and then you get your second soldier when you have 6 infantry men

naturally when units were disbanded or killed the soldier specialist would turn back into regular workers

if you lost soldier specailist in one city and couldn't create them in another you would have to disband units