Better Unit Movement and Military Strategy

[exhile]

The computer AI clearly has a disadvantage but still declares where are you. The ability to strike first and make a blitzkrieg attack on a city is still done by a disadvantaged computer AI. The computer knows a weakly defended city and intends on capture even if all odds are against it.

 

[rysmiel]

They aren't, and you can't. You need to use whatever soldiers you already have. This is based on the assumption that outside of wartime you've been checking the power graph frequently and have been working to stay even with your rivals.

That would really change the way in which logistical superiority affects war, no ? I am not sure I like it.

(diplomatic benefits to be gained from war)

Could you elaborate on that?

For one thing, I am not sure I see how this could work with making any miliitary alliances during wartime at all.

For another, if a civilisation is losing a war and clearly not going to survive very much longer, that changes how appealing making any trade of the form "immediate benefit for lasting benefit" with that civilisation rather markedly. (In Civ 3 this was particularly notable with respect to trading resources or technolgies for gold-per-turn, but the same applies to lasting diplomatic agreements. myself, I think of making a military alliance with one faction in a war a long way away that you can't get directly involved in anyway as an opportunity to extort benefits from AI civs on the way out.)

 

[rysmiel]

if the civ did not have an advantage, it would not have declared.

This would be why so many weaker AIs start pointless unwinnable wars with me when I get into a globally dominant position ?

 

[rysmiel]

Why would you go to war if you (plus possibly the combined strength of your allies) did not have a significant power advantage in the first place?

Because you really needed to take one city and space containing one resource to be able to acquire that power advantage in short order ? Maybe I am thinking too much as a predominantly Civ 3 player, but a short skirmish against an enemy who is overall as strong or stronger but less good at force concentration and logistics in order to get hold of either iron or horses seems a pretty regular part of the earlyish game to me unless I get really lucky with resources. (Or really unlucky and have neither.)

Or sometimes it can be worth it just to deny a numerically stronger enemy a resource which would allow them a significant technological boost.

 

[Argetnyx]

I agree with rysmiel, I've actually done that many times.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Because you really needed to take one city and space containing one resource to be able to acquire that power advantage in short order ?

That is not possible in Civ4. In order to take ressources from an enemy city, you have to conquer 2-3 other cities in order to free the ressources space.

 

[Argetnyx]

That is neither accurate, or helpful for gameplay.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That is neither accurate, or helpful for gameplay.

Nor is it necessarily true. If you take a city early in the game in civ IV accumulated culture is a far less hampering issue than doing so later...and if it's a border resource your own culture will press/win the tile.

It's true that if it's in the middle of the guy's territory you might have to take 2-3, but if you can cut 2-3 cities into enemy territory without losing your army you're probably not too far from capitulation, and masters are guaranteed a full fat cross in vassal territory when their cities aren't in revolt...well that and they can just demand the resources .

 

[Naokaukodem]

Nor is it necessarily true. If you take a city early in the game in civ IV accumulated culture is a far less hampering issue than doing so later...and if it's a border resource your own culture will press/win the tile.

It's true that if it's in the middle of the guy's territory you might have to take 2-3, but if you can cut 2-3 cities into enemy territory without losing your army you're probably not too far from capitulation, and masters are guaranteed a full fat cross in vassal territory when their cities aren't in revolt...well that and they can just demand the resources .

Too many "if".

 

[killmeplease]

i think rebase mission for naval/ground units could be introduced.
say you pay 10 and your unit moves to any friendly city/fort that is connected to its current disposition. I mean there must be a road/water way with no enemy culture plots. Farther distance -> more expensive rebase is. Relation is exponential so it could be several times cheaper to rebase from A to B and then to C than directly from A to C (but it will take 2 turns). Distance is calculated using actual MPs so there will be 1/3 for road plot, 1/10 for railroad, 1/best_transport_speed for water etc.

 

[rysmiel]

i think rebase mission for naval/ground units could be introduced.
say you pay 10 and your unit moves to any friendly city/fort that is connected to its current disposition. I mean there must be a road/water way with no enemy culture plots. Farther distance -> more expensive rebase is. Relation is exponential so it could be several times cheaper to rebase from A to B and then to C than directly from A to C (but it will take 2 turns). Distance is calculated using actual MPs so there will be 1/3 for road plot, 1/10 for railroad, 1/best_transport_speed for water etc.

I think this would make the game unplayable for me; I want missions including rebasing for air units removed and to go back to air units that behave like actual units.

 

[killmeplease]

i do like the Ramess'es idea of armies moving fast in friendly borders in essence (but not the way he suggests to realize it). and i do not like the way how units are moved in Civ series, except for rebase and airlift that are pretty new conceptions. and i think it has to be developed further so we'll need only several turns to move armies across the globe while moving from one plot to another (that is current unit movement model) will represent operational aspect of warfare.

 

[rysmiel]

and i do not like the way how units are moved in Civ series, except for rebase and airlift that are pretty new conceptions.

Fair enough as a statement of preference; mine remains adamantly opposed.

and i think it has to be developed further so we'll need only several turns to move armies across the globe while moving from one plot to another (that is current unit movement model) will represent operational aspect of warfare.

And i think that would kill Civ to the point where I could not play it.

I also want teleporting airports and paratroopers out of the game, and air-transport units instead.

 

[Ramesses]

When I saw this thread pop up in my subscriptions, I decided I might as well pitch a few more ideas which would be rather revolutionary but undoubtedly be utterly reviled by purists.

I thought about some of the comments here, and I realized that nearly unlimited movement will be problematic UNLESS the conditions under which it is possible are strictly defined. And I think the best way to do that is like so:

In most circumstances, military units are restricted to moving in small amounts (1-2 tiles). However, when a unit is stationed in a city/fort (owned by you or an ally), it has the option of moving to any other city/fort instantly (also owned by you or an ally), provided that there is a route to the city which is no more than 20 tiles long AND entirely on roaded tiles; improved roads and railroads can raise the maximum length of the route.

In case of an attack, you can quickly bring your defenders where they're needed most. To avoid trivializing the placement of defenders (seeing as how you can move them with so much more freedom), attacking units will get some tactical advantages which allow them to do more than their movement power would ordinarily allow.

If a city is visible on the map (even if it's not in your line of sight), military units stationed within friendly cities/forts can perform hit-and-run missions on enemy cities (and forts too). This would work much like air unit missions in Civ IV, with a few key differences.

1.) A hit-and-run mission only targets the best defender.
2.) The mission plays out as a single round of combat.
3.) All Melee, Archery, Mounted, and Gunpowder units can defend against a hit-and-run attack.
4.) As the distance of a hit-and-run mission increases, the likelihood to win drops. (A hit-and-run target more than 6 tiles away becomes a gamble.)
5.) If the last defender dies in a hit-and-run attack, or there is no suitable unit to defend, the city is taken and occupied by the attacker.

 

[killmeplease]

I thought about some of the comments here, and I realized that nearly unlimited movement will be problematic UNLESS the conditions under which it is possible are strictly defined.

I totally agree here we need very simple and clear rules system.

here is a first approximation to the rebasing rules i have made:
1 ground units can rebase from a city (or fort) A to a city (or fort) B if:
1.1. there is a road/railroad connection between A and B, and this route passes through friendly/neutral lands.
1.2. lentgth of the route is lesser than say 10 'passages' (the distanse a unit can cover in 10 turns, considering actual roads and railroads)
1.3. unit have to have full movement and being in a city/fort to execute rebase mission.
1.4. a unit losts all its MPs after rebase, to the end of turn.
2. The same for ships except there must be a water way, and in addition ships can rebase with troops onboard.

the question is, shouldn't rebase mission cost ? as there is a complex of arrangements must be conducted to move an army from base A to base B, as establishing of supply system, storages, quartering etc.

As for attackers advantages, hit-and-run mission seems too abstract as we have plot-by-plot movement system to represent military operations. I think use of enemy roads must be possible for attackers advantage, so their objective will be to cut a certain region from the rest of enemy country for defenders could not to move their armies directly to the frontline and then crush the area defenders until the main defender forces not arrived.

My concept of ZOCs may be used for this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8441568&postcount=6

Enemy communications could be cut off by fast attacking units, spies, bombers etc.
On the other hand, defenders can destroy (or not to build) roads close to their borders (maybe one road that passes through the hill fort with plenty of fortified machinegunners in it) slowing enemy advance. There also can be a mission introduced for ground units, preventing from enemy units destroying improvements (just like the ships one).

 

[Ramesses]

My concept of ZOCs may be used for this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8441568&postcount=6

Enemy communications could be cut off by fast attacking units, spies, bombers etc.
On the other hand, defenders can destroy (or not to build) roads close to their borders (maybe one road that passes through the hill fort with plenty of fortified machinegunners in it) slowing enemy advance. There also can be a mission introduced for ground units, preventing from enemy units destroying improvements (just like the ships one).

I really, really like this idea. It has a lot of potential. Granted, it needs some tweaking in parts, like how to display supply lines and culture in the same tile, but still, great work.

Now, I think what supply lines actually do should be discussed. By looking at your diagrams, even though it's meant only to show the effects of supply lines, perhaps culture and military occupation should be combined and displayed as occupied territory (again, pulling from CivRev here).

Any tile occupied by a unit and all tiles which can be reached and returned from in a single turn will override any culture in those tiles, unless you are at peace with the civ that owns those tiles. The more soldiers you have on a tile, the more "cultural influence" they give off. The greater the enemy's culture, the less of a defensive bonus the units will receive while fortified.

As long as you have cultural influence in a tile, even due to military occupation, you will be able to improve the tile. Now of course, in almost all cases of this, you'll want to send workers to build forts deep in enemy territory, for easier conquest.

Now, even if there are no enemy units to counteract your military influence, if the enemy's cultural influence is too great, the territory will be disputed instead of under your control (due to resistance of locals). Military units within a disputed tile due to overwhelming culture will suffer damage each turn (from constant attack, soldiers going AWOL, and what have you).

Not having a culture connection (supply line) to your empire will not affect your soldiers, but the supply cost will increase for each tile of enemy culture the suppliers have to go through. It is preferable to keep a supply line in place to minimize spending.

Finally, units can perform hit-and-run attacks on any city/fort within range, provided they are already stationed in a unit/fort. Same rules as above apply. Also, hit-and-run attacks can only be performed as long as the path does not go through enemy territory (disputed territory is fine.)

So, one particular strategy you can employ is to set up a supply line by occupying territory, build a fort within two tiles of an enemy city, station your attack force in it, and start sapping their defenses with combined melee and siege. As long as you keep the supply line open, you'll be able to quickly swap out your wounded soldiers for fresh ones, maintaining a merciless onslaught until the city is too weak to defend against a real attack.

If I can also work out a way to allow new soldiers to arrive on the scene AND attack in the same turn, this will no doubt speed up wars greatly. But if I were to do that, then I'd have to say Simultaneous Turn Resolution needs to be put in the game, so that both quick victories and quick defeats will be equally possible.

 

[killmeplease]

I really, really like this idea. It has a lot of potential. Granted, it needs some tweaking in parts, like how to display supply lines and culture in the same tile, but still, great work.

im glad you like my idea.
i do not think that it's necessary to show supply lines on the map as trade routes are not shown as well. in principle supply line can be shown as dotted line looks like those appearing on the map when you point units where to go. I think theres a certain code that can be used for this in sdk.
And i see no problem with culture as plot ownership is different than culture (i.e. plots in master's city bfc that have overwhealming vassals culture but still owned by master).

Now, I think what supply lines actually do should be discussed. By looking at your diagrams, even though it's meant only to show the effects of supply lines, perhaps culture and military occupation should be combined and displayed as occupied territory (again, pulling from CivRev here).

About culture, i think plots with high culture have not to become disputed if there are no enemy military units nearly. Its assumed that invaders are capable of escorting supply transportation in their ZOC, its the essential idea of ZOC. resistance on these high-culture tiles can be represented by invisible guerilla units emerging on them: 1 guerilla unit having 1 will make up to 49 surrounding tiles (depends on troops disposition, roads etc) being disputed. So hunting down those guerillas would be not a trivial task. Taking damage on the enemy territory is also a good idea.

Not having a culture connection (supply line) to your empire will not affect your soldiers, but the supply cost will increase for each tile of enemy culture the suppliers have to go through. It is preferable to keep a supply line in place to minimize spending.

how increasing supply cost can represent being cut off supply? i think units with no supply have to lose hp and being not able to heal instead.

Finally, units can perform hit-and-run attacks on any city/fort within range, provided they are already stationed in a unit/fort. So, one particular strategy you can employ is to set up a supply line by occupying territory, build a fort within two tiles of an enemy city, station your attack force in it, and start sapping their defenses with combined melee and siege. As long as you keep the supply line open, you'll be able to quickly swap out your wounded soldiers for fresh ones, maintaining a merciless onslaught until the city is too weak to defend against a real attack.

hit-and-run (lets call it HAR for short) is best suitable for defenders i think. HAR artillery also has not much sence to me. HAR can be represented by the current combat mechanics as units with withraw ability. And its actually used now: flanking cavalry attack before CR or Combat units go for assault.

As for artillery i have an idea to make it non-suicidal. There will be no bombard mission as well but when attacking any plot artillery will damage units standing on it, fortifications, population, buildings, improvements etc.

If I can also work out a way to allow new soldiers to arrive on the scene AND attack in the same turn, this will no doubt speed up wars greatly. But if I were to do that, then I'd have to say Simultaneous Turn Resolution needs to be put in the game, so that both quick victories and quick defeats will be equally possible.

uh thats too complicated to realize as a mod and more suitable for RTS to my taste.

 

[Nuvoloblu]

...All ground and naval military units have lots of movement points each turn (a minimum of 20). They can cross a large continent in a few years if they want. However, this ...

Your project is very interesting !!!
However, by taking account of the various debates in progress on the various upgrading capabilities of the play, it becomes impossible of all to read (especially if one is not naturally Anglophone!), and very difficult to answer individually and correctly all Thread which interests us (with the translation, that ends up taking much time!)!
Also, so that its ideas are considered and benefit the greatest number of Threads, it is not always known if it is to better intervene on of Thread in progress, or if it is necessary to launch the new ones… with the inherent risk of dispersion.
I thus temporarily will place a long text of general order in CIVILIZATION TAVERN… in double, on the one hand in “A Big Vision for Civilization 4" and on the other hand in “Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary".

((Note: PLEASE excuse the probably uncomfortable English generated by my translation system / French Original text available on request))
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
My text names “Game-Design applied to Civilization 4 +/ Dissertations N°1”

It contains the following chapters and paragraphs:
- INITIAL POTENTIAL : - Civilizations and Geography /- Initial Poverty /- Resources
- FEMALE ABSENCE
- RIGHT-OF-TRANSIT
- COMMANDS
- LOGISTICS : - Abstract or Figurative representation /- Evolution of Logistics
- OPERATING SPEEDS & RANGES
- VISIBILITY & GROUNDS
- DETECTION & REACTION
- ZONES OF TACTICAL INFLUENCE

I hope that you will find in this text of the suggestions in relation to your reflexion and which interest you !

 

[Ramesses]

Since this thread was recently bumped, I suppose I can throw out a new idea. It happens to be compatible with tileless/gridless system, but it can work just as well for the current square tile system.

I've been thinking that perhaps I've been going about this all wrong. Giving military units tons of movement and then limiting it through fog-of-war, etc., is too complicated. Instead, a better solution would be to leave the movement points of the units alone, and instead include Trade Routes as part of their movement ability.

The way it works: Units can spend movement points to zip from one city or fort to any other city or fort directly connected via trade route. This means, of course, that to get the luxury of free movement, you need to be traveling within your own nation or a nation you have Open Borders with. In addition, units can also spend movement points to zip from any city or fort they are currently in to a friendly city or fort no more than 8 tiles away. You can build forts in uncivilized territory to create "highways" for your military. In order to get to any other location, units must move normally.

 

[rysmiel]

Since this thread was recently bumped, I suppose I can throw out a new idea. It happens to be compatible with tileless/gridless system, but it can work just as well for the current square tile system.

I've been thinking that perhaps I've been going about this all wrong. Giving military units tons of movement and then limiting it through fog-of-war, etc., is too complicated. Instead, a better solution would be to leave the movement points of the units alone, and instead include Trade Routes as part of their movement ability.

The way it works: Units can spend movement points to zip from one city or fort to any other city or fort directly connected via trade route. This means, of course, that to get the luxury of free movement, you need to be traveling within your own nation or a nation you have Open Borders with. In addition, units can also spend movement points to zip from any city or fort they are currently in to a friendly city or fort no more than 8 tiles away. You can build forts in uncivilized territory to create "highways" for your military. In order to get to any other location, units must move normally.

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