Exploration and explorers

[Thormodr]

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.

The Mongols actually did have extensive trade networks. They supported and encouraged trade on a vast scale.

Silk Road Info

The silk road was NOT a "highway" where people just walk to China and just buy something and go home. Silk Road consisted of may minor trade routes and included may diffrent roads. Silk Road connected Asia - Africa - Europe indirectly. It also provided a "Cross Road" of cultural exchange and Cultural diffusion (Sychrotizm). Many goods from Europe will usually take weeks or months to get to China.

Where ever the Silk Road when, it bought great wealth and prosperty because of the goods that were traded on it. Silk Road also was a "Homing Becon" to many dangers. The wealth and gold attracted bandits and thieves. For this reason Traders travelled in huge groups called caravans and was protected by a regional regiment of troops (footsoliders or Calvary).

Europe and Asia NEVER had a direct contact with each other until Venician (Italian) traders like Marco Polo made his way to China. For even this to happen, there needed to be a safe pasage way and a safe trade route. This was accomplished when the Mongols campaigned and took control of over 80% of Asia. They insured safe trade even on the Silk Road. They also encouraged trade and soon bought the Europeans to China which was controlled by the Mongol Dyansty called the Yuan Dynasty.

The Silk Road prospered even more under the Mongol rule and even the people who hated the Monogls benefited from the trade. Many unspeakable riches where given and traded all around Asia and Africa.

http://worldtrade.webs.com/tradenetworks.htm

Along with Western missionaries, traders from the West (particularly from Genoa) began to arrive in the Mongol domains, mostly in Persia and eventually farther east.

The Mongols were quite receptive to this. This attitude, which facilitated contacts with West Asia and Europe, contributed to the beginning of what we could call a "global history," or at least a Eurasian history.

The Mongols always favored trade. Their nomadic way of life caused them to recognize the importance of trade from the very earliest times and, unlike the Chinese, they had a positive attitude toward merchants and commerce.

The Confucian Chinese professed to be disdainful of trade and merchants, whom they perceived to be a parasitical group that did not produce anything and were involved only in the exchange of goods. Mongols altered that attitude and in fact sought to facilitate international trade [also see The Mongols in China: Life for Merchants under Mongol Rule].

In China, for example, the Mongols increased the amount of paper money in circulation and guaranteed the value of that paper money in precious metals. They also built many roads — though this was only partly to promote trade — these roads were mainly used to facilitate the Mongols' rule over China.

Under Mongol rule, merchants had a higher status than they had in traditional China. During their travels they could rest and secure supplies through a postal-station system that the Mongols had established.

The postal-station system was, of course, originally devised to facilitate the transmission of official mail from one part of the empire to another. Set up approximately every 20 miles along the major trade routes and stocked with supplies of food, horses, and lodging, the stations were an incredible boon to all travelers, whether they were traveling for business or otherwise.

Under the Mongols, merchants also had the benefit of not being faced with confiscatory taxation, as was the case during the rule of the traditional Chinese dynasties.

Support for trade characterized not only Mongol policy in China but their policy throughout their domains. In Persia the Mongols granted higher tax breaks and benefits to traders in an effort to promote commerce. The Mongols even tried to introduce paper money into Persia — though this would become merely a failed experiment. Nonetheless, the attempt indicates the desire of the Mongols to provide additional assistance to traders.

To further support trade and commerce, the Mongols established merchant associations, known as Ortogh, specifically to promote caravan trade over long distances.

The Mongols recognized that the caravan trade across Eurasia was extraordinarily expensive for any single merchant. Often there would be as many as 70 to 100 men on each mission, and all had to be fed and paid and provided with supplies (including camels, horses, and so on) over a lengthy period of time.

Quite a number of the caravans simply did not make it, either because of natural disasters of one sort or another or plundering by bandit groups. Travelers, for example, mentioned coming across numerous skeletons, animal and human, on these routes. Because of the expense involved in such a disaster, just one such failed caravan could devastate an individual merchant's holdings.

The Mongol solution to these concerns was the establishment of Ortogh — through which merchants could pool their resources to support a single caravan. If a caravan did not make it, no single merchant would be put out of business. The losses would be shared, as would any risks, and of course, profits when the caravans succeeded. The Mongols also provided loans to merchants at relatively low rates of interest, as long as they belonged to an Ortogh.

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/history/history4.htm

 

[Ahriman]

The Mongols actually did have extensive trade networks. They supported and encouraged trade on a vast scale.

The Mongols didn't control the silk road trade until AFTER they conquered it. Conquest happened before trade. There was no trade from the steppes of central Asia, from whence the mongols game, with western Europe or west Asia or the middle east.

 

[Thormodr]

The Mongols didn't control the silk road trade until AFTER they conquered it. Conquest happened before trade. There was no trade from the steppes of central Asia, from whence the mongols game, with western Europe or west Asia or the middle east.

There was very little trade between Europe and East Asia before the Mongols rose to prominence but there was still trade. To be sure, the Silk Road was there previously but it was extremely dangerous to travel on. The Mongols made this route safe and profitable. They encouraged trade through various measures and trade flourished. Certainly conquest enabled trade to flourish under the Pax Mongolica though.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Like I've said, the simplest approach I can think of still remains:

(1) Military units cannot enter desert, jungle, swamp or tundra hexes outside of their cultural borders.

(2) Non-exploration units should be able to only break the "fog" in the hexes they're currently traveling in (unless they're on hills-which gives them LOS).

(3) Non-exploration units should not be able to heal outside enemy territory (or should heal significantly slower) unless they can trace an unbroken path back to their cultural border or some other "supply point" (an occupied fort or city-or another unit with the appropriate promotion).

(4) Non-exploration units should also cost more outside of cultural borders.

(5) Exploration abilities should be gained via a promotion tree. Scouts & Explorers would start with some level of exploration ability that allows them to bust more fog, heal faster outside of borders, lower maintenance costs outside of borders &-at higher levels-faster movement rates on difficult terrain (forests, jungles, tundra, hills & swamp). However, all units would be able to gain these promotions with XP.

(6) There should be a Great Explorer Unit-primary ability would be to merge with a city & automatically give exploration promotion to any unit built in that city. Unit would otherwise be a mega fog-buster .

 

[Thormodr]

Like I've said, the simplest approach I can think of still remains:

(1) Military units cannot enter desert, jungle, swamp or tundra hexes outside of their cultural borders.

(2) Non-exploration units should be able to only break the "fog" in the hexes they're currently traveling in (unless they're on hills-which gives them LOS).

(3) Non-exploration units should not be able to heal outside enemy territory (or should heal significantly slower) unless they can trace an unbroken path back to their cultural border or some other "supply point" (an occupied fort or city-or another unit with the appropriate promotion).

(4) Non-exploration units should also cost more outside of cultural borders.

(5) Exploration abilities should be gained via a promotion tree. Scouts & Explorers would start with some level of exploration ability that allows them to bust more fog, heal faster outside of borders, lower maintenance costs outside of borders &-at higher levels-faster movement rates on difficult terrain (forests, jungles, tundra, hills & swamp). However, all units would be able to gain these promotions with XP.

(6) There should be a Great Explorer Unit-primary ability would be to merge with a city & automatically give exploration promotion to any unit built in that city. Unit would otherwise be a mega fog-buster .

These ideas seem quite reasonable too.

I thought point number 4 had already been implemented though.

 

[Ahriman]

(1) Military units cannot enter desert, jungle, swamp or tundra hexes outside of their cultural borders.

In the early game, this is potentially fine, but from the midgame to lategame, this breaks warfare. No military units in deserts? So, no crusader warfare in desert terrain? North African WW2 campaign? No Lawrence of Arabia?
Its just too restrictive.

I'd have no problem with military units being able to enter certain terrain types be something enabled by techs - like trading over terrain types is in Civ4. That would be something nice for modders too.

Non-exploration units should not be able to heal outside enemy territory (or should heal significantly slower) unless they can trace an unbroken path back to their cultural border or some other "supply point" (an occupied fort or city-or another unit with the appropriate promotion).

I think you mean inside enemy territory. I have no problem with slower healing rates in enemy territory, but we have this already. I strongly dislike supply requirements, but this has been discussed to death already.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmm, maybe I should clarify the first point-obviously the restriction on moving into desert & jungle hexes wouldn't apply if (a) the unit can follow rivers through said hexes, (b) can follow pre-existing roads through said hexes or (c) has a promotion that allows them to ignore the prohibition. Obviously, certain later-game techs might allow you to get one or more of these promotions when you build a unit, & certain units might have the promotion built in (like the Camel Archer & deserts, for example).
Anyway, hope that clears things up.

Aussie.

 

[Perfxion]

How about your number 1 until the tech Calendar. Since most went by the moon and sun, it helped with directions. Then number 4 kicks in big time. Another idea is that non explorers/scouts can not keep the map updated for more than x turns(5 on quick, 10 on normal, 15 on epic, and 20 on marathon speed).

 

[Ahriman]

bviously, certain later-game techs might allow you to get one or more of these promotions when you build a unit, & certain units might have the promotion built in (like the Camel Archer & deserts, for example).
Anyway, hope that clears things up.

It still doesn't really work. It would be very hard to get the AI to intelligently select when to spend a promotion slot on such a promotion. It would be easy to get it to waste it.
Or worse, if some of their units got the promotion and others didn't, they might send off an invasion with only the half their army that can cross the desert, and thus allow their military forces to be destroyed piecemeal.

How about your number 1 until the tech Calendar.

This sounds fine to me.

Use this to restrict exploration in the early game, don't use it to totally redefine how warfare works.

If you want to model difficult of military operation in harsh environments, then give those environments high movement cost (always seemed weird to me that deserts were 1) and a negative terrain defensive value (so units in swamps are more vulnerable to being attacked).

 

[LDiCesare]

In the early game, this is potentially fine, but from the midgame to lategame, this breaks warfare. No military units in deserts? So, no crusader warfare in desert terrain? North African WW2 campaign? No Lawrence of Arabia?
Its just too restrictive.

Rather than promotions, removing the restriction when certain techs are researched (not necessarily a single tech) would make it easier to handle by the ai (look at how many tiles of type XXX are known in order to prioritise the research of these techs). Lawrence of Arabia, though, is a twisted example of (1): Arabs were able to attack through the desert, while Ottomans were not. Although Ottomans were inside their cultural borders in Arabia at the time and Arabia wasn't an independent state...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ahriman, why don't you ever read *everything* I say-rather than just cherry-picking so you can unfairly attack my ideas? Yes I said you could overcome terrain restrictions with promotions, but I also strongly suggested that these promotions would become automatic after a certain tech was researched. However, by tying it into a promotion, it allows players & AI alike to make their military units able to better exploit territory they know they're going to be dealing with on a regular basis. My idea also has sufficient loop-holes (rivers & enemy roads) to allow conflict within otherwise restricted terrain to still continue. Also, I'm curious how you *make* the AI waste a promotion slot? Last time I checked it was difficult-if not impossible-to *make* the AI do anything.

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Also remember this-in CivV, your units will last a great deal longer than they have in previous Civ games (now that fights are no longer automatically to the death), this means that the chances of having units able to have a large number of promotions-by mid to late game-will be much, much higher than in previous Civ games. So I really don't see how my ideas would "break" later-game combat given what we know about CivV.

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

but I also strongly suggested that these promotions would become automatic after a certain tech was researched.

Where?

You said:

Obviously, certain later-game techs might allow you to get one or more of these promotions when you build a unit

"Automatic" or "free" not included.

You might have meant that in your head, but you didn't say it. Please don't complain when others read only what you write, not what you meant to write.

Its much cleaner to just have the tech allow military units to enter such a terrain (like how a Civ4 techs allow you to trade over terrain types), rather than have a tech give free promotions to units.

Also, I'm curious how you *make* the AI waste a promotion slot?

Because either:
a) the AI will never spend a promotion slot on such a promotion, in which case you've created a mechanic the AI is able to use OR
b) the AI will sometimes spend a promotion slot on such a promotion, but realistically the AI is never going to be as good at a human player at planning on when such promotions are needed, and so some of those promotions will be wasted.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Thats a total load of nonsense, Ahriman. Giving the AI more strategic choices is not *making* the AI do anything! We're being told how the AI will be able to adjust its overall game strategy, based on its surrounding terrain, yet you reckon an AI will select a promotion that they don't need & will never use. In my CivIV games, I never encountered an AI unit that didn't have promotions suited to the goal the unit was being used for. Many is a time I faced off against a barbarian city on a hill, that contained archers which possessed both city defense & Hill Defense promotions-making said city almost impossible to take without massive sacrifice on my part. So why are you always assuming an incredibly dumb AI?
The point is that you keep claiming that my idea will "break" late-game warfare, when it is abundantly obvious that it will do no such thing-given the number of work-arounds that exist. Why is it so horrible to you that military units should not have unfettered access to *all* sorts of terrain, without having to pay a price in order to do so? Could it simply be that denying you that opportunity might make the game too hard for you? If so, then it sounds like this is a recurring theme-"don't make any changes to the game which will make the game harder for Ahriman to win". As a game-design philosophy, that makes even less sense than "increasing realism".

 

[Thyrwyn]

@Ahriman: I know that the "AI will not be able to handle this" is a favorite mantra of yours - and in may cases I agree with you. I do prefer the phrasing "It would be difficult to get the AI to handle this".

I will tell you one reason I am big fan of more severe terrain penalties and using promotions to overcome or mitigate them: it gives some semblance of a "home field advantage". A civ that grows up in the desert, more of its troops will be "equipped" to fight in the desert; a civ that grew up in the jungle would be better able to fight in the jungle (and I would distinguish between jungle and forest for these purposes). I also feel this is a better solution than UUs that have terrain benefits - on random maps they often make no sense or become irrelevant.

As for the AI, I do think that the multi-tiered AI could be used to solve many of the traditional AI weaknesses. Let the "strategic AI" choose the promotions based on overall needs for the unit; the "tactical AI" decides how they should be used (based on their current capabilities).

 

[Thormodr]

@Ahriman: I know that the "AI will not be able to handle this" is a favorite mantra of yours - and in may cases I agree with you. I do prefer the phrasing "It would be difficult to get the AI to handle this".

I will tell you one reason I am big fan of more severe terrain penalties and using promotions to overcome or mitigate them: it gives some semblance of a "home field advantage". A civ that grows up in the desert, more of its troops will be "equipped" to fight in the desert; a civ that grew up in the jungle would be better able to fight in the jungle (and I would distinguish between jungle and forest for these purposes). I also feel this is a better solution than UUs that have terrain benefits - on random maps they often make no sense or become irrelevant.

As for the AI, I do think that the multi-tiered AI could be used to solve many of the traditional AI weaknesses. Let the "strategic AI" choose the promotions based on overall needs for the unit; the "tactical AI" decides how they should be used (based on their current capabilities).

Good point. Starting next to a lot of desert or jungle is usually a big negative as they aren't usually very productive. Giving the AI the opportunity to at least gain a significant advantage militarily in this terrain would mitigate this somewhat. That and it would be pretty realistic.

 

[Craxymaxy]

Thats a total load of nonsense, Ahriman. Giving the AI more strategic choices is not *making* the AI do anything! We're being told how the AI will be able to adjust its overall game strategy, based on its surrounding terrain, yet you reckon an AI will select a promotion that they don't need & will never use. In my CivIV games, I never encountered an AI unit that didn't have promotions suited to the goal the unit was being used for. Many is a time I faced off against a barbarian city on a hill, that contained archers which possessed both city defense & Hill Defense promotions-making said city almost impossible to take without massive sacrifice on my part. So why are you always assuming an incredibly dumb AI?
The point is that you keep claiming that my idea will "break" late-game warfare, when it is abundantly obvious that it will do no such thing-given the number of work-arounds that exist. Why is it so horrible to you that military units should not have unfettered access to *all* sorts of terrain, without having to pay a price in order to do so? Could it simply be that denying you that opportunity might make the game too hard for you? If so, then it sounds like this is a recurring theme-"don't make any changes to the game which will make the game harder for Ahriman to win". As a game-design philosophy, that makes even less sense than "increasing realism".

This is a little incendiary,

Would you propose making it a promotion for bouts boats to go in the ocean? I wouldn't... I think the best representation of the home field advantage is having units better at fighting in specific types of terrain, but as far as access to terrain, I think it should either be a technology that gives blanket access or possibly a promotion that you could get for free with a building in a city.

(personally i'm for the former)

 

[Ahriman]

In my CivIV games, I never encountered an AI unit that didn't have promotions suited to the goal the unit was being used for. Many is a time I faced off against a barbarian city on a hill, that contained archers which possessed both city defense & Hill Defense promotions-making said city almost impossible to take without massive sacrifice on my part. So why are you always assuming an incredibly dumb AI?

Its relatively easy to get the AI to use promotions that give strength bonuses in a particular very common terrain (forest and hills), because the AI pathfinding looks at terrain defenses. Guerilla is particularly easy to use because they just put it on city defenders that never have to move.
[Though; you've never seen a guerilla-promoted unit that wasn't on a hill tile? Seriously?

It is much harder to get the AI to intelligently choose how many and which units it will give a promotion to that will allow it to enter a rare terrain type, and to integrate that with the overall AI movement system.

A civ that grows up in the desert, more of its troops will be "equipped" to fight in the desert; a civ that grew up in the jungle would be better able to fight in the jungle (and I would distinguish between jungle and forest for these purposes).

This would be very complicated to implement. How, exactly, do you defing "grew up in a jungle" or "grew up in a desert"? Some weird formula based on the number of desert or jungle tiles near the Civ's start location?
And there's a magic threshold; start with 4 jungle tiles, nothing, but start with 5 jungle tiles, and every unit you build for the rest of the game starts with an extra promotion that makes them better in jungle?

 

[Thyrwyn]

read my post: that is why I favor promotions. Not predetermined or determined by some "weird formula", but chosen.

 

[Ahriman]

read my post: that is why I favor promotions. Not predetermined or determined by some "weird formula", but chosen.

That isn't what

a civ that grew up in the jungle would be better able to fight in the jungle (and I would distinguish between jungle and forest for these purposes).

made it sound like.

So either we're talking about:
a) A world where there are promotions that are required to enter bad terrain. In which case a combat bonus there is irrelevant, because only units with the promotion can ever go there.
or
b) A world where there are promotions that give strength in particular terrain, just like in Civ4. We have this already, I have no problem with it. But anyone can get these promotions, and so this is in no means a mitigating factor for civs that start in bad terrain.

Its unclear to me which you're talking about.