Land Transports

[eightiesboi]

Land Transports are optional units that hold most other land units (with exceptions for siege weapons and tanks). They provide advantages and disadvantages for utilizing them, although the advantages should slightly outweigh the disadvantages to account for the cost of creating the unit. Like most other units, they do not disappear when used (as settlers do). Land Transports may offer increased defense, increase movement, or both. On the downside, if a Land Transport is destroyed, any units contained within it are also destroyed. Also, although Land Transports may offer protection to the units within, they can only defend and cannot be used offensively. Finally, like Water Transports, exiting a Land Transport takes all of a unit’s movement for a turn; however, some Land Transports may allow units to attack from within them (like amphibious attacks) at a penalty unless the attacking unit has experience attacking from within a transport (like the “amphibious” promotion).

Examples of Land Transports (obviously, these are meant to be illustrative only and have not been balanced or playtested):

• Wagon – Moves two squares (same as settler). Holds two units. Relatively cheap. Provides minor defense with bonuses against animals and barbarians. (Wagons can be used to send a defender (like a warrior or archer) along with a settler at the same pace as the settler. They also allow some protection for unescorted settlers. For purely military units, this allows units with only one movement to get from point A to B more rapidly, although this feature should be used with caution outside cultural borders or around enemy units, as most military units have better defense (and thus are more vulnerable inside the wagon than on their own).

• Humvee – Moves two squares, with movement bonuses on roads, unforested / unjungled plains, grasslands, and hills, and deserts (although movement is still slower in enemy territory). Moderate defense. Carries three units. (Humvees allow slower military units like infantry to keep up with tanks and the like.)

• Armored Personnel Carriers – Moves two squares, ignores terrain penalties (due to treads), and provides good defense for three units. (APCs can be used to get reserve troops through contested territory safely, or withdraw wounded troops.

Some civilizations may have “special” Land Transports:

Trojan Horse: Moves one square, but can use enemy roads (commando). Minor defense. Carries two units. Units can attack from within it. Can explore rival territory without open borders. If it is within a rival civilization’s borders, and its owner declares war on that rival civilization, it does *not* get moved outside those borders (nor do the units contained within). Can only have one built at any time.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Humvees and APCs are adequately represented by Mech Infantry (realistically, Mech Infantry should have an infantryman sticking his head out of the top of the tank...something that's always bugged me), and that's all I have to say about that.

 

[eightiesboi]

Humvees and APCs are adequately represented by Mech Infantry (realistically, Mech Infantry should have an infantryman sticking his head out of the top of the tank...something that's always bugged me), and that's all I have to say about that.

Well, no. Mechanized Infantry is (are?) an attack unit its own right. What I am suggesting is a unit that carries other units. You may disagree with me on whether it would enhance the game, of course, but please note that I am neither proposing a new attack unit nor a replacement for an existing unit. In fact, once you have mechanized infantry, the need for a land transport diminishes (artillery and tanks don't use it).

 

[Takhisis]

You can always use a truck and stuff the back with infantrymen.

 

[eightiesboi]

You can always use a truck and stuff the back with infantrymen.

Or a Volkswagen Bug...

 

[Takhisis]

Actually, land transports would be great for simulating battering rams and mantelets is specific campaign maps.

 

[hewhoknowsall]

I agree, land transports would be cool.

 

[moscaverde]

Land transport units would be great for scenarios, but for the main game I believe they don't fit the scale. Maybe a promotion or make them 'attachable' to units.

 

[Gangor]

Make the Mobility promo available for any unit with only 1 move after the discovery of automobile.

 

[trickofthehand]

I agree with OP. Land transports are direly needed in civ. One possibility is to simply have each unit (with the exception of mechanized units) switch to a 'transit' mode, where they take on increased movement speed at the cost of reduced combat stats. In today's world ALL military assets move at the same speed, which is usually the max safest speed of it's lead elements (usually heavy armor).

Mechanized infantry cannot fulfill the roles of Marines or Paratroopers, therefore Marines and Paratroopers need some way of keeping up with the push.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm pretty sure that it is assumed that land units have transportation as part of their 'unit'. That's why they are able to move faster on roads and railways; they have the transport to do so already.

I see no need to change this.

 

[trickofthehand]

I'm pretty sure that it is assumed that land units have transportation as part of their 'unit'. That's why they are able to move faster on roads and railways; they have the transport to do so already.

I see no need to change this.

A Warrior built at 4000 BC does not get a movement increase even if you've researched Horseback Riding, which would be the only thing that would make a Warrior unit move faster than being on foot. Care to explain why then a Marine and Warrior (built pre-Horseback or post-Horseback) both share a movement score of 1? Conversely, why is a Warrior in the Stone age able to move the same amount of squares on a road as a Marine in the Modern age? This is without taking into account the Engineering tech which lies between the two and adds +1 movement on roads for ALL units.

No it's not assumed that the transportation is part of their movement speed, otherwise it would make no sense for Marines to have the same movement score as Warriors. Movement speed is simply a general game mechanic, which is why Armor and Mech Infantry share the same speed as Horseback Archers and Chariots. As both Iraq Wars have taught us, modern armies are able to move exponentially faster than ever before. For some reason the Devs decided that units should be restricted to 1, 2 or 4 (in the case of gunships) movement squares, no matter the age or technology level.

Just because it's a generalized game mechanic doesn't make it right.

 

[Camikaze]

A Marine, however, can move further than a Warrior, because it typically has access to railways rather than roads, or nothing. It is by no way a perfect system, but it doesn't need to be. It only needs to be sufficient. And it is. The system of roads and railways and their multiplication of movement points sufficiently represents increased movements for later units, and transport for all land units.

 

[Tee Kay]

Maybe all units should get an increase in movement (+2 on roads, +1 on other terrains?) after you discover the tech "automobile". IMO actual land transport units are unnecessary.

 

[trickofthehand]

A Marine, however, can move further than a Warrior, because it typically has access to railways rather than roads, or nothing. It is by no way a perfect system, but it doesn't need to be. It only needs to be sufficient. And it is. The system of roads and railways and their multiplication of movement points sufficiently represents increased movements for later units, and transport for all land units.

Your logic is severely flawed in this case. By your thinking, the Marine's movement speed of 1 is represented by his access to superhighways and railroads. The problem is that when you move him off a road or railway, his movement speed is the exact same as any early tech unit. Conversely, if you move any early tech unit from another civ onto your roads they can move the exact same distance as your unit (on rails it would make sense since they can contract your trains out, but on roads what is supposed to be happening, you're leasing out a fleet of Ford Tauruses to your low-tech ally's Longbowmen?)

The flaw with your thinking is that non-mechanized modern units are still limited to 1 movement speed in off-road terrain. Now I understand that it doesn't matter how advanced a civilization is, men can still only move so far on foot. The problem is that when you are able to build Marines and Paratroopers you've officialy reached the age of Mechanized and Motorized warfare. NO modern army has infantry units that move on foot from point A to point B. The german blitzkrieg in WW2 and 2 Iraq invasions have shown us that.

Now the only argument in your defense for off-road movement speeds is that "off-road terrain is rough terrain and thus harder to cross for all units". This is also flawed in many ways. Firstly, mechanized infantry, armor, self-propelled artillery and SAM trucks ALL move at the SAME speed across off-road terrain. There is absolutely no reason why Marine's trucks/humvees couldn't keep up with any of those vehicles in off-road terrain (I can personally guarantee you humvees can). Furthermore if you want to argue that non-treaded vehicles should be slower than treaded vehicles in off-road terrain I would agree with you, and immediately demand that Firaxis change the SAM truck's movement speed to 1.

Thirdly, mechanized units in modern age share the SAME movement speed as horse units in the classical age, even off-road. Your logic fails to explain that. There is no technology that can make horses keep up with mechanized infantry (except to stick them INSIDE mechanized infantry ), and it is a law of reality that modern mechanized units can cover exponentially more ground than any horse. Again I would point out the german blitzkrieg and both iraq invasions as examples.

The fact of the matter is that it's impossible to justify the 1 movement speed of non-mechanized, non-horse units in the modern or any other age. Any attempt to try and explain that in a realistic way fails completely. It is simply a PURPOSEFUL mechanic of the game. All units are simply limited to 1 or 2 movement speeds, regardless of using tanks or horses, because the Devs feel that it is necessary for game balance. They did not do this for realism's sake.

There are many instances where having marines keep up with your other units would be very useful. Just like having infantry keep up with tanks before mechanized infantry, and artillery keep up with a push before self-propelled artillery. Guess what they did in the real world for all those scenarios? Load them up on trucks.

 

[trickofthehand]

While I don't necessarily think a land transport unit is necessary, since it would defeat the purpose of building Mechanized Infantry, I think that a 'transit mode' would be a good addition. A transit mode would allow infantry to sacrifice combat capability by packing up into trucks but allow them to keep up with a pre-modern tank push. In modern age it would let your paratroopers and marines do the same thing.

I'm not sure that this would be a good idea for any units earlier than Combustion, since historically all those units walked on foot. It's not realistic to have an army carry around a few thousand horses and wagons (other than for supplies). However it's perfectly reasonable that infantry and marines would have access to motorized transport.

One thing I would like to see however is helicopter transports. There's been plenty of times that a helicopter transport would've saved me a GREAT deal of trouble, such as attacking a 2 square island 1 square off the coast or flanking an enemy position to take out weakend units. Heli transports have revolutionized modern warfare.

 

[moscaverde]

About the warrior versus marine movement: remember that, although the two have 1 movement point, the turns in the warrior era are equivalent to many more years than the marine era.

 

[trickofthehand]

I understand that and it's a good point, however it doesn't change the fact that in the modern era it's perfectly possible to have a mix of modern and pre-gunpower units from less tech civs. Still they share the exact same movement speed.

Regardless, as I mentioned before, no modern army has it's soldiers move on foot from city to city. Thus there's no reason marines shouldn't have the ability to keep up with mech infantry and modern armor.

 

[moscaverde]

Certainly, the unit movement is a big problem in civilization (all of them). It's one more thing that have a scale problem, but land transport is not the correct solution IMHO.

 

[Tholish]

I believe land transport is reprsented by routes. With the advent of the railroad, armies started moving by rail and walking only when the tracks ran out. This is represented by increased movement on the railroad. Using trains involves lots of uploading and downloading and they don't actually go that much faster than a horse on average. The train is not shown graphically--the vehicle is assumed to be part of the route. Old roads also include wagons, carrying goods for example, and they are not shown. Thus, until WW2, railroad movement represents land transport decently. However, following this resoning of undepicted vehicles, there should be a separate route for modern roads. The railroad is in fact not the pinnacle, and roads populated with cars and trucks are in fact a different animal from roads populated with wagons and carts.

Land transort would be a scale problem of a different kind, putting a tactical distinction in a strategic activity (civ movement). Movement of units by sea transport is a strategic act. Dismounting of infantry from a truck is a tactical act. A graphical change might be nice. It could be done where an Infantry turns into a truck when moving on a road. The kf would simply have to rotate the infantry model to a truck model attached to it.

I'm not really plugging my mod, so much (its not perfect by far) but it is tied up with my thinking about civ, and this is what I did. I have a dirt road Route that just taps resources. It is assumed to be populated with two wheeled ox drawn carts being pulled through muddy ruts. No movement increase, just the bonuses (and also some yield changes to imps, since I think imps would be useless unless connected to a city by road). Next there's the paved road, assumed to be wider, less crowded, less muddy. It does the above, but also doubles movement. Next is the railroad, which triples movement. Finally, there is the modern highway, which functions much like a standard railroad, requires combustion and some kind of fuel, and is assumed to be populated with trucks and cars.