Better Unit Movement and Military Strategy

[Argetnyx]

Yes, you run the risk of being attacked, but making a penalty for it is too tactical.

 

[Shackel]

Okay, so making a penalty for moving your units at their full speed across the continent is too tactical?

No. It's not. It's basic knowledge to NOT overwork your own units, and it would be something that wouldn't break or ruin the game.

 

[Ramesses]

I want to redefine the role that fog of war plays in this movement scheme. Fog no longer acts as a solid barrier for units, but it is still a great inhibitor.

First, moving your unit in or near dark tiles will not instantly reveal them to you. Tiles are revealed/unrevealed only at the beginning of your turn. Tiles near your borders and units will be revealed when your next turn begins. Scouts have larger visibility ranges.

Second, sending a unit to a tile obscured by fog of war will cost all of their movement, regardless of distance. However, you can send a unit as deep into the fog as you like (assuming they have enough movement points to ge there). If you point them to an inaccessible tile, they will move to the closest tile to that location.

Third, if fog of war obstructs all possible paths between a unit and your capital, there is a chance that the unit will go rogue. The greater the distance from your capital, the greater the chance. If a unit goes rogue, you will lose sight and control of them. They will randomly wander around with 1/5 normal movement power until they enter any civ's cultural borders or too many turns have passed. If they enter a civ's cultural borders (yours included), that civ will gain control of the unit. If too many turns pass before they find a civ to belong to, they are simply destroyed.

 

[Argetnyx]

Third, if fog of war obstructs all possible paths between a unit and your capital, there is a chance that the unit will go rogue. The greater the distance from your capital, the greater the chance. If a unit goes rogue, you will lose sight and control of them. They will randomly wander around with 1/5 normal movement power until they enter any civ's cultural borders or too many turns have passed. If they enter a civ's cultural borders (yours included), that civ will gain control of the unit. If too many turns pass before they find a civ to belong to, they are simply destroyed.

I don't like the other two bits, but this one seems good. How about, instead of being destroyed, they really become rogue. They attack anything in sight.

 

[Ramesses]

I don't like the other two bits, but this one seems good. How about, instead of being destroyed, they really become rogue. They attack anything in sight.

So, barbarians, then. Gotcha.

What about the first two parts don't you like? Considering how important they are to how the third part holds up, it'd be nice to know.

 

[Argetnyx]

Ok, I read over them... The first one is good, but the part about costing all movement in the second is not.

 

[Ramesses]

Ok, I read over them... The first one is good, but the part about costing all movement in the second is not.

Actually, I wrote the second part before I came up with the idea of making the rogue probability increase with distance. The other reason was so that units charting new territory couldn't grope in the darkness, so to speak. Sure the tiles would still be hidden, but you could still detect impassible tiles by, well, not being able to pass them. I still think that at the very least, the movement penalty should remain for unexplored tiles.

Keep in mind that this is an idea which is still taking shape, so the technicals and potential problems are still a little fuzzy.

 

[Camikaze]

The rogue unit idea- kind of like the black market army thing, but not quite as good. I would rather the other idea was implemented than this. There seems to be no logical reason for units to become rogue when they are further away from home, if there are no other factors.

As for losing strength according to how far you have moved in the turn, I think the idea has some merit, but it a bit too tactical if it were to have a large effect. Perhaps if it only had a minimal effect (1% per movement point used up) then it would be okay.

 

[Ramesses]

The rogue unit idea- kind of like the black market army thing, but not quite as good.

I haven't played any Civ before IV. Can you explain this black market army thing to me?

I would rather the other idea was implemented than this. There seems to be no logical reason for units to become rogue when they are further away from home, if there are no other factors.

The other factor is being disconnected from all lines of communication.
Okay, being cut off by fog of war should not be the only factor. You can move into any tile with a road not under enemy control without fear of the unit going rogue. Once you research Flight, units will no longer go rogue, but may still randomly take damage (from individual soldiers going AWOL).

As for losing strength according to how far you have moved in the turn, I think the idea has some merit, but it a bit too tactical if it were to have a large effect. Perhaps if it only had a minimal effect (1% per movement point used up) then it would be okay.

Sure, why not. I suggested making leftover movement into bonus attack, so it actually works the opposite way.

 

[Camikaze]

Civ4 was also my first civ (that I owned myself), so I don't really know if it was in any other civ games, but I don't think it was. It was just an idea from this thread, whereby you can hire barbarian units to do your bidding for you, with the risk that they may rebel against your leadership, posing a significant problem for you.

 

[exhile]

In Civ2 you could bribe enemy or barbarian units from your treasury. At that time the diplomat and spy unit moved as regular units and were susceptible to attack from military units. I've owned the entire Civ series and bought 1 expansion pack for each except Civ1.

 

[Ramesses]

Civ4 was also my first civ (that I owned myself), so I don't really know if it was in any other civ games, but I don't think it was. It was just an idea from this thread, whereby you can hire barbarian units to do your bidding for you, with the risk that they may rebel against your leadership, posing a significant problem for you.

Okay, I'm not at all interested in the idea of having a unit trade (well, maybe a little, but it's still irrelevant to this idea). I'm talking about the issue of morale, and having it replace unit upkeep, where instead of paying them extra for distance, they're just more likely to leave when ordered to a remote location. The important thing is not about them joining other civs, it's about them leaving yours.

Now I'm sure the biggest question on everyone's mind is: Doesn't that mean units are prevented from going very far early on, and that the safe region remains limited to your borders until your borders get close to another civ and you befriend them? Well, yes. Actually, this movement system would work best if instead of 7 civilizations, there were hundreds of tiny states (like Revolutions, only with a lot of fodder added in). The idea is that in the beginning, you wage war and conduct diplomacy only within a small contested region, before the empires begin to emerge from the tribes. If you remain on good terms with one of your neighbors from the start, you can use their empire to explore further, eventually to another contested region where tribes may or may not have emerged. By creating a network of allies or forcefully expanding across the land, you can see more and more of the world.

It may not work in an unmodded game of civ, but that's how I picture this idea being used.

 

[Camikaze]

Morale could be a good idea to work into the game, but I don't think distance is something that should really affect it. Lack of supplies (when that idea is added), victory rates, and general civ happiness levels could be what affects it, and causes it to have an impact on unit strength. But distance? What about all those young guys who join the Marines to see the world? Sure, it would act as a way of including that sort of tribal states system you outline, but it doesn't, on its own, stand up to reality.

 

[Ramesses]

Morale could be a good idea to work into the game, but I don't think distance is something that should really affect it. Lack of supplies (when that idea is added), victory rates, and general civ happiness levels could be what affects it, and causes it to have an impact on unit strength. But distance? What about all those young guys who join the Marines to see the world? Sure, it would act as a way of including that sort of tribal states system you outline, but it doesn't, on its own, stand up to reality.

Marines want to see the inhabited world, not the wilderness. At least, that's the impression I get. Also, I got rid of distance changing anything. You'll naturally be able to travel further through alliances or conquest.

Actually, a lot of changes have been made to this idea since it was first proposed. I should rewrite the description to make it clear what has and has not been accepted into the system.

 

[rysmiel]

Okay, so making a penalty for moving your units at their full speed across the continent is too tactical?
No. It's not. It's basic knowledge to NOT overwork your own units, and it would be something that wouldn't break or ruin the game.

Yes it is; it is thinking of moving a unit across a continent as if it was "this guy has been running all day and is tired" rather than "this legion can move this many miles in a year, getting reasonable amounts of food and sleep in the process". That is way too tactical for me.

 

[MosheLevi]

Having the option to move units at high or low speed can definitely be tactical (in a good way).
I don’t see why it would be too tactical.

For example, let us say that SoD’s can move in enemy territory using enemy roads.
That will allow them to move faster, but then they will be more vulnerable to air attacks, and artillery attack (for being visible and exposed).

If the “Ambush” feature/capability is implemented then these units can also be attacked by Ambush positions.

On the other hand the player can choose to move his SoD’s off enemy roads and at night.
That will result in slower movement and in lower vulnerability to various enemy attacks.

If Civ 5 allows for such features then Yes, Civ 5 can be more tactical and as a result more fun.

 

[Ramesses]

On the other hand the player can choose to move his SoD’s off enemy roads and at night.
That will result in slower movement and in lower vulnerability to various enemy attacks.

Okay, THAT'S definitely too tactical. There is no day and night in Civ, and there never should be.

 

[MosheLevi]

Okay, THAT'S definitely too tactical. There is no day and night in Civ, and there never should be.

I know that Civ 4 doesn’t have a day and night cycle.
I also didn’t suggest adding that to the game.
I merely meant that off road movement can be interpreted as night movement (in addition to off roads).

That will justify the lower vulnerability to enemy attacks via air bombardment and artillery.

 

[Camikaze]

Who good would it do if stacks were more vulnerable to air and artillery attacks if they can move fast enough to take every city in one turn? Considering it is a turn based game.

 

[Ramesses]

Who good would it do if stacks were more vulnerable to air and artillery attacks if they can move fast enough to take every city in one turn? Considering it is a turn based game.

In Civ IV, most units are only able to engage in one battle per turn. The same restriction applies here. Not to mention most if not all of the attacking units would be hit by city-based or front line defenders along the way, so unless you've got all your units out in the field with unobstructed paths leading to your cities (remember that defending units intercept all attacking units within several tiles), what you're saying just wouldn't happen.