I started much of this in a new thread, forgive the overlap, please:

Instead of seasons, climactic effects would be better. Currently, I can produce a scout and have him live 6050 years. During this time he can go through jungles, deserts with no water, ice-capped mountains and frozen tundra. This has got to stop!

I think the best way is to cause damage to units in hostile environments unless they have supply lines. I also believe that units should be banned from going half-way around the world (in the AA) and giving you instant access to their maps.

I believe that units should have a range from supply in which they still have communications. Thus, a warrior might have a range of 3. This would mean that he could move 3 tiles from the civ border and survive. Some units would require supply (e.g. musketmen, riflemen). Units would have communication ability out to their range, supply might be linked to this ability. So, the above warriors might be able to be supplied only 1 square from their civ (although I kind of favor giving them a full 3 since they are likely going to be the primary explorers). Units that go beyond their supply range would take damage each turn that their movement was beyond the limit.

I would actually like to see something like the following:

Unit Range Supply range
Warrior 3 3
Horseman 4 4
Spearman 2 2
Swordsmen 2 1
Knights 6 4
Pikemen 2 2
Musketmen 3 1

The reasoning is that you must then have supply lines created in order to advance and you would have to maintain communications with your units in order to gain any benefits.

One of the ways to get around the limit would be that supply and range would also extend provided that you had an unbroken line of units reaching out. Thus, if I sent knights to attack my neighbor, I might send them 6 tiles in to attack. If I conquered a city, then all well and good, if I fail, each knight will take a point of damage. If, however, I leave a trail of knights, pikemen, etc. reaching all the way to my knights, then they would take no damage, and, for that matter, they would be able to go much further into the enemy territory since my "sphere of influence", or whatever you want to call it, would extend as far as my unbroken line of units.

This would also give my opponent the opportunity to cut my lines of communication. In that case, I would have to reestablish them in one turn or the units too far out would be eliminated (unless I moved them closer to communication lines).

Edit: Forgot about climatic effects. As I mentioned above, units in hostile climates should have a significant chance of taking damage. Thus, tundra, snowcapped mountains, desert, jungle, and swamp should have a good chance of wearing down an army. This could be made especially true for armored (e.g. knights and swordsmen) troops.

Another benefit of having the ranges above is that UU's could have longer ranges and more survivability in certain climates. Thus Impi would be immune to jungle effects, Mongol UU (I forget what it is) would be immune to mountain and tundra damage, etc.

You got some good ideas.

I wrote something about unit movements
http://www2.vhl.tudelft.nl/~emile/civilization/unit_movement_model.html

I like what you have done Ultraworld. I would add one more change: ironclads were notoriously unstable at sea, so they should probably be in the grouping with the Mississippi Riverboats and longships.

Do you really want to complicate this game any farther with adding supply lines? It's already a pain sending a unit half way across the world when it takes something like 10 or 15 turns.

Why bog the game down with details like supply lines when all we really want is to kick some ass?

Flexmaster, the problem is that you CAN send someone halfway around the world. Guys with stone axes just wouldn't survive the journey!

Hey RCOUTME, I happen to agree with you pretty much 100% on this issue :D! If you have another look at LouLongs combat thread
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85662
you will see that this is pretty much what I'm saying with Operational Ranges (or OR). The only way to extend this range, beyond your borders, is through the capture of enemy cities, or by building an outpost or fortress (from which the OR will be calculated). Not ONLY does this have the effect that you mentioned, but it will also help add a greater flavour to the combat side of the game. i.e. no more sending those stacks of tanks DEEP into enemy territory (right up to their capital :rolleyes: !) Now you have to consider what might happen if you go outside your OR. Worse still if you have a string of forts connecting you back to friendly territory-what will happen if one of them is captured by the enemy, thus leaving your once invincible SoD stranded behind enemy lines :( ! So you will have to create units SOLELY for the defense of these vital supply points, or risk your SoD's becoming seriously degraded and ineffective-easy pickings for your once weak enemy ;)!
So you see, already, just on that level, the game will have become much deeper and strategic in nature.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

What exactly does a guy with a stone axe need for supplies? He lives off the land. He can pillage small villages in enemy territory.

Aren't taxes collected to support your troops enough? In a way this is like an invisible supply line.

I think it's too much hassle sending guys with axes and swords across the world anyways. It takes way too many turns since they move so slowly. Horsemen, however, are aswome. They can go pretty far distances. Look at history's Ghengis Khan. He conquered all of Asia and as far as the middle east. He didn't hav any supply lines. Just pillaged and robbed every thing along the way.

I can see your point with more modern units starting with the industrial age. Afterall, modern armies do need bullets to fire at the enemy.

How about having a unit that can build a base within enemy territory? This base can then be used to heal and "re-supply" units within a certain zone of control.

I don't like the idea of losing hit points with each turn. Maybe a fraction of a hitpoint but nothing subsatntial.

I lthink I am on the same page with Aussie.

I don't mind them losing full HP, but only if they increase the total amount of HP that units have (which I believe they should, as you can see from that thread that I linked to ;)) If they were to have a system with 10-100hp, instead of just 1-6 or so, then I think that the number of HP you lose, per turn, should be based on the number hexes you are OUTSIDE of your Operational Range. So, if you're 3 hexes outside, then you lose 3hp/turn, if you're 8 hexes out, then you lose 8HP's/turn!!!! Given that you can't heal in enemy territory, then this becomes a real issue.
Also, loss of hp should also degrade morale and firepower-thus making their ability do deliver damage, and resist a rout, much more difficult.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

The lose-based-on-distance idea is a good one, Aussie. As for "what does a guy with a stone axe need?" How about replacements. We are talking centuries here. Also, these guys all seem to have cell phone technology (since anything they say or do is instantly reported to the capital). In my system (or Aussie's) taking a town would reset your supply line since the town would be yours (thus your units would not suffer casualties due to distance from supply).

Originally posted by rcoutme

Instead of seasons, climactic effects would be better.

Edit: Forgot about climactic effects.

You mean climatic effects, not climactic. Climatic has to do with weather patterns; climactic has to do with climaxes.

Yes, Quasar, I changed it. In addition to some of the above suggestions, I would like to see more randomness in the actual combat value of the units. As it stands right now, each civ has the same combat values for the same types of units. This was not often the case (reflected by the UU's).

I would like to see a random value for A/D/M when a tech is obtained that gives a new unit. This need not be huge, thus if units had the warrior=10/10/1 and modern armor 240/160/3, then the randomness could easily be 10 or 20%. This could (but need not) allow a nation to continue research on a given tech in hopes of improving their unit values.

The ironclad solution is simple. make them non-seaworthy like Galleys. A 5-10% chance of a unit dying in Tundra would also be nice. Thoses number are actually very low. Look what happened to Napolean. But I dont want thse tiles to simply become "untouchable"

I agree. The units that are out of range should have a chance of not taking any damage and should take a random quantity of damage depending on terrain and how far out from supply they are.

I would also like to see units have immunity (or near immunity) to natural disasters. I have never heard of an army being wiped out by a volcano.

Although sort of off-topic, I also think that you should be allowed to build roads and RR on volcanos. This is done all the time.

Originally posted by rcoutme
I would also like to see units have immunity (or near immunity) to natural disasters. I have never heard of an army being wiped out by a volcano.


While I can't think of an instance of a volcano taking out an army, I can think of other natural disasters that had effects on war. For instance Temujin/Genghis Khan built a huge fleet to invade Japan. That fleet was wiped out by a typhoon. The Japanese coined the term kamikaze (divine wind) after that event.

The Spanish Armada of 1588 never succeeded in invading England, due to constant storms at sea.

A Roman legion invading northern Germany was wiped out by a severe thunderstorm; thus, only southern Germany became Roman.

So, as long as volcanoes continue to give ample warning time to move your units away, that itself should function as immunity.

Not to be nit-picky, but I was under the impression that the Roman Legion in question had poor leadership and the barbarians ambushed them in the forest. As for sea disasters, I whole-heartedly agree with the kamikaze idea. In fact, the Civ3 system allows much safer sea travel for armies than I would like. I am simply suggesting that volcanos can knock out a city, but not the armies (or not automatically). Also, this had to do with the thread on units that were in supply.

In other words, units in supply would be immune or mostly immune to climatic (there! spelled correctly) effects. Units in supply have the winter coats for arctic regions, ample water for desert, medicine men around for the nasty swamps and jungles. Units out of supply would be in Big Trouble (unless they either got lucky or were specialized for that terrain).

Originally posted by rcoutme
Not to be nit-picky, but I was under the impression that the Roman Legion in question had poor leadership and the barbarians ambushed them in the forest.

If you are referring to the Lost Legions of Varus, then yes, you are correct. But the Romans were thrown into confusion by the thunderstorm. If not for the weather effects, the Romans likely would have won that battle. This of course, raises the issue of defense bonuses due to weather, as well as terrain...

I think that the current system that Civ3 has (ever lose a Modern Armor to a defending spearman) pretty much covers the possibility of weather playing a devastating roll in ground combat. The loss of effects for combat and strategy comes with units out at sea (and the appallingly low loss rate of ships carrying troops). The idea that ending the turn next to the coast makes ships immune just does not provide enough disincentive for maritime campaigns.

I have to say that that is pretty much what I'm gettin at rcoutme!
Its not that units outside of their supply range should instantly die, or anything like that, just that their ability to fight effectively will be greatly degraded (as indicated by the loss of morale and firepower). Losing your hp represents mostly desertions and death/breakdown of units. Also, I do feel that certain units should ignore certain 'terrain penalties' for calculating Operational Range.
For instance, you have a horseman that has an operational range of 8 hexes! This means that the unit can travel 8 hexes away from friendly territory. If your journey takes you through desert terrain, then your Operational Range might be half normal-or 4 hexes. Of course, if you have the arab unique unit, then it would ignore the 'range cost' of desert terrain-thus leaving it with its original range 8. Basically ignoring range cost would work in an almost identical fashion to the 'ignore movement cost' flag of Civ3!
Also, in my system, forts would act as 'resupply' bases-consisting of supplies, equipment and a field hospital!
To be honest, though, I don't see any reason, at ALL, why this could not be incorporated into Civ3!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

I agree that Civ3 would be better with this, but I doubt that Firaxis will add an entire dimension to the game in a patch. Thus the request for Civ4.

I think that Naval Units should also have an Operational Range, but they should be a LOT higher than for their land-based equivalents! This way, galleys would no longer sink automatically, but with only a low OR, they would have a good chance of losing all of their hp and, therefore, sinking!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Originally posted by Flexmaster
Do you really want to complicate this game any farther with adding supply lines? It's already a pain sending a unit half way across the world when it takes something like 10 or 15 turns.

Why bog the game down with details like supply lines when all we really want is to kick some ass?

That's the SAME exact answer I got when I suggested supply lines when civ3 was announced when I posted at TUC2S (now Apolyton).


I must admit, having a supply line of 6 tiles is kind of small. Right now, units can't heal in enemy territory. Maybe the terrain could affect their rate of healing though... or, if you happen to have troops on another continent with seas between them, and you haven't researched Astronomy.

Originally posted by rcoutme
How about replacements. We are talking centuries here. Also, these guys all seem to have cell phone technology (since anything they say or do is instantly reported to the capital).

Well, since the early turns take up to twenty years per turn, and the fastest you go through a turn is two years, I'd say that's plenty of time for messengers to get to your capitol.

I disagree with your assessment that 20 years would be enough time to get information back to the capital. All sorts of barbarian activities are typically going on in the early stages and one messenger is not likely to get through.

Originally posted by rcoutme
I disagree with your assessment that 20 years would be enough time to get information back to the capital. All sorts of barbarian activities are typically going on in the early stages and one messenger is not likely to get through.

If barbarians stop some of your messengers, that means you need to send more messengers, not necessarily give them longer to get somewhere. Certainly you don't send one out, wait a few years, and decide he might not have made it so you send another one! Even in ancient times, 20 years is a huge amount of time in reality, plenty of time to do lots of traveling. Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world and died before he was 30. Many military campaigns in pre-modern times were seasonal: the army would head off to fight in the spring and then return home in the fall. I don't see any problem with the "cell-phone" effect of instant communication.

Originally posted by Aussie_Lurker
Its not that units outside of their supply range should instantly die, or anything like that, just that their ability to fight effectively will be greatly degraded (as indicated by the loss of morale and firepower). Losing your hp represents mostly desertions and death/breakdown of units.
Desertions and death usually don't happen in huge amounts unless there's an enemy involved, and also aren't as bad when you're winning. In other words, if I march a huge army deep into enemy territory, but the enemy doesn't put up any real resistance, there's not much incentive for my soldiers to chicken-out and desert, and not much that's killing them, either (the exception is disease, which is another whole topic). Modern armies need complex resupply lines, for ammo and fuel as well as food, but ancient armies often foraged for food in the terrain they were traveling through, and quite often recruited new troops from the local population. This could happen even when that terrain was nominally hostile territory - when Hannibal entered Italy during the 2nd Punic War, many deserters from the Roman legions joined his army (he was winning, and lots of people have a strong desire to be on the winning side). Therefore, I disagree with rcoutme that a group of stone-axe-warriors needs replacements from friendly territory. If a bunch get killed in combat, then yes, they might need replacements (but you can't heal in enemy territory, anyway). But as long as you're not doing much fighting, I don't see there being much that you need from home in the way of supplies.

Regardless of how realistic the Operation Range idea might be (and, at least for ancient times, I disagree that its very realistic) I'm not a big fan for reasons of gameplay. Yes, cutting off enemy supply lines would offer an interesting strategic option, but on the other hand, I would find it profoundly annoying if my units started losing HP even when no enemies had engaged them. And I think worrying about my own supply lines would add much tedium without making warfare any more fun.

:cry: Ok, in response to your criticism:

1. The idea is that the "world as we know it" was not mapped out nearly so early as in Civ3. The operational range for ancient units was designed to prevent a warrior from mapping out all of Eurasia/Africa just because he could walk there. I was trying to come up with some way of limiting how far these guys could go.

2. I agree that units could forage, thus the reason that problems would (most likely) occur in hostile terrain: desert, tundra, jungle, swamps.

3. As civ stands right now, I have never, ever used an explorer to map out black regions. Why bother, you can trade insignificant techs (to you at least) to host nations for their world maps and map the whole thing in one turn! Thus, the benefit of getting the globe mapped is a White Elephant (unless you are really interested in the road/improvement structure).

4. Hanibal did pick up lots of recruits while in Italy. As you say, he was winning :rolleyes: hello "conquered cities = new supply"

5. Hanibal did not map out all of Gaul with one of his warrior units, even though the loss would have been insignificant to his army! Why not?? Because they would never have gotten back to him to tell him what was there!

OK, thank you rcoutme-I couldn't have said it better myself!

First up, I agree that units should be able to 'Forage' in order to avoid suffering damage-however this should take up their turn, and only a limited number of units each turn should be able to do this (i.e. we NEED a stack limit!!) Point 4 is also very valid: conquering cities, like building forts, should be able to extend your operational range. From a gameplay point of view, this would work well as it will force players (and, we hope, the AI) to map out a more extensive invasion plan-consisting of short term goals aimed at siezing strategic resources and/or securing a line of supply (i.e. capturing an enemy city or fort). Of course, the further out your supply line reaches, the more vulnerable it is to attack by the enemy (whether by disrupting a road connecting your fort to your home territory-or by capturing the fort itself!)
Yes, it WOULD be annoying to start losing hp from my SoD, but this would simply be more incentive for me to PLAN AHEAD! By other stopping to consolidate my victories every so often, or by bringing up sufficient defensive and mobile units to protect my supply points!
Those two points rcoutme pointed out, though, also help with the other points he made in his post!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

:cry: Ok, in response to your criticism of my criticism :lol: :
Originally posted by rcoutme
1. The idea is that the "world as we know it" was not mapped out nearly so early as in Civ3. The operational range for ancient units was designed to prevent a warrior from mapping out all of Eurasia/Africa just because he could walk there. I was trying to come up with some way of limiting how far these guys could go.
Its true that the world was not mapped so early on, but the reason is not that people couldn't walk all around it, the reason is that making an accurate map requires more than simply walking through the territory. Yet simulating this in Civ would add a level of tedium without adding anything to gameplay. Mapping the world simply by walking it may not be realistic, but its simple, and it's never really bothered me. I don't really see the need to "limit how far these guys could go" - if they can make it all the way across Eurasia without falling victim to barbarians or hostile military forces, more power too 'em.

3. As civ stands right now, I have never, ever used an explorer to map out black regions. Why bother, you can trade insignificant techs (to you at least) to host nations for their world maps and map the whole thing in one turn! Thus, the benefit of getting the globe mapped is a White Elephant (unless you are really interested in the road/improvement structure).
So the problem is that maps are too easy to trade. Giving units an Operational Range would do absolutely nothing to change this. Didn't Conquests push back the tech that you need in order to trade maps? Regardless, this could be addressed simply by making the AIs value their maps a little more. Then using explorers might be a more attractive option. Operational Range seems irrelevant to this issue, IMHO.

4. Hanibal did pick up lots of recruits while in Italy. As you say, he was winning :rolleyes: hello "conquered cities = new supply"

A fair point, although IIRC correctly, he did recruit significant numbers before ever conquering any Italian cities. In any case, my point is simply that armies don't always dwindle just because they're in hostile territory. I think the inability to heal in hostile territory is enough: don't make them also automatically lose HP. That's what enemy units are for!

5. Hanibal did not map out all of Gaul with one of his warrior units, even though the loss would have been insignificant to his army! Why not?? Because they would never have gotten back to him to tell him what was there!
Again, in reality, there's a difference between walking through territory and mapping it. When Hannibal left Spain with his army, he knew where he was going. He had enough maps of the western medditerranean to know that he could get from Spain to Italy, and he was constantly updating his maps as he went, making notations about the "barbarian" people who lived in various locations, their temperment and customs, etc. He didn't send out a warrior unit to map of all of Gaul because cartography wasn't his mission: he was on his way to fight a war. I suppose you might be trying to make the point that if you send a unit off to map an area, and it dies before it gets back, you still know the map of the area. True, but so what? Maybe its unrealistic, but again, operational range wouldn't change this at all, it would simply limit how far away the unit could get before dying. In either case, you still immediately know the terrain around the unit, and that's the way it ought to be - the alternative is for the unit to disappear into the fog of war and be out of your control until it gets back with news of the great unknown. I prefer the current system of directing my units' explorations: please don't make exploration something out of my control, automated (undoubtedly poorly) by the computer.

My main argument is not against the realism of the range idea: I admit its more realistic (especially for modern armies that need fuel and ammo - the argument over the realism for ancient armies isn't terribly important). I simply contend that the system would annoy me more than it would entertain me with greater depth of strategy. Civ isn't a wargame, with a need for a detailed, accurate model of warfare. It's a game aobut building a great civilization, and warfare is of course a significant part of that. Not everyone wants to have to spend more time planning their invasions: we play the role of the leader of the entire civ, not the role of the generals and advisors planning the intricate details of wars. I don't deny that logistics and supply is an essential part of warfare, but to me, it isn't an interesting part that I'm eager to spend more time thinking about. I'm interested in the big picture: who wins what battles, what cities get conquered, etc. I prefer not having to think about the details of how to get supplies from one place to another. The current system is abstract and unrealistic, but its simple and entertaining.

judgement, I was not trying to add tedium to the game, I was trying to suggest a way that it would be more interesting and (possibly) challenging. I am trying to prevent the Celts from easily mapping S. E. Asia by 1000 B. C. If you got a RoP with the civilizations on the way, then, yes, you would be able to send your Celt warrior all the way from Ireland to Saigon (and accross to Australia if you could still find sea transport).

The situation would be thus:

Ancient age units would have a fairly long operational range (reflecting the ability to forage, etc.). The need for bullets and powder would limit some units, and the need for gas would limit many (although not all) modern units. A RoP agreement would count as supply so long as your civ had a sufficient link to the civ with whom you have a RoP.

Examples:

1. I have a warrior unit that I will explore with on turn 5. He has (since I am in a Huge map game) an operational range of 8. This means that as long as he is within moves of my borders, he is fine. If he moves outside of that limit then he would have a chance of taking damage (based on the terrain), probably 25% for good terrain (i.e. on a river, in grassland), 40% in somewhat hostile terrain (plains or forest without bonus food), 50% or more in hostile terrain (tundra forest or tundra, jungle, desert).

1.a. I say 8 moves because: I could build a road out to where the unit is and my supplies can move faster (so it is based on the unit's movement capacity to get to the supplies).

1.b. The unit still has the "cell phone" response for mapping purposes for its entire lifetime.

1.c. If the unit stays away from supply too long, it is going to die. You never lose control of the unit (the computer does not start moving it out in the FoW).

2. My civ is now 5 or 6 cities and I have made contact with the Romans (for kicks and grins, we'll say in Italy). My closest city is currently Paris (or some other name founded where Paris actually is).

2.a. I have moved across the English channel (obviously) so I have Map Making (I personally think this is an atrocious idea. Lots of civs were way behind the power curve on making maps yet moved troops and citizens by boat!) or what-ever allows me to cross the channel.

2.b. The Romans have met me about where Lyons is currently located (one of their units has met my famous warriors who plan to map the world). The Romans are 3 moves from their borders and I am 6 from my borders.

2.c. Even if I sign a RoP agreement with the Romans, my warrior can not (as things are currently listed) traverse Italy safely. Reason: the closest Roman City is 9 moves from the closest Celtic city.

If, however, I build a road out toward Italy, then, with the RoP my unit could map all of the Roman territory, provided that it was contiguous (gaps would go toward the 8 move limit).

3. Way later, I have met all sorts of guys, including the Germans, Russians, Indians, Persians, Chinese, Mongols, and Egyptians. So long as they have colonized the place fairly well and I get RoP agreements with all of them, my lone warrior could (conceivably) map all the way out to Saigon and Pusan. As long as the terrain in question is friendly, the movement allowance would not come into play. It's when one of those guys decides he does not want me using his territory that my warriors run into trouble.

I realize that this is a long thread, however, what I'm trying to point out is that the voyage of Marco Polo can be acheived. In fact, in this system, it is possible that the voyage could be made without RoP agreements (it's just rather unlikely).

This means that you may not know what is far beyond your borders until much later in the game, when you can use ships to safely explore the planet. Or when you get explorers, who would, presumably, have no operational range limit.:soldier:

All of this is to actually add more fun into the game by leaving the "great unknown" unknown. At least until technology catches up.

As for map trading, I think that world maps should be untradeable until much, much later on (probably early industrial age). Instead, civs could trade the whereabouts of known cities. This would get you the city square itself (or maybe the 8 surrounding as well, but not the full 21). In addition, any contact with another civ could get knowledge of a city based on trade.

For example, if I am trading iron to the Persians for incense and the Chinese are trading silks tot he Persians for incense (or anything else) then it is possible that my merchants will meet Chinese merchants. My Foreign Advisor would then tell me, "Our merchants report a land far to the east named China, Sire". There could also be a limited chance that I could get the Bejing map due to "rumors" that happen to be fairly accurate.

I would not be allowed to establish an embassy until I made full contact with the Chinese (either through purchasing the communications or getting somebody on the ground to meet the Chinese somewhere).

It would (the supply lines) only work in the ancient era.

I've actually been thinking about my original point and, I agree, it is a little TOO harsh!
IMHO, I see Operational Range Working in two possible ways:

1) The number of hexes that you are outside of your operational range could equal the % chance of losing a SET number of hp per turn. For instance, if you are 6 hexes outside operational range, then you have a 30% chance of losing X HP's between turns. This chance would be increased according to the % of the total hp that the unit has lost. For instance, a unit at only 25% of its original HP's is 2x more likely to lose HP's than one at 50% of its original.

2) The number of hexes you are outside your OR will determine the amount of firepower, armour and morale that your troops lose. For instance, to use the example above, if you are 6 hexes outside operational range, then your units morale, firpower and armour will drop by 30%. This reflects the inability to get fresh equipment for your troops-like ammo, fuel and materials to repair armour etc. It also reflects the demoralising effect that fighting on foreign soil can have, especially on fairly Raw Units!

In fact, I don't see any reason why both systems couldn't be used together. Whatever route is taken, though, I think this would make a FANTASTIC incentive for players to abandon the ridiculous stack of death approach to invasions which currently infect player 'strategy'! After all, whats the point of having a stack of 20 tanks in foreign territory if the loss of a single 'supply point' (city or fort) can see those tanks lose much of their combat potential in just a few turns!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

It seems to me that this would simply tie you down to your starting point. And what about Workers, which have no HP? Do they simply die outside their OR? And surely you would concede that Settlers shouldn't suffer such a fate, since they're rather enterprising.

OK, I was referring to military units ONLY though if settlers and workers were to have an operational range, then it would have to be VERY high!
Anyway, by the time you factor in fortresses, captured cities, alliances and RoP agreements-there will probably be few places in the world that your units can go-EVENTUALLY ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Originally posted by Aussie_Lurker
Anyway, by the time you factor in fortresses, captured cities, alliances and RoP agreements-there will probably be few places in the world that your units can go-EVENTUALLY

I believe you meant there will be few places that your units could not go. I agree. Especially if a supply unit is introduced. The supply unit could supply an infinite number of units (it would likely be an IA unit) but would be used up at turn end (if it was needed). You would be allowed to take supply units with you, but they should be cumbersome or expensive (like the preparations made for the Normandy landings).

Either that, or allow settlers (or workers) to build a harbor just like airports. Allow that to be a supply source as long as there are transportation capabilities by the nation (i.e. you must have an eligable harbor city supplying the harbor square).

This concept is really much easier than people think.
As for being stuck in the area you began in, YES, that is the entire point. You either colonize (with settlers) or you don't get to wander around in Mezo-America without taking some of the places!

Not to belabor this, but think about the recent (1 year ago) U.S. invasion of Iraq. The troops made a beeline for the capitol. But right behind them (litterally in most cases) were the supply guys. Pvt. Lynch was part of a supply group that took a wrong turn. Without the supplies, Saddam might still be in power.:ack:

http://www2.vhl.tudelft.nl/~emile/civilization/unit_movement_model.html

Originally posted by rcoutme
Not to belabor this, but think about the recent (1 year ago) U.S. invasion of Iraq. The troops made a beeline for the capitol. But right behind them (litterally in most cases) were the supply guys. Pvt. Lynch was part of a supply group that took a wrong turn. Without the supplies, Saddam might still be in power.:ack:
Not to belabor my own point, but I'm not arguing that supplies aren't important, I'm just arguing that I don't think they would add enough fun to the game to be worth the hassle of dealing with them.

Tedium? Increased.
Fun? Decreased.
Realism? Increased, but that's not why most people play Civ.

Not a good gameplay decision.

Add in the time needed for the AI to have a clue understanding this concept, the probable exploits, and I give this whole idea two thumbs down.

Arathorn