Better Unit Movement and Military Strategy

[Ramesses]

How does this make building "trade routes" functionally distinct from building a railroad ?

Open Borders and Military Accommodation will be two distinct diplomatic agreements. Without Military Accommodation with another nation, your units can still march through their territory, but they cannot zip through with the above method of travel.

Additionally, units get a negative fortification penalty for using this method of travel repeatedly, unless the connection is via railroad. The penalty is remedied by letting the unit fortify/rest.

 

[hewhoknowsall]

This is rather minor, but a thing that seemed to be rather strange is that ancient archers get first strike(s) presumably because of their ranged capability, but modern infantry with advanced rifles whose range makes ancient bows and arrows look pathetic do not (or at least without drill promotions).

 

[Ramesses]

This is rather minor, but a thing that seemed to be rather strange is that ancient archers get first strike(s) presumably because of their ranged capability, but modern infantry with advanced rifles whose range makes ancient bows and arrows look pathetic do not (or at least without drill promotions).

Actually, it makes perfect sense. Arrows are potentially as deadly as, if not deadlier than, bullets. It takes tons more training to get someone to use a bow as well as a gun, of course, but once you reach that level of training, you get some crazy fast reflexes. Those soldiers with advanced guns, meanwhile, are mere amateurs by comparison, relying solely on technology to get the job done. Of course, because the technology is so much greater, they more than more than more than make up for their lack of skill in numbers (100 amateurs with guns beats 1 super-skilled archer).

 

[hewhoknowsall]

Actually, it makes perfect sense. Arrows are potentially as deadly as, if not deadlier than, bullets. It takes tons more training to get someone to use a bow as well as a gun, of course, but once you reach that level of training, you get some crazy fast reflexes. Those soldiers with advanced guns, meanwhile, are mere amateurs by comparison, relying solely on technology to get the job done. Of course, because the technology is so much greater, they more than more than more than make up for their lack of skill in numbers (100 amateurs with guns beats 1 super-skilled archer).

Uh...what? I believe that first strikes in the game are due to range, hence why archers get them, right? A modern rifle has a far greater range than a bow and arrow invented in the ancient age. Oh, and the part about archers being better trained isn't necessarily true. For English longbowmen and other elite archers yeah, they trained starting at like 6 or 7, but many ancient (and especially medieval) archers were just drafted without much training...or am I wrong? Was that just melee warriors?

 

[killmeplease]

but many ancient (and especially medieval) archers were just drafted without much training...

It's wrong. Archers could be recruited from hunters but being hunter means a lot of permanent training.

And this archer discussion is an offtopic as well.

 

[hewhoknowsall]

It's wrong. Archers could be recruited from hunters but being hunter means a lot of permanent training.

And this archer discussion is an offtopic as well.

According to wikipedia archers were often drafted peasants, but then again wikipedia isn't always 100% reliable.

I was saying that it doesn't make much sense for archers to get first strike and yet most modern infantry units don't.



As for the main topic:

They should have a supply component, like each unit requires food that must be supplied from tiles with food as well as stored food and supply units.

Vehicles could have a fuel requirement.

They could include weather, so certain tiles may have certain weather conditions that affects combat/movement/food/etc. This may vary based on the tile's geographical condition/proximity to water/etc.

There should be much more unit types and units should be better balanced (carriers should get an increase in power, battleships should get a decrease in power, aircraft should get a huge increase, note that by "power" I also mean versatility and usefulness as a whole).

Perhaps units won't always fight to the death even without a withdrawal chance? Maybe each battle only lasts for a certain number of "rounds" in which both parties might survive.

Add in more strategy/tactics! Make it so that effective strategic considerations better counters sheer numbers.

And much more.

 

[Ramesses]

They should have a supply component, like each unit requires food that must be supplied from tiles with food as well as stored food and supply units.

Vehicles could have a fuel requirement.

They could include weather, so certain tiles may have certain weather conditions that affects combat/movement/food/etc. This may vary based on the tile's geographical condition/proximity to water/etc.

There should be much more unit types and units should be better balanced (carriers should get an increase in power, battleships should get a decrease in power, aircraft should get a huge increase, note that by "power" I also mean versatility and usefulness as a whole).

Perhaps units won't always fight to the death even without a withdrawal chance? Maybe each battle only lasts for a certain number of "rounds" in which both parties might survive.

Add in more strategy/tactics! Make it so that effective strategic considerations better counters sheer numbers.

No, no, no, maybe, maybe, and no.

 

[hewhoknowsall]

No, no, no, maybe, maybe, and no.

Why not? This would mean that invading an enemy civilization would be much more difficult and require much more than a huge stack of doom.

Again, see above.

Weather is a daily, extremely important part of pretty much all events in reality. Weather is so important that people have worshiped gods of weather.

"maybe"? Only "maybe" make the game more balanced and diverse? huh?

This would add to realism and won't make combat as suicidal.

 

[Ramesses]

Why not? This would mean that invading an enemy civilization would be much more difficult and require much more than a huge stack of doom.

There are better ways to phase out stacks of doom that don't involve tedious micromanagement.

Weather is a daily, extremely important part of pretty much all events in reality. Weather is so important that people have worshiped gods of weather.

Exactly. Daily. Civilization takes place on an annual scale. And except in cases of dramatic climate shift (i.e. global warming), the average conditions of each spot on the map average out the same from year to year.

"maybe"? Only "maybe" make the game more balanced and diverse? huh?

It's debatable.

This would add to realism and won't make combat as suicidal.

This already exists in the rock-paper-scissors type combat between different unit types.

And your suggestions are really off-topic. This is supposed to be about finding a way to speed up military action, not slow it down.

 

[Hail]

a repeat of the post below. ignore me

 

[Hail]

According to wikipedia archers were often drafted peasants, but then again wikipedia isn't always 100% reliable.

I was saying that it doesn't make much sense for archers to get first strike and yet most modern infantry units don't.



As for the main topic:

1) They should have a supply component, like each unit requires food that must be supplied from tiles with food as well as stored food and supply units.

2) Vehicles could have a fuel requirement.

3) They could include weather, so certain tiles may have certain weather conditions that affects combat/movement/food/etc. This may vary based on the tile's geographical condition/proximity to water/etc.

4) There should be much more unit types and units should be better balanced (carriers should get an increase in power, battleships should get a decrease in power, aircraft should get a huge increase, note that by "power" I also mean versatility and usefulness as a whole).

5) Perhaps units won't always fight to the death even without a withdrawal chance? Maybe each battle only lasts for a certain number of "rounds" in which both parties might survive.

6) Add in more strategy/tactics! Make it so that effective strategic considerations better counters sheer numbers.

7) And much more.

1) no to food, but if food was replaced with ammunition, i would concur (yes)
2) yes (could -> should)
3) no, the scale is different. perhaps in mods
4) yes
5) yes
6) yes!
7)

There are better ways to phase out stacks of doom that don't involve tedious micromanagement.

like?

And your suggestions are really off-topic. This is supposed to be about finding a way to speed up military action, not slow it down.

this thread is about improving military strategy and such

 

[Argetnyx]

Carriers shouldn't get any increase in power at all, its the planes that they carry that have the power. The same planes that the makers of civ4 made almost completely useless...

 

[Camikaze]

Carriers shouldn't get any increase in power at all, its the planes that they carry that have the power. The same planes that the makers of civ4 made almost completely useless...

I agree that carriers themselves are not the ultimate source of naval firepower, and are important due to their aircraft, but giving them more power would only essentially represent them being more important, even if in an unrealistic way. It would allow for them to have a greater prominence in navies, although it would not be the absolute best way of doing so.

 

[Ramesses]

I agree that carriers themselves are not the ultimate source of naval firepower, and are important due to their aircraft, but giving them more power would only essentially represent them being more important, even if in an unrealistic way. It would allow for them to have a greater prominence in navies, although it would not be the absolute best way of doing so.

So therefore, if the power was shifted from the actual ship to the aircraft on board, you would approve, right?

 

[Argetnyx]

Yes, that is the reason why carriers aren't the only ships in a navy: they still need protection.

 

[Camikaze]

So therefore, if the power was shifted from the actual ship to the aircraft on board, you would approve, right?

Well yeah, that would be an even better option. Seeing as that is where the power lies in real life. But making carriers themselves stronger would rectify the situation slightly, even if it is not an optimal solution.

 

[Nuvoloblu]

I have just discovered your Thread.
I lately have just presented the subject "Stupid Railway" which perhaps will interest you.
You can find it in "Civ4 - Creation & Customization > Civ4 - Utility Programs".