Better Unit Movement and Military Strategy

[rysmiel]

That is one of the few changes I have see suggested here that would make the game absolutely unplayable for me.

The Civ 3/4 air unit behaviour model is frustrating enough as is; I still fervently believe that it was a mistake and the sooner we go back to air units that behave like actual units the better.

 

[Argetnyx]

How so? The Civ3 air units are accurate, they need prepared airbases to go to, and can only attack other air units. They can also bomb enemy units just like real life.

 

[rysmiel]

How so? The Civ3 air units are accurate, they need prepared airbases to go to, and can only attack other air units. They can also bomb enemy units just like real life.

But they do not move like actual units like every other unit in the game. They are a needless recomplication of mechanics for no benefit.

 

[Ramesses]

But they do not move like actual units like every other unit in the game. They are a needless recomplication of mechanics for no benefit.

A recomplication, unless every unit abides by those rules.

 

[Argetnyx]

NO!!! Air units (and aircraft in general) are by definition unique. They are not supposed to move like normal units, they are fixed on their normal airbases. A 'needless recomplication of mechanics', how long has Civ had air units? NEWS FLASH! Civ4 is not the only game in the series. You say that gameplay is more important than realism, then what is this talk of changing the well tried, realistic air unit for a bit of 'mechanics simplification'. For no benifit? Really? It is more realistic to just get rid of air units completely than make them 'just like any other unit'. Have you ever heard of a bomber brought down by a spearman? If you can think of an example, just tell me.

 

[exhile]

20 tile movement is WAY TOO much.

Even the current 10 tile movement with railroad is too much because it allows defenders to attack attackers from nowhere.

That is basically the problem with fast movement – you cannot anticipate enemy attacks.

I agree that CIV 4 has room left for combat improvement but the problem is NOT only with the slow movement.
The problem is with having huge single SoD that can only be countered by an equal or larger SoD.

If CIV 4/5 plays out like chess where each player has several stacks and they both try to outmaneuver each other’s forces, then the game will be more strategic combat wise.

20 tile movement will only make it worse because players would not be able to see each other’s forces.

I think of the Queen in chess when the topic is 10+ movement points. There other way to resolve this issue is to make the map bigger. A 362x362 map is one map I'd really like to be playing. As for fog of war, rules should be in place where a unit can extend its movement only to the user's visible map space. A unit should not be able to penetrate deep into enemy area that is covered in fog. The only exception is recon missions by air units.

 

[Argetnyx]

a 362x362 map is very big, I tried it on a few mods (of Civ3). They are HUGE, I mean, some games you don't meet anybody else for many turns. I have never gotten past the Medieval age in one of those games because I got tired of the time it took to load each turn. I'm sure it would be much worse in civ4.

 

[Ramesses]

I think of the Queen in chess when the topic is 10+ movement points. There other way to resolve this issue is to make the map bigger. A 362x362 map is one map I'd really like to be playing. As for fog of war, rules should be in place where a unit can extend its movement only to the user's visible map space. A unit should not be able to penetrate deep into enemy area that is covered in fog. The only exception is recon missions by air units.

Well that completely defeats the purpose of my idea. The whole point was to increase mobility to the point that there are minimal restrictions on unit movement, then enforce new restrictions which encourage dependence between units.

Slowly and systematically mapping out the frontier.
Guards standing watch at international routes to ensure the safety of passersby.
Coordinating units without needing to plan rally points ahead of time or wait for stragglers.
Creating self-sufficient lines of defense while coordinating devestating strikes against the enemy.
Allowing nearly free movement through friendly territory by the endgame.

The way I see it, my system accomplishes all of this.

 

[exhile]

I'm okay with not meeting any other civilizations for a while since that was how gameplay was for a while on the Earth Map on Civ2. I agree the Medieval Age of the game became long but eventually I got to the Industrial and Modern Age. However, this game took me a few weeks to play and finish. It's kind of like those long duration games such as those Single Player PC First Person Shooters, Zelda, Final Fantasy or Mario Brothers were.

Ramesses, you system is actually not to bad. On paper that is. My remarks on your points are:

1. Explorers already accomplish this
2. Hasn't been tried
3. Multiple Rally points sounds a bit like Starcraft and it would be good to implement
4. Hasn't been tried or if you could elaoborate
5. I guess this is the eventual end point of the game

 

[Argetnyx]

The problem is that some people don't like long games, they like short ones. I personally like the long ones. When planning, be careful not to make you ideas too tactical, Civ is a strategic game.

 

[rysmiel]

A recomplication, unless every unit abides by those rules.

I'll grant that assigning missions for everything is less complicated than assigning missions for some units and moving others square-by-square; I just don't see a way any reasonable range of missions to cover all of what one might want units to do can be less complicated than moving them square by square.

 

[rysmiel]

NO!!! Air units (and aircraft in general) are by definition unique. They are not supposed to move like normal units, they are fixed on their normal airbases. A 'needless recomplication of mechanics', how long has Civ had air units? NEWS FLASH! Civ4 is not the only game in the series.

Um, have you lost track of who you're talking to here ? I'm the one who mostly agrees with you about Civ 3 being the best game in the series.

That said, Civ 1 and Civ 2 have air units that behave like actual units. "Supposed to" is a game-designer's choice, not a law of nature; and IMO the chnage in the functionality of air units is one of the few major mistakes Civ 3 introduced.

You say that gameplay is more important than realism, then what is this talk of changing the well tried, realistic air unit for a bit of 'mechanics simplification'.

No, it's not; it's reverting to the previous established, well working, model for air units. Which there was no need to change in the first place.

 

[Argetnyx]

Um, have you lost track of who you're talking to here ? I'm the one who mostly agrees with you about Civ 3 being the best game in the series.

When did you say that?

That said, Civ 1 and Civ 2 have air units that behave like actual units. "Supposed to" is a game-designer's choice, not a law of nature; and IMO the chnage in the functionality of air units is one of the few major mistakes Civ 3 introduced.

And how did that work? I find them to be very useful. In Civ3, that is. Civ4 air units are horrible.

 

[rysmiel]

When did you say that?

Couple of weeks back; can't recall the thread but I think you replied with something like "at last someone agrees with me". or some such.

And how did that work?

Just fine, IMO. You had a unit with a range, you moved it along those squares, you attacked other units with it, same paradigm as everything else.

 

[Argetnyx]

Couple of weeks back; can't recall the thread but I think you replied with something like "at last someone agrees with me". or some such.

Sounds like something I would say...

Just fine, IMO. You had a unit with a range, you moved it along those squares, you attacked other units with it, same paradigm as everything else.

Only attackin gother air units, right? Remember that each turn represents a year or more of time, no plane has ever been airborne for even close to that amount of time. As I said, civ is a very strategic game.

 

[MosheLevi]

Well that completely defeats the purpose of my idea. The whole point was to increase mobility to the point that there are minimal restrictions on unit movement

I am all for better unit movement as long as the units cannot attack on the same turn after moving 10+ tiles.

Currently when I send my SoD into enemy territory it is being attacked by enemy units (via the 10+ tile movement) from 5+ different (remote) cities and it frustrating when you have “invisible” units attacking you from all directions and you cannot attack back unless they are 1 or 2 tiles away from you.

So first, attackers should have better unit movement.
Second, units should NOT be able to move great distances and attack on the same turn.

Civ 4/5 should play more like a Chess game where you can see your opponent’s units.

 

[Argetnyx]

Civ 4/5 should play more like a Chess game where you can see your opponent’s units.

This will defeat the purpose of scouts and recon missions. I agree with you on the chess part, but you should only be able to see as far as your units can.

 

[rysmiel]

Only attackin gother air units, right?

Depends on whether it's a fighter or a bomber; the latter can attack ground units.

Remember that each turn represents a year or more of time, no plane has ever been airborne for even close to that amount of time.

I seriously doubt any trireme ever stayed at sea for centuries at a stretch, either. If you want to have units at all, some degree of abstraction has to come into it.

Air units having to land in a city/airbase/carrier every turn or two or crashing was a feature that stopped them staying airborne forever.

 

[Argetnyx]

You should have told me that... That make much more sense.

 

[rysmiel]

You should have told me that... That make much more sense.

The thing is, I am not at all convinced it does, myself.