Tweet
Originally posted by demipomme
I think that the 'land' problem is more problematic than the 'unit' problem. (Snip) If it were the case, and I have already suggested it, that control of a square reverted to its original owner unless held for several turns, then a single enemy unit wouldn't be able to take large swathes of my territory. The second advantage is that the enemy unit would have to stay still to gain anything and thus I can track it down while its stays still.
I think this solution is realistic as it models for the change of local government & police etc. of the square. The same can be applied for province capitals i.e. you get to keep the entire province if you hold the capital for several turns.
I think that the 'land' problem is more problematic than the 'unit' problem. (Snip) If it were the case, and I have already suggested it, that control of a square reverted to its original owner unless held for several turns, then a single enemy unit wouldn't be able to take large swathes of my territory. The second advantage is that the enemy unit would have to stay still to gain anything and thus I can track it down while its stays still.
I think this solution is realistic as it models for the change of local government & police etc. of the square. The same can be applied for province capitals i.e. you get to keep the entire province if you hold the capital for several turns.
I agree that we still have problems in this area that need to be fixed. However, I don't think you're idea is very practical since it requires an awesome amount of micromanagement. Every time I move a unit I would need to decide if I want to have it sit for the requisite number of turns on each of the squares in its path. I think your idea would require significant AI tweaking also.
My best guess for what we should do now to fix the "land" part of the problem is to have squares revert to the original civ quite easily if certain criteria are fulfilled. A square would be likely to revert to the original civilization if all these conditions are fulfilled:
1. it had significant affinity for the original civilization (for example same ethnic group), and to a lesser extent had minimal affinity for the conquering civ.
2. Units of the conquering civ are not too close by (say one turn movement)
3. The military power balance nearby does not favor the conquering civilization (nearby means say within a five square radius, or three turns movement, or something like that).
4. There would be a bonus to reversion if there is at least one square of the original civ ownership adjacent to the conquered square.
What the rules above would do is that a few individual units loose inside your civilization would still be an irritation, but could be safely ignored from a "land" standpoint. Just to be clear, I don't mean for any of these criteria above to be completely rigid, for example the "not too close by" criterion in #2 above would not go from "yes" to "no" when a unit was exactly 1 turn of movement away. But rather then when the unit is one movement turn or closer this criterion would be fulfilled at a high level, where as beyond 1 turn of movement the level of satisfaction for this criterion would rapidly diminish toward zero. The reversion chance would depend on something like the psalm all the levels of satisfaction of the first three criteria.
I'd also like to add that in demo 8.1 we should have the "move to enemy TF" command active, which will make hunting down enemy units much easier. Laurent, please correct me if I am wrong. I think this may even be implemented, I have to apologize but I haven't been able to check code updates for the last few weeks.
Alms, we of course always have your idea for a generalized provincial defense force as a backup if our other approaches don't work. However, I think my proposal covers several real-world situations better. For example when Sherman marched to the sea in his southern campaign during the American Civil War his army lived off the land and controlled the local territory wherever it went. That army was too big for the defending Southern armies to directly attack, or a least defeat. However, Sherman was of course not able to retain control of all the territory that he went through because as soon as his army had moved beyond a certain range the locals immediately reverted back to their desired civilization, the CSA. I think my approach handles this correctly, where as the generalized provincial defense idea, at least as originally proposed, would leave Sherman in control of that large string of territory since the defense forces wouldn't be able to eliminate him.
What do you guys think of my idea both in terms of at least temporarily fixing problems in the game, and also in terms of difficulty to code and clock cycle usage?
Comment