Have to say that not much of this has to do with the OP. You'd have your army grouped together as much as possible because units on the same tile defend as a single army and thus you'd need all your units to capture a city, for instance. You'd only keep your army spread out as a strategy to avoid being surrounded or to reduce dependence on supply units.
Dealing with SOD's, supply, and generally reducing everyone's reliance on war
- Thread starter Gangor
- Start date
Have to say that not much of this has to do with the OP. You'd have your army grouped together as much as possible because units on the same tile defend as a single army and thus you'd need all your units to capture a city, for instance. You'd only keep your army spread out as a strategy to avoid being surrounded or to reduce dependence on supply units.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,298
No, stacks would be always counted as armies. For example, you have 1 axe and 1 horse on the same tile, versus 3 archers on another same tile. You couldn't attack with only 1 axe, you would have to attack with the axe and the horse.
eightiesboi
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13
In re: the OP about supply, food and what not,
To a degree, this is already modelled with the healing mechanic. Admittedly, a healthy (unhurt) unit can theoretically exist in enemy territory for an unlimited time, and even a critically wounded unit in enemy territory will eventually heal--excepting, of course, that in most pratical circumstances the enemy will attack the wandering unit or units. The fact, however, that it takes much longer to heal in enemy territory can be seen in some ways as an analogue for having access to a supply chain. (Yes, I know it isn't the same; that's why I refer to it as "in some ways... an analogue"!) Although I understand the importance of supply in real war, as well as in war simulations, I am unconvinced that CIV (not being a war simulation) requires that degree of detail... but I am open to being convinced!
To a degree, this is already modelled with the healing mechanic. Admittedly, a healthy (unhurt) unit can theoretically exist in enemy territory for an unlimited time, and even a critically wounded unit in enemy territory will eventually heal--excepting, of course, that in most pratical circumstances the enemy will attack the wandering unit or units. The fact, however, that it takes much longer to heal in enemy territory can be seen in some ways as an analogue for having access to a supply chain. (Yes, I know it isn't the same; that's why I refer to it as "in some ways... an analogue"!) Although I understand the importance of supply in real war, as well as in war simulations, I am unconvinced that CIV (not being a war simulation) requires that degree of detail... but I am open to being convinced!
In re: the OP about supply, food and what not,
To a degree, this is already modelled with the healing mechanic. Admittedly, a healthy (unhurt) unit can theoretically exist in enemy territory for an unlimited time, and even a critically wounded unit in enemy territory will eventually heal--excepting, of course, that in most pratical circumstances the enemy will attack the wandering unit or units. The fact, however, that it takes much longer to heal in enemy territory can be seen in some ways as an analogue for having access to a supply chain. (Yes, I know it isn't the same; that's why I refer to it as "in some ways... an analogue"!) Although I understand the importance of supply in real war, as well as in war simulations, I am unconvinced that CIV (not being a war simulation) requires that degree of detail... but I am open to being convinced!
Perhaps if you don't include a medic unit in your stack. Also, it only affects damaged units, encouraging the SOD tactic.
What is the logic behind this, then ?
Hello first post ever! I Think supplylines are an excellent idea. Also think they should become available a bit later in the game so that you can't go exploring the whole map with youre first warrior and meet every single civ 3000BC i think that would add alot of exitement and realism to the game. Maybe some units or some promotions could allow for selfsustainability allowing soldiers to bring alot of supplies extending thier range or live of the land.
My 2c.
My 2c.
Because one chariot attacking a stack of 50 axemen shouldn't be winning anything.
Welcome! I agree with your idea, but maybe it would be simpler make certain technologies multipliers for units being able to gather food from tiles - if you have Liberalism (or some tech representing Napolean's rise to power) then you gain twice as much food from resting on a tile, for instance.
Difficult for players and the computer to keep a track of. The pathing alone would use a lot of CPU time. A supply unit is simple, easy to understand, and easy to implement. It also opens up strategies not already open to defenders (or attackers, for that matter).
eightiesboi
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13
Why not? CIV allows battles to occur in detail; therefore, that one chariot unit is not attacking 50 axeman units, but 1 axeman unit.
Maybe the other axeman units dance around and wait their turn, like in most American martial arts movies...
A tile is what, ten or a hundred miles to a side ? One chariot engaging with one and only one out of fifty axemen in that space makes perfect sense to me.
In which case it would be easy for the chariot to avoid the 1 spearman included in the stack?
eightiesboi
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13
Well, if this were reality, probably. But since the game engine is set to match combatants in a particular way, no. Although that algorithm can always be written (reference the "Lead from behind" modcomp).
I'm pretty sure I have argued before that one sensible way of weakening SoDs would be to implement a more sensible model than "best defender always defends".
One reason why i am very much in favour of reinstituting the attack/defence strength separation is that it then gives you a clear distinction between attack units and defence units, and then allows possibilities such as "defender of SoD gets choice of unit only if the defence units outnumber the attack units/artillery, otherwise it's attacker's choice." Which would make an SoD with the same offensive hitting power a sight more expensive because of the defenders it would need if not to be trivially picked off.
A chariot attacking fifty catapults and a spearman should be able to take out a catapult essentially unopposed, a chariot attacking one catapult and a spearman should have to face Hector, Destroyer of Tanks, in all his bronze-age wrath.
But the fact is that armies generally travel together rather than evenly spread over the landscape, and armies are usually able to arrange their deployment before battle. Only a foolish general would let his army be destroyed piecemeal.
Hail
Satan's minion
chariot is somewhat a bad example because it should also receive a maneuver bonus as it has more moves than the spearmen. therefore if the chariot can lure the spearmen from the catapult, the chariot would move past spearmen and destroy the catapult
This is more complicated than I think the traditional Civilization mechanics are meant to be for war.I think subtracting upkeep for troops is good enough.
It would be fairly intuitive, me thinks. You wouldn't have to think about each individual penalty that is applied. You'd just have to know that more units means weaker units.
A belated welcome to the forums.
Ronojoy1917
Warlord
I hope I'm not being redundant here but I think an attrition-supply wagon style system like the one which is used in Rise of Nations would be cool for Civ V.
A unit in enemy territory suffers attrition, which would be attacks from locals, as well as lack of food, water, and other supplies. Yes, it can be said that they are living of the land and there may be scope for incorporating a scorched earth tactic, but eventually the unit does need proper supplies. These would come in the form of a supply wagon, which would be a new unit that eventually upgraded to supply truck and so on. If they dont get supplies, they start taking damage. Slowly at first, but it soon gets serious.
The supply wagon provides supplies for all the units in a certain area around it. The supplies would either run out after a set amount of turns or depending on how many units they are supplying. Then, either the unit refills supplies in some place, perhaps a city that has a military supply depot or something (new building), or you have to build a new unit.
I think this is a reasonably fair way of bringing the concept of supplying the army without getting too tedious or into micro-management, while still keeping a degree of realism.
Also, some changes have been suggested about the whole borders system. It would be interesting to have units illegally entering neutral territory, where they would also suffer attrition, and no doubt cause some serious diplomatic repercussions.
A unit in enemy territory suffers attrition, which would be attacks from locals, as well as lack of food, water, and other supplies. Yes, it can be said that they are living of the land and there may be scope for incorporating a scorched earth tactic, but eventually the unit does need proper supplies. These would come in the form of a supply wagon, which would be a new unit that eventually upgraded to supply truck and so on. If they dont get supplies, they start taking damage. Slowly at first, but it soon gets serious.
The supply wagon provides supplies for all the units in a certain area around it. The supplies would either run out after a set amount of turns or depending on how many units they are supplying. Then, either the unit refills supplies in some place, perhaps a city that has a military supply depot or something (new building), or you have to build a new unit.
I think this is a reasonably fair way of bringing the concept of supplying the army without getting too tedious or into micro-management, while still keeping a degree of realism.
Also, some changes have been suggested about the whole borders system. It would be interesting to have units illegally entering neutral territory, where they would also suffer attrition, and no doubt cause some serious diplomatic repercussions.
There is no need for an actual supply unit. It would make a supply system less realistic (do all supplies really come in one or two caravans?), and more tedious. IMO, it's better to have a customisable supply route system, whereby only the routes need to be secured, without having to physically move units along them.
Similar threads
