Exploration and explorers

[Ahriman]

I'm not all that big of a fan of using massive barbarian/wild animal hordes to control scouting. It adds randomness to the system which is always TEH EVIAL

Think about it, you lose your scout to random barb attack and after a bit of cursing your building a new one (more clicks) and sending it out to the yet unexplored area (more clicks) in which it will invariably need to pass over already explored areas (inefficiency).

The level of randomness [and randomness with severe conquences, of losing your only scout who is a long way from home] is much lower in a world where a unit does not die from losing a single battle. You move your 3 move scout near a barbarian, who attacks you. You take some damge. Next turn, you can run away from the barbarian 3 hexes, and they can only follow 2 hexes. So you can escape and heal or otherwise avoid pursuit.

All the barbs really amount too is a random decrease in the efficiency of exploration

A decraease in the efficiency of exploration is a desirable goal, hence this thread.

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

A decrease in the efficiency of exploration is a desirable goal, hence this thread.

Correction: A PREDICTABLE decreases in the efficiency of exploration is a desirable goal.

If barbarians are just slowing you down that is better then outright dieing (less impact for random event) but it's still a largely random event and should be used more for 'spicing things up' but should not be RELIED ON as a principle means of exploration balancing. For one thing having a lot of barbs on the map has effects outside of scouting so adjusting their quantity could throw other things out of whack.

A limit on Scout/Explorer lifespan seems much more predictable and historically accurate. If people think that's too Harsh an alternative version would be the scout/explorer 'teleports' back to the nearest city of yours once its timer runs out, again to reflect the need to return home to give you the map they drew. You can just keep sending it out over and over again if you want. That gives both a decrease in efficiency and a soft range limitation that people want. Explorers are naturally going to have longer timers and I could see some promotions (Sojourner I, II?) that give bonuses to the timer allowing for a further journey.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This kind of mechanic normally destroys the AI.
The AI can't plan as well as the human player, and the AI tends to be more likely to commit its troops to distant/foreign wars.
The risk/rewards calculation for this kind of thing (is it worth me moving my units over here even if it means I take damage?) is very hard for an AI to do a good job on.

Its not worth adding attrition mechanics, that seriously change the military game, for the purpose of changing exploration.

It would be for the purpose of the military game as well.

Its also not worth adding attrition mechanics or supply systems at all; they're really not fun for casual players. This isn't a wargame aimed at grognards, its designed to be accessible.

Some way to have an "in supply/out of supply" system which restricted the range of the players units would be good.

Admittedly Attrition is complicated. A simpler system would be simply preventing units from going 'out of supply'.

Simply have all tiles that are out of supply shaded a certain overlay, so that players can easily see the limits of their supply. (the same way they can easily tell ocean from coast)

Perhaps giving units a counter might be the best

If a unit is in the BFH of a Non-enemy city or adjacent to a Friendly fort, its counter is reset to maximum

Otherwise its counter goes down by 1 each turn (that it moves?)

When the counter reaches 0, the unit
1. Loses vision of unexplored tiles
2. May no longer move into unseen tiles
3. Has a reduced combat ability (straight Strength penalty?, can't heal?)

1+2 stop exploration but still allow the unit to retreat, 3 extends the impact to military units (encouraging them to retreat)

Explorers/Scouts would just have longer timers than military units, and the ability to easily move through 'hostile' terrain.

 

[Ahriman]

Some way to have an "in supply/out of supply" system which restricted the range of the players units would be good

Why?

I've yet to see anyone actually make a compelling argument for this as a design goal. "Realism" alone is not a design goal.

Why do we want to restrict who you can effectively prosecute a war against, or limit things like raids or harassment? I want Britain to be able to participate in the Crimean War or the Opium wars, and not be prevented from doing so because they're "out of supply". I want Vikings to be able to do hit and run pillagnig raids on Britain, and not be prevented from doing so because they're "out of supply". I want the US to be able to be involved in WW2 in North Africa, I want Huns and Mongols and Turks to be able to cross large distances to attack the civilized empires and not be prevented because they're "out of supply".

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Why?

I've yet to see anyone actually make a compelling argument for this as a design goal. "Realism" alone is not a design goal.

Why do we want to restrict who you can effectively prosecute a war against, or limit things like raids or harassment? I want Britain to be able to participate in the Crimean War or the Opium wars, and not be prevented from doing so because they're "out of supply". I want Vikings to be able to do hit and run pillagnig raids on Britain, and not be prevented from doing so because they're "out of supply". I want the US to be able to be involved in WW2 in North Africa, I want Huns and Mongols and Turks to be able to cross large distances to attack the civilized empires and not be prevented because they're "out of supply".

I want to be impressed the magnitude of the network of forts/naval air+military bases of Britain or the US to show the significance of the Opium/Crimean World wars.
That way I can strive for such a global reach of power myself.


I want the rapid mobility of the Vikings, Huns, Mongols and Turks that allows them to raid and retreat or raid and capture Distant cities to be something I strive for.

I want to have to hold my forts and cities in vital positions because without them my empire is divided and units can't reinforce or make it back from the front

I want to have units that Must capture a city. because they haven't got the supplies to make it back to the Old world.

 

[Ahriman]

All of those sound like things the AI is *never* going to do a good job of. Making it so that crucially hard units can't retreat if out of supply will just make it too easy to destroy the AI's entire army.

And what do networks of forts have to do with the Crimea or China? Brits didn't have any forts there.

Rapid mobility is something achieved through UUs or civ characteristics (eg: an ability to be able to unload or load troops without having to spend a turn doing so, for Vikings), not by a supply system.

 

[Thyrwyn]

No, but they had friends and allies that helped maintain supply. Solutions within a range limit system could be put in place to allow the distant wars you desire (and have been suggested).

The range of British influence was dependent upon the strength of their navy and would have been impossible before the Age of Sail. Rome never invaded China - and they are closer than England (and wouldn't need boats at all, in Civ terms).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

All of those sound like things the AI is *never* going to do a good job of. Making it so that crucially hard units can't retreat if out of supply will just make it too easy to destroy the AI's entire army.

Well I guess I overstated, units Should always be able to retreat, to avoid AI and human management issues.

But they should not be able to retreat 'effectively' ie at full power+full speed and in any direction they want.

At a certain point units should be 'forced' to retreat (the ways I mentioned... prevent them from moving into unexplored tiles (and prevent them from exploring those tiles), and decrease strength.. so that you don't want them on the front lines any more.)

Rapid mobility is something achieved through UUs or civ characteristics (eg: an ability to be able to unload or load troops without having to spend a turn doing so, for Vikings), not by a supply system.

Exactly, their Speed would allow them to indirectly bypass the normal limitations of the supply system. OR their special characteristic could directly allow it (ie normal military unit has a 5 'turn counter' a Scout has 10, a Mongol Keshik also has 10)

And what do networks of forts have to do with the Crimea or China? Brits didn't have any forts there.
.

Well I was translating into Civ terms, they had forts Nearby (India, etc.) and Naval mobility (and hence effective operating range) should be significantly greater than by land in Age of Sail

 

[Ahriman]

Solutions within a range limit system could be put in place to allow the distant wars you desire (and have been suggested).

This still seems messed up to me. The purpose of a range system is to stop you from being involved in distant wars. Changing the range system to allow you to do so weakens that purpose.
My problem is; making it harder for you to prosecute wars a long way away is not a desirable design goal. It is already difficult to prosecture a war a long way away, because your units take a very long time to get there.

Rome never invaded China - and they are closer than England (and wouldn't need boats at all, in Civ terms).

Macedon/Greece invaded Pakistan. Mongols invaded Poland. England invaded the Holy Land and Egypt (long before they had any navy). The crusades marched from western Europe all the way through Asia Minor to reach Antioich.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The purpose of a range system is to stop you from being involved in distant wars

No the purpose is to make it require effort

It is already difficult to prosecture a war a long way away, because your units take a very long time to get there.

Now that is a problem and needs to be fixed (faster unit movement particularly over the water (ie ~6 movement should be early naval movement if land moves at 2))

Because what that mostly does is make it more boring to prosecute distant wars

While you have some ability to enhance your ability to conduct a distant war on land with a speed limiting model (building roads so you can cross your empire/distance to the front quicker) you have no way of extending your 'reach' into the ocean, there are no sea roads.

Replacing Roads (and the speed limited model) with a network of forts (and a more explicitly distance limited model) would
1. mean you only have to have improvements every X tiles rather than every tile
2. would mean those improvements are Yours explicitly
3. would mean that those improvements are

The point of a range model is not just to "limit your ability to conduct distant wars" it is to have a means by which you can DO something to increase your ability to fight distant wars, it provides another strategy, another set of shiny toys that you can use. (and a set of shiny toys you can take from the enemy... or that they can take from you)

Macedon/Greece invaded Pakistan. Mongols invaded Poland. England invaded the Holy Land and Egypt (long before they had any navy). The crusades marched from western Europe all the way through Asia Minor to reach Antioich.

Macedon/Greece were only able to invade Pakistan because they were conquering cities on the way... same for the Mongols and Poland.

With the Crusades, the European powers were moving through friendly territory the whole way. (until the Constantinople incident)

 

[Ahriman]

No the purpose is to make it require effort

Why do we want to make it even more difficult to prosecute distant wars? There are already all kinds of mechanics against it. Distance from palace upkeep costs, movement time, etc.

It doesn't feel like its too easy to carry out long-distance wars in Civ4, or that the human player has incentives to carry out too many.
The AI's tendency to carry out such wars tends to weaken it significantly relative to a human player.

 

[Mannu]

uh... back on the subject of exploration and explorers (not everything is about war). I think one of the major problems to be solved is how to make the pace of exploration scale with the map size and the game speed. I played a normal speed, standard sized map since this discussion began and exploration was paced pretty well. I've discovered most of my continent by the early middle ages. I'm not close to being able to discover the other continent yet though.

The reveal tile mechanism must be tied to a number of turns not simply movement points in order to scale with game speed. That means that exploration must be a unit action that takes a number of turns to accomplish not a passive ability that is triggered when you move into a hex.

 

[CyberChrist]

Why do we want to make it even more difficult to prosecute distant wars? There are already all kinds of mechanics against it. Distance from palace upkeep costs, movement time, etc.

It doesn't feel like its too easy to carry out long-distance wars in Civ4, or that the human player has incentives to carry out too many.
The AI's tendency to carry out such wars tends to weaken it significantly relative to a human player.

You pretty much answered your own question.

Although I am sure the AI will be noticeably improved in ciV then technology/supportline driven distance limitations would provide another safeguard mechanism to help prevent the AI (and rookie players alike) from committing units too far from their homelands in early wars - that would otherwise only serve to severely cripple themselves in the long run (even if they should win such wars from a tactical perspective) and thus reduce the challenge for experienced players.


Having such - apparently controversial - distance limitations as an optional mechanism controlled from main menu would perhaps be the best solution though.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Macedon/Greece invaded Pakistan. Mongols invaded Poland. England invaded the Holy Land and Egypt (long before they had any navy). The crusades marched from western Europe all the way through Asia Minor to reach Antioich.

And they were all certainly remarkable feats. However, (in civ terms) Alexander's conquests did nothing for Macedon - the conquered territories were under Macedonian control for maybe a turn or two. maybe. The Mongols fared better - 1500 years later. The Crusades have been discussed ad nauseum. The Mongols conquered territory - the never went 500 miles away from their borders (or those of their vassals) to sack a city. The Crusaders had the support of friends along the way and the blessing of the Papacy.

And again - these were remarkable, exceptional achievements. They were were not typical. Only Alexander's would be prevented and it had no significant positive effect on Macedon.

This still seems messed up to me. The purpose of a range system is to stop you from being involved in distant wars. Changing the range system to allow you to do so weakens that purpose.

My problem is; making it harder for you to prosecute wars a long way away is not a desirable design goal. It is already difficult to prosecute a war a long way away, because your units take a very long time to get there.

No, the purpose of the proposed range system is to limit exploration by era. So that the known world and a civ's range of influence expands as they move up the tech tree.

You say you want all these wars and invasions to be possible - most : I do not want the Celts trading with the Chinese in 300 BC. Or the Mayans.

 

[Ahriman]

And they were all certainly remarkable feats. However, (in civ terms) Alexander's conquests did nothing for Macedon - the conquered territories were under Macedonian control for maybe a turn or two.

Uhhh.... Selucid Empire anyone? Ptolomeic Egypt? You know, the Successor States? They spread a Hellenic Empire that lasted for centuries.

the never went 500 miles away from their borders (or those of their vassals) to sack a city.

If you define their borders as wherever they conquered last, then sure. That's only because they conquered everything as they went, and so their "borders" were constantly expanding.
So its true, but only tautologically. Baghdad is a lot more than 500 miles from Mongolia.

The Crusaders had the support of friends along the way and the blessing of the Papacy.

So?
So what happens in game terms, if the crusaders march all through Europe, through the Byzantines, show up at Antioch to start a siege... and oops! The byzantines cancel their open border agreements. The entire armies of western Europe die, or get frozen unable to move? Is that really good for gameplay?

You say you want all these wars and invasions to be possible - most : I do not want the Celts trading with the Chinese in 300 BC. Or the Mayans.

Mayans never happens in Civ, you need Astronomy tech. And with the Chinese can be prevented easily enough without putting a range limit on military units, or needing a complex supply system.
If you want to restrict trade, then put a range limit on trade. Don't restrict military unit movement.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Uhhh.... Selucid Empire anyone? Ptolomeic Egypt? You know, the Successor States? They spread a Hellenic Empire that lasted for centuries.

But it was not Macedon and it was not one united civ. So in civ terms, it did nothing for macedon

If you define their borders as wherever they conquered last, then sure. That's only because they conquered everything as they went, and so their "borders" were constantly expanding.
So its true, but only tautologically. Baghdad is a lot more than 500 miles from Mongolia.

That is how civ defines borders, which is what we are discussing. There is nothing tautological about it.

So what happens in game terms, if the crusaders march all through Europe, through the Byzantines, show up at Antioch to start a siege... and oops! The byzantines cancel their open border agreements. The entire armies of western Europe die, or get frozen unable to move? Is that really good for gameplay?

I don't know - what happened historically? Has there ever been an army that suddenly found itself on the wrong side of former friends? I can think of a few. . .Richard the Lionheart comes to mind. Make them unable to heal; make them cost increasingly more to maintain (my preferred choice), or some other solution - but a solution can be found and it would enhance gameplay by emphasizing the need for diplomacy, trade, and maintaining friendly relations with your neighbors.

Mayans never happens in Civ, you need Astronomy tech.

Arbitrary and based on map choice (I was providing an example). I say arbitrary because people did cross from Asia to North America by land, and the Vikings reached the Americas before Astronomy. Using Civ rules on a representative Earth map, contact with South American civs would happen.

And with the Chinese can be prevented easily enough without putting a range limit on military units, or needing a complex supply system.

Without and arbitrary limit or map? How?

If you want to restrict trade, then put a range limit on trade. Don't restrict military unit movement.

How can you justify that? Trade has always outreached military reach. Always.

 

[LDiCesare]

If you want to restrict trade, then put a range limit on trade. Don't restrict military unit movement.

Military expeditions are much more expensive and harder to mount than trade so if there has to be limits, it's on the military, not the traders.
I think preventing military units from uncovering the fog of war at all would be a simple solution. You'd have to use scouts to uncover it, and these would die easily. (Having scouts in an army makes sense anyway.)
Fog of war could also be busted through trade (Marco Polo was a trader after all), but we can only speculate on how trade routes are going to be implemented.

 

[Ahriman]

Gameplay is what matters here.

Military is already heavily restricted, because anywhere you want your units to go, they have to actually walk there. Whereas trade happens instantaneously over any distance

So the mechanics aren't really directly comparable.

Also; Macedon/Greece had no trade with most of Persia or Pakistan. Mongols had no trade with west Asia, Middle East or Eastern Europe. New world civs had no trade contacts with Europe before being conquered. Conquest has outstripped trade on many occasions, in the cases where long-distance wars have been prosecuted.

 

[Craxymaxy]

Gameplay is what matters here.

Military is already heavily restricted, because anywhere you want your units to go, they have to actually walk there. Whereas trade happens instantaneously over any distance

So the mechanics aren't really directly comparable.

Also; Macedon/Greece had no trade with most of Persia or Pakistan. Mongols had no trade with west Asia, Middle East or Eastern Europe. New world civs had no trade contacts with Europe before being conquered. Conquest has outstripped trade on many occasions, in the cases where long-distance wars have been prosecuted.

Ahriman is right having a limit on distance is ridiculous if you want some form of restriction on distance make it territorial not a random line in the sand

 

[LDiCesare]

Gameplay is what matters here.

Military is already heavily restricted, because anywhere you want your units to go, they have to actually walk there. Whereas trade happens instantaneously over any distance

So the mechanics aren't really directly comparable.

Also; Macedon/Greece had no trade with most of Persia or Pakistan. Mongols had no trade with west Asia, Middle East or Eastern Europe. New world civs had no trade contacts with Europe before being conquered. Conquest has outstripped trade on many occasions, in the cases where long-distance wars have been prosecuted.

I agree on gameplay mattering most.

I liked Civ I and II's caravan system for trade personally.
Greece did trade with Persia. Xenophon's writings shows they traded military units for instance, who made a report back home of what they saw and fought.
It is true however that they certainly didn't trade up to Pakistan. But since they wouldn't have been there without conquering the rest of Persia before, I think conquering the capital of a civilization might give the map of that empire. This would not just allow for alexander's conquests, but also help mopping up an almost defeated civ whose last city you keep looking for for ages (happened a lot to me back in Civ 2 days).

As for New World, the whole point of this thread is to allow for exploration at later stages in the game (age of sails), which would be quite realistic for Northern America.
I don't think it's possible, or desirable, to make something realistic of the conquest of South America (Peru, Mexico). In Civ terms, a single unit of conquistadores managed to beat a whole empire full of warriors in about 1 or 2 turns of time.
For Mexico, maybe the city states system can be used, as they would ally with the Spanish, and would probably share some maps at that time, helping the Spanish conquer the Aztecs. For the Incas, I wouldn't want to allow a single unit to conquer a huge empire with a lot of population in 2 turns despite it having tons of warriors.