A way to make movement realistic?

[KrikkitTwo]

That just strikes me as entirely senseless. Why would the map's resolution decrease as technology improves?

The resolution would decrease because the details are less important. An ancient empire might have a few dozen separate cities... you as the player can interact with them meaningfully.

A modern empire would have many times more cities and be able to move around that terrain easily.

Essentially the number of 'cities' you are dealing with should be ~5-20 at ALL points in the game.
(assuming that includes 'cities' that neighbor your empire.)

As you get bigger you are less and less concerned with the details, so the details should be abstracted out.

Essentially the entire map that you can reach in the beginning of the game should equal about 1 city in the end of the game.

Now this idea I like.

Thanks


As for the realism v. movement
I think this becomes important in terms of preventing the 'non military/economic factors' from being as big a part of the game as they should.

Ideally a modern age war should be able to conquer the entire planet in 10 turns or less if you have enough forces... the key should be in intensifying the role of social/political/cultural forces so that if you o that, those places are still capable of rebellion and will drain your troops from "within your empire"

 

[Shurdus]

This thread makes me realise how elegant the solution of Civ to movement already is.

In reality units cound of course walk wherever they wanted to go and there would be no limit to that as long as there was food and water. However, because even though a unit could in fact walk half the world does not mean in would. In fact I think the game mimmicks the situation as it was quite nicely.

All systems proposed here with range and mapping and such makes very little sense to me. If you wanted to take this whole realism thing that far you would also have to make it so that if a unit dies all the scouting it did needs to be undone. The knowledge of the lands would realistically be lost. Also these warriors need to die after a turn because that would be as far as they could scout, etc. This of course is taking pretty much everything a step too far.

Even if the scouting and movement in Civ is a bit abstract and it makes no sense that a unit would be forced to take 40 years to pass a forrest, it does quite nicely handle the scouting in a way that is simple and free from arbitrary 'range' rules or somesuch nonsense.

 

[Ramesses]

This thread makes me realise how elegant the solution of Civ to movement already is.

In reality units cound of course walk wherever they wanted to go and there would be no limit to that as long as there was food and water. However, because even though a unit could in fact walk half the world does not mean in would. In fact I think the game mimmicks the situation as it was quite nicely.

All systems proposed here with range and mapping and such makes very little sense to me. If you wanted to take this whole realism thing that far you would also have to make it so that if a unit dies all the scouting it did needs to be undone. The knowledge of the lands would realistically be lost. Also these warriors need to die after a turn because that would be as far as they could scout, etc. This of course is taking pretty much everything a step too far.

Even if the scouting and movement in Civ is a bit abstract and it makes no sense that a unit would be forced to take 40 years to pass a forrest, it does quite nicely handle the scouting in a way that is simple and free from arbitrary 'range' rules or somesuch nonsense.

Personally, I think the only units that should move around on the map are military units. All other units like settlers, scouts, and workers should be represented in an abstract form. The functions of non-military units should be abstracted, where you could perform them from the city screen.

 

[kristopherb]

Though off at a tangent.
I think the movement of units should be dependant on the map size. What does anyone think?

 

[Ramesses]

Though off at a tangent.
I think the movement of units should be dependant on the map size. What does anyone think?

I would like this, but it seems like there would be problems. I don't know how units would ever see combat seeing as how they could pass through any gaps in the front lines or just stay out of sight.

 

[kristopherb]

I would like this, but it seems like there would be problems. I don't know how units would ever see combat seeing as how they could pass through any gaps in the front lines or just stay out of sight.

I meant he max amount of movement (for a 1 move unit whould be) 2/3 moves on a huge map so it won't matter that much in that respect, I may give musketeers and Impi a chance to shine.
I was thinking something like
Dual 33%
Standard 100%
large 200%
huge 300%
more movement (rounded up)