units with out suplyes

[Vietcong]

y is it units can die from desis in jungels, but not on ordanry lands?? come on ppl, even if it isnt a deasis, but any thing, stravation, destions ect. y is it a unit can wal acros the whole wrold and not get killed!? ther shold be a limit to how many squars cna be out side of an empyer (urs or friendly) so once u go past a limit, ur men will start to slowly die, as u go throw the ages, the ods of dieing or geting hurt falls, next to near nothing in the modrean age..

[mazzz]

Jungle is supposed to have more diease

[Vietcong]

im not talking about more disies, i just think units shold die on ther own.. slowly

[NeonInfusion]

then, how about early in the game, when years pass by in segments of 50 years? They would die in two turns!

[SolarFlare]

Each unit isn't necessarily one person. If your entire empire were being defended by a few men with swords IRL, well, good luck. The image is just art; you have to look past that. The units really each represent a couple thousand men. Let's say 1000 for simplicity. If of those thousand men, 100 should die, then that's an enormous epidemic by most standards - and yet, that wouldn't even amount to one hp. So natural causes don't have nearly enough effect to be included in the game.

[MadScot]

Some kind of supply limitation - so that units attrite when wandering in the wilds would be nice. It would restrict the strategic reach of earlier civs in a realistic fashion.

Perhaps you would only lose one or two hps, rather than dying eventually.
Perhaps a stack with a scout or explorer would be less affected by attrition.

It is bizarre that I can send an ancient age unit off on its own into the wilds and it never loses any combat capab ility unless I stop on jungle or flood plain. Historically armies virtually evaporated when far from their home base, up until very recent times.

It would of course be another level of complexity that the Ai would probably struggle with.

[lz14]

If a unit is surrounded(all adjacent tiles are occupied by enermies,) they would start to loose HP, that would be nice. There is a chess game in East Asia like this.

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Vietcong
im not talking about more disies, i just think units shold die on ther own.. slowly

Are you wondering why they don't die of old age? For example, a spearman can't possibly live from 4000BC all the way to 2050AD because none human can't possibly live that long. It's just a game and each game has its own rule. Where do we draw the line if we keep on trying to compare it to real life?

[sadf]

Moonsinger has a great point. If you try to make games realistic, you will eventually end up with one game year equalling one real year. Its just like the old joke about why can't there be a life sized map of the world....what's the point.

Now if you want to talk about making it so that units can't stray far from supplies, then work on a new game system, but don't go for the realism angle.

Not a flame, just my $0.02.

[SolarFlare]

How bout a game which is just a time machine and a pistol, go back to 4000 BC and take control of your civilization of choice. That would be pretty realistic.

[Vietcong]

i knoe the units isnt one guy.. and as for old age. thay can simply resplye that unit with fresh troops ect.. but a unit thosands of miles away with no suply line has to run out some time, a unit gone out in the wild shold weaken then die and a number of turns

[Chieftess]

Look at it this way - The regimen is stationed in X,Y location, and every so often, new recruits are automatically sent to take over for those who are too old to fight. But, if the number of troops who are stationed die off too quickly, then it isn't worth the upkeep, so the civilization stops sending troops there and lets it die off.

[Zeekater]

i think what vietcong means is logistics:
an army walks on its stomach, guns need ammo, trucks need fuel, ...

having secure supply lines is very important in warfare ( maybe not in the middle ages)

therefore, a unit which is too far from a city or a road to one, get's weaker and weaker

[Vietcong]

yes, thats waht i mean. but look at it this way too

can u see a roman liegoner marching acros the wrold. paly a real world map. u can have him marhc trhoe germany all the way to sibira and nothing hapens to it even! . it is allso for random maps

[SolarFlare]

But supplies are being sent to your units! That's why you have to pay one gpt per unit, unless your cities support them. I think your argument, rather, is that there should be limits to supply lines.

[Black Waltz]

The fact is if we start having supply lines, etc, Civilisation will cease becoming a stratagy game and instead will turn into a tactical war game. *yawns*

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Black Waltz
The fact is if we start having supply lines, etc, Civilisation will cease becoming a stratagy game and instead will turn into a tactical war game. *yawns*

Admittedly, it would be interesting to play a civ-style combat game.

[Vietcong]

how in the world can say ancent rom saport a roman ligon good nefoe for it to walk acros the world from rome to china!? that is so much crap

[MadScot]

Supplies are NOt tactics.

Supply is an important feature of operational and higher level military operations - precisely the level civ covers. Napoleon famously stated that "amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics". In civ3 the 1812 invasion of Russia was a success! IRl it was a disaster, and supply was a major influence.

People seem quite happy to argue to include tactical factors (ranges of bombardment, whether longbows are offensive or defensive). But curiously reluctant to address operational and strategic issues.

Spending 1gpt provides the means to support the unit. The Germans could have been spending any amount they cared on "unit support" for the 6th army - it still would have been unsupplied in Stalingrad. There would have been lots of supplies in dumps, but no way to get it to them.

It would be relatively easy to apply some kind of supply/attrition logic, without needing to detail supply lines. For example:

• Unit in friendly territory (including allies? including RoPs - design choices) - no attrition due to "supply"
• unit in neutral territory (either unclaimed or including civs not at war? another design choice) - low probability of losing at most 1hp. Unable to recover last hp by healing?
• unit in enemy territory. slightly larger, but still small, chance of losing hp. Perhaps a max of 2hp lost? Certainly unit doies not die, but can become rather weak

One could have a wonder, not unlike battlefield medicine, for each civ. Might alleviate supply problems.

One could also make leaders or explorer type units immune, along with stacked units. Finally conquistadors are more useful.

To my mind it would be a positive change - no more world wide wars in the BCs with no attrition at all.

[Vietcong]

a unit still need a chance to fall apart.

y dont units get factors like shell shock, or armor disatvanteag (when fighing armord units) ect..
thes shold afeact ther combat, if a unit is suraoned. its combat shold be weakend.. and advetaly, with out suplys. shold surinder on its own