Effect of "negative" number of strategic resources

[BiteInTheMark]

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

Gidoza only want to say, and it mirros in most aspects my opinion, the current system DOESNT represent how supply works as Gazebo tries to claim.
IRL a shortage of supplies lead in most cases to 2 paths:
1. The remaining supply is distributed on selected consumers to sustain full functionality (like elite units in WW2) while other units suffer from less supply ore complety cut by any supply.
----- Select the remaining units which can fight and which suffer may be the most realistic way, but cant be coded in civ5. We already have accepted that.
2. The remaining supply is distributed evenly on all consumers, but on lower level.
----- Maintaining the regeneration of all units, albeit to a lesser extent, or losing strength or maximum health would be the most realistic method.

No regeneration for all units only by missing a small part of the supply, dont make that much sense:
If one horse can support 100% of one horseman. 10 horses can support 10 horseman with 100%
If you have 10 horseman with only 50%, realistically, only 5 horses are used. If you are missing 2 horses (= 8 total horses), you still can support the 10 (50%) horses with 3 more horses.

Gazebo, why didnt you see it as test run for a new, little mechanic:
Every unit with a lack of ressources suffer damage every turn. I would say, the maximum damage (100% ressource missing) is 20. This gives an option to stay alive, if they are placed in city, but makes them completly useless for any fighting.
The formula could be: 20 * (Ressource needed / Ressource lacking)
I know, no new code. But this would be very interesting gameplay wise and would mirror reality extremly well.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

In order to bridge that gap between reality and consistency within the game, how about the following minor tweak...

If Gazebo's willing to code this, I think it would be a great idea. But I also understand the satisfaction with the current system and the reluctance to change things at this point in the development if they're not that much necessary to change.

 

[RAuer2]

Gidoza only want to say, and it mirros in most aspects my opinion, the current system DOESNT represent how supply works as Gazebo tries to claim.
IRL a shortage of supplies lead in most cases to 2 paths:

Stop comparing the mod to real life. Civ is not a documentary. It does not need to be historically accurate and it does not need to model any and every detail in the most "realistic" way possible. It doesn't.

 

[Gazebo]

Gidoza only want to say, and it mirros in most aspects my opinion, the current system DOESNT represent how supply works as Gazebo tries to claim.
IRL a shortage of supplies lead in most cases to 2 paths:
1. The remaining supply is distributed on selected consumers to sustain full functionality (like elite units in WW2) while other units suffer from less supply ore complety cut by any supply.
----- Select the remaining units which can fight and which suffer may be the most realistic way, but cant be coded in civ5. We already have accepted that.
2. The remaining supply is distributed evenly on all consumers, but on lower level.
----- Maintaining the regeneration of all units, albeit to a lesser extent, or losing strength or maximum health would be the most realistic method.

No regeneration for all units only by missing a small part of the supply, dont make that much sense:
If one horse can support 100% of one horseman. 10 horses can support 10 horseman with 100%
If you have 10 horseman with only 50%, realistically, only 5 horses are used. If you are missing 2 horses (= 8 total horses), you still can support the 10 (50%) horses with 3 more horses.

Gazebo, why didnt you see it as test run for a new, little mechanic:
Every unit with a lack of ressources suffer damage every turn. I would say, the maximum damage (100% ressource missing) is 20. This gives an option to stay alive, if they are placed in city, but makes them completly useless for any fighting.
The formula could be: 20 * (Ressource needed / Ressource lacking)
I know, no new code. But this would be very interesting gameplay wise and would mirror reality extremly well.

Haha. New little mechanic = a week of coding and testing for AI. Nah. Besides, locking units in cities because you run out of SR is the worst idea.

G

 

[Stalker0]

Gidoza only want to say, and it mirros in most aspects my opinion, the current system DOESNT represent how supply works as Gazebo tries to claim.
IRL a shortage of supplies lead in most cases to 2 paths:
1. The remaining supply is distributed on selected consumers to sustain full functionality (like elite units in WW2) while other units suffer from less supply ore complety cut by any supply.
----- Select the remaining units which can fight and which suffer may be the most realistic way, but cant be coded in civ5. We already have accepted that.
2. The remaining supply is distributed evenly on all consumers, but on lower level.
----- Maintaining the regeneration of all units, albeit to a lesser extent, or losing strength or maximum health would be the most realistic method.

No regeneration for all units only by missing a small part of the supply, dont make that much sense:
If one horse can support 100% of one horseman. 10 horses can support 10 horseman with 100%
If you have 10 horseman with only 50%, realistically, only 5 horses are used. If you are missing 2 horses (= 8 total horses), you still can support the 10 (50%) horses with 3 more horses.

Gazebo, why didnt you see it as test run for a new, little mechanic:
Every unit with a lack of ressources suffer damage every turn. I would say, the maximum damage (100% ressource missing) is 20. This gives an option to stay alive, if they are placed in city, but makes them completly useless for any fighting.
The formula could be: 20 * (Ressource needed / Ressource lacking)
I know, no new code. But this would be very interesting gameplay wise and would mirror reality extremly well.

Option 1 you mentioned is already supported. Simply disband the units of your choice until your resources are balanced, and you are back to full functionality.

You have complete control over which units you disband and keep. And that is a reasonable approximation of “denying supplies to 1 unit to ensure other units have full supplies”.

So the current system supports your needs. Enjoy!!

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Stop comparing the mod to real life. Civ is not a documentary. It does not need to be historically accurate and it does not need to model any and every detail in the most "realistic" way possible. It doesn't.

First: Why?
Second: Nobody talked aboud "historically accurate"....

Lets see what was changed in the last months:
1. Trade route distance have influence on its yields. Trade partners which are more far away offers more exotic goods, which are harder to get to its risk, represented by the lenght of trade routes.
New realismn parameters integrated.
2. War weariness raises with losses in units, cities and improvements. Like in real life, lot of losses lower the ability and willingness of a nation to fight any more.
New realismn parameters integrated.
3. Farms gives more food if planted in first place on rivers. Like in real life, agriculture was always most effectiv on rivers or general access to water.
Realismn parameter increased.

I could write more, but the most newly integrated mechanics are all based on realismn aspects. So, why annoyed you my suggestion if the previous changes were just as affected?

Haha. New little mechanic = a week of coding and testing for AI. Nah. Besides, locking units in cities because you run out of SR is the worst idea.

G

One week doesnt sound that long for a nice new feature of warfare. Are you afraid? Its not even a new mechanic. You already have the mechic of health regen blocking integrated into units with strategic ressource demand. All you need would be a negative health regen based on the query of strategic ressource. I think, more work would be how the AI work with it. But I think, thats only a little finger work for the grandmaster of CIV5 modding, or?

 

[Gazebo]

First: Why?
Second: Nobody talked aboud "historically accurate"....

Lets see what was changed in the last months:
1. Trade route distance have influence on its yields. Trade partners which are more far away offers more exotic goods, which are harder to get to its risk, represented by the lenght of trade routes.
New realismn parameters integrated.
2. War weariness raises with losses in units, cities and improvements. Like in real life, lot of losses lower the ability and willingness of a nation to fight any more.
New realismn parameters integrated.
3. Farms gives more food if planted in first place on rivers. Like in real life, agriculture was always most effectiv on rivers or general access to water.
Realismn parameter increased.

I could write more, but the most newly integrated mechanics are all based on realismn aspects. So, why annoyed you my suggestion if the previous changes were just as affected?

One week doesnt sound that long for a nice new feature of warfare. Are you afraid? Its not even a new mechanic. You already have the mechic of health regen blocking integrated into units with strategic ressource demand. All you need would be a negative health regen based on the query of strategic ressource. I think, more work would be how the AI work with it. But I think, thats only a little finger work for the grandmaster of CIV5 modding, or?

Am I afraid? No. Am I busy and this mod is 99% complete? Yes.

If you want it so bad, you do it. Best time to learn c++ is now.

G

 

[theMisterRud]

Hi, long time lurker here.
Just to come in and say that the current system works perfectly as is, no need to change anything.

 

[MidnightAfterglow]

If Gazebo's willing to code this, I think it would be a great idea. But I also understand the satisfaction with the current system and the reluctance to change things at this point in the development if they're not that much necessary to change.

Calling all modders! xD

Willing to bribe.... err "compensate".

 

[tu_79]

Seriously guys, the talk is interesting and you have some right points, but the fact is that the mechanic, imperfect as it might be, works well. It fulfills its purpose, that is, having a penalty for losing strategic resources without being too harsh on the player. If you want your horses to heal again, disband or gift some horsemen, or purchase horses, or repair those stables.

 

[Edaka]

It doesn't matter which real-life explanation fits the best, as that's impossible to agree on and there is at least a ton of them. I'll just say that the current system is binary, and so far there have been reworks of binary systems to make them granular, like the happiness system. Usually, a spectrum of shades is healthier and more interesting than blacks and whites.

Additionally, an on-off switch for healing means that:

• transition between 0 and -1 is infinitely more penalizing than the one between -1 and -999,
• there's no incentive to further deprive war opponents of strategic resources once they already have a deficit,
• there's no point to partially recover own deficits if you can't recover completely.

Now don't get me wrong, the current system also has its merits, I just didn't list them. I think it works fine as is, and I'm also all for a more granular solution - if that didn't mean too much work for the team.

 

[Gazebo]

It doesn't matter which real-life explanation fits the best, as that's impossible to agree on and there is at least a ton of them. I'll just say that the current system is binary, and so far there have been reworks of binary systems to make them granular, like the happiness system. Usually, a spectrum of shades is healthier and more interesting than blacks and whites.

Additionally, an on-off switch for healing means that:

• transition between 0 and -1 is infinitely more penalizing than the one between -1 and -999,
• there's no incentive to further deprive war opponents of strategic resources once they already have a deficit,
• there's no point to partially recover own deficits if you can't recover completely.

Now don't get me wrong, the current system also has its merits, I just didn't list them. I think it works fine as is, and I'm also all for a more granular solution - if that didn't mean too much work for the team.

I agree on the third point, however the first two are incorrect - the difference is how hard it is to get back to baseline of zero. If you only pillage one horse tile, you know that the AI will have to repair that to heal their units. If you pillage two, you've got insurance. And, if any of those units over the limit die, they can more quickly get back to zero. The penalty is binary, but the cost is linear.

G

 

[TheUnderNoticed]

Gidoza only want to say, and it mirros in most aspects my opinion, the current system DOESNT represent how supply works as Gazebo tries to claim.
IRL a shortage of supplies lead in most cases to 2 paths:
1. The remaining supply is distributed on selected consumers to sustain full functionality (like elite units in WW2) while other units suffer from less supply ore complety cut by any supply.
----- Select the remaining units which can fight and which suffer may be the most realistic way, but cant be coded in civ5. We already have accepted that.
2. The remaining supply is distributed evenly on all consumers, but on lower level.
----- Maintaining the regeneration of all units, albeit to a lesser extent, or losing strength or maximum health would be the most realistic method.

No regeneration for all units only by missing a small part of the supply, dont make that much sense:
If one horse can support 100% of one horseman. 10 horses can support 10 horseman with 100%
If you have 10 horseman with only 50%, realistically, only 5 horses are used. If you are missing 2 horses (= 8 total horses), you still can support the 10 (50%) horses with 3 more horses.

Gazebo, why didnt you see it as test run for a new, little mechanic:
Every unit with a lack of ressources suffer damage every turn. I would say, the maximum damage (100% ressource missing) is 20. This gives an option to stay alive, if they are placed in city, but makes them completly useless for any fighting.
The formula could be: 20 * (Ressource needed / Ressource lacking)
I know, no new code. But this would be very interesting gameplay wise and would mirror reality extremly well.

I have to agree with BiteInTheMark and Gidoza.
The proposed mechanic where all units can't fully regenerate while they lack their strategic key resource would be preferable. However, Gazebo doesn't feel like implementing this for various reasons.

Oh well! I hope he changes his mind or someone will program this in his place. For the time being let's enjoy the current system, which is a good one and serves its purpose.

 

[Edaka]

I agree on the third point, however the first two are incorrect - the difference is how hard it is to get back to baseline of zero. If you only pillage one horse tile, you know that the AI will have to repair that to heal their units. If you pillage two, you've got insurance. And, if any of those units over the limit die, they can more quickly get back to zero. The penalty is binary, but the cost is linear.

G

Well, yeah, I can agree with that. My phrasing was flawed, take the second point, for example: the incentive is there, yeah. It's just not as interesting as it could be if the penalty itself was gradual.

Sorry for alluding to the old happiness system again, but it was similar in this regard. Sure it was prudent to keep a surplus, but once you were over the hump - roughly speaking - that was it.

There's an upside to this binary nature, though, as this way the penalty can allow to be drastic and really noticeable, in-your-face style. That makes it stand out, which is nice.

I'd still personally prefer a gradual penalty, though.

 

[Gazebo]

Well, yeah, I can agree with that. My phrasing was flawed, take the second point, for example: the incentive is there, yeah. It's just not as interesting as it could be if the penalty itself was gradual.

Sorry for alluding to the old happiness system again, but it was similar in this regard. Sure it was prudent to keep a surplus, but once you were over the hump - roughly speaking - that was it.

There's an upside to this binary nature, though, as this way the penalty can allow to be drastic and really noticeable, in-your-face style. That makes it stand out, which is nice.

I'd still personally prefer a gradual penalty, though.

Again, though, to reiterate an earlier point about design:

complex systems need simple variants, simple systems need complex variants.

The player-level happiness system is very simple, so the variant of scaling bonuses is acceptable. Combat, however, is already the most complex part of the game, thus simple variants on rules are much more tolerable.

G

 

[Edaka]

Again, though, to reiterate an earlier point about design:

complex systems need simple variants, simple systems need complex variants.

The player-level happiness system is very simple, so the variant of scaling bonuses is acceptable. Combat, however, is already the most complex part of the game, thus simple variants on rules are much more tolerable.

G

Yep, I never advocated a complex solution for this one. What I had in mind is what Luka the OP suggested in his initial post: a linear combat strength reduction for each missing resource. Something like -2% CS per resource, capping at... whatever value, you get the idea. Seems simple and mirrors the current effects of unhappiness on combat strength of all units, which works exactly like described.

Then again, if it means new code, there's no need for a hassle. Likewise if the majority here judges that the current no-healing system is judged more exciting and fun.

 

[Gazebo]

Yep, I never advocated a complex solution for this one. What I had in mind is what Luka the OP suggested in his initial post: a linear combat strength reduction for each missing resource. Something like -2% CS per resource, capping at... whatever value, you get the idea. Seems simple and mirrors the current effects of unhappiness on combat strength of all units, which works exactly like described.

Then again, if it means new code, there's no need for a hassle. Likewise if the majority here judges that the current no-healing system is judged more exciting and fun.

It would mean new code, yes. Also, the wombo-combo of unhappiness + missing SRs would put units at 20-40+% reduced CS, thus essentially making them unusable. This takes a choice away from the player, whereas - now - you have to decide if attacking with a unit is worth the lack of a heal.

Edit: it would also be gameable by humans. Put 3 units on 3 different SRs, pillage all on the same turn, then pound weakened units w/o AI response. AI is not capable of that kind of chess.

G

 

[Edaka]

It would mean new code, yes. Also, the wombo-combo of unhappiness + missing SRs would put units at 20-40+% reduced CS, thus essentially making them unusable. This takes a choice away from the player, whereas - now - you have to decide if attacking with a unit is worth the lack of a heal.

Edit: it would also be gameable by humans. Put 3 units on 3 different SRs, pillage all on the same turn, then pound weakened units w/o AI response. AI is not capable of that kind of chess.

G

Good points, although the last example is more of an extreme one - not easy to do that while keeping the pillagers alive pre-paratroopers, and even then it's a challenge to get out. I agree that we probably don't need more CS reductions with the already existing one from unhappiness, downward spirals are rarely fun. So, all in all, unless someone steps in with a brilliantly simple yet engaging solution and codes it, too, it doesn't seem like we're going anywhere.