Please don't!

[Commander Bello]

As can be deducted from this picture (out of the "new screenshots" thread by snoopy ) there seems to be the same old problem - if not to say the same old aberration - of too low numbers as we already had to notice in Civ3.
I am talking about the movement rate (0/1 in the graphics), obviously.

Why should this be an aberration?

1) because it is quite likely, that these small numbers will be used for other stats as well, thus leading to two different effects:
1a) the next level unit (in the early game) will get double "strength" in movement, combat, or whatever
1b) under the assumption that UUs will still be in the game, differentiation will be as hard - if not impossible - as in Civ3

2) because due to the problems as described at #1, it will become unnecessarily hard to design well-balanced mods or scenarios.

3) because it could lead to the big flaw as in Civ3, that the "retreatment feature" will again be linked to the inherent movement rate of "1+". In this case, once again we will not be able to mod in retreatment features for all units, we could only switch them OFF

Hoping, that one of the Firaxians might walk along, I can only wholeheartedly call for at least the complete moddability of those features, or - which would benefit the whole game - to break the chains of small integers

If stats would be expressed in "tens" instead of "ones", you would gain much more graduation and through this, much more balancing options.

[sir_schwick]

I am joining Commander Bello in this protest of small integers. Graduation is not a bad thing. Also, if you have more MP, then you can remove the advantage from going to corner tiles and make roads/RR more interesting.

[rhialto]

My biggest gripe with low move points is not low moves per se, but the fact that you can always enter a tile with one move point regardless of terrain if it is your last (or only) point. This makes terrain irrelevant for foot units.

I'd like to see a system where if you don't have enough points left to enter a tile, your unit shows a marching animation and an arrow showing plotted movement, and only after enough move points have been accumulated does teh unit actually move. This may well mean mountains and hills and stuff take 2 or more turns to enter.

I agree though that attack and defence values need to be increased a great deal.

[sir_schwick]

In SMAC units could take forever to cross fungus patches. Added some real value to controlling routes or native units.

[North King]

Originally Posted by sir_schwick

In SMAC units could take forever to cross fungus patches. Added some real value to controlling routes or native units.

Indeed. Mountains, for instance, should be difficult to climb unless you find a pass (this is probably not going to be implemented in 4, though. )

[dh_epic]

Sometimes I think that impassable mountains -- not all mountains, even most or some -- would make combat more strategic. You could try to sucker the enemy into a choke point, for example.

But I do think that multiplying all the stats by 10 would be a good thing. Warriors are 10/10. That way you could have units that are halfway between warriors and spearmen, for example. Not necessarily in the main game, but in some mods.

[MeteorPunch]

It's definitely bugged me that units such as tanks could move on unroaded mountains.

[BrutalGodProjek]

I got to say, that your idea is GREAT!!! It would bring more strategy into Civ. Imagine going to fight and protect your road network or other existing roads, there would be fights to control roads since it would take so long to cross jungles, mountains, hills and so on. Also, you should be able to build bridges, instead of just getting them when you research enginnering, that way we would battle over who controls what bridges, just like in real life. Can you imagine the possibilities!!!!?? ACE!!!

[MeteorPunch]

Probably not gonna happen though, as it might be too hard to program ai to guard/think about controlling roads.

[Heat Miser]

I like the Idea of more graduations in combat and movement. Also, the idea of impassible terrain types would be cool, as long as the impassiblity could be ameliorated with tech advances. As far as armor in roadless mountains, the same should hold for arty. and regular infantry. However, I could see the creation of specialist units like light infantry or mountain troops and pack arty. As an aside, possibly make these available with a General Staff small wonder or advance.

[BrutalGodProjek]

Originally Posted by MeteorPunch

Probably not gonna happen though, as it might be too hard to program ai to guard/think about controlling roads.

Well, it may be hard to program but thats their job. They make games. They better find ways to expand on Civ, because sooner or later the same ol', same ol' isnt going to fly anymore.

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yeah, especially for us people who RELY on the AI, because we don't have the kind of time needed to play a multiplayer game! I don't see why the AI can't be adapted to think more about what kinds of terrain are most important from a strategic standpoint.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally Posted by Commander Bello

1a) the next level unit (in the early game) will get double "strength" in movement, combat, or whatever

If a 2 attack unit attacks a 1 defense unit, it only have 2/3 chance to hit, not 1/2. That reduces what you are complaining about I believe.
1b) I don't see any uu or normal unit differenciation problem in civ3.

[rhialto]

And you don't consider a 2/3 chance of victory a significant change? Consider that to get an equivalent increase in combat power with later tech advances and later units, you'd have to double teh factors each time, which clearly does not happen in the game elsewhere that we've seen.

[German Soldier]

You should be able to build bridges, instead of just getting them when you research enginnering, that way we would battle over who controls what bridges, just like in real life.

I think thats a great idea , because, that way even if the have an enormus army , they won't be able to attack, In real life the control of a bridge is vital , it should be the same in ci4.

[Dachs]

You use too many smilies.

Also, there should be "ford" points over rivers where bridges cost less and are less important, and enemy units can cross normally.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally Posted by rhialto

And you don't consider a 2/3 chance of victory a significant change? Consider that to get an equivalent increase in combat power with later tech advances and later units, you'd have to double teh factors each time, which clearly does not happen in the game elsewhere that we've seen.

2/3 is not enough i already lost a stack of swordmen versus a stack of defending archers... and i already used tanks vesus riflemen, 16 against 6, wich is nearly 3 times bigger. the more significant a change is, the better it is. Don't expect to use outdated units well against newest ones. And If the archer have an attack of two, the spearman in the same period have a defense of two also.

[dh_epic]

You know, if you can set up a choke point on a land brige (a thin strip of land between two continents), then there's no reason you couldn't set up a choke point on impassible terrain. The AI skill would transfer between the two.

Of course, then the problem shifts focus -- I don't think the AI takes advantage of land bridges the way a human might.

[Aussie_Lurker]

Thats true, DH_Epic. In my most recent game, I shared one VERY large continent with the Greeks (and the Byzantines). It was sort of like the Mega-continent of North and South America, with two very large land masses joined by a fairly slender land bridge.
Early in the game, the Greeks foolishly attacked me, and I launched a viscious counteroffensive, driving them from my 'half' of the continent. Yet, when I got to the land bridge, there was nothing there to stop me from easily moving into HIS half of the continent and running riot. It was only my lack of desire to continue the conquest (having already achieved my primary aim) that stopped me from doing so. Instead, I moved a swag of units to the land bridge, and built a fortress there with them inside. It acted as a perfect stop-gap against further Greek incursions, and I was really disappointed that they did not do the same thing to me first !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Commander Bello]

Originally Posted by rhialto

My biggest gripe with low move points is not low moves per se, but the fact that you can always enter a tile with one move point regardless of terrain if it is your last (or only) point. This makes terrain irrelevant for foot units.

I'd like to see a system where if you don't have enough points left to enter a tile, your unit shows a marching animation and an arrow showing plotted movement, and only after enough move points have been accumulated does teh unit actually move. This may well mean mountains and hills and stuff take 2 or more turns to enter.

I agree though that attack and defence values need to be increased a great deal.

Exactly!

Not to be misunderstood, I don't complain about units only moving one tile per turn. But Rhialto explained it already... with higher "factors" - and in turn, higher requirements - we would gain much better balancing options which very well may lead to concepts, yet unknown to us.
Additionally, the later implementation of new units would become easier, as the balancing of the a/d/m/b values would offer quite more graduation.

Ban the low integers!