ABC's: Adaptive civ bonuses, Blockades, and Canals

[Eugor]

(Pre-post Edit: the original thread was too long, so I'm posting the first two ideas and I'll post the last idea later.)

Three ideas for you, hope they haven't been submitted yet or else I'm wasting everyone's time! :] But please keep in mind these are brainstormed ideas, so they're rough and subject to very little (if any) research and/or thinking (big 'if any' here) at all. Though, if you must flame, flame you must; Don't worry, I'm fairly tolerant of intolerance, and any suggestions/reformations/rants will be welcomed whole-heartedly. :]

"Adaptive civ bonuses" is actually a term I made up on the fly for my 3rd idea to go with my other ideas, so I could make the whole ABC's thing work in the subject! I'm actually talking about an idea that occurred to me after all my games of Civ 3 where I either A) picked a random civilization for myself and got the worst possible circumstances for a starting place (I know at least a few of you have been land-locked and surrounded by hostile civs with a naval unit as your unique or a strength in research) or B) restarted 50 times because the civ I picked was situationally tuned to one type of start, and I kept getting the perfect start for some other civ's bonuses - just not mine. My idea is to pick your civ's strengths after playing for a little bit (players of the PC game, Empire Earth will have a good idea of what I'm talking about). The premise is this: A civilization has certain strengths/traits because of it's history and geographical position on the world. While changing the world around you according to your strengths/whim as opposed to working with the land and conditions to strengthen yourself by cooperation is what we humans like to do best, I think it's backwards from how the world's civilizations have evolved. Take for instance Germany's panzers: while forecasting the employment of such war machinery is undreamt in 4000BC, you're forced to choose this as your 'unique unit' and have no use for it, in any situation until you develop the technology, when this more powerful armor just falls from the birthright sky of the Germans. What if you're dominant force has always been naval vessels because of your location on a peninsula, bordered only by mountains? Don't understand me wrong: Panzers are great, and playing up to getting to use them can be a lot of fun for when you actually get them. My point is that in the history of the world, civilizations developed specialized units naturally from the conflicts in important points of their timelines. Likewise, the traits of each civ was brought about by it's history: expansionistic civs had expansionist leaders, same for militaristic, etc. So I'm not bashing on the current system, and I find it very enjoyable to mark out my style of play for the game, starting with my civ choice. But my idea couldn't help but be formed from all these scrutinous restarts and failed beginnings: You civilization has strengths (and weaknesses) according to how the game is evolving from the time you start, to the time you finish. Obviously, this would be a complete turnabout from Civ 3's civilization choices. Think of this: Every man is created equal, so thus is every civ in the game. By your surroundings, you develop certain strengths: sprawling nations would quickly see the advantage of using horses and employing them in their armies, and would prefer a communistic government early on when they experience waste and corruption as a result of distance from the capital. Likewise, a peninsular nation would become seafarers and develop faster ships for exploration and colonization, and would probably be masters of trade, being able to ship goods more quickly than a land-locked peoples, and perhaps better defend against sea attacks in their cities, but be weaker against an organized army. I'm just brainstorming, really. I'm sure I'd come up with several thousand/million more ideas about civilization's beginnings if so motivated and/or employed *wink @ firaxis*. This type of societal evolution could either be determined by the player ('I like horsies, I think I'd like to use them more often and better.' Or, 'Jeez look at all these mountains around me! My troops will learn to navigate them better and attack more efficiently in the ranges.') or by the game itself ('Wow, you really like those horses. Here ya go, your horsemen are better now.' Or, 'Ah, you are spread among many islands - have better ships and more commerce from the sea.').
This is the tip of the iceberg. Another idea is that if you're allowed to choose your own traits, you do it by a certain time, or at a certain time) e.g.: 0 AD, 500 AD, 2000BC, etc.), at which you'd get small bonuses or 'civ starter kits' such as a little more gold in the coffers for commercialists or a few able warriors for militaristic peoples. Maybe bonuses could be either substituted for or spread out across the ages like a general increase in trade or better trained warriors. These bonuses and traits could be chosen several times, with their effects cumulative: Maybe you started on an island but you've since conquered the adjacent mainland and are more focused on research and less conflict. At the next age or designated time or certain amount of time after your first societal focus, you lean more toward science. Maybe you'd keep your previous bonuses (your age-specific units would either become obsolete or you'd get some kind of bonus for a new-age corresponding unit upgrade, etc.) or cease to focus on them altogether, thus losing your bonuses but having more applied in your new field of expertise. I hope at least some of that makes sense. On the other side of the coin, the game could give you a preferred start, corresponding to your chosen civ. Might take some hefty programming (or negligible - I'm not a programmer, yet), but the game could take into consideration all of the civilizations' strengths (and weaknesses perhaps?) and plot them on justfied positions on the random map. Though, going a bit away from this, some people may have grown accustomed to (and developed an acquired taste for) the down-and-dirty challenge of having the worst start possible, and they could simply flip this switch *off* in the options at the beginning of game setup. In my opinion, there should be a lot of options at the beginning to Civ 4, since so many diverse styles of play have developed from previous titles/knowledge (and just as many different play styles should erupt from Civ 4 for it to be considered a success worthy of the title that is: Civilization 4).

Blockades. I could be too unobservant or noobish, but I believe that a coastal city that is blockaded can still utilize the ocean squares in it's city radius. I think this shouldn't be allowed: If all access to the sea from docks in the city are cut off, it's silly to say that fishing boats wouldn't be sunk on sight by the offending navy. It could already be in Civ3 like this, but I think I've always been able to use the other ocean squares that didn't contain enemy ships when I was blockaded. I mean, if there's only one naval unit and 3 ocean squares of access, then sure the boats would simply avoid the navy and get food and trade/commerce. If any sea-borne luxuries are added in civ4, the blockade would effectively cut off access to the luxury(ies) as well.

To be Continued in "ABC's: Part Again!"

 

[Eugor]

This is a continuation of my first post. I thought I'd post it in reply form instead of taking up too much space on the main board. :]

Land canals for land-locked cities with ocean squares in the radius.
I'm not talking about making canals to bridge oceans through continents. I was always annoyed at a city that was land-locked had no use for any ocean squares it may have had in the city radius. Not being able to make a harbor, you're left with a square that produces exactly one food and some trade. Thus, my suggestion is for both infrastructure and tactical applications:
A way to make an inlet and/or bay for a landlocked city that's one space away from the sea. The completed square would be treated as both land and sea: army can move across and ships can come and go to dock (and be built there). Though, if multiple canals from the city are built, a ship shouldn't be allowed to move directly from one canal to the adjacent canal (the canal couldn't be connected to adjacent canals like roads can - or could it?). I don't think it'd have any special benefit other than roads. It'd probably produce a bit more trade, concurrent with trading ships being able to port there (though, not any more food or production, as how would anybody fish or dig for oil in a lock or canal? As for trade/commerce increase: nothing extravagant, though at least as much as a road and ocean square put together, since it'd be a huge project and the benefits should reflect/reward this in terms of gameplay, and trading by both land and sea is a huge boon to any city - so the benefits of a tile containing this improvement should reflect that as well in some smaller way through resources). You'd have to be pretty well on in the ages to have the technology to undertake a project of this magnitude e.g.: engineering + gunpowder. My initial idea is for it to be built by workers, but taking many turns to complete (pretty much requiring the employment of multiple (5+) worker units for a timely completion (5-20+ turns with 5 workers), sort of like a mini wonder improvement thingey.) If you're really striving to break the bonds of the previous Civ games with Civ 4, though: maybe it'd be something built from the city production queue, by the city (the tile would be designated from the city view and production there could possibly be limited by the intrusion of all the workers building the massive canal). I think whoever had control of the city could pass units (both land and sea) over the square, but other civs should be denied access (especially those at war with the occupying civ, but not allied civs or those with rights of passage). Or, you could make it like an airstrip or fortress, and whoever occupies it can use it (blockades can be worked in here). Ships probably wouldn't be able to be built in a blockaded city with a canal occupied by enemy forces, as the constant harassment and bombardment of the blockading navy wouldn't permit the use of structures close to the city's bay (dry docks, harbor). But maybe they could, as ships were able to be built and launched by blockaded cities in games previous (though, I think in Civ 4, a city that's blockaded shouldn't be allowed to build a ship in a blockaded city, but instead be forced to return bombardment from defenses further in the city itself, such as coastal batteries and canons/artillery. And coastal batteries would be among the first things destroyed during bombardment from the navy, followed up by any cannons set to defend the coast - as a side note, it's my idea that cannons/artillery in a coastal city should be either assigned to fortify the coast or fortify against the land). Also, the city could produce any building available to a coastal city, and be treated as such. You should be allowed to build as many canals for the city as there are land tiles between the city and any ocean tiles (I don't mean that you can make a canal to connect a canal - you shouldn't be able to do that, or we'd be making battleships here in nebraska for use in the Pacific and Atlantic alike!), because while it'd take up a lot of your workers' time, it'd be tactically advantageous to have auxillary canals/locks, should one of them fall into the hands of the enemy or be destroyed ("You lamers!! - that took me 20 turns to build!!"), so you can still build ships, receive trade from ocean squares, etc. Any canals built after the first would take noticably less time, though, since the project included a man-made bay in the town for the first one (or maybe the canal would have to be built by workers/the city, then afterwards it'd be another project to build the bay in the town -or vice versa, though I think this is getting too monotonous for the more tactically oriented and simple styled Civ line of games, so I'm leaning toward the "the first canal costs more than the others" idea). As for movement, land units would move across as normal (you wouldn't be able to dream of making a canal before you knew how to make sturdy bridges), and sea units may be slowed a bit: maybe the canal space counts as two movement (or maybe all movement)? Maybe your ship, if caught in the canal, would suffer a defensive penalty - or maybe a bonus if coupled with cannons along the coast/coastal batteries (coastal batteries could be an improvement built along the shore for units such as cannons/artillery, and only buildable in coastal squares inside a city radius - or maybe anywhere, but only the ones inside a city's radius would get the maximum defensive/bombard bonus)? I'm trying to think of ways to balance this in game-terms, so that if players build them, there aren't insane benefits to just building a coastal city (balances would include turns/production required to build it, can easily be controlled by the enemy unless you defend it, etc.) Lastly, if the enemy takes your city, there may be a chance that your armies are forced out from (or defensively disadvantaged in) any canals/locks still under your control at the time of the conquest, and any ships would be attackable by any ground force and suffer large penalties (a ship stuck in a harbor of a conquered city wouldn't last long when cut off from supplies, and is an easy target for ship guns and cannons) or even vulnerable to take-over by the enemy, who could choose to take control of the derelict ship (which would have to be refurbished with ammunition and troops before being battle-ready again - these derelict ships could be moved instantly into town via unseen tugboats and other civilian water craft, and would be useless until city production was spent on it) or sink it to the bottom of the ocean - much like the options for taking over a city in Civ 3. When the canal (or all the canals if there were more than one) is destroyed ("You lamers! - That thing took me 20 turns to build!!"), there would still exist an unseen (unseen in Civ 3 terms, unless you guys are going to make the main map icons a little more detailed with what's in the city, which I don't think is a good idea from a realist standpoint, but maybe from a game-play variant standpoint. - But, the bay should be visible in the aerial city view.) man-made lake/dock, most likely existing only for civilian purposes (no practical use in game terms) until another canal was built (which would be built in the same timeline as any 'non-first' canal was built, as my idea for the decreased build times on subsequent canals is in reference to the pre-constructed man-made lake/dock). If a city is razed, perhaps any city built there would have the benefit of that unseen man-made lake/dock, and any canals built would be treated as second canals for the purposes of time required to build. Though, if a city were built adjacent to the pre-existing city's location, and still one square away from the ocean (just a bit up the coastline), the pre-existing canals would be completely useless, as they were built to connect an entirely different area to the ocean (unlike roads which bend and reform to more roads and cities, canals would be fixed and pretty much singularly-purposed and inflexible - which begs the question: would canals be destroyed upon razing the city, likewise the man-made lake/dock? I think not for two reasons: one, they are both larger projects and any civilization would be quick to try and use them instead of just destroy them, unless of course they had some reason such as a holy war and though the soil tainted, or they simply wouldn't be utilizing the land in the same way or at all. Two, it's a popular practice to raze a city and build a new one with your own patriotic people in it's stead. To automatically raze these improvements would be like automatically destroying all irrigation, mining, and roads - if you want to do that, you just pillage it all and rebuild however you want, if at all. - though that begs another question: would pillaging destroy all radial improvements in Civ 4? That's a whole other thread. . .). I'm pushing for canals to be the next big thing in the line of Civ games, can you tell? :]

Thanks for your time, though I'm sure I've forgotten at least half of what I was going to present, and bungled up everything I wrote in here! All suggestions are welcome!

 

[Duke_of_BOOM!]

I like it, add seiges for land cities that have the same effect as blockades. Also, cutting off a city from it's capital should end the cities ability to buy units.

 

[Eugor]

Sieging! That idea is so obvious, I'm surprised I've never seen it mentioned! :] That's exactly how it should be, too: A city under siege is completely cut off from its city radius workers and other cities' trade/luxuries. The tried and true tactic of starving out your enemies would present itself here as well in the form of a city only being able to utilize resources generated by the single tile it resides on. Though, the idea of having to build 8 units to completely blockade any city, be it an islandic city, coastal, or land-locked is kind-of burdensome. Maybe a new attribute (can never have enough of those!) could be added to units: Siege Factor. Picture this: when you build a full, 3-unit army in Civ 3, it would be a good deal larger and more organized than any single unit for obvious reasons. Thus, it should be easier to flank a city under siege with an army. Perhaps armies that are fortified in a square adjacent to a city would automatically gain a kind of Zone of Control, which would deny any unit trying to leave the city without fighting the army (a unit trying to leave the city by trying to enter a square that's adjacent to a fortified army). Thus, it'd count as three regular units, for the purpose of denying the enemy passage through the square it's in and the two surrounding it that also border the city. Then, give it a Siege Factor of 3, since it can effectively dominate 3 squares. Of course, you'd have to get rid of the ability where units moving into or out of cities ignore ZoC's, or perhaps have units be denied that ability when confronting a sieged city, leaving the only options being to either attack the blockading units or waiting it out and hoping they leave before your city starves. - I probably made that a great deal more complicated than I intended! So then to sucessfully blockade a landlocked city by means of a siege, you'd need a minimum of two armies and two regular units, assuming the armies don't overlap their ZoC squares and the regular units aren't in ZoC squares. Kind of makes sense, since that'd end up being 8 regular units that comprised the entire sieging force. You could also/instead grant certain unit combinations a Siege Factor without having to become an army. Maybe a certain defensive and/or offensive units fortified in the same square as a cannon unit. Still another route would be to instead give certain units the aforementioned Siege Factor without having to become an army, and without having to 'combine forces' by fortifying in the same square as another unit. Certain units would just posess this ability because they are excellent at 'digging in' to fortify their position. We could forfeit this ZoC idea completely, and just say that if X amount of Siege Factor is present in units fortified adjacent to the city, it is blockaded. X would probably be different for a town as opposed to a city or metro, and would perhaps increase as the ages went on - or perhaps not, depending if whether or not an ancient town size 2 is the same raw population as a modern town size 2. Thus, if a Siege Factor of 5 is required to sucessfully cut off any town size 1 to 6 (using one to six because it's the Civ 3 standard for a 'town' size population and keeping with the spirit of simplicity, though either of these factors could change in Civ 4), the offending military could present two units with a siege factor of 2 and one unit with 1 - or even one unit with 4 and one with 1 - or one with 5 (a very strong, mobile force such as cavalry or mechanized infantry)?! The Siege factor could go up for some units upon gaining ranks, too (elite troops are more organized and accomplished than conscripted troops).
The effects of a siege are become more devastating the longer it continues. Taking this further, the units laying siege upon the city would become more difficult to assault with units in the city, simulating that the sieging army is digging in and would probably be constructing weapons of siege, such as rams and catapults. On that same note, those same units sieging the city would begin to gain a tactical advantage as time went on, to simulate the effect of constant attacks on the city and utilizing tools such as ladders and ropes to scale the city walls, not to mention the demoralizing effect on the troops stationed in the city. Perhaps the City Walls would be rendered useless vs. any unit which had been fortified in a square adjacent to the city for a certain number of turns (This would probably only apply in the ages before modern times, as tanks don't really need preparation to attack a city, and speed is evermore an asset to the attacker). Something similar could be done with the navy - have you ever tried to blockade a city that is completely surrounded by water? Don't get me wrong, it'd be more difficult to successfully blockade a city like that, but 8 ships? Maybe just 3 or 4 would be enough to control the waters. In terms of gameplay, 8 ships being tied up by one city is far too hefty a price - especially on a smaller map.
Moving on to modern times, a blockaded city would have a hard time scrambling fighters without harassment from the blockading/sieging forces. I don't think planes should be able to just slip by offending forces. This wouldn't be an issue if all 8 adjacent squares must be occupied by units to blockade a city (that looks less and less practiceable/appealing/realistic), but the flak guns on the ships and even grounded heavy machine guns in the ground armies would get a few shots off on any squadron attempting to leave/enter. You could do the ZoC thing where if a city is blockaded successfully by just a few units, make all other tiles (adjacent to the city) effectively unpassable by the aircraft. (quick note: a coastal city, that is, surrounded by both land and water, would only be successfully blockaded by both ships and ground troops, regardless of how many of one or the other you had - ships can't stop vehicles from leaving on the other side of the city, and if they could it'd be too difficult to stop a blockade of this type for it to be feasible in terms of gameplay - especially if the blockaded city is denied the ability to build ships)

 

[Eugor]

I found daftpanzer's thread on simple sieges. I'm a little undecided about it, but it's about the siege so . . .Simple Sieges