Limiting SoD

[Lennon]

Paratroopers and airborne inf may attack from behind the frontline if you don`t have a rearguard.

Define the exact difference between paratroopers and airborne infantry.

Sorry for nitpicking...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, if its my idea for supply lines, it would be as simple as whether or not units can trace an unbroken line back to a friendly city or 'supply point' (be it a fort/outpost or supply 'dump'!), and whether they are within their operational range! If that line is broken somehow, then the unit is out of supply, and suffers a degeneration in their performance!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[bkwrm79]

Maybe Alpha Centauri style 'splash damage' would be best. That way there are positives and negatives to stacking, forcing you to make tactical choices depending on the circumstances. And it would be pretty simple.

I'm not opposed to supply lines, necessarily, but they'd be hard to implement without complicating the game.

 

[rhialto]

I don't mind pack rock scissors type rules, but only to the extent that it directly reflects history, and it should be a small advantage (max 50%), not the killer decision it is in starcraft.

As for supply lines, I broadly agree with aussie lurker's model, just the small details we differ on. I definitely do not want to set unit formations. I am the zeitgeist of the people, not their field marshal.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I definitely think that actual 'formations' is just a recipe for excessive Micromanagement, wheras a simple supply line and soft 'stack limit' system-along with the suggested unit vs unit TYPE bonuses-adds strategic and tactical value to the combat system, without becoming a major headache or a game-killer. This would be even MORE the case if units that are 'degraded' by their performance, in some way, are indicated as such-either by their colour, an outline or some kind of icon over their image to show the player their status, and could adjust their tactics accordingly!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sirian]

Well, if its my idea for supply lines, it would be as simple as whether or not units can trace an unbroken line back to a friendly city or 'supply point'...

Well, then, let's put this one to rest for keeps. There is no way a game of Civ can support constant pathfinding, especially on larger maps. Think of the pause every time a tile is pillaged. Think of the BIG HULKING NASTY PAUSE when a harbor is destroyed. The slowest parts of Civ3, far and away, are the parts involving long distance pathfinding.

I would expect that Civ4 would try to reduce pathfinding. I can't imagine they would increase it a hundredfold.

Your supply lines concept may have some merit on the drawing board, but a feature must be practical to code, as well. This one is about as impractical as they come.

My remarks earlier are directed at caps on number of units in a tile. Since there cannot be supply lines that are being checked and rechecked every time a unit moves, what else is there to "combine" with stack caps? I think this line of suggestions is probably doomed. DH's remarks about rock scissors paper might hold some answers, although that too would face challenges.


- Sirian

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, in that case, I will go back to my fallback position, which is to just make it based on an 'operational range' idea. That is that so long as your unit is within its OPERATIONAL range from friendly territory (be it a city or a fort) then it is fine but should it go beyond that range, then it will find its performance degraded! In this model, outflanking would therefore involve capturing the 'supply point' that is acting as friendly territory, or to cut the supply point off from the rest of your friendly territory (in the form of cutting a road or destroying a harbour). This will elminate any real need for pathfinding! With this and soft stacks combined, I think that there is a hope of moving away from the stack of doom approach to combat-which I still say is simply not FUN, as it relies on sheer weight of numbers, and no tactical considerations at all! To me, SoD's really remind my of the awful Howie rush which plagued the Civ2 combat system (and which I confess guiltily to having exploited !) only it can take hold so much sooner in the game!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Food]

Whatever system the developers settle for will be criticised. Their best bet is to make war somewhat customizable, perhaps allowing an option for simplified combat at the pre-game preferences screen.

 

[rhialto]

What was the Howie rush?

 

[Sirian]

One problem with "operational range" is that if player can extend range by plopping down a settler somewhere, what good would it really do?

About the only solution I've found to that question would be to give settlers a much shorter leash than military units. Players could not take their unit stacks with settlers to some places. However, all this means is that there would have to be a longer chain of "bases" between the player and his target. What value is added to the game by doing this? All it really seems to add is a bunch of hoops to jump through, useless complications. It might effectively render ancient-era conquest of the entire world impossible, but would that be FUN? Who would bother with much ancient era military? Players would become too secure in the knowledge that they are safe from attack. Especially in Civ4 multiplayer this would probably harm the game balance.

Even in single player, though, we need to think it through with care. It might be fun to prevent complete world conquest in the ancient age, but the game would HAVE TO allow for conquering a neighbor, and if range is loose enough to allow for that, players could "island hop" their way to a complete victory. So what good have we done with range limits?

The original Master of Orion has limited range. It has up sides, but one can lose his entire fleet if the "supply lines" represented by range limits are cut off behind him. This actually makes the SoD phenomenon about TEN TIMES WORSE than it is in Civ. Since one cannot afford to risk significant forces on deep penetration strikes, this dictates that player reach out only to attack from secure bases. This takes every option off the table but for the massive SoD. Is that really where you want Civ to go?

Then there's the water problem. What if continents are separated by more water than the range allows units to travel? What about archipelago maps with lots of small islands? If we allow an exception on the water, for ships to travel any distance, or we allow ships to act as supply posts, that destroys the purpose of messing with range limits in the first place. Doesn't it?

About the only kind of range limits that might bring up-sides without fatal flaws would be range limits that function early but are loosened over time and disappear somewhere along the way. At best, we're talking about taking ancient-era world conquest off the table. This won't help SoD at all.


In a game like Civ, more is better. More money, more units, more cities, more power. What use trying to change the nature of the game? If more is better, then SoD wins, because SoD is the active pursuit of "more military than the other guy".

Any meaningful fix for SoD, which managed to undermine it as the winning military strategy, would change Civ into some other kind of game and probably kill off the entire franchise. After all, the winning move will either be to accumulate the most, or else there will be some arbitrary point where accumulating more starts to hurt instead of help. The former can vary according to the map. Different maps allow different maximums. The latter would be a single flavor that does not vary from game to game, a single formulaic solution that comes out identical no matter what the map is like. This "cure" would be far worse than the disease. What use throwing out the baby with the bath water?

SoD is here to stay.


- Sirian

 

[rhialto]

In the original MoO, if your forces found themselves outside supply range, the computer automatically plotted a course to the hearest friendly system. They were NOT destroyed automatically.

How about having supply represented as a unit stat? A unit starts off with X supply, is replenished at [pop] x Y supply points per turn in a friendly city (preventing the plop down a settler gambit), and loses 1 per turn outside friendly territory. Barracks will allow faster resupply.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, that could work too, but I would be just as happy if you had a system where a unit outside of its 'range' would suffer an x% drop in its Firepower, Morale and Attack/Defense strength for every tile it is out of its 'comfort zone'. If nothing else, this would make paratroopers and other Spec-op units much more useful than their current stats would suggest, as you would have a unit which could work DEEP in enemy territory, commiting acts of sabotage and the like!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

First up Sirrian, I never said it would be an 'all or nothing affair'. A unit outside its range would not DIE, or even lose any HP's initially, they would simply operate much less effectively than normal! Also, how is a settler a solution to the problem in ENEMY territory?? From where I am standing, this would NOT count as 'friendly territory' As for chains of bases-I don't see this as a worthwhile complaint. In war, you HAVE to consider your flank as much as your frontline-yet such considerations have NEVER appeared in civ. If Napolean had been operating in a Civ environment, Europe would today be a pan-French supernation! It was Cossack attacks on his 'supply points' which ultimately destroyed his quest to conquer Russia! As for players thinking they are secure, not likely. A daring opponent can ignore his Op Range and yet still achieve a victory (not to mention those few units which have very high Op Ranges). If he does it enough times, then the defender can find themselves in a pickle VERY fast! Also, isn't it high time we eliminated that whole 'settler/warrior travels to the end of the world' scenario??
I also cannot accept your argument that introducing these two minor changes will change civ soooo radically that the Franchise will die. To be quite honest with you, I heard the same dire predictions made when people were told that 'Infinite City Sleaze' and 'Howitzer Rush' was going to be eliminated (oh, I can still hear the HOWLS of outrage when this was first announced !) and they proved to be wholly inaccurate-I sense the same will be true with this prediction!

Lastly, Sirrian, I have NEVER noticed my computer slowing down during harbour destruction OR pillaging?! Wierd!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sirian]

I heard the same dire predictions made when people were told that 'Infinite City Sleaze' and 'Howitzer Rush' was going to be eliminated

ICS is alive and well in Civ3. Howitzer Rush was replaced with Modern Armor Rush.

I also cannot accept your argument that introducing these two minor changes will change civ soooo radically that the Franchise will die.

That's not what I wrote. Try again.


- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

While I think operational range is a good idea, I don't think it's particularly beneficial for eliminating stacks of doom or making combat more interesting. Operational range would really just be a way of tempering the rapid expansionism at the beginning of the game. Operational range of settlers, in particular, could grow with new technology. (It took a long time to successfully settle North America!)

But the more that I think about it, it's not the stack of doom that sucks. It's really the "build as much of the best unit as you can". The problem with paper rock scissors, of course, is that with 40 units already, to triple it, even merely double it and redistribute would be a lot more complexity to the game. A real pain in the bum.

That's always been a problem in strategy games. My favorite sessions always involve some kind of brilliant maneuver, some kind of surprise or sucker punch -- that I was outsmarted. My least favorite sessions involve being merely overrun by numbers, usually an extension of my opponent monopolizing more valuable resources -- that I was merely outpowered.

In Civ, I don't really get that so much when it comes to war. It's always outpowering, seldom outsmarting.

I don't know if other people feel the same way, though.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I personally support both Soft Stack limits and Operational Ranges which become less strict with time and improved technology!
DH_Epic has really put his finger on the thing that really bothers me with Civ combat as it stands. All it does is reward the guy who not only has the most units, but also the guy who has the most of the best units currently available. Having LOTS of modern armour, and not much else, should NOT guarantee success in war, and operational range would do a lot to help eradicate this problem-how? Well, because of their high maintainance needs, armour would suffer the most from being outside of their operational range. This will, in turn, make Spec ops and infantry units that much more important than they currently are!
I should also point out that Soren has already pointed out that CivIV is going to 'encourage' much greater diversity in force compositions (sic), so I have a feeling that the game WILL make a fairly substantive move away from the current combat model!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sirian]

The biggest obstacle to any sort of operational range is creating a type of basing that doesn't have loopholes wide enough to drive a Mack truck through. Having armor suffer more problems outside of supply range would not only make sense, but might help the game balance. But what about the basing? How can the water problem be solved? How can one system work for both pangaea type maps and archipelagos? The solution would have to be simple and clean. And that's assuming they would even consider it, which they might not do under any circumstances. They certainly won't consider it at all unless it's better than whatever they are already doing, though.

- Sirian

 

[bkwrm79]

Part of the problem of rebalancing is to have both building and maintenance costs vary more widely. Infantry should be cheaper than Tanks or Modern Armor or even Mechanized Infantry - and by enough that you can actually build them faster. True, there's the draft option, but actually building them also needs to be easier. And highly advanced units should cost more to maintain than infantry formations.

That won't solve the problem by itself, but it would help.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think the Stack Limit should actually be pretty small 5 units at the beginning, 10 in modern. This means that heavy mobile troops would have their traditional historical use, breakthroughs. Infantry would be important for keeping territory. Of course I read that group combat will now be part of Civ 4, so this will be even more important.

 

[rhialto]

If you're stacking more than 10 units deep, you almost certainly won't have enough troops to prevent heavy mobile troops from simply going around you. You don't need a stack limit to force this issue.