Barracks And Military Outside of Cities

[AndrewH]

Something that always ticked me off about Civ III. Why cant you build barracks or outposts that can make Units away from cities. They could even make it so that the Barricades can build military units. Why not? I think that this is a pretty good idea if someone thinks its not please tell me why.

 

[Rhymes]

Oooooh, thats an awesome idea! The best I've heard in a long time. If its not in civ4 I just hope the game will be modable enough so we can create that function ourslef

 

[AndrewH]

Thanks. That was completely original too. Except for the fact that i saw it in RoN and i wanted to do it in Civ... If anyone else likes this idea, or wants to change it please tell me...

 

[dathon78]

A very interesting and creative idea, but there are many problems I see in its implementation. First and foremost, if it's not a city, where does its production come from? Does it have a fixed spt output, or does it rely on the land around it? If the former, it will be tough to determine the spt to be useful yet not exploitive, plus this value will have to surely change many times throughout the game as unit costs change. If the latter, then how is it different from a city?

Second, what is required to build this outpost? If it is going to be something that can be built be workers, then it would be ridiculously over-powered. The whole point in having settlers and city growth is that investment is needed to make a viable production center. If I can get the same production of a city by building a few workers and spending a few turns to get some equivalent of a full production city, then why bother settling past a few cities? Worse yet, there is no population investment; workers don't go away when the outpost is built, allowing a team of workers to generate massive production, which is clearly unbalanced. I suppose one way to implement this would be to make the outpost like a colony; needs a worker to build. However, this has problems too, in that worker pumps are rather easy to setup, and there could be all kinds of exploitive use of this to spam production outposts all over the place and wildly unbalance the game.

However, the worst offender to game balance I see here is the negation of the supply chain effect. The biggest challenge to warfare in the Ancient and Middle Ages is the fact that the deeper you press into enemy territory, the further your army gets from its supply base. Your reinforcements take longer and longer to arrive, while your opponenet's time gets shorter. This has been a major factor in warfare since time began, and remains so even to this day (look at the vehicle armor problem the US is having in Iraq). It can even turn the tide of victory, as it has for the Russians time and time again as nobody has been able to overcome the long march to Moscow and successfully conquer the country. Being able to construct quick production sites would negate this, as all you need is a team of workers to follow the army, building outposts to provide quick reinforcements. The classic strategic choice, balancing the gain to be had by early conquest against the loss in growth due to building a large, slow moving army would be lost. The obvious strategy would be to build enough units to handle the first couple cities and a pack of workers, and BAM, you have a self-sustaining ancient age army that can march on anybody while your main cities continue to grow.

Anyhow, that's my view on the issue. I am NOT trying to attack you in any way; just posting my opposing view to your idea and the reasons behind my position. I love engaging in strategic debate, and everything said here is meant to be at that level, nothing personal I would love to hear a more fleshed-out explanation of your idea, what you are envisioning, and why you want it there.

-dathon

 

[AndrewH]

How about, they work as actual barracks. Not like cities producing units. You could store units in the barracks, In which they could heal, Upgrade to other units, etc. Just like a how a real barracks works in a city. I cant think of any way that THIS could be used the wrong way, but my old idea, yes, i didnt think it through enough. :-/

 

[dathon78]

Hmmm... now that's an interesting idea. Units can already heal in neutral territory or friendly territory, but I could see some utility for a worker action that could build a "bunker" in enemy territory where units could heal up instead of having to retreat outside enemy territory. To be balanced, it would have to take awhile to setup, to avoid them being built on every enemy square, and would be destroyed if your opponent managed to land a unit inside (either because you left it open or they killed everyone inside). This would obviously obsolete with the advent of Battlefield Medicine. However, I do NOT think this facility should confer a defense bonus, as Civ is a defensive game, and having somewhere to hide would negate the necessary disadvantge that attacking forces have now. But somewhere to heal up deep in enemy territory... yeah, if implemented right, that could be interesting

-dathon

 

[Gogf]

Civ is a defensive game

Since when?

 

[dathon78]

I don't mean to imply that Civ should be played passively, or that offense has no place. Far from it. Most times, military might is needed to win. However, the game gives distinct advantages to the defender. All defenders get a small defense boost just for being there. Fortifying gives an additional bonus. Cities add bonuses for walls and sheer size. Fortifications give extra defensive bonus to certain squares. The game is setup to make it easier to defend than to attack; thus, of two EQUAL civs, the defender will win over the attacker (barring ridiculous RPNG results). The crux of the game lies in getting a significant technological and/or production edge over your opponent to be able to overcome the defensive bonuses. This is what I mean by defensive game. To defend yourself, you merely need to keep equal. To attack, you must attain a superior position. And that's the real point of the game, trying to find some way to that position.

-dathon

 

[Pentium]

It's easier to defend than to attack. Try conquering a civ and defendig yourself from military defeat. Which one is easier?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

how about a different stlye of camp for each age, produces a different unit a certain amount of turns (requiring no resources but is a simple unit such as guerilla) that can only be built in the outpost, and it cant be built in enemy territory (or not within 4-5 squares of city. maybe a slight defense bonus and takes roughly as long as a fort to build

or just an upgrade from fort

 

[AndrewH]

Sounds good...

 

[dathon78]

it cant be built in enemy territory (or not within 4-5 squares of city

Then where would you be able to build them? Would take a pretty loose city arrangement such that ANY tile worth being on is 4-5 squares from any city.

produces a different unit a certain amount of turns

A good idea on the surface, but I'm skittish about this whole "get something for nothing" thing. So for a few worker turns, I get potentially unlimited shield production in the form of military units?? I still like Andrew's second idea of a place to heal within enemy lines. Seems to be balanced, in that it requires the attacker to bring workers with him, and some of the army must be devoted to defending both the outpost and said workers.

-dathon

 

[sir_schwick]

@dathon

Ummm that is called reality. Defenders always have the advantage, especially in urban warfare. Of course it is possible to use superior tactics to win with inferior force, but Civ does not simulate tactics. Also, bombardment units reduce the defender advantage considerably. In previous Civ games most defenders were screwed when Howies rolled around.


The New Forts -

I think the role of Forts should be able to be expanded to fortified communities. You would sacrifice a Worker to build a Fort. The fort's population(which can only be added to with workers/slave workers) would have a max population of four. LIke cities should be, the fort square would require a citizen to be worked. The maximum radius of forts is one square. They can only build a reduced version of the first tier of buildings. This would include a 1 cpt religious building, normal Barracks, Trading Post(+25% tax, luxury happiness), library equiavlent and so on. They cannot produce settlers. If you want a Fort to become a City, the Fort must build some kind of 40 shield building that allows it to be a city.


Military Bases-

You should be able to build some kind of 'military base' during all the ages. It acts like a forward staging location, eventual airfield, and Barracks. It should take some investment and the perfect counter to the 'army of workers' is rear gaurd strikes.

 

[searcheagle]

I would like to see forts themselves have defense stats. After the fort is built (and since the worker is sacrificed) the fort would be armed. The fort would have to be defeated before enemy units could use either the square or the fort. It should also provide a sanctuary for healing troops, as has already been mentioned.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

How about this:

Workers build a fort, as now, taking several turns to do so.

Now, you have a new order for workers, "Garrison Improvement"

The worker disappears to garrison duty. The fort is now armed. If nasty little enemies go running by guns will stick out of the firing slits and blast at them, ditto if they try to actually take the fort, as it now has an inherent defense, detremined by tech level, low if no units are present, adding greatly to the defense of actual units present. I suggest also that this inherent defense give defenders a substantial attack bonus, as they can sortie out and the fort garrison will cover the walls while they are chasing down enemies, plus a free one move bonus - but ONLY back into the fort.

Now then...
We wants to make some units at our fort, why waste a good training and staging area? We need 2 things, supplies and manpower. If we go with some kind of PW system, we can allocate a percentage of shields to our forts, giving the necessary goods to equip our men. An adjustable percentage from an individual city to the fort would be nice, giving us some leeway on how fast we wanted to build our units. More workers supply the actual manpower, disappearing into the fort for x number of turns and reappearing later as shiny new legions, musketmen, what have you. A bit of gold should be needed also, to pay the garrison for sundries and training wages. Forts should not be able to train/make units until after a period of time, determined by experienced combat, militarism of the civ, war techs gained, etc.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I like the idea. It would be a good addition to Civ 4.

 

[searcheagle]

How about this:

Workers build a fort, as now, taking several turns to do so.

Now, you have a new order for workers, "Garrison Improvement"

The worker disappears to garrison duty. The fort is now armed. If nasty little enemies go running by guns will stick out of the firing slits and blast at them, ditto if they try to actually take the fort, as it now has an inherent defense, detremined by tech level, low if no units are present, adding greatly to the defense of actual units present. I suggest also that this inherent defense give defenders a substantial attack bonus, as they can sortie out and the fort garrison will cover the walls while they are chasing down enemies, plus a free one move bonus - but ONLY back into the fort.

Now then...
We wants to make some units at our fort, why waste a good training and staging area? We need 2 things, supplies and manpower. If we go with some kind of PW system, we can allocate a percentage of shields to our forts, giving the necessary goods to equip our men. An adjustable percentage from an individual city to the fort would be nice, giving us some leeway on how fast we wanted to build our units. More workers supply the actual manpower, disappearing into the fort for x number of turns and reappearing later as shiny new legions, musketmen, what have you. A bit of gold should be needed also, to pay the garrison for sundries and training wages. Forts should not be able to train/make units until after a period of time, determined by experienced combat, militarism of the civ, war techs gained, etc.

That's what I thought forts were supposed to do in Civ III. I was disappointed when I actually saw how the forts were actually implemented.

 

[AndrewH]

Another thing that the fort could do is raise the hp bar for the units. Like if a Regular archer stays in the fort for 3 turns it turns into a veteran once it leaves, or 6 turns it would turn into an elite...

 

[sir_schwick]

Now THAT is not unbalancing....

However adding an extra HP for defensive combat would not be a bad idea, such as the first damage point does not go against the defender.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

I'm actually hoping they do away entirely with the low hp system, I think it really bites, so an additional hp in the older, (better)civ2 type system would mean less. How about if firepower comes back, your older units get more firepower to deal with tougher attackers from the fort walls?

Another bonus would be if 1 move foot units could surrender the fort, instead of fighting to the death. This would only apply to the last unit, and only when it was down to its last hp. It could surrender the fort, and withdraw automatically in the direction of the nearest friendly territory. Maybe a 30% chance of this happening. You could make this part of diplomacy too, i.e. say Xerxes takes your fort, but then pops up after you retreat, and says "General so and so has honorably surrendered fort Aegia to our forces, and we have generously permitted his forces to retire. Let us garrison this fort as a part of the mighty Persian Empire, and we shall grant you peace." If you agree the Persians get a garrison outpost in your lands (until you are strong enough to say otherwise) and you get a rep boost with Xerxes and one other civ, for honoring the gallantry between your military officers.