I'm not "opposed" to the new transport system. We're just talking about it. I've said multiple times that we won't know how well it works until we see the game.
More info from an E3 demo
- Thread starter mjs0
- Start date
duckofspades
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 118
I was thinking more about the landing craft thing at work. My last idea sucks! What if they gave every unit a diffuculty value for landing outside a port or loading. Plus gave every terrian a difficulty value as well.
Units with heavy equpiment would get a bigger value then say a warrior. Also landing on plans or grassland would be very easy. Mountains hills would get a big diffuculty. Anyways add the terrian and unit value toghter when landing. Then asign damage or a gold cost. To represent loss of strength or extra logistics for the landing. Of course Marines would get to land on any tile with no penality and all units could land in ports with none as well.
So everyone could still land everywhere but a port would be the ultimate goal.
Units with heavy equpiment would get a bigger value then say a warrior. Also landing on plans or grassland would be very easy. Mountains hills would get a big diffuculty. Anyways add the terrian and unit value toghter when landing. Then asign damage or a gold cost. To represent loss of strength or extra logistics for the landing. Of course Marines would get to land on any tile with no penality and all units could land in ports with none as well.
So everyone could still land everywhere but a port would be the ultimate goal.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
Do you believe we should have similar restrictions on loading transports in Civ IV? Why is this suddenly an issue for Civ V? Has there ever been a mod which implemented such restrictions? I can't remember this ever being an issue before.
duckofspades
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 118
It's not that its suddenly a issue, well not for me all that much. But other post did get me thinking about it. It would be neat if unloading at a port was somehow more effective then unloading onto the coast.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
I like the idea of making ports more useful...how about treating them the way Civ IV treats airports: each turn each city with a "harbor" can "sealift" one unit to another city to which it is connected by sea/ocean?
duckofspades
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 118
I like that idea. It adds to the game without being needlesly complex. Makes for sacking a enemy port more important, when invading.
Or the advantage to landing troops at a port city instead of a beach could be the same as it is currently in Civ IV: the troops can immediately move inland, instead of ending their turn on the beach.
duckofspades
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 118
Ohh Ya, I forgot about that
AljayBoy
Warlord
Here is *solid* justification why I am concerned about (not "hate") this new feature: It is an oversimplification of the action of transporting units from one landmass to another.
I'm all for the reduction of micromanagement, but believe this is a step too far. As I stated previously, I hope I am wrong, and that it is either implemented in a way to negate the oversimplification, or that every other feature of Civ 5 makes up for this shortfall.
Example 1: A Civ 4 invasion would broadly involve the following 7 steps: Build unit; build transport; move unit to coast; move transport adjacent to unit at coast; load unit onto transport; traverse ocean/sea/lake; unload unit on other landmass.
A Civ 5 invasion would involve the following 5 steps (based on what we know so far): Build unit; move unit to coast; turn into transport; traverse ocean/sea/lake; turn into unit on other landmass.
So this is been simplified from 7 - 5 steps, not huge when viewed on its own, but that isn't the only effect of this change. The lack of these steps have a big impact on strategy and tactics. From now on, one nation cannot intercept enemy transports before they set off to invade. You will no longer keep an empire with a larger or more advanced army locked within their own borders by destroying the transports before they are loaded.
Example 2: Any nation with a large army automatically has a large navy to transport this army. Fact. This means that a civ that has never built a ship in any of its cities can still launch an invasion on another continent - yes it will be poorly defended but, as others are so quick to point out, units are not always killed automatically, so an invasion can still take place. They can even march to the other end of the continent knowing that their transports will be waiting for them at the other end, unable to be found by anyone else. Or alternatively, the invaders have carried the parts and equipment to make the transports with them over land and can rebuild them at the other end. Neither of which is possible or remotely realistic.
It is also worth mentioning I am basing my unease on past experience with this feature from Rise of Nations, so I am not just venting with no basis, or reacting to something new because I do not like change.
duckofspades
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 118
Well not being able to stick a battleship on top of every transport will make protecting you transports more difficult. However no longer having to mass transports in prep for the invasion is unrealistic.
The last game of civ 4 I played, I had a army set for the invasion of England. While the transport were in route to meet the army, the computer declared war and sank all my transports. The escorts were waiting near the army. As I was at peace. Anywho bad call and my part, but this couldn't happen in civ 5.
So what if you had to spend gold to invest in your transport pool. When making a unit into a transport it took points out of the pool. Posibley the farther the unit from a port the more the points cost? Their has to be a middle ground somewhere for this.
The last game of civ 4 I played, I had a army set for the invasion of England. While the transport were in route to meet the army, the computer declared war and sank all my transports. The escorts were waiting near the army. As I was at peace. Anywho bad call and my part, but this couldn't happen in civ 5.
So what if you had to spend gold to invest in your transport pool. When making a unit into a transport it took points out of the pool. Posibley the farther the unit from a port the more the points cost? Their has to be a middle ground somewhere for this.
Gre_Magus
Manet
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 273
I wish I could remember where I read this, but I can't. In any event, I remember reading (or hearing in an interview) an RTS's developer's thoughts on the Rise of Nations feature of "eliminating the tedium of building transports" and just have units turn into transports when they got to the shore. He said that it seemed like a great idea in theory, but in practice it actually eliminated the major specificity of water-terrain - that it is a barrier to normal movement. With "auto-transport", instead of something fundamentally different, the ocean became just blue-colored ground. Sure, land units are defenseless as they cross the ocean or sea, which is different from how they are on the land, but they have the same freedom of movement in both media.
Now this is obviously an oversimplification of the problem, but I think it's worth taking seriously, and I hope the Firaxis team has taken it seriously as well. This feature fundamentally changes the role of water in the game.
In a sense, it will make the sea and naval battle more important. Because the barrier-of-entry (pun intended) for sea transport is so low, you can be sure that it will happen more often than it did in previous Civ games. And I imagine that it will be easier for the AI to handle too - instead of having to plan ahead and build the right number of transports (something it never seemed to figure out), the AI just has to move its navy into position and then march its army into the sea. I think this is one of the reasons why the developers went with the idea - make navies matter, and not just be another place where the player can exploit fundamental AI weaknesses.
But on the other side, land units just being able to march into the sea will probably also have some unintended consequences - it's like adding flying units to a game. It becomes that much harder to predict where a player is going to move a unit. I don't know exactly how it's going to be play out - could be great, could be a disaster. But either way, this change is at least as significant as one-unit-per-hex, so I just hope it has been well-thought-out. I don't think it's fair to argue that it's "clearly superior" to previous Civs' transport model. It's just different.
Now this is obviously an oversimplification of the problem, but I think it's worth taking seriously, and I hope the Firaxis team has taken it seriously as well. This feature fundamentally changes the role of water in the game.
In a sense, it will make the sea and naval battle more important. Because the barrier-of-entry (pun intended) for sea transport is so low, you can be sure that it will happen more often than it did in previous Civ games. And I imagine that it will be easier for the AI to handle too - instead of having to plan ahead and build the right number of transports (something it never seemed to figure out), the AI just has to move its navy into position and then march its army into the sea. I think this is one of the reasons why the developers went with the idea - make navies matter, and not just be another place where the player can exploit fundamental AI weaknesses.
But on the other side, land units just being able to march into the sea will probably also have some unintended consequences - it's like adding flying units to a game. It becomes that much harder to predict where a player is going to move a unit. I don't know exactly how it's going to be play out - could be great, could be a disaster. But either way, this change is at least as significant as one-unit-per-hex, so I just hope it has been well-thought-out. I don't think it's fair to argue that it's "clearly superior" to previous Civs' transport model. It's just different.
You can destroy them afterwards.
The transports will (like it has been said) very week, and don't forget, ships have ranged attacks.
Transports are civil units, so you can stack them with a battleship.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Its superiority lies in the fact that both defender & attacker need to invest in a navy-it can no longer be simply an afterthought.
Also, there are limitations we already know about-namely that units converted to transports lose their attack strength whilst in transit (making them more vulnerable than when on land-& a *lot* more vulnerable than they were in pre-Civ5 transports). We also know that units will require 1 full turn to embark (& possibly to disembark) where they will be vulnerable to both land & sea units. So based on these factors alone, I think its safe to say that the Ocean isn't just like "blue land"-there will be impediments to easy transport across the ocean-namely the need for a decent blue water navy to protect your land forces.
Though we don't know for sure, I'm guessing that port cities & the amphibious promotion will allow for automatic embarkation &/or disembarkation.
What this change is all about, though, is about making both human & AI players more likely to invade via the coast or ocean by eliminating the tedium of constructing transports-an impost not demanding by rail or air transport btw.
Aussie.
vranasm
Deity
sorry to intercept your naval discussion, which was certainly very productive.
But one thing that bothers me (and I didnt find any info yet, or maybe just didn searched enough). When you attack with ranged artilery (archers etc.) in more then 1 range, how the combat will work? The old way (the enemy units fights with you, eventually destroying your art. if it has enough str.) or more to PG series, where your main strategy was doing breakthrough with invincible artilery?
The thing is I would maybe like more the latter, but who knows how could evolve it in CiV series. In PG series it was sometimes too overpowering because AI there wasnt at the top.
But one thing that bothers me (and I didnt find any info yet, or maybe just didn searched enough). When you attack with ranged artilery (archers etc.) in more then 1 range, how the combat will work? The old way (the enemy units fights with you, eventually destroying your art. if it has enough str.) or more to PG series, where your main strategy was doing breakthrough with invincible artilery?
The thing is I would maybe like more the latter, but who knows how could evolve it in CiV series. In PG series it was sometimes too overpowering because AI there wasnt at the top.
Hey, it could be worse.
In Supreme Commander, some ships could grow legs and walk on land.
In Supreme Commander, some ships could grow legs and walk on land.
Walderschmidt
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 22
My only problem with the Civ V way of transporting units across the see, is that it's free. I don't mind not having to build, the transport, but I hate how it's looks to be free to transport units across the see. I mean, there still has to be boats to transport the unit across the sea, but they just have to make it themselves. Make it cost money or oil or production or something.
Or make it so transports that before the age of sail (1700s) can only sail through coastal areas, or make it so they have a chance of sinking in a storm (ships not made by ship makers are poorly made ships).
Wald
Or make it so transports that before the age of sail (1700s) can only sail through coastal areas, or make it so they have a chance of sinking in a storm (ships not made by ship makers are poorly made ships).
Wald
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
I think it is safe to assume that your transports will only be restricted to coastal areas until the appropriate ocean-allowing tech.
And again, why should we have to build ships to transport units when we don't have to build trucks, or trains, or cargo planes to do so? Why should sea transportation be so different?
And again, why should we have to build ships to transport units when we don't have to build trucks, or trains, or cargo planes to do so? Why should sea transportation be so different?
Walderschmidt
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 22
I never liked how you could instantly transport unit from city to city, just because you had an airport in one.
However, at least it was restricted to movement from city to city. So, it was hard to abuse. Plus, you could air lift a limit of three units to a city per turn.
Wald
However, at least it was restricted to movement from city to city. So, it was hard to abuse. Plus, you could air lift a limit of three units to a city per turn.
Wald
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
For trucks we can assume that they are going with the unit.
Cargo planes are implied by the fact that you can fly your troops from one airport to the other.
With ships it seems to be different:
You are changing the level of movement (from land to sea), yet you don't have to do anything for doing it.
The change from land to air transport (after all what we know) requires you to build an airport.
Therefore, free movement across the seas is fine if we are talking about port to port.
It is not fine when we are talking about any random sea-adjacent tile to any other sea-adjacant tile.
If we would accept this, then air transport from any land tile to any other land tile should be fine as well....
