Tweet
A GREAT idea . . .
but practical?
Field Marshall Klesh offhandedly mentioned what I think is the best idea ever for improving a civ2 scenario. Someone some time ago mentioned that, in order to circumvent the "stacking problem," a scenario designer could place fortresses on every square on the map, then make them invisible. IMO, the "stacking problem" is one of the worst inconsistencies of the civ2 game. For example, you have 6 units in the same square. A bomber comes out of nowhere, bombs, and every one of those units is wiped out by the attack. Not very realistic. Additionally, this characteristic of the game tends to "funnel" campaigns along railroads and through towns and fortresses, simply to keep from incurring these kinds of losses. Putting an army "in the field" is just too dangerous because "stacking" them all in the same square will just get them all killed by a lucky attack. 10 tanks in the same square will all die if they are hit by a single successful artillery attack. How realistic is that?
One wonders if the designers of civ2 ever heard of the idea of "Concentration of Force?"
But implementing this, invisible-fortresses-in-every-square, would create other problems. All units would be doubled. But Klesh solved that with one neat statement. With adjustments of the terrain, so that the effective terrain defense is half of what it would be normally, you solve this problem. By placing invisible fortresses in every square, then adjusting terrain effects to compensate, you can effectively re-make the game so that concentration of force is now an operative concept in military affairs on the civ2 map. If an artillery unit attacked a square with 10 tanks in it, 1 would die, and the others would then be able to pounce. I don't know about you, but I REALLY like this outcome.
It would also have the pleasing effect of eliminating those geometrically-perfect arrangements of fortresses put down by the AIs around every bunch of cities that invariably get infested by their partisans when you finally take a city.
If you wanted an actual "fortress" of some sort in a scenario, you could then always use a unit, suitably defined, as such, and with a lot more graphic variation.
The one remaining problem that I can see with this is human stamina. A big map would require an awful lot a clicking to get something like this implemented. Is there any way to short-cut this? Is there some way to set up the scenario so that every square is created already having a fortress in it? That way all one has to do is blank out the graphic.
Also, how would these invisible fortresses affect air units in the air? In Nemo's recent release, The Blitz, I noticed that several times when, as the British, I attacked flights of AI German bombers, that 4 or 5 units in the same square would be killed. Would a fortress in every square have prevented this kind of thing happening?
Intriqued mightily,
Exile
Field Marshall Klesh offhandedly mentioned what I think is the best idea ever for improving a civ2 scenario. Someone some time ago mentioned that, in order to circumvent the "stacking problem," a scenario designer could place fortresses on every square on the map, then make them invisible. IMO, the "stacking problem" is one of the worst inconsistencies of the civ2 game. For example, you have 6 units in the same square. A bomber comes out of nowhere, bombs, and every one of those units is wiped out by the attack. Not very realistic. Additionally, this characteristic of the game tends to "funnel" campaigns along railroads and through towns and fortresses, simply to keep from incurring these kinds of losses. Putting an army "in the field" is just too dangerous because "stacking" them all in the same square will just get them all killed by a lucky attack. 10 tanks in the same square will all die if they are hit by a single successful artillery attack. How realistic is that?
One wonders if the designers of civ2 ever heard of the idea of "Concentration of Force?"
But implementing this, invisible-fortresses-in-every-square, would create other problems. All units would be doubled. But Klesh solved that with one neat statement. With adjustments of the terrain, so that the effective terrain defense is half of what it would be normally, you solve this problem. By placing invisible fortresses in every square, then adjusting terrain effects to compensate, you can effectively re-make the game so that concentration of force is now an operative concept in military affairs on the civ2 map. If an artillery unit attacked a square with 10 tanks in it, 1 would die, and the others would then be able to pounce. I don't know about you, but I REALLY like this outcome.
It would also have the pleasing effect of eliminating those geometrically-perfect arrangements of fortresses put down by the AIs around every bunch of cities that invariably get infested by their partisans when you finally take a city.
If you wanted an actual "fortress" of some sort in a scenario, you could then always use a unit, suitably defined, as such, and with a lot more graphic variation.
The one remaining problem that I can see with this is human stamina. A big map would require an awful lot a clicking to get something like this implemented. Is there any way to short-cut this? Is there some way to set up the scenario so that every square is created already having a fortress in it? That way all one has to do is blank out the graphic.
Also, how would these invisible fortresses affect air units in the air? In Nemo's recent release, The Blitz, I noticed that several times when, as the British, I attacked flights of AI German bombers, that 4 or 5 units in the same square would be killed. Would a fortress in every square have prevented this kind of thing happening?
Intriqued mightily,
Exile
At sea this feature wont work well since a killed transport will leave all its units out there in the middle of the ocean, the AI is rather capable of fighting whit fortresses all around the place in Bonaparte, except for the barbarians, who allthough they never pillage anything fortify themselves in every square on the map.
Comment