View Full Version : Tantor`s simple system for upkeep and supply


Tantor
Apr 12, 2010, 03:32 AM
Starting in the exploration thread a made suggestion wich will both restrict exploration and be a simple supplysystem; my suggestion is as follows.

Units outside of your borders demands a higher upkeep the further away from your border it moves. Upkeep should require both food and gold.

This means that for every X (10?)- hex radius it moves away from your border it will cost you more to sustain your army or to explore the world. Thus it will be quite expensive to send a fishing vessel around the globe early on or to send your army far away from your source of supply.

Different techs (medicine, refrigeration, compass etc) should reduce this upkeep cost by increasing the supply radius, and some units such as scouts, explorers and caravels negate upkeep altogether. A "scout" promotion may also negate cumulative upkeep.

Allies and forts may also be sources of supply, as long as the fort is no more than
X -(10?) hexes away from you border or another supplied fort. This way you may form a line of supply for fort to fort, wich must be protected or your unit upkeep may increase substantially if you`re army is suddenly out of supply.

With this system:
- a civ may invest in exploration by choosing to pay the costs or develop techs that make it cheaper
- we have an abstracted supply chain which can be attacked and must be protected
- Forts get a new meaning
- It will be important to have cities all over the world as a source of supply for armies and your navy, such as Great Britain had during the 1800`s.
- The map won`t be explored after 100 turns

Perhaps I`m waaay off with this but please give me some feedback....

Shurdus
Apr 12, 2010, 04:04 AM
Two things: the more specific you get about the system - like saying 'for every 10 hexes this and this - the more iffy it gets. The notion that some system for upkeep should be there is fine imo, getting into the exact details is pushing it because of the limited insight we have in the game at this point.

Also the goals you have states in the end of the post are goals where I can hardly see where the need for those goals are coming from. In other words I do not understand why you would want to satisfy those needs. Do we need to limit exploration? Why so? Do we need supply lines? Why? Would we want a system where one has cities all over the globe?

I can see that you may want more realism or what have you, but I fail to see why this is a step in the right direction. It seems like a hassle where I think there was nothing wrong with the original system. So what if I can explore the map of the known world by turn 100? In most games a lot of the map is revealed by trading maps rather than having all sorts of people walk all over the place. This is mimiced in Civ IV, and I will be a happy player to see that back in Civ V.

Suho1004
Apr 12, 2010, 04:07 AM
Sounds interesting, and it seems like a reasonable idea. I wonder how it would work with the rest of the mechanics of the game, though. For example, in Civ4, having far-flung cities is not all that realistic. I don't know if it works the same way in Civ5, but essentially you would have to choose between paying city upkeep for far-flung cities or maintenance for far-flung units. We will have fewer units, but still.

I do like the idea of having a supply chain, and it sounds like it will fit with the more tactical approach to combat of Civ5, but it's hard to say at this point how it would jive with the game overall. If there is no system like this in vanilla Civ5, I imagine someone could mod it.

(I've heard counter-arguments to the whole supply line business, though, saying that it would make things too complicated, but I don't think I would be able to pass judgment until I got to play with such a system.)

That was a bit jumbled. Bottom line: sounds like a nifty idea, but I don't know how it will work in reality.

[And Shurdus was a little quicker on the draw. He mentioned something that I was thinking about but forgot to write: for as unrealistic as it might be, I've always liked sending out my lone warrior/scout to explore the great unknown. I would be a bit sad if that went away.]

Thyrwyn
Apr 12, 2010, 04:35 AM
I like it - except the food part. Food from where?

Shurdus
Apr 12, 2010, 05:23 AM
From the city that trained a unit? Seems farfetched to think that anyone would ever go through a great deal of trouble to bring food to some people doing exploring work... And since with this system units eat up food when far away from home but not when they are close to home, it makes even less sense. Add to that the fact that ancient cities clearly did next to nothing to support explorers because the cities could not possible bring them any resources in that day and age and then the notion of cities supporting units that are hundreds of miles out seems even more rediculous.

Ahriman
Apr 12, 2010, 05:48 AM
I don't think that food as an upkeep cost works well. Upkeep costs that are localized resources mess up the city that has to pay the upkeep, we saw that in early versions of civ where units cost shields to upkeep. I'd also argue that the food required to support an army is relatively small proportion of the total food produced by a country.

A campaigning army (for most of human history) is usually a relatively small number of people relative to the total population of the country that sent it off.
Think of say the English expeditionary force in France during the 100 years war, army size 15,000 relative to an England + wales population of 2-4 million (depends pre- or post-black death). So we're talking less than 1% of the population for the entire army.

Higher upkeep for units outside your borders (as opposed to in enemy territory, which we already have in Civ4) seems feasible, my main concern is an AI one. The AI spends a lot of time with its armies en route to wars it never ends up fighting in much, and with units out exploring around somewhat aimlessly.
Care would have be taken to ensure that the AI didn't wreck its economy by moving units outside its borders unnecessarily.

Tantor
Apr 12, 2010, 06:00 AM
Shurdus: Systems for supply, limitataions of early exploration and importance of empire building like Victorian Britain has been raised numerous times in several threads and by several members of this forum. This my suggestion to cover them all in a very abstracted way.

Suho: you can still send out a lone ranger, but it may cost you more and it may be a strategic decision to do it or not.

Thyrwyn: Perhaps food from the nearest city or perhaps you`ll need food resources like wheat to cover X unit upkeep. Or maybe food was an alltogether bad idea?

My suggestion may be twisted an adjusted so it works in the game, but believe it may introduce something many people hav asked for without making the game too complicated.

ETa
Apr 12, 2010, 06:57 AM
The way it worked at least to the 18th century was that army ate local food. This is already happening in Civ as cities can't get any output from hexes with hostile troops.

Tantor
Apr 12, 2010, 07:43 AM
The way it worked at least to the 18th century was that army ate local food. This is already happening in Civ as cities can't get any output from hexes with hostile troops.

This is not a system that is realistic, but it may work within the framework of a game. Even though armies etc foraged in the field, the country invested a lot to put them there, hence the abstracted upkeep.....

Shurdus
Apr 12, 2010, 07:50 AM
This is not a system that is realistic, but it may work within the framework of a game. Even though armies etc foraged in the field, the country invested a lot to put them there, hence the abstracted upkeep.....They maybe invested a lot after Roman times when the idea of a provesional army was implemented...

Before that maybe the provided you with a reward for your family if you fell, or ith land if you made it back. All this is reflected in the game already with unit upkeep...

Ahriman
Apr 12, 2010, 07:50 AM
Even though armies etc foraged in the field, the country invested a lot to put them there, hence the abstracted upkeep.....

Abstracted upkeep is fine, but *food* upkeep limits the population size and growth of your cities. I don't think this is a desirable abstraction.

Shurdus
Apr 12, 2010, 08:09 AM
Abstracted upkeep is fine, but *food* upkeep limits the population size and growth of your cities. I don't think this is a desirable abstraction.INdeed, even moreso since for this to make any sense one would have to assume that the city feeds the unit by shipping food - which of course is complete nonsense. :)

Upkeep in terms of commerce sacrificed is fine imo, since basically that is what maintaining an army does - it drains the economy so that money spend on armies cannot be spend otherwise.

In general I like the ideas of supply lines and everything, I think it is a solid idea. What I dislike however is putting this kind of complexity in Civ. There are games that are no doubt more suited for this kind of complexity that Civ is. If this would be in Civ there would be no telling what would happen if you moved your unit one more tile to the south... WIll that cost you more food? WIll it cause your economy to dip into the red numbers? This is not something I want to worry about in detail. There are other games more suited for this kind of complexity.

Impaler[WrG]
Apr 12, 2010, 01:59 PM
I think a simpler 'level' based supply cost might work. Inside your territory you have 'normal' upkeep cost. Within your 'supply' area which radiates from your territory and forts you incur double upkeep and outside of that triple cost (or worse, like being unable to heal or even attrition). This would be simple enough to allow the supply to be displayed on the map with some kind of crosshatched team color. Some kind of supply wagon or Duce and a half unit could generate some supply or late game cargo planes stationed in an airbase could generate supply over a larger radius. Lots of other interesting effects could be attached as well.

Keeping supply an area based effect is really the best way to go, I wouldn't try to consume basic resources like food and hammers. That's an idea who's time is long past, the paying of maintenance in gold is a much better system and should be built upon.

Ahriman
Apr 12, 2010, 02:38 PM
I think inside/outside/enemy is likely to work better than a distance/radius-based system.

Distance-based would have all kinds of weird implications, like being easier to supply a "close" but inaccessible area on the other side of an impassible mountain range, but harder to supply something a moderate distance away on the coast that could easily be reached by coastal shipping.

Crazy George
Apr 12, 2010, 06:18 PM
I would refine the system to Friendly/Neutral/Enemy.

Ahriman
Apr 12, 2010, 07:28 PM
What's the difference?

How is friendly defined? Open borders? Or more than that?

Open borders is probably sufficient, more than that gets complex.

V. Soma
Apr 13, 2010, 02:05 AM
Lots of ideas may come up here :)

For example:

There is a pathfinding routine, isn't it?
There could be a calculation - from the unit to the nearest own city:

Find the path that is the best/cheapest for supply, factors are (mindstorming here):

- terrain (like mountain cost a LOT, also ocean is "different", plains are cheapest)
- own/friendly/enemy area

EDIT: maybe you couldn't even pass through mountains, not even with supply...

I don't take roads into account as those would not be in civ5 as movement enhancing factor :D

it would be calculated for each unit and could be seen for each too
(when you mouse over or right click or whatever :))

It could work as there is one military unit per tile anyways ;)

Shurdus
Apr 13, 2010, 02:12 AM
WHat I see as a major flaw with the distance as the base factor for maintenance is that once units are on a ship, it matters little where they peddle to. WHat do you care if your huge flagship lies in front of your own coast, or that it is stationed in enemy waters? In both cases it has been supplied, the men are getting a steady paycheck, everything is the same.

Sure resupplying may be an issue, but most marine ships leave the harbors with a solid equipment and they need not resupply for months.

V. Soma
Apr 13, 2010, 02:21 AM
once units are on a ship, it matters little where they peddle to.

didn't I say ocean is "different"? :)
it could be cheap tile as for supply count...
(but maybe there would be a time limit for supply then?
So you couldn't just sail for eternity...)

Shurdus
Apr 13, 2010, 02:32 AM
That would bring a whole new host of problems, like it being no fun to bring your ships home because the crew ran out of fresh veggies. What will happen, will the digital men get digital vitamin deprivation? :lol:

Thyrwyn
Apr 13, 2010, 02:40 AM
Scurvy. We could introduce a Citrus resource which would let your troops stay at sea longer. . . .

I'm kidding. Really.

V. Soma
Apr 13, 2010, 03:16 AM
yeah, maybe this ocean-limit would be just too frighteningly REAL, and no fun ;)
(though nevertheless it could be educational:
who said sailing was that funny back then in history?)

Shurdus
Apr 13, 2010, 03:25 AM
Sailing was highly dangerous indeed. But afaik there is already an upkeep system in Civ IV that makes it so that units outside your territory are more expensive to maintain.

All in all the system for having more upkeep costs and such is fine, but to specify and make it more complex than it is is not needed in a game like civ, it is more something for a pure wargame. Also doing this in order to make the exploration phase more prominent is to insert a feature that introduces a host of problems just to make it so that exploration will be harder. This means that the exploration phase will be over by the time you hit paper, just like it is now. The chances of exploring yourself will be even more slim. All this to solve an issue that a few people see...

No. Just no.

KrikkitTwo
Apr 13, 2010, 04:45 AM
Well I would put it as 5 categories of terrain


Friendly (inside cultural borders)
Close Neutral (X distance, a second set of visible 'borders' showing your supply limit)
Close Enemy (same X distance but in Enemy Territory)
Far Neutral (a third set of Y>X distance 'borders')
Global (anywhere on map)

Each level has increased maintenance (gold only), decreased healing rate
And some units can only go to a certain # of levels.. ie there should be 'hard' Limits as well.

ie some are in culture only
some are close neutrial (and culture) only
Most military ones can go to close enemy only
Early Explorers can go to Far Neutral
Late Explorers can go Global


This Distance should Not be a fixed Hex distance but a certain amount of 'Movement points' so if there is a mountain range, your 'supply' wraps around it. And hills restrict it, Roads would extend it, etc. (and the Distance should increase with techs, wonders, etc.)

V. Soma
Apr 13, 2010, 04:46 AM
Okay, okay, it was just an idea...

This means that the exploration phase will be over by the time you hit paper, just like it is now. The chances of exploring yourself will be even more slim. All this to solve an issue that a few people see...

just what did you mean by saying this, BTW? :)

Shurdus
Apr 13, 2010, 04:57 AM
just what did you mean by saying this, BTW? :)Right now, you can explore the map with a unit. In some games you will do this, in some games you do not. If you make an effort then you can explore a continent by the time you hit paper. All the gaps left after that are filled up with trading maps. This is how it is done in Civ IV.

So if you limit the exploration in V by adding upkeep limits, it becomes less attractive to send out units. So this means that the lay of the land will be revealed after trading maps rather than sending out units. This is precisely what happens in IV as well. In IV you can send out units and explore before you hit paper, but a lot is revealed by map trading. Adding upkeep for units makes sending out units less attractive, yet the outcome will still be the same -> once you trade maps, the exploration is done.

KrikkitTwo
Apr 13, 2010, 04:59 AM
Right now, you can explore the map with a unit. In some games you will do this, in some games you do not. If you make an effort then you can explore a continent by the time you hit paper. All the gaps left after that are filled up with trading maps. This is how it is done in Civ IV.

So if you limit the exploration in V by adding upkeep limits, it becomes less attractive to send out units. So this means that the lay of the land will be revealed after trading maps rather than sending out units. This is precisely what happens in IV as well. In IV you can send out units and explore before you hit paper, but a lot is revealed by map trading. Adding upkeep for units makes sending out units less attractive, yet the outcome will still be the same -> once you trade maps, the exploration is done.

Then make trading maps require higher tech.

Shurdus
Apr 13, 2010, 05:03 AM
Then make trading maps require higher tech.Because once there was paper tradig maps was too difficult? :p

Do you think that exploration should take longer? I was just mentioning that the addition of unit maintenance would not change the timespan in which exploration takes place. Also I do not think it should change at all, I am fine with the way it is. This whole discussion was spawned by some one who wanted the exploration phase to take longer. If that is the goal, adding maintenance is not the answer.

Making map trading available later would solve part of the issue. But would you prefer to make map trading available later just to lengthen the exploration phase of the game? I do not feel any need for that at all...

KrikkitTwo
Apr 13, 2010, 05:19 AM
Because once there was paper tradig maps was too difficult? :p

Do you think that exploration should take longer? I was just mentioning that the addition of unit maintenance would not change the timespan in which exploration takes place. Also I do not think it should change at all, I am fine with the way it is. This whole discussion was spawned by some one who wanted the exploration phase to take longer. If that is the goal, adding maintenance is not the answer.

Making map trading available later would solve part of the issue. But would you prefer to make map trading available later just to lengthen the exploration phase of the game? I do not feel any need for that at all...

The exploration phase is a lot shorter than paper

Pre-paper you Very rapidly could explore all the terrain accessible to you (only when enemy culture or ocean stopped you did you not know it by 1000 BC)

Basically there were 2 stages
1. self-exploration... reaches to enemy culture/ocean... Rapid
2. Map Trading... gets all that was blocked by enemy culture... Very Rapid
3. Transoceanic exploration/map trading...fairly rapid, depending on resources (often near same time as paper


The idea is to expand #1, make it Not Rapid

If Exploration is limited to a few hexes from your borders, then Exploration early on is basically limited to the speed of settling.

also if Everyone is limited in their exploration, trading maps will not provide as much.

Shurdus
Apr 13, 2010, 05:33 AM
Maybe you explored most of the map long before you hit paper, but I find that often I have not explored as much by this time, mostly because I need my units at home. I do not send out my units to explore all that often.

Maybe this is something that istypical for lower difficulties as it is not like you would typically have that much hammers to spare for just exploring on immortal or deity.

Tantor
Apr 13, 2010, 07:18 AM
Skip the food part of the upkeep, but then again cumulative upkeep based on distance from closest friendly border or fort will add some kind of supply system to the game, without making it more complex in my opinion.
There was a reason why Rome and Babylon didn`t explore the globe or simply sent out a legion to China.

Ahriman
Apr 13, 2010, 07:55 AM
Because once there was paper tradig maps was too difficult

Paper (or papyrus or parchment) exists long before civs in the same continent new about each other. Paper existed in Europe and China, and trade existed with China, long before Europeans actually had accurate maps of China.

Paper isn't enough. You also need cartography, and reliable means of measuring longitude.
Good maps really didn't exist until ~18th century or afterwards.

I think pushing back the tech for map-trading is the best solution.

Shurdus
Apr 13, 2010, 08:07 AM
Paper (or papyrus or parchment) exists long before civs in the same continent new about each other. Paper existed in Europe and China, and trade existed with China, long before Europeans actually had accurate maps of China.

Paper isn't enough. You also need cartography, and reliable means of measuring longitude.
Good maps really didn't exist until ~18th century or afterwards.

I think pushing back the tech for map-trading is the best solution.Then again if one wanted to point others towards China a rough sketch of how to get there would have sufficed. It is not like there are dozens of instructions, just pointing in one direction and say 'follow the coast' would suffice.

Accurate maps may have existed later on, maps that were sufficient existed earlier. Why would one need an accurate map of China when one has a map that contains everyting one needs to know? It may be far off and not accurate, but it works. For a merchant, that would be close enough. The map plus common sense would get him where he needed to go. All this is very possible with a poor map.

Ahriman
Apr 13, 2010, 08:12 AM
It is not like there are dozens of instructions, just pointing in one direction and say 'follow the coast' would suffice.

Well, it depends what "maps" really represents. IMO, it represents knowledge good enough to be able to trade with the other cities. Western powers knew where China was, but they didn't trade with it directly - that was all handled by silk road middlemen. Hence, IMO Europe didn't really "trade maps" in-game with China until fairly late.

Being able to trade maps gives you a lot of info. It tells you where the cities are, how big they are, what improvements they have around them, where the borders are, etc.
That's a lot more data than "go east until you hit China".

But what we really want is something that works for gameplay while having some arguable grounding in history.

I think your point about map-trading being the real issue is great, which is what suggests that shifting map-trading in the tech tree is the only real way to encourage exploration later in the game.

Shurdus
Apr 13, 2010, 08:20 AM
And to think I mentioned it as a side-issue because it just suddenly occured to me. :p

frekk
Apr 13, 2010, 09:11 AM
Good maps really didn't exist until ~18th century or afterwards.

The portolan charts of the 1300s were actually not that bad at all - at least as concerns lands that were known. Accurate maps of China didn't exist principally because the Chinese did not have good mapping techniques, and Europeans had not been able to explore those areas much.

The main problem was that most charts were regarded as state secrets. They simply didn't trade maps. Sometimes maps would be leaked or stolen, once they became common knowledge other maps could be created from them and made available but maps containing new information were closely guarded - sometimes under pain of death for revealing them to foreigners.

Ahriman
Apr 13, 2010, 10:09 AM
Yes, naval charts in particular were treated as secrets - and a captain's rutter (their collection of maps) was also a valuable piece of intellectual property, sometimes they'd sell it when they retired for a large amount of money.

But that's kinda my point; knowledge of paper wasn't sufficient to lead to widespread exchange of terrain knowledge. Cartographic knowledge and good measuring devices are needed too.

So perhaps this is an AI issue, and the solution is to make the AI less willing to trade its maps?

Removing tech trading might also help here, so that you can't just get another AI's maps by giving them some tech, which costs you nothing directly.
If you actually have to pay significant gold to *buy* the maps, then the trading of maps will be significantly reduced.

Also perhaps (as someone else suggested) maybe map trading should only reveal your own territory, not your explorations.

KrikkitTwo
Apr 13, 2010, 11:32 AM
In any case, a "Range Limit" on units would not only make exploration longer, it would allow diplomacy, trade and war more streadily advance (instead of knowing everyone on your continent by 0 AD

qwerty25
Apr 13, 2010, 11:24 PM
Exploration could be increased by:

1.Making the world bigger/make units more slower
2.Limit Unit exploration by maintenance, distance, supply (5 turns away from culture), or more barbarians
3.Make terrain change over time. (most likely small changes, like plain into grassland, not sea into mountain)
4.Make some details of landscape only see able by walking on to the tile itself.
(Resources, rivers, etc. can only be found if you walk on to the tile)
5.Map trading harder to get

This should be put in (from Explorers thread):
6.Fishing boats can only go to pre-explored areas

That's all the ideas I've heard or had.

Thyrwyn
Apr 14, 2010, 12:10 AM
See the other thread: Explorers and Exploration

Shurdus
Apr 14, 2010, 02:09 AM
Basically these ideas could indeed make the exploration phase of the game longer, but it would also annoy me to no end if I personally had to make sure that my explorer stepped onto each and every one of the tiles just to know what is there.

So basically this thread is discussing the ideas for making the exploration phase last longer by adding a whole lot of restrictions and added annoyances. While I do not think the exploration phase is too short at all - I like it the way it is - I would think that it would be extremely frustrating is there suggestions got into the game.

Tantor
Apr 14, 2010, 03:29 AM
Shurdus: My original suggestion was to make it more expensive to use normal military units for exploring as their upkeep would increase the further they get away from your border, but also to let scouts, explorers and caravels avoid increased upkeep as they would start with an "explorer" promotion.
I think workboats in particular should be unable to explore, but only be able to move into already explored areas. I would never send my worker out as a scout because of animals and barbarians, and it should be equally dangerous or impossible to use a workboat as a scout.

Last_Evolution
May 10, 2010, 02:20 PM
I agree with the idea. Military units away from the borders should have _high_ upkeep. It would make the game more logical. Just image, that, let's say Chinese, would send troops to sack the Rome :lol: . You can do this easily in civ-game because of the low upkeep costs. But I don't recall a real historical event like this.

Dachs
May 10, 2010, 08:20 PM
So under this system, legionaries that are far away from your territory, but which are in the middle of irrigated wheat-producing plains, would require high upkeep, but hoplites which are a few hexes away from your border and in the middle of a desert would require low upkeep?

Ah-huh.

Last_Evolution
May 11, 2010, 03:07 AM
So under this system, legionaries that are far away from your territory, but which are in the middle of irrigated wheat-producing plains, would require high upkeep, but hoplites which are a few hexes away from your border and in the middle of a desert would require low upkeep?

Ah-huh.

You should not think only about food. The major problem in the history was problem with communication, supply and issuing commands from the leader (because of distance). What would the legionaries do far away?? They would not have instructions from the leader what to do or they would have to wait lot of months until messenger arrives. You can't program realism in the game but you could model it via upkeep cost or kind of range, where the units can go. In any case the system should be simple to allow good gameplay. But it should not be cheap and stupid like it is now in civ4 - it has almost no effect on the game.

Tantor
May 11, 2010, 04:46 AM
You should not think only about food. The major problem in the history was problem with communication, supply and issuing commands from the leader (because of distance). What would the legionaries do far away?? They would not have instructions from the leader what to do or they would have to wait lot of months until messenger arrives. You can't program realism in the game but you could model it via upkeep cost or kind of range, where the units can go. In any case the system should be simple to allow good gameplay. But it should not be cheap and stupid like it is now in civ4 - it has almost no effect on the game.

My thoughts exactly...

Shurdus
May 11, 2010, 05:18 AM
Then again it is very good it has no effect on the game. If civ started to simulate those kinds of difficulties then maybe there should be penalties to research in ancient times too, since back then surely the notion of researchers working on coordinated efforts to further the state of science was a joke. If unit upkeep should have some grounding in realism, then why stop there?

In essence I can see the issue here, and I can agree that it makes some sense and all that, but I feel that in a game - because that is what civ is, it has no relation with reality - we need not have a system like this. Civ is fine the way it is, nice and organised and very much everything can be overseen. This system would complicate things further, making it hard to plan ahead, and therefore it will ultimately frustrate the player with added logistic complications where there were none before. It may add to the realism, but I doubt it will add to the fun.

Tantor
May 11, 2010, 06:58 AM
Shurdus: I believe a game like Civ is about making decisions wich in turn affects your civ. A decison is based upon your choice of strategy to reach you goal and you must decide between pros and cons of every alternative. Replayability is based upon the urge to try every possible alternative and to see what happens if you do. Adding simple logistics into the game forces you to make a decision. Is it sound to to go crusading far away and maybe conquer important resources or do I concentrate on beeing the biggest bully in my own backyard. It is suddenly about priorities if you can`t do both at the same time, but both directions might pay off, but in different ways.

Shurdus
May 11, 2010, 07:35 AM
Shurdus: I believe a game like Civ is about making decisions wich in turn affects your civ. A decison is based upon your choice of strategy to reach you goal and you must decide between pros and cons of every alternative. Replayability is based upon the urge to try every possible alternative and to see what happens if you do. Adding simple logistics into the game forces you to make a decision. Is it sound to to go crusading far away and maybe conquer important resources or do I concentrate on beeing the biggest bully in my own backyard. It is suddenly about priorities if you can`t do both at the same time, but both directions might pay off, but in different ways.On the higher difficulty levels in BtS you actually need to make these calls and you cannot do both. We do not need a system of supply for this because the current system already prevents you from doing both.

Again I state that your system definitely has things going for it. However if you want to achieve the goal that you can no longer do both the things you describe, then you can either add features to the game that did not exist, or you can crank up the difficulty settings. Good luck in succesfully fighting these wars you descibed on deity in BtS...

Dachs
May 11, 2010, 10:37 AM
You should not think only about food. The major problem in the history was problem with communication, supply and issuing commands from the leader (because of distance). What would the legionaries do far away?? They would not have instructions from the leader what to do or they would have to wait lot of months until messenger arrives.
I totally agree - unless, of course, the leader went with the army. :3 I also think that it's difficult to model this well in a gaming context. Simply substituting an upkeep increase for an almost total lack of higher control before the 19th century or so (since an upkeep increase would make sense for the most recent centuries in human history) doesn't really attack the problem from a realism standpoint, because poorer states would be prevented from launching long-range operations that they historically could (I'm thinking something like Göktürks here) - and I assume that realism is the goal, here?
You can't program realism in the game but you could model it via upkeep cost or kind of range, where the units can go. In any case the system should be simple to allow good gameplay. But it should not be cheap and stupid like it is now in civ4 - it has almost no effect on the game.
I'll be honest, I don't really know how upkeep mechanics in Civ4 "work", so I can't really answer this.

Tantor
May 12, 2010, 12:07 AM
Shurdus: I admit to not normally beeing a deity- level player, because I believe Civ at deity level degrades into being a game of powerplay and micromanagement to scrooge every possible hammer and gold out of every possible tile. But I`d love to see an AI choosing the path of exploration, crusading and colonization over local supremacy.

Shurdus
May 12, 2010, 02:02 AM
Shurdus: I admit to not normally beeing a deity- level player, because I believe Civ at deity level degrades into being a game of powerplay and micromanagement to scrooge every possible hammer and gold out of every possible tile. But I`d love to see an AI choosing the path of exploration, crusading and colonization over local supremacy.Agree, I like that too. Then again the AI tends to scout quite a bit. Do you trade maps often? An AI will typically have uncovered most of the continent long before I have'. The AI does indeed explore a lot. Would it also do that with a system that force a high upkeep on units that explore far out?

On the crusading part, it is not unheard of for an AI to cross half the continent just so it can stomp the player. Does that count as a crusade?

Also on immortal and deity - and emperor too although you get a bit more breathing space there - you really need to explore the oceans in order to find some free islands to colonize. If you are too slow the AI will have settled it. On deity it is basically this: you get astro reasonably soon - you and maybe one AI have it. You get a ship to explore. Should you find colonizable land then you must send out a settler if you want that land. If you do not immediately do this, then the AI will. Even an AI that did not even have astro when you found the island may beat you to it if you do not prioritise the settling. Does this count as an AI colonizing?

Tantor
May 12, 2010, 06:20 AM
Shurdus: I see your point, but I believe this is a side- effect of a cheating AI with an abundance of available reources compared to a restricted player. Not a strategic choice made by an AI based on which strategy it chooses to win the game. Although this may change in CiV with civspecific priorities...

Tantor
May 12, 2010, 06:21 AM
Shurdus: And by yhe way, I appreciate you ability to play ball without foul play, even though we may be on different teams:goodjob:

Shurdus
May 12, 2010, 06:32 AM
Shurdus: I see your point, but I believe this is a side- effect of a cheating AI with an abundance of available reources compared to a restricted player. Not a strategic choice made by an AI based on which strategy it chooses to win the game. Although this may change in CiV with civspecific priorities...It is most likely due to the AI cheating. I am unsure if we should care about this though. The AI does it, should it matter what 'behind-the-screens' reasoning it has for doing so? I feel the AI delivers everything this post asks for, even though it does these thing because it can and not because it feels like it should. There is a difference there, but it is mainly a psycological one it seems. In the results it matters little.

Shurdus: And by yhe way, I appreciate you ability to play ball without foul play, even though we may be on different teams Thanks, these boards are amongst the most fun and friendly boards on the internet and I intend to keep it that way. Also I like reasoning with you because unlike some you can handle critisism well and you can see posts for what they are - an attack on a line of reasoning and not an attack directed at the poster.

Let us continue to make civfanatics a better place by setting the right example. :beer: