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

[don Don]

Proposed Rules (Summary)

1) Land Unit Movement: higher mv rates, revamp road & RR
2) Naval Unit Movement: higher mv rates, lower transport capacity
3) Air Unit Movement: units stationed; ranged attack 1 mp
4) Supply: mv at ½ cost in uncontested territory, damage outside supply
5) Trade: lines set up using stationed ships
6) Zones of Control: flexible response, no absolute control
7) Exploration: cost mp to explore
8) Air Superiority: special ZOC for fighters
9) Air Support: ground attack
10) Strategic Air Attack: surprisingly simple (defense complicated)

The text of the rules can be found at <A HREF="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/000520.html">MOVEMENT (1.0)</A>

**Please read them very carefully** they will probably answer your questions before you post.

[This message has been edited by don Don (edited May 20, 1999).]

[don Don]

FAQ
For the discussion as the rules evolved when I first posted them months ago see <A HREF="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/000434.html">Movement Rules</A>

(Excerpts):

Itokugawa: And about reality: Armor should be at least 6 times faster than unmounted units and airplanes at least 10 times faster than armors. In a 1000 X 1000 world this would be affordable but not now.

Speed of modern units: Yes and no. Open ground speed of a tank was usually 18-22 mph in WWII. That's *slower* than a Napoleonic light cavalry charge! Movement allowance I would keep low, because the primary limitation of all vehicular movement is fuel. Patton was limited more by supply than any other factor. Aircraft moreso, as they must fly out and back safely, whereas a tank that runs low on fuel can hold out until supplies catch up.

Theben: 3a)Then I would include a limit such as "cannot fly more than x2 attack range w/o landing at friendly base".

I might not be adverse to having the computer calculate bases and cities in transfer range. Range would be more like tripled; doubled because you're not going back plus whatever economy increase the unloaded planes get. However, given the bugginess of the goto function, I'm not that confident in additional programming. (No offense to the hard-working programmers.) While I would love to "fix" everything, some things just wouldn't be worth the trouble. Like RR. So I prefer to have strategic air transfer follow the model already established for airlift. Just assume that moving supplies air to small (unrepresented) airfield waypoints is included if necessary to reach distant locations.

Theben: 3b) All well and good, except that cities w/o airports should force air units to end their movement or cost extra mp's(reflecting the lack of immediate supplies and maintenance at the city).

All cities are already considered to have airfields with development of Flight advance. Since air transfer is limited to 1/turn, no need for end of move or extra cost. Moving a plane square-by-square as in 3a models the lack of immediate supplies for additional units, assuming the unit moves more than 1 mp × air multiplier.

Theben: 3c) Then you should allow the "one in or out" per city/airfield with the tech advance, not the airport. I stand by my idea, my reasoning being the construction of the airports includes building the capacity(cargo planes, etc.) to conduct airlifts all across your nation.

Building airports in more cities increases in/out for those cities; if effected by city size as previously suggested that would be enough. As mentioned above, flaunt not the laws of murphy and programming corrolaries. :·)

Theben: As to the mechanics of the transfer, I would use a targeting system similar to the paradrop. You'd have an little plane with an 'X' through it, once you passed it over a valid target(friendly airbase in range) the 'X' would disappear, and it would instantly move there once you click. The computer would tally the actual mp's used, including fractions if air multiplier used, maybe telling you the cost before actually sending the plane.

3b is instant air transfer; move by hand is separate. Attack range and moving square-by-square unrelated. Moving air units pass over w/o attacking. In "reality" the aircraft might make stopovers for rest & refueling, but in this model we just move them sq-by-sq (using the air multiplier). Do you mean a macro-like function or something so you don't have to count squares? [idea adopted]

Theben: 5a-b)I would adopt a trade model similar to what SMAC has, but allow a grid that displays the lines of trade. Then pirates/privateers could sit on or near those lines, siphoning money away from one or both(or more if overlapping lines) trading partners. Of course, there's also that nasty habit of diseases following trade routes...

Yes, a line or something should appear when trade line is established. Since overseas trade routes are on trade lines, which require stationing ships along the route, the stationed ships are the points where attck of any sort is resolved. It's just a way to model it all.

Theben: I just don't think the stationing of ships is necessary.

Well, it's a way to have some continuing cost for trade routes, and cost for protecting trade. If spacing requires two or three units to reach the objective each station must be protected individually. Protection from piracy around ports requires a ship in each ocean square touching the city. Protection is no guarantee against piracy.

Theben: 6-7)Sounds ok, I believe CTP will have a "guard" function similar to what you describe. One question: is the unit forcing it's way through ZOC's out-of-supply? How would it reconnect w/o moving back?

A unit forcing its way through ZOC follows the same rules as any other. Supply is not traced through a square in opponents' ZOC. From 4a, "Any unit not touching a square in supply takes damage each turn depending on distance from nearest square in supply." By that definition there's a transition area of 1 square width, possibly in an opponent's ZOC, where a unit would not get the movement cost reduction but also would not suffer out-of-supply losses. Chances are a unit forcing through a ZOC is either in that transition area and moving to another square in transition, or moving to a square not touching any square in supply.

Obviously there are details to be worked out: how much damage/turn? How do intervening hostile ZOCs increase the effective distance? Can a unit be totally cut off, and would that kill the unit or just magnify out-of-supply damage? I wouldn't bother speculating on all that at this level of discussion.

Theben: I oppose any idea for fighters to have ground-like ZOC's that completely stop movement. Otherwise no unit could ever approach an enemy target w/fighters.

Air ZOC will effect supply status only… [and other aircraft]

[This message has been edited by don Don (edited May 20, 1999).]

[don Don]

MOVEMENT (1.0) Suggestions that are probably worth pursuing in more detail:

CyberShy: moving in stages for civs in combat to avoid I-move-everybody-50-squares-and-kill-you. (See his thread in General/Suggestions.)

Trachmyr: Another [solution], which can be incorperated as well, is that units must "prepare for combat", this action must be taken before an attack is possible... and it cost a signifigant amount of movement (as a percentage of starting movement allotment).

My counterproposal: Mobilization allowing incremental movement or some of the strategic movement rules already suggested; unmobilized civs will move "normally." (There would be some cost involved to mobilize.)

Brother Greg's objections: The only way to do a truly realistic system, while being fun as well, would be to have turns of a week or so, with current movement rates. But then we'd need, oh, roughly 150,000 turns per game… As I said, the current system works, and is fun. The only argument you have is "realism", and as I stated, realism doesn't come into it if it interferes with gameplay, which this would.

Seriously, please go and try CIV II, and just multiply movements by, say, 3, and see how it plays. Take my word for it, it ain't fun… I think you're making too complex system, to fix a problem that isn't there in the first place. I don't think I'm going to convince you, though a little healthy discussion is always good.

My response: I have playtested the movement rates indicated in §s 1a and 2a, with armor at 8 and modern ship movement rates up to 22, against the AI. Since much of the military action still uses dips/spies there is no imbalance created. Units rarely get to attack multiple times, since damage reduces movement proportionately. Railroads tend to de-emphasize the high movement rates later in the game in any case. But I don't have MGE to test it with tougher opponents. Any voluteers?

What it should do: force players to do D-Day style massed invasions across a wider front, rather than isolated landings that defenders have a good chance of flanking, pinning down, and eliminating. "Feint or real?" is the dilemma every defender must face.

mrtemba: I think that there should be… currents in the ocean and "[jet] streams" in the air… they would only work one way.

Asmodeous: …1 year per turn THROUGH THE WHOLE GAME or 5 years per turn the entire way through would give one more basis for setting up movement in a logical manner. Part of the reasons that movement rates got skewed in Civ1/2 is that you start off with 50 years per turn, then you go to 5, then 1, then .5, etc, etc. So part of the time it makes sense, the rest of it it's like all of your units are on drugs of some sort.

Trachmyr: Hexes [or staggered squares]…
Shining1: I hate hexes…
Asmodeous: Hex-based tiles are the only way to have "fair" movement…

Lancer: Would it be possible to leave the movement distances per turn about where they are and have everyone move at once?

[This message has been edited by don Don (edited May 20, 1999).]

[Ecce Homo]

Yes, unit movement must be increased to make sense.

Zones of control should not forbid movement when at war, but make it possible for the opponent to bombard an enemy unit. Coastal fortresses and big ships should generate naval ZOC.

Maybe a unit should be able to attack only once in a turn, like in Colonization.

[willko]

let us please avoid the use of tiles based on hexes.

while i can see the validity of arguments by grognard wargamers that are pro-hex (i.e. the tradition of strategy board-games & various computer war games), that argument is easily countered by citing the "traditional" system within the civilization series (including smac).

but ultimately i think it comes down to one thing: ergonomics. the 8-cardinal directional system of civ(1/2/smac) allows something hexes do not: mapping movement directions exactly to the keyboard (i.e. the numeric pad). one of the greatest interface coups of the civ series is the ease of unit movement (made slightly more complex by the isometric perspective begun in civ2 -- but still ultimately more manageable than mouse movement for every unit).

that's one more reason it's so easy to say, "just one more turn" in these kinds of turn-based games. imagine the annoyance of moving units hundreds of times by mouse commands alone -- even with smac's click and drag go-to command interface.

so please. read my lips, no new hexes.

/willko.

[Jeje2]

Hello,
while reading news-gourp: alt.games.firaxis.alpfa-centauri I found a message by Ian Wu. (Don't know if he is originator of this idea) The content is wrelly something, so I copy it here.

Which thread this belongs to is difficult to say but here goes.

--------------------------------------------
How about different resources, such as iron, coal, petroleum, and uranium.

For example, the maintenance cost of per turn of any modern army unit would require a certain amount of petroleum and iron. This would make economy and trade more important because countries that don't have natural resources must trade for them.

Make it that the where the resources are located are predetermined but remain unknown until the technology is developed to discover them. So a country might be behind but suddenly by 1900 discovers an oil reserve
and suddenly turns the game in his favor.

You can also give each country the ability to store resources like oil in reserve. So if country A trades for oil from country B, but wants to take it over, country A might want to build up a reserve before declaring
hostilies, country B on the other hand, might be forewarned of the attack because of the oil build up.

I always felt that although CIV is a great game, it over emphasized the military aspects and de-emphasized the economic aspects of history.

Ian Wu

[Druid2]

I'm with Brother Greg on this issue. A complex and detailed movement simulation would greatly lengthen the game.

If you think you have micromanagment of movement issues NOW, just wait.

"Unit in Supply" rules, for example would just about cripple the ability of the AI to launch attacks. It would, almost certainly, never be smart enough to work out all the details.

We need a game that is playable, after all.

[Trachmyr]

I had suggested that exploration (uncovering Blacked-out never before seen squares) cost a percentage (say 30%) of base movement per square discovered. This would help balance out higher movement rates in the game. Brother Gregg argued that it would be unrealistic for ships, as all they would have to do is set sail. After some thought (because I agree that ships should be able to explore much faster), I propose that there be a chance a Sail-equipped ship will take damage whenever exploring the open sea (covered tiles), there can also be a chance of going off course (diagonally to one side of your intended square). Columbus did cross the atlantic (completely unexplored) in under a year... but he lost 2/3 of his fleet and was WAY off course. And if supply lines are used, a sail ship can't simply heal in the middle of the ocean if it's damaged... it either has to take the risk, or go home.

[VaderTwo]

I'd like to see several types of roads:
Stone/dirt - Terrain Movement Points/2
Paved - Terrain Movement Points/4
Highways - Terrain Movement Points/8
Mag-Tubes - Unrestricted

To avoid micromanagement to upgrade the roads would be to have them automatically upgrade all at once, build something in a city to upgrade all of its roads or have them "grow" like the forests in SMAC

I'd also like to see railroads modified so that you can use them only to travel from one city to another. In civII, once the railroads are established across your empire, it is too easy to have an internal defense strategy. Also if the commodity supply & demand structure is used, you could develop trains (steam,diesel and electric/bullet) to transport troops and/or goods.

[Druid2]

VaderTwo,

I do not like the idea of having the roads "just grow on their own" .. nor of having them all updraded at once.

There is a strategic value in having good roads "here".. but not "there". Real world countries understand this: France intentionally made it's railroads unusable by German trains... [rails narrower, I think.]

In any case, the point is *I* want to be able to control where the roads are or are not.

[VaderTwo]

Druid2,
Good point. I feel the same way as you do about placing roads only where I want.
I was just tossing up some trial balloons. What I was really saying was that I would like to have multiple levels of roads, but I know that the first complaint about that would be the level of micromanagement involved with it.

[yin26]

-=*BUMP*=-

------------------
CIV3 DEVELOPMENT LIST COORDINATOR

**(un)Officially Making Lists for Firaxis Since SMAC Enhancement 3!**

[Bubba]

Here is an idea that I had to simulate supply lines in a fairly easy way with a minimal amount of micromanagement. As we would all agree, it was stupid to allow one lone phalanx travel across a continent without any damage.

Perhaps an easier way to implement the idea of supply lines would be to make all units similar to the Civ2 Helicopter. Every turn a unit would lose health and would have to return to a base/city every six turns.

The game could allow you to build fortesses, air fields or naval base that could substitute for a city in this respect. (They could also store units and heal them quicker after a battle).

As units got more advanced, the number of turns before return could be advanced. Also early units could supply by foraging/pillaging instead of retuning to base.

This would have the added of advance of helping to simulate/stimulate the historical expansion of world powers, as they sought to build and defend bases so that there ships could trade in far away oceans (i.e Capetown, Singapore, Hong Kong, Phillipines, Hawaii, Puetro Rico etc.)

Just a thought.

[Hannes]

1. In my opinion it is no good idea decreasing damage points instead of reducing the supply level. If the supply rules discussed above are regarded as to complex (though I don´t think so), at least a basic system should be implemented. It could look like that: Every unit has a certain amount of supplies. If there are no enemy units in an adjacent field, it can be restored by not moving for a full turn.
2. I agree with the idea of aerial ZOC for certain aircrafts. This should be extended to AA-ground units.
Besides that, ground and air both should have their own ZOC, so that air our ground units will not effect each other´s movement.
Air units should be able to move into the same field with an enemy ground unit.

[CAB]

If we want to implement supply and support to units we also have make it playable as some of you have pointed out. Here are some of my suggestions.

There should be some form of supply unit and each city would count as one. When you progress through the ages you will get better supply units and with more supply points.
Each of these supply units would extend the supply by a number of squares depending on how many points they have, and each square would cost a number of supplies.
If a unit is within supply they function normally, if not will begin to loose Hitpoints and movement capacity.

The supply would be easily shown on the map by similar lines as the borders in SMAC.

Then you could complicate it further if you want to. A supply unit has to be in supply of at least one city. That city and all other connected cities would have to pay the support for all units within the supply units or city supply range equally (as in CTP)
Each sea based supply unit would be connected to a certain city. This city would in turn have to have a certain number of transportships docket in their harbor, depending on the distance in sea movement. A straight line would be shown on the map, and any nation (CIV) that whants to inferfere with it could attack it and try to destroy the transport and eventual escort (as pirating in CTP).
If a supply unit is cut of from all cities they will cease to function within one turn if the line are not restored.
With technology developing there could be other supply units such as airlifting (functions exactly as sea supply, though expensive in support).

Oh, and they have to incorporate the same system of support as in CTP, where units cost different amount of production in support.