Abstracting unit movement

[KrikkitTwo]

An issue that came up as a sarcastic comparison got me thinking what if cIV could actually do this (ir if CivV would). Before you reject this as a joke thread listen to what I am proposing.

I am proposing that all military unit movement in cIV take on some of the aspects of the air unit model of Civ3.

Essentially air units did not attack the are they were in, they were based out of an area and conducted 'operations' in the surrounding area, offensive or defensive.

I would like to see land units do something similar, so that their 'movement' would be of two types
1. operational range
2. strategic 're-basing'

This way (for example) a Tank could be ordered to attack an Infantry without having to move (although if the Infantry was in an allied unit's 'defensive perimeter' then the allied unit would help defend against the enemy tank)

The two actions would be combined if you were attacking something that your unit could 'base' out of ie an enemy city/fortress, etc.

The actual range of an operation would depend on what order it involved
like fortification (only do combat in one spot at a bonus)
sentry (combat a standard area) or
patrol (combat in a broadest possible area at a penalty)

This would work particularly well for units that are designed as 'partisan' type units because they could actually have 'draws' without having to worry about moving to another square (you could give a unit different level of 'retreat orders' ie fight to the death or harrass)

It could also allow simultaneous turns

Essentially you would spend your turn rebasing your troop stacks and taking care of all your civilian duties (you only seeing your enemy's troop stacks as they were at the beginning of the turn) You also give your troop stacks the combat orders for that turn. (either 'level of defense' or cities/bases to take, terrain to destroy)

Then all the combat actions take place...units are lost, cities are taken...on the next turn you attempt to rebase your defenders in the captured city before the next round of combat. (note: this does make "taking a civ over" very fast, but connected with this is the idea is that "taking a civ over" shouldn't mean that much long term... they should still be able to produce rebels in various forms even if you raze the cities, until they are either assimilated, totally hunted down, or regain their independence and make peace with you)

Another slight side bonus is that this negates the large army + enemy railroads= good bye civ in one turn
You may still be able to go two cities deep with your strike forces, but more strike forces won't let you go more than two cities deep in a single turn.

 

[dh_epic]

This is probably one of the most contraversial ideas I've seen. It also has a lot of potential, and I'd get on board for it.

Let's face facts -- the industrial age marks a turning point in the game, and not for the better. There's a combinatorial explosion for the number of actions you can do, and for all the pain it causes you, the AI doesn't seem to do much better. Exploration and settling -- the most driving forces to victory -- stopped in the middle ages. And clashes between armies offer much hope of strategy and drama, except that Railroads let you move all of your units to where the action is, with more than enough time to move them back if another front appears. Not to mention that by this point, you probably have 30% of the world's land, and the second place guy can't touch you.

Abstracting some unit movement at this stage might be the jolt the game needs. "Zone of control" suddenly plays a much larger role, to replace the importance of managing your movement.

I'm curious what other people see as the benefits, if any, to this model.

 

[crimson238]

I can see the benefits, but part of me is against it. I can't exactly articulate why I'm against it. Perhaps it is just a problem that can be solved by erradicating the infanite movement of railroads. Another problem i can see with this is the tactic of just leaving units in a city. Instead of engaging units in a battle on open land, both the AI and the player would probable be more inclined to keep units in a city behind it's fortifications.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I'm for it, and abstract combat too. But it won't happen in civ4, I'd be happy if they at least implement abstract exploring.

In the next civ however they could let the combat and movement model evolve in steps in history through discoveries of doctrines that reforms the way the military is handled, which would keep the micromanagment at a good level. To be more specific - Complete control over each military unit during the first era, more abstract control in modern era.

 

[Dida]

Abstract unit movement is kind of too far out of the box.

 

[mitsho]

but I agree, in the latter eras it makes so much sense. And all the negative points brought up in here now. Why not try it out for industrial and modern era? Most of your points seem to me theoretically correct, but in praxis, it's a whole bunch different...

:top: to this idea..

mitsho

 

[Darwin420]

I'm sorry, but I just can't get on board with abstract movement. It just feels so wrong for this type of game.

Plus, with people hammering about abstract this, and abstract that, I can't help but think that once the flood gates were down, you'd have a game that was so abstract, all you would do would click a few buttons on your turn to give a general idea of what you want to do for all your abstracts, and then click next turn and get a status report.

I'd have more fun programming equations into MS Excel and plopping numbers in.

**I'm not trying to flame or put you down --- I just don't like the concept proposed**

 

[Hyronymus]

You're not the only one, Darwin. The unit movements as they are are one of the key ingredients of Civilization. I agree it gets annoying when you have a nice army but aren't there easier solutions?

Let's imagine Krikkitone's proposal makes it to Civ4. Instead of moving your units you're now busy assigning operational ranges to your units or rebasing (=moving) them. Nothing really changed then in my point of view. OK, the actions you take are different but you're still needed to give orders to your units (isn't that the real issue here?!).

Wouldn't an easier solution be a more advanced rally point option for military units? And wouldn't auto-stacking mech inf's/armors to radar artillery take your hands of unit movement in a much easier way. This could be done by setting a few 'unit rules' for your games, such as that artillery always moves in a stack with (a) defensive unit(s). If you assign artillery to a 'create stack'-option it will wait for the specified number of defensive units to be added to the artillery and then move (automaticly) to a rally point.

 

[mhIdA]

I disagree, mostly because I like see military actions on the screen. But I hope military units will be replace by military citizens, a new kind of specialist. To avoyd MM we order a city attack other city, then they move in traditional movements but once 2 armies in war share the same tile the battle begin.

 

[cfacosta]

I am totally on board for this idea...and here is why.
1.) If you have a system where operational radius is set for units at a given base. It would be easy to also include an intercept feature such as "defend operational theater". I find it ludicrous that an enemy army can, in a single turn, march down a railroad 2 squares away from my huge army stacked in a recently conquered city, and strike deep behind my lines. Realistically I would have operational control over that area and at least part of my forces would be able to intercept the enemy forces trying to sneak by.
2.) The same feature would greatly improve the AI's chance of surviving. Since they frequently make terrible choices about where to locate defenses, being able to pool defense from several nearby cities within operational range would boost their defense.

The only problem I see is how to handle attacking an enemy that is far away from your cities. There would need to be an order whereby the forces create a new base of operations somewhere within "one turn's movement" from their current location.

 

[mhIdA]

Sorry for a second post.
This could work only to areas we don't see on map, to decrease the time between turns, specially in late game.

 

[Dida]

I want stacked movement, stacked combat, but not abstract movement, abstract combat. Some abstraction is good, because it keep the player focused on what's important. However, too much abstraction serves to destroy the game rather than help it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The only problem I see is how to handle attacking an enemy that is far away from your cities. There would need to be an order whereby the forces create a new base of operations somewhere within "one turn's movement" from their current location.

I'd actually consider that an advantage because it would model simple logistics (could work with ships too) no more exploring down the coast without setting up a string of outposts along the way... each of which could cost

 

[Commander Bello]

Unfortunately, I don't see this work at all.

First, I think for the majority of players it is one aspect of the game's fun to move their units and to see the opponents move.
Second, as has been said before, too much abstraction doesn't add fun to the game, it just retreaves it
Third, as far as I understand it, it would convert the game just to a number-counting kind of excel sheet with graphics
Fourth, as different movement makes for different constellations in each turn, it seems to subtract any kind of strategy and the small portion of tactics off the game

 

[Commander Bello]

I want stacked movement, stacked combat, but not abstract movement, abstract combat. Some abstraction is good, because it keep the player focused on what's important. However, too much abstraction serves to destroy the game rather than help it.

I completely agree with this.

 

[Evie]

I rather like the basic notions behind this idea (that is, the notion of not having to push around random units and tell each and every last one of them exactly what to do).

Personally, I've been spending most of my time on Europa Universalis lately, and I rather like the notion that, instead of giving precise battle orders to my units, I just tell them what region to march into and leave the actual battling up to them.

 

[Albow]

How about a combination of ideas? Instead of completely abstract movement and operational range, why not have the game board change at the late industrial era, such that four squares become one (or even 9 squares). These new 'uber' squares would be considered like the old squares, where you move units, but all units would now be in stacks, each stack controlling that square and all resources and cities within. Thsi would also mean that city management doesn't need to change (they can still operate on old squares for prod/food/trade etc).

The other good thing about 'uber' squares is it introduces the concept of regions. With nationalism, this could make the late game more fun as each region would have its own effect (like wanting independence etc)

Also, uber squares would mean that sea movement is a little more balanced, as you now have battleships and more modern navies moving at slightly more appropriate speeds.

 

[sir_schwick]

I see this as a good suggestion that needs slight tweaking to work very well. Here is what it allows and would need to work:

1) WE-GO system on combat(maybe even build orders and such). Now you would plan out the overall strategy, and everyones units would move simeoultaneously. This worked very well in Combat Mission and TacOps. While those are wargames, the WE-GO system could be civ-ified.

2) You see the units and where they are re-based. Re-base would be the same as moving your unit, but in the WE-GO sense rather than IGO-UGO, which confers a huge position advantage. Its a new square you are 're-baseing' to as well as how you move there.

3) Over time communication and other technology would increase how sophisticated defensive and offensive planning could be.

4) It would be easy to add a logistics model or leave it out. There is other functionality that would be easier to add, but I am not sure yet.

Just so everyone knows, I do not like the idea of 'send units to this nation' and you get a report on what happened. I do like the idea that you plan out your moves and they are simeoultaneous. The re-base paradigm made a lot of sense for aircraft and could be applied for ground and naval. It would still be real and on the map, just more realistic and intuitive.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well if uber squares were introduced I'd like it to include the ability to have enemy units occupying the same ubersquare (actually instead of 'ubersquares' how about "Zones of Control") This way one could have units that can slip under the radar and do guerilla actions...as well as have an ability to keep out more noticable trickles

Modern Sea units are another reason I'd like this, the player could give his invasioun assault fleet an order to sail across an ocean, it may be done in one turn but the ships would have to go through the operational range of the Local fleet and Air Force



I really like the WE-GO idea.. that seems to be a better way of saying what I'd like. Essentially having it be vaguely like 'Zones of Control' it is your units auto reactive ability to take 'orders' given to them and execute them based on what the simultaneous orders of others let them do. This Would simplify Combat but only to a certain degree.

 

[Idylwyld]

What the hell is wrong with you people? Abstract military movement? Why even play the game. Why not just have a setting on the game options screen that allows the entire thing to play out automatically like the league season settings in baseball games. A unit is created at a city, you choose a place to send it, you hit 'G', you moe the cursor to your selected location. The computer selects the fastest available route to the selected location. How damn much more abstract does it need to be. Consistently in this forum ideas have been put forth to limit the actual interaction in the game. Limiting railroad movement, getting rid of workers, these are two of the threads I've been following and the point seems clear. WE DON'T WANT TO PLAY OUR GAMES, WE JUST WANT TO WATCH IT HAPPEN. The mid-game is tedious, railroad movement is unbalancing, movement is an opportunity to screw up the plan. These are facts of our game. CIV IV promises an open scripting platform, we will be able to alter the depths of the game to our liking. If you don't want to play the game then script the mod that allows everything down to hitting the space bar to end your turn to be abstracted. Just leave me a game to play.