Bring back the Caravan!
- Thread starter plastiqe
- Start date
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
It could be less fun if you have to babysit them all the time.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
The problem with that is you only have 2 solutions:
1) Full automation, NO human control
2) Automated control if desired, human if not
The problem with 1 is that if something threatens the caravan, you have no means of directing it, telling it where to go, hiding it, etc. The best you can do is hope that it goes where you want it to when danger is lurking and then cover it with your units wherever it may wander to.
The problem with 2 is obvious. If you wish to reduce micromanagement you cannot allow the option of automation without requiring it. If you do, then players in competitive situations (GOTM, PBEM, DGs, MP, etc.) will always opt to control them directly, leading to even more micromanagement than we started with.
1) Full automation, NO human control
2) Automated control if desired, human if not
The problem with 1 is that if something threatens the caravan, you have no means of directing it, telling it where to go, hiding it, etc. The best you can do is hope that it goes where you want it to when danger is lurking and then cover it with your units wherever it may wander to.
The problem with 2 is obvious. If you wish to reduce micromanagement you cannot allow the option of automation without requiring it. If you do, then players in competitive situations (GOTM, PBEM, DGs, MP, etc.) will always opt to control them directly, leading to even more micromanagement than we started with.
Trip - guys, everyone, I think I solved the probem.
We could hvae the caravens fully automated. But just like your workers when you put them on auto, they run away from enemy units when they are in danger or take appropiate action. A caraven could go to a nearby city when it is in danger or when a enemy unit is spotted. Or something akin to that.
they ain't perfect, but they do a pretty good job - especially when you have a lot of them . . .
We could hvae the caravens fully automated. But just like your workers when you put them on auto, they run away from enemy units when they are in danger or take appropiate action. A caraven could go to a nearby city when it is in danger or when a enemy unit is spotted. Or something akin to that.
they ain't perfect, but they do a pretty good job - especially when you have a lot of them . . .
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
What if it goes to a city that's about to be captured, you KNOW is about to be captured and have evacuated all units from it? All 12 Caravans which have fled there are destroyed anyways?
What if you expect to have an area become safe soon but your Caravans start fleeing against your will?
How many players have Workers on auto?
And further, how many players would KEEP their valuable Workers on auto when enemy units are approaching?
What if you expect to have an area become safe soon but your Caravans start fleeing against your will?
How many players have Workers on auto?
And further, how many players would KEEP their valuable Workers on auto when enemy units are approaching?
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Hehe. It's a complicated situation, as I said. 
I don't think it's possible to reconcile a system which has actual units on the map. The best solution I can see is a line. Unrealistic? Yes. Simplistic? Yes. But sometimes you have to simplify things in a game in order to make them work.
I don't think it's possible to reconcile a system which has actual units on the map. The best solution I can see is a line. Unrealistic? Yes. Simplistic? Yes. But sometimes you have to simplify things in a game in order to make them work.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Since caravans are independant traders, they won't listne to you anyway. They will run where they think is best, and your and your allies job is to secure trading lines. Attacks on traders could be considered and act of war and would make navies a lot more important. Theorhetically traders could fight a little, but not much.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
And Workers are independent contractors and laborers.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I've always said that workers should not be built but form as part of government projects assigned on terrain.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Doubt that would be a popular idea.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Well, CtP kind of did the trade route-trade unit thing, but didn't follow it through to its logical conclusion! Perhaps you could have a trade line, and a caravan moving along it, like a needle along a thread. Every time the 'unit' arrives at the destination, you recieve your 'payout'. The thing is that an enemy can discover the 'trade route', but would still need to find the unit along it. This wouldn't stop an enemy from placing a unit on a trade route in order to block the caravans progress. My sole problem with this is that it still doesn't solve the problem that we have as a result of turn lengths. Consider a 50 year turn, how many times could a caravan travel back and forth between the end of one turn and the beginning of the next. A possible solution would be to break the time between turns into 'semi-turns'. Each players turn equals a fraction of a whole turn. For instance, a 50 year turn might be broken into 5 year 'pseudo-turns' per player, which would help to determine where the trade unit currently is in its journey, for the purposes of attacking the caravan. Of course, a similar approach could be used for ANY unit. Increase overall movement rates significantly, but move the unit slightly each 'pseudo-turn'! Anyway, I'm kinda rambling here, but just trying to figure out how we could have a fusion of the two ideas. Ultimately, though, within a turn-based system like Civ, I think it is neccessary to have some concepts, like trade routes, abstracted in the way I have mentioned. It has the advantages of the unit system, without the difficulties mentioned above!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
trip, having workers appear only as part of a government project is a fundamental part of the ctp approach to tile improvements, and over in another civ forum which we arent allowed to talk about, the jury is split evenly on which system is better.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
And the people who post on said Civ forums aren't the real target audience for Civ games.
Note the success the CTP games have had compared with Civ. That is probably enough for the development team to decide the components from which game they want to favor.
Note the success the CTP games have had compared with Civ. That is probably enough for the development team to decide the components from which game they want to favor.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
With all due respect, Trip, that wasn't the reason the CTP games failed. The biggest reason for that was the failure of Activision to give 'post-sale' support. Anyway, just because there were many bad things about the CTP games, doesn't mean that Firaxis can't, and shouldn't, poach the GOOD parts of the game and fuse it with the concepts from Civ! To my knowledge, Trade Routes, Public Works, and an Empire Management Screen (with rations and wages) were the only good parts I can think of !
Hang on, wasn't CTP the first to introduce a seperate 'bombardment' system into their game?
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!Hang on, wasn't CTP the first to introduce a seperate 'bombardment' system into their game?
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
What, would you rather me say that it's un Civ-like?
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Actually SMAC, a Brian Reynolds lead team, was the first to use bombardment in a civ game. They also seperated political and economic systems for government purposes.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
I don't remember claiming otherwise...
Similar threads
