Does the need to construct dedicated troop transport BOATS constitute grand strategy?

[ShuShu62]

Okay, I was running a debate in the rants thread which really wasn't fair because haters aren't allowed to post anywhere but there (right?) and we fanboys get to post everywhere else. So I needed to start this thread so that we all can just get along.

Anyway, the debate, as usual, has evolved into the usual highly intellectual haters trying to explain to the stupid fanboys what grand strategy is.

Honestly, if that were all that was going on, it would not be worth continuing. But it is interesting to see what folks do and do not see of the big picture.

For example, logistics is part of grand strategy... but logistics is often the first thing dropped from game design. The gloried Civ 4 BTS never punishes a unit for being out of supply, yet is clearly superior to civ 5 because civ 5 lets you load the troops into the same invisible boats carrying all the food... or maybe it is just that the invisible planes you can load your troops into are seaplanes...

One major objection is that it is not like folks can just materialize boats out of thin air... well they did at Dunkirk, but its not like they could use pleasure cruise ships to carry troops across the Atlantic...

Anyway, just want to make clear that nobody is objecting to having to protect troops as they cross the sea in highly vulnerable transports. That is clearly grand strategy. The question is whether having to build a specific visible unit to load them into adds anything to the equation.

P.S. As a side note, I had commented that other games which do try to keep logistics as part of the game almost universally enable the same logistics transport capacity (rail capacity, air transport capacity, space ship capacity) transport troops instead of supplies.

Moderator Action: Such overall trolling is not welcome in this forum.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

While I think that having dedicated transports opens up interesting strategic elements, I don't find it to be absolutely necessary. Requiring dedicated transports definitely benefits the defender against amphibious assaults because it would allow you to sink embarked land units by the boatload instead of individually.

 

[headcase]

If I were to implement troop transport, I would treat transport boats as a strategic resource. They wouldn't be part of the terrain like other strats. They would be built like a unit, but instead of appearing on the map on completion, they would add to the count of the strat (like the recycling plant for aluminum, but can be built repeatedly).

When you put a unit in the water, it takes one away from the strat. When it get back on land, the strat is given back. If you have 0 of the strat, you can't embark. This doesn't introduce logistics, but forces something to be built and limits how many units you can simultaneously embark based on how many transports you've built, without introducing a lot of new micro-management.

Plus I guess harbours and seaports would both increase the production speed of transports.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If I were to implement troop transport, I would treat transport boats as a strategic resource. They wouldn't be part of the terrain like other strats. They would be built like a unit, but instead of appearing on the map on completion, they would add to the count of the strat (like the recycling plant for aluminum, but can be built repeatedly).

When you put a unit in the water, it takes one away from the strat. When it get back on land, the strat is given back. If you have 0 of the strat, you can't embark. This doesn't introduce logistics, but forces something to be built and limits how many units you can simultaneously embark based on how many transports you've built, without introducing a lot of new micro-management.

Plus I guess harbours and seaports would both increase the production speed of transports.

That would be an interesting idea. Perhaps early on you could only have 1 unit at a time that could embark and moving forces would require taking turns. When you get harbors, the amount of units that can embark increases per number of harbors. When Steam Engines arrive, Coal could increase the pool again.

 

[ShuShu62]

If I were to implement troop transport, I would treat transport boats as a strategic resource...

yep, me too. As I said in the other thread, I liked how MOO II implemented this and I was a little surprised that it never worked its way into the other civ like games.

 

[kamex]

I miss transports. Hate the way tanks can just magically transform into boats in enemy territory and escape. Kind of immersion killing really.

To be really pedantic,you should really have different kind of transports for different units. Transporting tanks and helicopters for example would be different to infantry... or at least make them occupy x2 room aboard a generic transport

 

[farleybear]

I've been thinking that the current system would make more sense if there were a cost attached to embarkation that represented the cost of building your transportation fleet. Say, 50 gold per unit or whatever.

 

[Dogmouth]

I don't consider the current system to be immersion killing or strategy killing. Transport vessels are part of naval logistics, but so are food, manpower, timber/metal supplies, etc. In this game, food to feed your troops appears out of nowhere and is never exhausted. That is a MUCH bigger logistical oversight than transport vehicles. Wars are won and lost based on food supply chains. There are only a handful of games where feeding your troops is necessary and food supply chains are key (only the ROTK series comes to mind, although I'm sure there are others). The only reason people obsess about missing transports rather than missing food and other logistical issues is that previous Civ games had transports, and it's a common gaming convention. Aside from convention, I don't see a strong strategic argument for adding transports.

As far as immersion goes, it takes a unit between 1 and 50 years to go from land to sea in this game. I don't find it immersion breaking to imagine that someone constructed a transport vessel during this time.

 

[ShuShu62]

AGEOD's American Civil war is the best implementation of a logistics driven game mechanic I have ever played. Advancing too far ahead of your supply lines without continuously advancing farther (ala Sherman) equals DEATH.

I could never understand why McClellan snatched defeat from the jaws of victory until I played this game. It also gives you a feel for why Sherman's march was such a scary thing.

 

[Ghpstage]

I think most 'immersion breaking' arguments stem from people thinking about mechanics they don't like, and poorly implementd mechanics are more likely to be disliked (think civ 4s AP, vassals and to a lesser extent in both ways espionage)

I don't consider the current system to be immersion killing or strategy killing.

The problem strategy wise is that it leaves the open many situations where attacking an overseas civ is barely any more expensive than attacking your neighbour, if at all (as a DOW with units on their water borders may not even need warship protection). Whereas in civ 4 you did have to preplan, and pay for the resources needed to cross to attack.
It also hurts tactically as units can simply hop into the water and swim around obstacles on land!

In this game, food to feed your troops appears out of nowhere and is never exhausted. That is a MUCH bigger logistical oversight than transport vehicles. Wars are won and lost based on food supply chains. There are only a handful of games where feeding your troops is necessary and food supply chains are key (only the ROTK series comes to mind, although I'm sure there are others). The only reason people obsess about missing transports rather than missing food and other logistical issues is that previous Civ games had transports, and it's a common gaming convention. Aside from convention, I don't see a strong strategic argument for adding transports.

I would quite like things like food, or some other abstracted supply mechanic being added to civ, but it would have to have had some actual thought put into it.
While I didn't name it, ROTK was something I was mentioned a different idea from in the rants thread, where instead of adding transports, embarkation could be changed to allow units to embark only at specific locations (cities for example), which would at least retain some of the strategic and tactical elements of intercontinental invasions and make coastal cities more important in this context. It could then be bolstered by something akin to what Eagle Pursuit mentioned.

 

[nokmirt]

If you are going to add transport ships, then I feel supply rules, retreat rules, attrition rules etc...should be added. When you switch to hexes things should become more complicated. However, in this case the AI present in this game would simply be overwhelmed. It is better to keeps things simplified and work on adding a more balanced set of hex rules for Civ 6.

 

[Greizer85]

I'm not sure which I hate more: building and loading transports or having to move my troops over the ocean one by one while enemy subs snipe away at them (yes, I could protect them, but I'd rather not build a large navy. Besides, that's twice as many things to move...). The best mechanic would probably be some third choice that I'm not able to see right now.

Anyway, as pertains to the current system, in the other thread I suggested simply making the Embark promo cost gold. Make it era-based maybe - in the Ancient age it's 50 gold / unit, in the Modern age 200 (the numbers could be tweaked). Really though it's a much bigger hurdle that Archers can shoot farther than Machine guns or Infantry, or that units never go out of supply. With the way the AI dances around with its units like a drunken sailor enacting a postmodern opera, you can fuggedabout any complex changes to the ruleset.

Edit: I'd rather they start Civ VI's design with the AI and add the graphics at the last minute. I sometimes wonder if there isn't a billionaire around who'd love Civ enough to finance the development of an AI that the series has deserved since the very beginning.

Edit2: I can't really vote since I think the ships are both an enhancement and an impediment. An 'Other; please explain' option is always good to have in polls imo.

 

[fufie]

I don't consider the current system to be immersion killing or strategy killing. Transport vessels are part of naval logistics, but so are food, manpower, timber/metal supplies, etc. In this game, food to feed your troops appears out of nowhere and is never exhausted. That is a MUCH bigger logistical oversight than transport vehicles.

The "automatic" use of pontoon or temporary bridges (or transport boats) to cross rivers for every unit whenever, is of course another aspect where simplification makes things easier. If we're questioning auto-embarked units, the significant strategic effort to cross rivers by boat or build and maintain such bridges through history should probably also be reflected in a "grand strategy". The -15%(?) is a very simple implementation compared to having to build engineer unit to build a temporary bridge or transport boats from lumber to let other units cross.

Good historical examples of significant river crossings are of course Darius (of Civ5 fame) crossing Bosporus to claim Thrace, Julius Caesar crossing the Rhine and of course Napoleon (of Civ 5 fame) crossing Berezina on the way back from Russia.