1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Effect of "negative" number of strategic resources

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by LukaSlovenia29, Feb 22, 2018.

  1. Gidoza

    Gidoza Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,160
    I can appreciate that you're not budging, but this genuinely makes no sense.

    When I have horses available, that means I can build and supply up to x units with horses, let's say 4.

    If some of my horse supply is eliminated - let's say 2, then I'm lacking supply for 2 units of horses.

    The other two units still have their supply - because I still have two horses being used. If the argument is supply, then that works - for only two of the horse units. I get that you can't code that ideally, nevertheless your argument does not apply for the entire army.
     
  2. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,825
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    You have 4 stables full of delicious horses.
    You build 4 horsemen, draining all four stables of horses. Your stablemen and women work hard to continue sending new horses from these stables and to your armies to replenish lost horses.
    You lose 1 horse stable, meaning that three stables are having to do the work of 4.
    You no longer have enough horses to replenish horses KIA, as the stables can only support the remaining population of horsies.
    Thus, your units can no longer heal, as there are only enough horses remaining to support the existing horses on the battlefield.

    In no way should the sudden loss of a horse stable affect the CS of your existing units. Thinking about it differently, if you suddenly go into negative Iron, your swords do not rust and crumble, reducing CS. You simply can't make new swords to replace lost ones. So your units cannot reinforce ('heal').

    G
     
    Skidizzle likes this.
  3. Gidoza

    Gidoza Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,160
    Your argument breaks down at the second statement.

    Three stables do not need to do the work of 4. They need to do the work of three. This is what it would actually look like:

    You build 4 horsemen, draining all four stables of horses. Your stablemen and women work hard to continue sending new horses from these stables and to your armies to replenish lost horses.
    You lose 1 horse stables, meaning that three stables are having to do as much work as they always did - the work of three.
    You no longer have enough horses to replenish the horses of the fourth brigade KIA, as the stables can only support the other three brigades.
    Thus, your fourth brigade can no longer heal, as there are only enough horses remaining to support three brigades on the battlefield.
     
    TheUnderNoticed likes this.
  4. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,812
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    First: Why do you use 2 different mechanics for the same problem (lack of ressources for buildings, lack of ressources for units)
    Second: If i have only 3/4 of horses I need, I doesnt stop sending those horses to my divisions. It would make sense if I send all my horses to 3 divisions and stop sending all supply to 4th horse. Or send 3/4 of horses to every of my horse division.
    The remaining 3 stables can support 3/4 of my demand.
    If you want a proper clear game mechanic, all remaining horses cant heal past the percentage you lack in ressources. Talking about 3 ressources for 4 horses, all horses cant heal past 3/4 hp. This would make sense, cause my stables can still support 3/4 of my demand.
     
    TheUnderNoticed likes this.
  5. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,825
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Sorry, but you are arguing outside of the limitations of civ's military system. This is what I mean by consistency > realism. If you wanted to go full 100% realism, every horse would be tied specifically to a unit, with direct supply lines, etc. But that's not how it works. So, in fact, 3 must do the work of 4, because there's no model for the game to decide which of the 4 horsemen gets cut out of healing. Consistency is key, as I'm fairly certain no one wants to play a game of civ in which they must remember which horseman is tied to which tile improvement in order to avoid healing issues.

    A good rule of thumb when designing games: complex rules can support simple variants, and simple rules can support complex variants. The combat simulation of civ is easily the game's most complex feature, thus it can only support simple variants.

    G
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2018
    vyyt and Blue Ghost like this.
  6. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,825
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Buildings are treated differently...because <drum roll> they're different from units! Who would have guessed.

    There's no mechanic in civ to 'disable' or 'diminish' the functionality of a building, aside from deleting it. And that's not cool. So I developed the maintenance method as a simplification of supply+demand imbalances.

    G
     
  7. RAuer2

    RAuer2 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    Messages:
    72
    I don't think the argument breaks down. Think of the resources as contributing to a pool that all units draw from, not as an individual resource supporting a specific unit. If the pool is short then everything that depends on it suffers.

    Edit:
    This is what I get for answering the phone while typing a short reply. Gazebo has a better explanation that my simplified "pool" example.
     
    Skidizzle likes this.
  8. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,825
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Precisely.

    G
     
  9. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,812
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    And what stops you from doing the maintenance thing to units as you have done to buildings? In real life, its the same thing if I have a shortage in coal for a plant or if I have a shortage of horses to supply my horse divisions. Both will work on a lower, inefficient level. But both will not stop working.
    The current system may work, but it does not make too much sense. Even if the resource has been destroyed, a unit can theoretically remain at 100% for 1000 years and function at any time (possible for units with reach). Aircraft can continue to fly, even if there is no oil left. Horses die IRL over time, and yet mounted units stay alive even if the stables are looted. Iron weapons break down over time, and yet my swordsman can remain fully functional in the last city forever.
    Is this logical? No.

    It would be nice, if you answer me this. Would it be possible to match the maximum health a unit with missing resources can regenerate, is the ratio of available raw materials to necessary raw materials.? Say, if half of the resources are missing, it can only regenerate a maximum of half its life points? That would make sense to me.
     
  10. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,825
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    ?

    And what stops you from doing the maintenance thing to units as you have done to buildings?

    A maintenance cost increase for buildings works because I can easily store off values for processing. Not for units.

    Both will work on a lower, inefficient level. But both will not stop working.
    Your horsemen units still work 100%. They just can't heal.

    Is this logical? No.
    But you're totally fine with immortal Darius leading Immortals on a conquest of the Americas and the destruction of the great Zulu empire of North America in 1430 BCE? K.

    And no - recalculating unit heal rates by strategic resource consumption would be horribly expensive.

    The system is fine as-is.

    G
     
  11. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,812
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Ahistoric things happening is the core of the game. Immortal horses with no access to horses is something other.
     
  12. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,825
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    The point is that it is an abstraction. The horses aren't immortal - losing a strategic resource means that steady access to horses is diminished, it does not mean that all of your horses immediately die.

    G
     
  13. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,812
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    All I (and I think Gidoza too) want is for you to say that it is not really reasonable for any unit to regenerate not,when even only some of the resources are missing. But it is a mechanic that has established itself.
    Then we will be maybe satisfied. ;)
     
  14. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,825
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Why would I say something that isn't true? All I want is for you and Gidoza to say is that the ground I walk on produces rainbows and unicorns, but that's not true (or is it?).

    G
     
  15. Gidoza

    Gidoza Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,160
    I didn't say that you should make it work the way I described it, but I was describing the reality of the situation - this is why others have said that it's more appropriate to have a maintenance cost increase for each horse missing, or a CS decrease, or any number of things - because I know full well that the healing system can't work the way I've proposed it - I'm not saying the game should work that way; what I was saying is that it isn't appropriate to have this system remain when other options are available that would both be balanced and reflect reality more concretely.


    No, it doesn't. A good general isn't going to insist that his limited horses due a shortage be distributed to indiscriminately replenish all his lines. He knows he has a shortage, and is going to put the horses where they're needed most to accomplish his strategic aims - one battalion won't get horses, and that's that. That's reality - but I'm not suggesting that the game must function exactly according to reality. I'm saying there are better options that reflect it without involving global inability to heal due to the shortage of a single horse, which is absurd.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2018
  16. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,148
    It’s also absurd that you don’t have to individually feed your military units...after all thst was a key part of warfare for most of history.

    Even more absurd, every military unit should be losing health every turn it’s not healing, to represent losses from disease. After all, disease has been the number one killer of soldiers in war in every war until WWII.

    Or...we can just accept that the current system works fine, and realize there are many things unrealistic in this game by nature thsts it’s a game
     
  17. Workerspam

    Workerspam Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2016
    Messages:
    323
    What we have is an inherently abstract game mechanic. The "best" way to handle it is going to be largely influenced by how you choose to interpret the role of horses as supply for your horse based unit. Both you and BitetheMark appear to have decided your interpretation is the right one and thus your solutions are better. That's problematic in and of itself since there are countless valid interpretations but I'd argue your solutions aren't even necessarily the best ones for your interpretation (as best I can gather from your posts).

    If horses represent your ability to field horse-based units then a fair interpretation would to ignore any healing base mechanic; instead you have to disband excess units until you are no longer in the negative. If you have 6 horse and 6 horsemen, then lose 3 horse, you lose 3 horsemen. After all, you can't build more units if you don't have the resources; you can't choose to build extra horsemen that don't heal to full health. This would be a very realistic mechanic, and likely quite frustrating in practice.

    What's nice about the current system is that option is already baked in, but it leaves the decision up to you. Need horse units that can heal? Disband your excess units. Can't afford to lose the units but can buy some time? Keep your horses out of danger and acquire more resources. Can't afford to lose units and need horses that can heal now? Good luck; should have better protected those resources.

    The current system gives you options in a simple, straight forward manner. There are other options that may be equally valid but I haven't seen one that is hands down better than the current method, and the current method is already both well understood and coded.
     
    hr_oskar and vyyt like this.
  18. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,825
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    So your arguments use features that aren’t feasible in civ 5 to attack the current system? I’m sorry, but I don’t get it. You’re hung up on real world examples, but that’s not the point of civ’s abstractions. I can’t and won’t try to emulate that level of depth, and I do - in fact - feel that the current system emulates supply in an interesting and simple to understand way. Telling me that I don’t and shouldn’t think that way isn’t an argument, it’s an imperative.

    G
     
    burleigh, Grabbl and vyyt like this.
  19. RAuer2

    RAuer2 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    Messages:
    72
    Workerspam explained the benefits and flexibility of the current system nicely. A resource shortage is not doom, just a challenge and there are ways to handle it (disband, retreat, trade, don't build to the max, guard resources, and so on). If there is an advantage to changing it, I am missing it.
     
    Skidizzle and Grabbl like this.
  20. MidnightAfterglow

    MidnightAfterglow Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    28
    In order to bridge that gap between reality and consistency within the game, how about the following minor tweak:

    Armories allow infantry units to heal [either when in friendly territory or when within X steps from a city that possesses one (analogous to how religious pressure works)] up to 3/4 of their max hp when deficient of their strategic resource.

    Stables apply the same way to mounted units et cetera.

    Armories/Stables would act like reserve stockpiles for their corresponding military units as long as they had access (hence the proximity stipulation) as they would in real life.

    Just an idea.
     

Share This Page