Climactic and distance effects

rcoutme

Emperor
Joined
Jan 3, 2004
Messages
1,792
Location
Massachusetts
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.
 
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 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.
 
Top Bottom