Climactic and distance effects

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that Naval Units should also have an Operational Range, but they should be a LOT higher than for their land-based equivalents! This way, galleys would no longer sink automatically, but with only a low OR, they would have a good chance of losing all of their hp and, therefore, sinking!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Flexmaster
Do you really want to complicate this game any farther with adding supply lines? It's already a pain sending a unit half way across the world when it takes something like 10 or 15 turns.

Why bog the game down with details like supply lines when all we really want is to kick some ass?

That's the SAME exact answer I got when I suggested supply lines when civ3 was announced when I posted at TUC2S (now Apolyton).


I must admit, having a supply line of 6 tiles is kind of small. Right now, units can't heal in enemy territory. Maybe the terrain could affect their rate of healing though... or, if you happen to have troops on another continent with seas between them, and you haven't researched Astronomy.

 

[Mewtarthio]

Originally posted by rcoutme
How about replacements. We are talking centuries here. Also, these guys all seem to have cell phone technology (since anything they say or do is instantly reported to the capital).

Well, since the early turns take up to twenty years per turn, and the fastest you go through a turn is two years, I'd say that's plenty of time for messengers to get to your capitol.

 

[rcoutme]

I disagree with your assessment that 20 years would be enough time to get information back to the capital. All sorts of barbarian activities are typically going on in the early stages and one messenger is not likely to get through.

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by rcoutme
I disagree with your assessment that 20 years would be enough time to get information back to the capital. All sorts of barbarian activities are typically going on in the early stages and one messenger is not likely to get through.

If barbarians stop some of your messengers, that means you need to send more messengers, not necessarily give them longer to get somewhere. Certainly you don't send one out, wait a few years, and decide he might not have made it so you send another one! Even in ancient times, 20 years is a huge amount of time in reality, plenty of time to do lots of traveling. Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world and died before he was 30. Many military campaigns in pre-modern times were seasonal: the army would head off to fight in the spring and then return home in the fall. I don't see any problem with the "cell-phone" effect of instant communication.

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by Aussie_Lurker
Its not that units outside of their supply range should instantly die, or anything like that, just that their ability to fight effectively will be greatly degraded (as indicated by the loss of morale and firepower). Losing your hp represents mostly desertions and death/breakdown of units.

Desertions and death usually don't happen in huge amounts unless there's an enemy involved, and also aren't as bad when you're winning. In other words, if I march a huge army deep into enemy territory, but the enemy doesn't put up any real resistance, there's not much incentive for my soldiers to chicken-out and desert, and not much that's killing them, either (the exception is disease, which is another whole topic). Modern armies need complex resupply lines, for ammo and fuel as well as food, but ancient armies often foraged for food in the terrain they were traveling through, and quite often recruited new troops from the local population. This could happen even when that terrain was nominally hostile territory - when Hannibal entered Italy during the 2nd Punic War, many deserters from the Roman legions joined his army (he was winning, and lots of people have a strong desire to be on the winning side). Therefore, I disagree with rcoutme that a group of stone-axe-warriors needs replacements from friendly territory. If a bunch get killed in combat, then yes, they might need replacements (but you can't heal in enemy territory, anyway). But as long as you're not doing much fighting, I don't see there being much that you need from home in the way of supplies.

Regardless of how realistic the Operation Range idea might be (and, at least for ancient times, I disagree that its very realistic) I'm not a big fan for reasons of gameplay. Yes, cutting off enemy supply lines would offer an interesting strategic option, but on the other hand, I would find it profoundly annoying if my units started losing HP even when no enemies had engaged them. And I think worrying about my own supply lines would add much tedium without making warfare any more fun.

 

[rcoutme]

Ok, in response to your criticism:

1. The idea is that the "world as we know it" was not mapped out nearly so early as in Civ3. The operational range for ancient units was designed to prevent a warrior from mapping out all of Eurasia/Africa just because he could walk there. I was trying to come up with some way of limiting how far these guys could go.

2. I agree that units could forage, thus the reason that problems would (most likely) occur in hostile terrain: desert, tundra, jungle, swamps.

3. As civ stands right now, I have never, ever used an explorer to map out black regions. Why bother, you can trade insignificant techs (to you at least) to host nations for their world maps and map the whole thing in one turn! Thus, the benefit of getting the globe mapped is a White Elephant (unless you are really interested in the road/improvement structure).

4. Hanibal did pick up lots of recruits while in Italy. As you say, he was winning hello "conquered cities = new supply"

5. Hanibal did not map out all of Gaul with one of his warrior units, even though the loss would have been insignificant to his army! Why not?? Because they would never have gotten back to him to tell him what was there!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, thank you rcoutme-I couldn't have said it better myself!

First up, I agree that units should be able to 'Forage' in order to avoid suffering damage-however this should take up their turn, and only a limited number of units each turn should be able to do this (i.e. we NEED a stack limit!!) Point 4 is also very valid: conquering cities, like building forts, should be able to extend your operational range. From a gameplay point of view, this would work well as it will force players (and, we hope, the AI) to map out a more extensive invasion plan-consisting of short term goals aimed at siezing strategic resources and/or securing a line of supply (i.e. capturing an enemy city or fort). Of course, the further out your supply line reaches, the more vulnerable it is to attack by the enemy (whether by disrupting a road connecting your fort to your home territory-or by capturing the fort itself!)
Yes, it WOULD be annoying to start losing hp from my SoD, but this would simply be more incentive for me to PLAN AHEAD! By other stopping to consolidate my victories every so often, or by bringing up sufficient defensive and mobile units to protect my supply points!
Those two points rcoutme pointed out, though, also help with the other points he made in his post!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[judgement]

Ok, in response to your criticism of my criticism :

Originally posted by rcoutme
1. The idea is that the "world as we know it" was not mapped out nearly so early as in Civ3. The operational range for ancient units was designed to prevent a warrior from mapping out all of Eurasia/Africa just because he could walk there. I was trying to come up with some way of limiting how far these guys could go.

Its true that the world was not mapped so early on, but the reason is not that people couldn't walk all around it, the reason is that making an accurate map requires more than simply walking through the territory. Yet simulating this in Civ would add a level of tedium without adding anything to gameplay. Mapping the world simply by walking it may not be realistic, but its simple, and it's never really bothered me. I don't really see the need to "limit how far these guys could go" - if they can make it all the way across Eurasia without falling victim to barbarians or hostile military forces, more power too 'em.

3. As civ stands right now, I have never, ever used an explorer to map out black regions. Why bother, you can trade insignificant techs (to you at least) to host nations for their world maps and map the whole thing in one turn! Thus, the benefit of getting the globe mapped is a White Elephant (unless you are really interested in the road/improvement structure).

So the problem is that maps are too easy to trade. Giving units an Operational Range would do absolutely nothing to change this. Didn't Conquests push back the tech that you need in order to trade maps? Regardless, this could be addressed simply by making the AIs value their maps a little more. Then using explorers might be a more attractive option. Operational Range seems irrelevant to this issue, IMHO.

4. Hanibal did pick up lots of recruits while in Italy. As you say, he was winning hello "conquered cities = new supply"

A fair point, although IIRC correctly, he did recruit significant numbers before ever conquering any Italian cities. In any case, my point is simply that armies don't always dwindle just because they're in hostile territory. I think the inability to heal in hostile territory is enough: don't make them also automatically lose HP. That's what enemy units are for!

5. Hanibal did not map out all of Gaul with one of his warrior units, even though the loss would have been insignificant to his army! Why not?? Because they would never have gotten back to him to tell him what was there!

Again, in reality, there's a difference between walking through territory and mapping it. When Hannibal left Spain with his army, he knew where he was going. He had enough maps of the western medditerranean to know that he could get from Spain to Italy, and he was constantly updating his maps as he went, making notations about the "barbarian" people who lived in various locations, their temperment and customs, etc. He didn't send out a warrior unit to map of all of Gaul because cartography wasn't his mission: he was on his way to fight a war. I suppose you might be trying to make the point that if you send a unit off to map an area, and it dies before it gets back, you still know the map of the area. True, but so what? Maybe its unrealistic, but again, operational range wouldn't change this at all, it would simply limit how far away the unit could get before dying. In either case, you still immediately know the terrain around the unit, and that's the way it ought to be - the alternative is for the unit to disappear into the fog of war and be out of your control until it gets back with news of the great unknown. I prefer the current system of directing my units' explorations: please don't make exploration something out of my control, automated (undoubtedly poorly) by the computer.

My main argument is not against the realism of the range idea: I admit its more realistic (especially for modern armies that need fuel and ammo - the argument over the realism for ancient armies isn't terribly important). I simply contend that the system would annoy me more than it would entertain me with greater depth of strategy. Civ isn't a wargame, with a need for a detailed, accurate model of warfare. It's a game aobut building a great civilization, and warfare is of course a significant part of that. Not everyone wants to have to spend more time planning their invasions: we play the role of the leader of the entire civ, not the role of the generals and advisors planning the intricate details of wars. I don't deny that logistics and supply is an essential part of warfare, but to me, it isn't an interesting part that I'm eager to spend more time thinking about. I'm interested in the big picture: who wins what battles, what cities get conquered, etc. I prefer not having to think about the details of how to get supplies from one place to another. The current system is abstract and unrealistic, but its simple and entertaining.

 

[rcoutme]

judgement, I was not trying to add tedium to the game, I was trying to suggest a way that it would be more interesting and (possibly) challenging. I am trying to prevent the Celts from easily mapping S. E. Asia by 1000 B. C. If you got a RoP with the civilizations on the way, then, yes, you would be able to send your Celt warrior all the way from Ireland to Saigon (and accross to Australia if you could still find sea transport).

The situation would be thus:

Ancient age units would have a fairly long operational range (reflecting the ability to forage, etc.). The need for bullets and powder would limit some units, and the need for gas would limit many (although not all) modern units. A RoP agreement would count as supply so long as your civ had a sufficient link to the civ with whom you have a RoP.

Examples:

1. I have a warrior unit that I will explore with on turn 5. He has (since I am in a Huge map game) an operational range of 8. This means that as long as he is within moves of my borders, he is fine. If he moves outside of that limit then he would have a chance of taking damage (based on the terrain), probably 25% for good terrain (i.e. on a river, in grassland), 40% in somewhat hostile terrain (plains or forest without bonus food), 50% or more in hostile terrain (tundra forest or tundra, jungle, desert).

1.a. I say 8 moves because: I could build a road out to where the unit is and my supplies can move faster (so it is based on the unit's movement capacity to get to the supplies).

1.b. The unit still has the "cell phone" response for mapping purposes for its entire lifetime.

1.c. If the unit stays away from supply too long, it is going to die. You never lose control of the unit (the computer does not start moving it out in the FoW).

2. My civ is now 5 or 6 cities and I have made contact with the Romans (for kicks and grins, we'll say in Italy). My closest city is currently Paris (or some other name founded where Paris actually is).

2.a. I have moved across the English channel (obviously) so I have Map Making (I personally think this is an atrocious idea. Lots of civs were way behind the power curve on making maps yet moved troops and citizens by boat!) or what-ever allows me to cross the channel.

2.b. The Romans have met me about where Lyons is currently located (one of their units has met my famous warriors who plan to map the world). The Romans are 3 moves from their borders and I am 6 from my borders.

2.c. Even if I sign a RoP agreement with the Romans, my warrior can not (as things are currently listed) traverse Italy safely. Reason: the closest Roman City is 9 moves from the closest Celtic city.

If, however, I build a road out toward Italy, then, with the RoP my unit could map all of the Roman territory, provided that it was contiguous (gaps would go toward the 8 move limit).

3. Way later, I have met all sorts of guys, including the Germans, Russians, Indians, Persians, Chinese, Mongols, and Egyptians. So long as they have colonized the place fairly well and I get RoP agreements with all of them, my lone warrior could (conceivably) map all the way out to Saigon and Pusan. As long as the terrain in question is friendly, the movement allowance would not come into play. It's when one of those guys decides he does not want me using his territory that my warriors run into trouble.

I realize that this is a long thread, however, what I'm trying to point out is that the voyage of Marco Polo can be acheived. In fact, in this system, it is possible that the voyage could be made without RoP agreements (it's just rather unlikely).

This means that you may not know what is far beyond your borders until much later in the game, when you can use ships to safely explore the planet. Or when you get explorers, who would, presumably, have no operational range limit.:soldier:

All of this is to actually add more fun into the game by leaving the "great unknown" unknown. At least until technology catches up.

As for map trading, I think that world maps should be untradeable until much, much later on (probably early industrial age). Instead, civs could trade the whereabouts of known cities. This would get you the city square itself (or maybe the 8 surrounding as well, but not the full 21). In addition, any contact with another civ could get knowledge of a city based on trade.

For example, if I am trading iron to the Persians for incense and the Chinese are trading silks tot he Persians for incense (or anything else) then it is possible that my merchants will meet Chinese merchants. My Foreign Advisor would then tell me, "Our merchants report a land far to the east named China, Sire". There could also be a limited chance that I could get the Bejing map due to "rumors" that happen to be fairly accurate.

I would not be allowed to establish an embassy until I made full contact with the Chinese (either through purchasing the communications or getting somebody on the ground to meet the Chinese somewhere).

 

[Ballazic]

It would (the supply lines) only work in the ancient era.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I've actually been thinking about my original point and, I agree, it is a little TOO harsh!
IMHO, I see Operational Range Working in two possible ways:

1) The number of hexes that you are outside of your operational range could equal the % chance of losing a SET number of hp per turn. For instance, if you are 6 hexes outside operational range, then you have a 30% chance of losing X HP's between turns. This chance would be increased according to the % of the total hp that the unit has lost. For instance, a unit at only 25% of its original HP's is 2x more likely to lose HP's than one at 50% of its original.

2) The number of hexes you are outside your OR will determine the amount of firepower, armour and morale that your troops lose. For instance, to use the example above, if you are 6 hexes outside operational range, then your units morale, firpower and armour will drop by 30%. This reflects the inability to get fresh equipment for your troops-like ammo, fuel and materials to repair armour etc. It also reflects the demoralising effect that fighting on foreign soil can have, especially on fairly Raw Units!

In fact, I don't see any reason why both systems couldn't be used together. Whatever route is taken, though, I think this would make a FANTASTIC incentive for players to abandon the ridiculous stack of death approach to invasions which currently infect player 'strategy'! After all, whats the point of having a stack of 20 tanks in foreign territory if the loss of a single 'supply point' (city or fort) can see those tanks lose much of their combat potential in just a few turns!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Mewtarthio]

It seems to me that this would simply tie you down to your starting point. And what about Workers, which have no HP? Do they simply die outside their OR? And surely you would concede that Settlers shouldn't suffer such a fate, since they're rather enterprising.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I was referring to military units ONLY though if settlers and workers were to have an operational range, then it would have to be VERY high!
Anyway, by the time you factor in fortresses, captured cities, alliances and RoP agreements-there will probably be few places in the world that your units can go-EVENTUALLY !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

Originally posted by Aussie_Lurker
Anyway, by the time you factor in fortresses, captured cities, alliances and RoP agreements-there will probably be few places in the world that your units can go-EVENTUALLY

I believe you meant there will be few places that your units could not go. I agree. Especially if a supply unit is introduced. The supply unit could supply an infinite number of units (it would likely be an IA unit) but would be used up at turn end (if it was needed). You would be allowed to take supply units with you, but they should be cumbersome or expensive (like the preparations made for the Normandy landings).

Either that, or allow settlers (or workers) to build a harbor just like airports. Allow that to be a supply source as long as there are transportation capabilities by the nation (i.e. you must have an eligable harbor city supplying the harbor square).

This concept is really much easier than people think.
As for being stuck in the area you began in, YES, that is the entire point. You either colonize (with settlers) or you don't get to wander around in Mezo-America without taking some of the places!

Not to belabor this, but think about the recent (1 year ago) U.S. invasion of Iraq. The troops made a beeline for the capitol. But right behind them (litterally in most cases) were the supply guys. Pvt. Lynch was part of a supply group that took a wrong turn. Without the supplies, Saddam might still be in power.

 

[Ultraworld]

http://www2.vhl.tudelft.nl/~emile/civilization/unit_movement_model.html

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by rcoutme
Not to belabor this, but think about the recent (1 year ago) U.S. invasion of Iraq. The troops made a beeline for the capitol. But right behind them (litterally in most cases) were the supply guys. Pvt. Lynch was part of a supply group that took a wrong turn. Without the supplies, Saddam might still be in power.

Not to belabor my own point, but I'm not arguing that supplies aren't important, I'm just arguing that I don't think they would add enough fun to the game to be worth the hassle of dealing with them.

 

[Arathorn]

Tedium? Increased.
Fun? Decreased.
Realism? Increased, but that's not why most people play Civ.

Not a good gameplay decision.

Add in the time needed for the AI to have a clue understanding this concept, the probable exploits, and I give this whole idea two thumbs down.

Arathorn