Tantor`s simple system for upkeep and supply

[Shurdus]

Basically these ideas could indeed make the exploration phase of the game longer, but it would also annoy me to no end if I personally had to make sure that my explorer stepped onto each and every one of the tiles just to know what is there.

So basically this thread is discussing the ideas for making the exploration phase last longer by adding a whole lot of restrictions and added annoyances. While I do not think the exploration phase is too short at all - I like it the way it is - I would think that it would be extremely frustrating is there suggestions got into the game.

 

[Tantor]

Shurdus: My original suggestion was to make it more expensive to use normal military units for exploring as their upkeep would increase the further they get away from your border, but also to let scouts, explorers and caravels avoid increased upkeep as they would start with an "explorer" promotion.
I think workboats in particular should be unable to explore, but only be able to move into already explored areas. I would never send my worker out as a scout because of animals and barbarians, and it should be equally dangerous or impossible to use a workboat as a scout.

 

[Last_Evolution]

I agree with the idea. Military units away from the borders should have _high_ upkeep. It would make the game more logical. Just image, that, let's say Chinese, would send troops to sack the Rome . You can do this easily in civ-game because of the low upkeep costs. But I don't recall a real historical event like this.

 

[Dachs]

So under this system, legionaries that are far away from your territory, but which are in the middle of irrigated wheat-producing plains, would require high upkeep, but hoplites which are a few hexes away from your border and in the middle of a desert would require low upkeep?

Ah-huh.

 

[Last_Evolution]

So under this system, legionaries that are far away from your territory, but which are in the middle of irrigated wheat-producing plains, would require high upkeep, but hoplites which are a few hexes away from your border and in the middle of a desert would require low upkeep?

Ah-huh.

You should not think only about food. The major problem in the history was problem with communication, supply and issuing commands from the leader (because of distance). What would the legionaries do far away?? They would not have instructions from the leader what to do or they would have to wait lot of months until messenger arrives. You can't program realism in the game but you could model it via upkeep cost or kind of range, where the units can go. In any case the system should be simple to allow good gameplay. But it should not be cheap and stupid like it is now in civ4 - it has almost no effect on the game.

 

[Tantor]

You should not think only about food. The major problem in the history was problem with communication, supply and issuing commands from the leader (because of distance). What would the legionaries do far away?? They would not have instructions from the leader what to do or they would have to wait lot of months until messenger arrives. You can't program realism in the game but you could model it via upkeep cost or kind of range, where the units can go. In any case the system should be simple to allow good gameplay. But it should not be cheap and stupid like it is now in civ4 - it has almost no effect on the game.

My thoughts exactly...

 

[Shurdus]

Then again it is very good it has no effect on the game. If civ started to simulate those kinds of difficulties then maybe there should be penalties to research in ancient times too, since back then surely the notion of researchers working on coordinated efforts to further the state of science was a joke. If unit upkeep should have some grounding in realism, then why stop there?

In essence I can see the issue here, and I can agree that it makes some sense and all that, but I feel that in a game - because that is what civ is, it has no relation with reality - we need not have a system like this. Civ is fine the way it is, nice and organised and very much everything can be overseen. This system would complicate things further, making it hard to plan ahead, and therefore it will ultimately frustrate the player with added logistic complications where there were none before. It may add to the realism, but I doubt it will add to the fun.

 

[Tantor]

Shurdus: I believe a game like Civ is about making decisions wich in turn affects your civ. A decison is based upon your choice of strategy to reach you goal and you must decide between pros and cons of every alternative. Replayability is based upon the urge to try every possible alternative and to see what happens if you do. Adding simple logistics into the game forces you to make a decision. Is it sound to to go crusading far away and maybe conquer important resources or do I concentrate on beeing the biggest bully in my own backyard. It is suddenly about priorities if you can`t do both at the same time, but both directions might pay off, but in different ways.

 

[Shurdus]

Shurdus: I believe a game like Civ is about making decisions wich in turn affects your civ. A decison is based upon your choice of strategy to reach you goal and you must decide between pros and cons of every alternative. Replayability is based upon the urge to try every possible alternative and to see what happens if you do. Adding simple logistics into the game forces you to make a decision. Is it sound to to go crusading far away and maybe conquer important resources or do I concentrate on beeing the biggest bully in my own backyard. It is suddenly about priorities if you can`t do both at the same time, but both directions might pay off, but in different ways.

On the higher difficulty levels in BtS you actually need to make these calls and you cannot do both. We do not need a system of supply for this because the current system already prevents you from doing both.

Again I state that your system definitely has things going for it. However if you want to achieve the goal that you can no longer do both the things you describe, then you can either add features to the game that did not exist, or you can crank up the difficulty settings. Good luck in succesfully fighting these wars you descibed on deity in BtS...

 

[Dachs]

You should not think only about food. The major problem in the history was problem with communication, supply and issuing commands from the leader (because of distance). What would the legionaries do far away?? They would not have instructions from the leader what to do or they would have to wait lot of months until messenger arrives.

I totally agree - unless, of course, the leader went with the army. :3 I also think that it's difficult to model this well in a gaming context. Simply substituting an upkeep increase for an almost total lack of higher control before the 19th century or so (since an upkeep increase would make sense for the most recent centuries in human history) doesn't really attack the problem from a realism standpoint, because poorer states would be prevented from launching long-range operations that they historically could (I'm thinking something like Göktürks here) - and I assume that realism is the goal, here?

You can't program realism in the game but you could model it via upkeep cost or kind of range, where the units can go. In any case the system should be simple to allow good gameplay. But it should not be cheap and stupid like it is now in civ4 - it has almost no effect on the game.

I'll be honest, I don't really know how upkeep mechanics in Civ4 "work", so I can't really answer this.

 

[Tantor]

Shurdus: I admit to not normally beeing a deity- level player, because I believe Civ at deity level degrades into being a game of powerplay and micromanagement to scrooge every possible hammer and gold out of every possible tile. But I`d love to see an AI choosing the path of exploration, crusading and colonization over local supremacy.

 

[Shurdus]

Shurdus: I admit to not normally beeing a deity- level player, because I believe Civ at deity level degrades into being a game of powerplay and micromanagement to scrooge every possible hammer and gold out of every possible tile. But I`d love to see an AI choosing the path of exploration, crusading and colonization over local supremacy.

Agree, I like that too. Then again the AI tends to scout quite a bit. Do you trade maps often? An AI will typically have uncovered most of the continent long before I have'. The AI does indeed explore a lot. Would it also do that with a system that force a high upkeep on units that explore far out?

On the crusading part, it is not unheard of for an AI to cross half the continent just so it can stomp the player. Does that count as a crusade?

Also on immortal and deity - and emperor too although you get a bit more breathing space there - you really need to explore the oceans in order to find some free islands to colonize. If you are too slow the AI will have settled it. On deity it is basically this: you get astro reasonably soon - you and maybe one AI have it. You get a ship to explore. Should you find colonizable land then you must send out a settler if you want that land. If you do not immediately do this, then the AI will. Even an AI that did not even have astro when you found the island may beat you to it if you do not prioritise the settling. Does this count as an AI colonizing?

 

[Tantor]

Shurdus: I see your point, but I believe this is a side- effect of a cheating AI with an abundance of available reources compared to a restricted player. Not a strategic choice made by an AI based on which strategy it chooses to win the game. Although this may change in CiV with civspecific priorities...

 

[Tantor]

Shurdus: And by yhe way, I appreciate you ability to play ball without foul play, even though we may be on different teams

 

[Shurdus]

Shurdus: I see your point, but I believe this is a side- effect of a cheating AI with an abundance of available reources compared to a restricted player. Not a strategic choice made by an AI based on which strategy it chooses to win the game. Although this may change in CiV with civspecific priorities...

It is most likely due to the AI cheating. I am unsure if we should care about this though. The AI does it, should it matter what 'behind-the-screens' reasoning it has for doing so? I feel the AI delivers everything this post asks for, even though it does these thing because it can and not because it feels like it should. There is a difference there, but it is mainly a psycological one it seems. In the results it matters little.

Shurdus: And by yhe way, I appreciate you ability to play ball without foul play, even though we may be on different teams

Thanks, these boards are amongst the most fun and friendly boards on the internet and I intend to keep it that way. Also I like reasoning with you because unlike some you can handle critisism well and you can see posts for what they are - an attack on a line of reasoning and not an attack directed at the poster.

Let us continue to make civfanatics a better place by setting the right example.