MOVEMENT, SUPPLY, ETC. (ver 2.0) hosted by don Don

[Flavor Dave]

"Flavor Dave: If movement through mountains is difficult those attacking you are at the same disadvantage."

Re-read my post, that wasn't what I was saying.

Also, why should the army be de-emphasized? Please explain.

[Knight_Errant]

>Knight_Errant: The devil is in the details…

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. I thought the idea was simple enough.

[Mikel]

About units being in supply.
There is some discussion on the UNITS forum about Command and Control. I suggested the following :
Well I noticed a while back that people where discussing the idea of units needing supply line. Someone
even suggested that they may need multiple types of supplies. Personally I feel that is getting a bit
complicated but three types of supply types may be workable, rations, fuel, and information.

Does this conflict witha ny of the ideas that have already been discussed and would it be workable?

PS TheBen , I was in the middle of posting the reply on both threads but thanks for the advice.

[don Don]

Flavor Dave: You seemed concerned about giving too much advantage to mounted units, and the "bad luck" of being surrounded by mountains. I just wanted to point out that it wouldn't be all "bad luck," movement rules work both ways. You said "I think the movement rules should de-emphasize the *army*, specifically, and raise the importance of the navy and air force." I meant to say that "Supply rules should be sufficient to de-emphasize the army to some degree." I will add that higher mp for ships and the proposed air movement/attack changes would make air power much more significant. Why do you mean by "movement rules should de-emphasize the *army*…" hmmm?

K_E: I've been trying to get contributers to get to the details. How would you implement a special supply rule for exploration? It may look simple…

Mikel: I think everybody can see how to separate fuel from everything else (in the modern era), but what would you do to separate "info" from everything else?

[Flavor Dave]

"Movement on roads would no longer cost 1/3 mp per tile, rather terrain/3 mp per tile."

This is a good idea if Firaxis uses the higher MPs suggested. Otherwise, there is no advantage to building roads in mountains, except for mounted units. This, IMO, would swing the balance toward attack.

------

Think of the practice. Slow units will move one tile through the mountains whether or not there are roads. The only enhanced movement will be for mounted units.

The biggest problem will be that if you see the enemy coming over the horizon, with your infantry only moving one tile per turn, there is not way you can defend your outpost/border city. It will be taken before the infantry can get there. That's what I'm getting at, that under your suggestion, civs lose the ability of buildng roads to improve defense. Anything that hurts defense helps offense.

[Knight_Errant]

It is getting close to suggestion compilation time and I find that some people seem to misunderstand me when I talk about the supply rule. I want to post this supply idea in a simpler form. I think this is simple and doesn't require any extra manipulation by the player.

This supply rule is an an extension of the border system. Units within a countries border would be supplied in the way they are supplied now. No change.

Units that are outside the border lose points like a Civ 2 chopper.

Units within an allied border are supplied as if they were within their own border.

Using this system, no one has to be standing near a beach. No one has to move around any special supply units and so forth.

[ember]

I think this will make invasion prohibitive. (you have only 2-3 turns that you can siege before you lose your units as effective fighters). I like making it so that you cannot repair units in enemy teritory better.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Flavor Dave]

Two points. First, any idea along these lines that doesn't allow some kind of provision for repairing troops in enemy territory is bad b/c it radically upsets the play balance between perfectionism and militarism. 2nd, you'd just get around this by sending a settler along. He'd found a spite city, to make sure your invasion force is within your borders.

2 suggestions, not necessarily mutually exclusive. First, instead of regular barracks, you could include superbarracks as a city improvement. Superbarracks would cost more, but would have the added ability of allowing units built there to be repaired outside your borders (more properly, in somebody else's borders. Being in transit should have no effect.)

2nd, allow the building of a military base of some sort, in enemy territory. You can refine this idea many ways, but essentially, within (5?) tiles, units are repaired as if not in enemy territory. Probably needs to be a special unit available with the tech engineering.

[Eggman]

That supply system might work (with some tweaks), but you have to give the attacker more leeway. Perhaps give the units a range outside of their own borders where they don't take damage. Or a certain number of turns before the damage begins.

The key to the supply concept is that armies cannot live forever in enemy territory without being supplied. If you can cut off that supply or if the enemy is overextended, the army starts to fall apart unless supplies can be acquired elsewhere. But armies outside their territory don't just start falling apart when they leave their borders. If the US invaded Canada tomorrow, they could hang out in the middle of Alberta forever, assuming the Canadians (or the winter) didn't effectively cut the supply lines. The system you suggest doesn't allow for this.

The ideal system would use pathing to figure out if (1) the units can make a path to a friendly city (either by land or sea) and (2) if the distance is feasible for supply considering the technology available. Thus, supply lines can be cut by moving in units to block or extend the path or blockading with naval units. However, this system would probably be complex and time consuming, so it probably be impractical. But you can dream...

[Ecce Homo]

There could be a Wonder that gives supply to all units on the continent.

[Knight_Errant]

Yes, I'm for that. My suggestion was meant to be "on the surface".

[Dr Strangelove]

Consider this: It took Alexander 5 years to get to India. It took Octavius Caesar 3 years to get to Egypt. It took the Huns 2 or 3 generations to reach Europe. On a large map, assuming that the world represented is about the same size as ours, a single tile should represent a square about 150 to 200 miles/side. It would appear that early in the game movement rates of 1 to 3 tiles/year is not that different from historical movement rates.
By the Renaissance era movement rates increase. It took Marco Polo only 3 years to reach China. It took Genehiz Khan only 3 years to reach Poland. Magellan circumnavigated the globe in 2 years. Napoleon made it to Moscow in less than 1 year. Renaissance and Age of Reason units need to have their movement rates increased. Foot and horse units should move at least 5 or more tiles/year. Ship units could move up to 50 tiles/year. In modern times any unit should be able to span the globe in less than a year. At least ships should have a range of 100 or more movement points and land units oh, say 20 or 30. Transport (air or sea) could be used to extend their ranges for movement between friendly ports or bases.
In order to balance game play in the later stages of the game, say from the Age of Reason on, military units should have a radius of supply to limit how far they can go in a turn. Captured cities would be converted into supply bases after an expenditure of movement points. Combat would also consume movement points as would enemy zones of control. Amphibious landings onto nonfriendly territory should also be limited by range, though landings on neutral territory might be less restricted. Nonmilitary units should be less restricted by supply range. Perhaps engineer units could act as a mobile supply source.

[don Don]

Dr. S: I can't find the last time I said something like this and this is a good opportunity to bring it up again.

There is a difference between moving, advancing, and migrating. Octavius advanced around the eastern edge of the Mediterranean, stopping off to secure the loyalty of the local governors along the way. That is normal Civ movement. The Huns migrated from the Don river to Pannonia in "2 or 3 generations," taking their families with them. Civ doesn't handle that kind of thing too well. Movement by sea aroung the cape of Africa to points east took only a few months, but the Portuguese spent years exploring the coast incrementally before they could securely travel the route.

Most of what we're discussing here is plain movement, which can be very rapid indeed. What various Apolytoners (including me) have proposed is for movement that doesn't involve exploring new territory or advancing into unfriendly territory to be handled by strategic generalization: rail movement, trade lines, sea lanes, airlifting, some of the supply rules, my air movement proposals, ember's deployment idea, etc.

Movement rates would be set based on advancing through minimal opposition. Supply and ZOC rules are intended to cover the specifics of advancing against the more active foe, until units engage in combat. Are there strategic generalizations or supply/ZOC rules that you don't like, or would propose differently?

[don Don]

Flavor D: With terrain/3 road movement a unit with movement of 2 (civ2 mounted units, or "fast" infantry) still can't cross mountains and attack at full strength unless the target is immediately adjacent to the mountains. It isn't as bad as you make it seem.

If you build a road over nearby mountains and don't station a defender on it… that's a risk you have chosen. The Romans had difficulty reacting to invaders crossing the Alps. They allowed their military to weaken and didn't man the passes; mountains are no substitute for a strong army.

Yes, with supply rules we need a way to extend supply other than founding a string of cities. I favor a fortress/base rather than adding a non-combat unit. Perhaps stationing fortified units should also be sufficient to extend supply lines for long distance attacks. Any ideas on how to do this efefctively?

Knight_E: I think people understand what you're saying but don't understand why you think it would be better. Simpler isn't always better; if it interferes with making warfare playable it won't survive the cut at Firaxis. Don't get me wrong, we're putting as much into the Firaxis suggestion box as possible.

My thoughts on supply rules in general: as long as the program is automatically doing whatever calcs are required there isn't any management overhead for the players. Making them "simpler" isn't any particular advantage. For example, can a defender in his own territory be cut off from supply? In real life, yes; using a simple border supply rule, no.

You hinted that you had a new idea for how to make exploration more interesting…

Eggman & ember: On the other hand, losing points "like a chopper" doesn't mean "at the same (steep) rate that choppers in civ2 suffer." We do want specific suggestions on how to make supply rules work in a civ2/civ3 system. My suggestion in §4a is to have "Any unit not touching a tile in supply takes damage each turn depending on distance from nearest tile in supply."

I would also point out Diodorus Silicus' idea of units taking damage when in adverse terrain. Mountains, deserts, swamps & jungles all tend to wear down the effectiveness of fighting units that attempt to cross them. Napoleon took heavy losses just because of water-born parasites in the St. Petersburg area (and was himself afflicted with diarrhea for the rest of his life).

[Flavor Dave]

Movement vs. exploration--perhaps we could have trails and roads. Whenever your explorer or horseman or whatever goes over a square, he leaves a trail, a light gray line like a road. Movement rates are halved, but there's no trade bonus. Settlers still build roads, but they would cut movement points by 1/4, not 1/3. Explorers and alpines should get the 1/2 bonus when on roads or trails; otherwise, they lose one of their key advantages.

OK, to summarize--explorers on roads or trails move 6, on open ground, they move 3 (altho 8 and 4 might be easier to program; caravans on roads move 4, on trails they move 2; horsemen, etc move 2 on open ground, 4 on trails, 8 on roads.

I like this idea b/c it is one way to deal with what we all see as a realism problem--units are too slow in the middle period. Also, it makes caravaning to AI civs easier, once you've established that first trade route. Also, I have a fondness for the explorer unit; these will become valuable, as they can scout ahead of caravans (or your army, for that matter) and speed their movement.

"Flavor D: With terrain/3 road movement a unit with movement of 2 (civ2 mounted units, or "fast" infantry) still can't cross mountains and attack at full strength unless
the target is immediately adjacent to the mountains. It isn't as bad as you make it seem."

Right now I don't remember the exact discussion. My problem is that infantry in mountains will move one square, whether there are roads or not (3/3=1). This leaves you in the weird position of roads having no effect on movement. That doesn't make sense. Further, only horse units will benefit at ALL from roads. That doesn't make sense, and seems to unbalance the game slightly.

Altho I admit that in almost any territory, the effect will be minimal. Only in large mountain ranges will it matter.