Embarkation

forcedalt · Feb 18, 2014

A "necessary evil" to reconcile the no stacking rule. I got used to it , but , it only irks me because : What the heck is going on there? Do all the soldiers have a different piece of an Ikea® troop ship in their rough sacks that : they always have to put together before embarking ,and have to again disassemble and neatly store upon reaching land again ? , and , ALL units have an Ikea® troop ship that : they can assemble/disassemble/store flawlessly every time? I guess the movement penalty represents the time it takes to do all that. Do they just have inner tubes and dog paddle across the world?
Does every individual soldier in a unit have their own personal inflatable with them? For Renaissance/medieval/classical era , each soldier would then have a whole wooden canoe on their backs. Maybe a few soldiers are in the back of the ranks towing really large canoes on wheel carts. Those boat trailers would also have to travel on the on the boats they tow , along with : all the men and equipment of the entire unit. I can't imagine how would it work with archer/inf units , much less , how it works with cav/armor/siege , where , the boats would need to be wider and have deep bilges to compensate for the ballast.

Tigranes · Feb 18, 2014

You are taking civ 5 too seriously. For those like me who like accurate Earth maps archer targeting French coast from England is much more depressing sight. How could anyone depart from such a gem as Civ4 and arrive to this weird set of rules.

Darizuka · Feb 18, 2014

Try not to think too much into it
i mean... look at it this way. There are things best not known
like how someone have a scissor stuck deep in his large intestine
or how dog meat taste good to eat.

AiTenshi1 · Feb 19, 2014

Tigranes said:
You are taking civ 5 too seriously. For those like me who like accurate Earth maps archer targeting French coast from England is much more depressing sight. How could anyone depart from such a gem as Civ4 and arrive to this weird set of rules.

Civ 4 has plenty of issues so I'd hardly call it a gem (e.g., SoD and square tiles, both of which destroy much of what is needed for strategy play).

@OP: there are many ways to explain Embarkation, but that isn't really the main problem. The main problem is Astronomy giving the ability for embarked units to cross oceans. That should be removed because it is just OP and undermines the already weak naval aspect of the game (aside from Archipelago and perhaps island maps). It's also a problem due to the AI coding where Barbs focus on the player and the AIs have huge bonuses versus Barbs even if they are attacked (i.e., the AIs can send unprotected units across oceans very easily compared to the human player where doing so would be suicidal).

senshidenshi · Feb 19, 2014

Tigranes said:
You are taking civ 5 too seriously. For those like me who like accurate Earth maps archer targeting French coast from England is much more depressing sight. How could anyone depart from such a gem as Civ4 and arrive to this weird set of rules.

CIV 4:

Spoiler :

CIV 5:

Spoiler :

Yep. Civ 4 is wa-ay more realistic.

Mustakrakish · Feb 19, 2014

senshidenshi said:
CIV 4:

Spoiler :

CIV 5:

Spoiler :

Yep. Civ 4 is wa-ay more realistic.

Seriously? A leader screen in a strategy game is supposed to matter on realism? :O

Or rather let me rephrase it... It's supposed to matter?

forcedalt · Feb 19, 2014

Well i think the beauty of the CIV's is : it takes some level of imagination to immerse into the experience. When i see a Civ unit , i don't think its just the 2 or 3 guys you see in the sprite , but , that it represents the presence of a large force in that part of the fictional world the game created for me, like, a battalion. A whole bunch of soldiers. when you don't move them , they sleep in pup tents ,and eat cans of beans heated on a fire ,until , you give them an order. Units Garrisoned for several turns would actually have flats that they went home to , and , civilian spouses/families in the city.
That level of nerdy immersion is : what inspired the OP. This embarkation thing is tough for me to grab onto with my nerdy imagination ,since , there haven't historically been any types of land soldiers that can just go across seas without needing separate transport of some type. Hovercraft , i guess ,but , they didn't have those in the middle ages.

GhostSalsa · Feb 19, 2014

Tigranes said:
You are taking civ 5 too seriously. For those like me who like accurate Earth maps archer targeting French coast from England is much more depressing sight. How could anyone depart from such a gem as Civ4 and arrive to this weird set of rules.

ok i think you are forgetting that the archers are as tall as skyscrapers. their arrows are each several miles long. it is very easy for them to shoot across the English Channel.

forcedalt · Feb 19, 2014

GhostSalsa said:
ok i think you are forgetting that the archers are as tall as skyscrapers. their arrows are each several miles long. it is very easy for them to shoot across the English Channel.

yeah...lol.... and , if you had 4 battalions of medieval archers with stone arrowheads , you could easily sink a 21st century Nimitz class carrier from such a distance.

Kallowe · Feb 19, 2014

So why can you see these imaginary soldiers eating cans of beans and setting up tents, but not contracting a ship wright or building rafts? It hasn't bothered me, though the game might be better off without it. It certainly cuts down on some non essential micro management, there's already enough pointless decisions you have to make towards the end of the game.

forcedalt · Feb 19, 2014

ah, interesting , so , they might have a ship builder specialist embedded in their ranks that : makes a boat , or boats using whatever materials can be gathered, or , there is unseen agency that just arranges embarkations. The expense is part of the troop maintenance budget. Since Civ 5 is an alternate reality where this kind of thing is a given they wouldn't think it necessary to Bother their HOS/HOG with such petty details. It would be done through the same kind of imaginary lowly quarter masters that keep track of beans and pup tents.

KrikkitTwo · Feb 19, 2014

forcedalt said:
A "necessary evil" to reconcile the no stacking rule. I got used to it , but , it only irks me because : What the heck is going on there? Do all the soldiers have a different piece of an Ikea® troop ship in their rough sacks that : they always have to put together before embarking ,and have to again disassemble and neatly store upon reaching land again ? , and , ALL units have an Ikea® troop ship that : they can assemble/disassemble/store flawlessly every time? I guess the movement penalty represents the time it takes to do all that. Do they just have inner tubes and dog paddle across the world?
Does every individual soldier in a unit have their own personal inflatable with them? For Renaissance/medieval/classical era , each soldier would then have a whole wooden canoe on their backs. Maybe a few soldiers are in the back of the ranks towing really large canoes on wheel carts. Those boat trailers would also have to travel on the on the boats they tow , along with : all the men and equipment of the entire unit. I can't imagine how would it work with archer/inf units , much less , how it works with cav/armor/siege , where , the boats would need to be wider and have deep bilges to compensate for the ballast.

No.. Instead you have a number of ships that are regularly sailing around the globe (hauling your supplies+ reinforcements+ instructions..ie maintenance for those soldiers. As well as carrying diplomatic messages, luxuries traded, sending governors to get a city to do something, carrying scientific documents, tax income.. or gold to be spent on developing a city.. or little icons to boost faith)

When the soldiers need to embark they get on some of those ships instead of sending them back with scout reports and POWs.

Virdrago · Feb 19, 2014

Historically, when troops were moved from one land mass to another, a country would comandeer or "rent" fishing and private commercial ships. These generally had to be protected by naval warships. So, personally, I look at it as the lightly armed merchant marine transporting troops for the king.

Winsling · Feb 19, 2014

Look at the turn timer too. Your guys aren't embarking on a weekend - it takes them at least a couple months, up to a few years, to get themselves on boats.

forcedalt · Feb 19, 2014

KrikkitTwo said:
you have a number of ships that are regularly sailing around the globe (hauling your supplies+ reinforcements+ instructions..ie maintenance for those soldiers. As well as carrying diplomatic messages, luxuries traded, sending governors to get a city to do something, carrying scientific documents, tax income.. or gold to be spent on developing a city.. or little icons to boost faith)

When the soldiers need to embark they get on some of those ships instead of sending them back with scout reports and POWs.

Winsling said:
Look at the turn timer too. Your guys aren't embarking on a weekend - it takes them at least a couple months, up to a few years, to get themselves on boats.

Yes , i am feeling these comments. Even at the last era , a turn is still 1/4 of a whole year. If you have a unit out for even a few turns , there would have to be : couriers with orders/rations/reports ,and , older retired soldiers leaving , and , young recruits always being integrated into the unit.
This opens up a whole new can of worms : promotions ; how can this military unit maintain a learned behavior when every one who originally learned it would be too old and/or dead to still be in the army? IE: a unit with "drill" promotion , but , they were on flat plains for 200+ years. I suppose : the recruits that volunteer , or , get conscripted to go with that unit could get a special course on hill warfare in their training , to "honor the units proud history of past honorable hill combat"

LoneRebel · Feb 19, 2014

GhostSalsa said:
ok i think you are forgetting that the archers are as tall as skyscrapers. their arrows are each several miles long. it is very easy for them to shoot across the English Channel.

Oh man, I literally LOL'd at this.

KrikkitTwo said:
No.. Instead you have a number of ships that are regularly sailing around the globe (hauling your supplies+ reinforcements+ instructions..ie maintenance for those soldiers. As well as carrying diplomatic messages, luxuries traded, sending governors to get a city to do something, carrying scientific documents, tax income.. or gold to be spent on developing a city.. or little icons to boost faith)

When the soldiers need to embark they get on some of those ships instead of sending them back with scout reports and POWs.

This is the correct answer. Like Civ5's trade routes or Hearts of Iron's convoy system, just imagine that the seas are full of invisible ships that the game doesn't represent visually. When you leave a fleet of battleships out in the middle of the ocean for years, there would have to be a constant stream of supply ships bringing things to and from the fleet that you don't see. A game doesn't have to show you everything; things can be and are abstracted.

SickFak said:
Seriously? A leader screen in a strategy game is supposed to matter on realism? :O

Or rather let me rephrase it... It's supposed to matter?

Why, yes, it is supposed to matter. What an odd question.

forcedalt said:
Yes , i am feeling these comments. Even at the last era , a turn is still 1/4 of a whole year. If you have a unit out for even a few turns , there would have to be : couriers with orders/rations/reports ,and , older retired soldiers leaving , and , young recruits always being integrated into the unit.
This opens up a whole new can of worms : promotions ; how can this military unit maintain a learned behavior when every one who originally learned it would be too old and/or dead to still be in the army? IE: a unit with "drill" promotion , but , they were on flat plains for 200+ years. I suppose : the recruits that volunteer , or , get conscripted to go with that unit could get a special course on hill warfare in their training , to "honor the units proud history of past honorable hill combat"

Let's also ask why it takes 40 years to cross a river in ancient times, and 1 year to cross a river in modern times. :lol:

Oh, but it's been like that in every Civ game; it's not like that started in Civ5. :rolleyes:

Tigranes · Feb 19, 2014

Guys, any feature in the game which claims to represent human history has to pass 2 tests: is it realistic and is it good for gameplay?

Is it more realistic to have transports available at any point on the shore where your unit managed to arrive? Or is it more realistic to build a naval transport and actually send it to pick up your unit? If you honestly answer this simple question then you will get that 5<4.

Ok, we loose in realism but do we gain in fun? I can't see it either. AI sucks in both games, but at least SoDs would introduce some intrigue, enemy would suddenly appear with 5 transports, land 20 units on one tile, capture your city but then of course loose it. When people say 1 unit per tile making game more strategical they confuse "strategy" with "tactics". On the scale of a World map 1 upt rule recreates the scale of a Battle of Thermopylae. Some people might like to play strategy and tactics on the same map. Most game designers, however, create 2 different environments, one for turn-based strategic maneuvering of forces and one with real time tactical management of battles.

KrikkitTwo · Feb 20, 2014

Tigranes said:
Guys, any feature in the game which claims to represent human history has to pass 2 tests: is it realistic and is it good for gameplay?

Is it more realistic to have transports available at any point on the shore where your unit managed to arrive? Or is it more realistic to build a naval transport and actually send it to pick up your unit? If you honestly answer this simple question then you will get that 5<4.

Ok, we loose in realism but do we gain in fun? I can't see it either. AI sucks in both games, but at least SoDs would introduce some intrigue, enemy would suddenly appear with 5 transports, land 20 units on one tile, capture your city but then of course loose it. When people say 1 unit per tile making game more strategical they confuse "strategy" with "tactics". On the scale of a World map 1 upt rule recreates the scale of a Battle of Thermopylae. Some people might like to play strategy and tactics on the same map. Most game designers, however, create 2 different environments, one for turn-based strategic maneuvering of forces and one with real time tactical management of battles.

While I agree that the 1 upt tactics really messes with realism,...and makes the game less strategic and more tactical, Transports are also more tactical than strategy.

This is about embarkation.. something that should accompany SOD.

At the very least, you should allow ANY naval vessel to act as an infinite transport (ie you are guarding the SOD.. which is being transported in the convoy)

Civ 5 is better than Civ 4 because embarking is MORE strategic than Transports (which are tactical and micromanagy)

Tigranes · Feb 20, 2014

Come on now, how is it more strategic? Strategic is something you have to plan for and works on the grander scale. It is more strategic to plan ahead, and get that Transport ready, and sail to the right point, etc. With embarkation you just hop into water and swim. Simple and silly, really. Real life requires logistics and thorough planning though...

forcedalt · Feb 20, 2014

@LoneRebel , i didn't play HOI , but , i did AOD , which i am made to understand is almost exactly the same thing. Although , the merchant fleet was unseen , you could see metrics expressing it ,and , had some control over its size and actions. Also the war fleets could find and battle with the merchant fleets. Although they lacked sprites,or , counters they , were otherwise quite tactile and: you still needed to have dedicated ships ready to embark.

Unrelated subject : I found the AOD automated trade system to be buggy and unintuitive , and , manually managing AOD trade routes takes a sectionable level of OCD to not be agitating ,but , that's neither here nor there.

Embarkation

Warlord

Armenian

Chieftain

Warlord

Switched the Red and Blue channels

In 'Node' We Trust

Warlord

Emperor

Warlord

Chieftain

Warlord

Immortal

Wandering

Chieftain

Warlord

Emperor

Armenian

Immortal

Armenian

Warlord

Similar threads