New Transport Concepts

[sir_schwick]

In almost all regards Civ assumes most logistics are handled automatically. Transport is one of the few places it does not. Here is a couple concepts, not necessarily dependant on one another, for how transport can be made less a hassle and more fun.

1) Sea Transport - Currently, to be the most efficient, the player must try to match up transport capacity with unit production. Also, you need a ton of transports to get units from wherever you need them now and where you need them later. Now there would be two types of sea transport. a) general transport - when units use these, they are created as the unit goes out ot sea. They add 1 gpt cost to the unit maintenance while the unit is in transit and disappear when transit is done. They tend to be extremely vulnerable without escourt and are not appropriate for combat situations. b) assault transport - when you build these, they go into a general pool. Each transport is cheap, maybe 10-20 shields per transpot and cost 1gpt. Each one trasnports one units. THese allow amphibious landings and are generally strong enough to head into combat zones, provided some escourt. Whenever a unit needs to use one, its pulled from the pool and goes bakc into the pool whenever it is done.

2) Plane Transport - a) airports - transit between airports is 1g per transfer for the first transport and 2g for every one after that. b) combat transports - these are created and pooled like assault assault transports for sea transit. Each one can transport any kind of unit, heavy or foot or artillery, to an airfield or city under contested skies.

3) Helicopters - Helicopters are created and deployed like now. However, trasnport helicopters can take out or egress infantry and artillery.

4) Land Transport - Whenever the technology is appropriate you can pool and create motorized transit for infantry and artilley. Any units who utilize motorized transport cannot attack and gain no defensive bonus from terrain. It mostly helps them keep up with the tanks.

 

[dh_epic]

Where are these general / assault transports produced? How are they produced? I'm not sure I grasp the difference between your model and the old model, except this "temporary" thing. I'm a little confused, but think you're touching on an interesting area. I'm just a slow learner

 

[sir_schwick]

Suppose assault transports are produced in any city(or even ports if you want to be picky). They cost 20 shields a piece. Each one transports a single unit. They are not stored in any particular location until you need them. Lets use WWII as an example. The US needs to send over lots of troops. Normally you would have to hope you produced enough transports and wait for them to cross the ocean and come back.

Now you would be able to take them to England on general transports. Since these are not combat quality, they simply are merchant vessels converted for troop transport. Thus you just pay an extra 1gpt per unit until they reach England.

Now, for some gold, you got them across the ocean to a staging point. Now they need to complete OVERLORD. Luckily you had been producing assault transports back in the states. You have a total fleet of 20 of them. 20 units can 'conjure' them and board them in England and back an amphibious landing. The assault transports are units, but they are not tied to a physical locaiton until they are needed. Once the units have landed and a beachhead is formed, the general transports can be used to get the rest of the troops to France. The assault transports go back into storage until they are needed on the opposite side of the world in the pacific and 'conjured' up there.

 

[norwegianviking]

I like it, I mostly agree with the land transports, we need these.

 

[sir_schwick]

There could still be 'armoured cavalry', as the new generation of lighter support vehicles are known. They would be truly mechanized with 3 movement, but this would allow for having mostly infantry but still keep up.

 

[dh_epic]

Why would you build a temporary transport instead of a recycleable transport that can handle multiple units? Or did I miss the point?

 

[sir_schwick]

because you would still be paying maintenance for the assault craft. Also, they cost shields while merchant vessels only cost gold during the transit, not all the time. Modern and large nations will probably do eveyrhting with assault craft while earlier ones might do routine transfers with merchant vessels and wars with assault craft.

 

[dh_epic]

Hmm, it seems like a nice touch then, but for all it does to simplify transport it also makes it complicated just the same, so no net effect. Especially when a city can pump out a temporary transport, at best, once per turn. You're probably better off paying the extra cash to have a transport that can support 5 units, and that will last beyond one trip.

 

[sir_schwick]

its simple in the sense you always have some form of transport avaliable and you don't have to plan 20 turns ahead where you trasnports need to be.

 

[sealman]

Planning is all part of the game. So I tend to favor the original system. However, since the AI can not handle amphibious assults to well under this system, some changes need to be put into effect, a temp. transport ship may be an answer.

 

[sir_schwick]

I just favour this system because civilization has not yet required you to consider logistics for anything else. Transportation is part of logistics. What the assault and merchant transports would be would advance with time of course. Either they need to incorporate logistics across the board or simplify them across the board. I agree planning is part of the game, but the planning is building up the amphibious assault force, not tediously positioning it.

 

[rhialto]

That seems a bit complicated, building virtual units and stuff. How about this one instead...

I call it the rapid transit network. Basically, rail depots (city improvement, no rail on terrain now), airports, and harbours act as transport nodes. For a small fee in gold, a unit can travel between any two cities that have these nodes. Naturally, there are some limitations, mostly common sense ones.

• Both cities must have the same kiind of node (both have airportds, or both have rail depots, or both have harbours)
• Airports cost the most to use, harbours cost the least to use. The price may also be modified by the mass of the units, tanks cost more, commandoes less.
• Using a RTN node ends the unit's move for that turn.
• RTN nodes can only be used between your own cities.
• Enemy units impose a civ2 style zoc against any RTN move, and by careful positioning may be used to block reinforcements. Alternate option: you get a warning popup and a choice whether to risk the unit by charging through the blockade.
• For harbours, there is a range limit of [N] tiles, with N increasing as navigation technology improves. Note that the range limit is counted only for non-land tiles - it must be a path traceable by a ship. Harbour RTNs would be especially useful on island maps.
• For rail depots, both cities must be connected by road/highway, abstracting the rail infrastructure. Again, a range limit may be imposed, increasing with relevant techs. The range limit must follow only tiles where a road (or better) has been built.
• For airports, there may be a range limit again, but there is no restriction on which tiles can be considered.

 

[dh_epic]

Rhialto,

Now THERE'S an interesting idea.

Same great strategy... less micromanagement.

 

[sir_schwick]

actually here is how my system works. You walk a unit into the sea, a merchant ship transports it as it 'walks' across teh water. If you want to use an assault transport, you hit a hotkey adn that replaces the merchant ship. Once you the troops the assault transport goes back into the pool.

 

[dh_epic]

Ahh, I think I like that better. And it dodges some of the micromanagement involved in building these temporary transports.

I'm cool with either model, though -- Rhialto has an interesting proposition on movement "jumps". And you have an interesting proposition on sea transport without building a ship. Both are solid.

 

[sir_schwick]

actually, in my model, you do have to build military grade transports, but managing that number is much easier than trying to fit yoru army in increments of 8 or 4. I like Rhialto's model for roads, airports, and RRs.

 

[stormbind]

How about, no more transport-only units, but more units that double as transports?

For example: Frigates and Mech.Infantry could have a small transport capacity, and a Carrier could have a larger transport capacity.

 

[Deathgoroth]

Why not get rid of the transport units altogether? Let scientific discovery determine how fast and far you can let your units travel at sea. In real life the infantry does not walk across the country on foot nor do they walk along railway tracks. There are no trains in Civ, but we assume they are working there invisibly. Why not assume that boats work the same when travelling at sea?

 

[sir_schwick]

That would be the ideal solution, like in RoN, but I doubt many of the players here would enjoy the complete abandonment of logistics. I would use your method, but mine is a compromise to the community.

 

[rhialto]

I think my RTN network idea isnt so good for sea movement, but it works quite well for rail and air. My point was to provide a means by which players could simplify logistics for sending units across teh sea. Onre other idea I had a while back was...

Any city can instantly build a civilian version of the military transports for a gold cost (ie no shields). These transports are slightly slower, slightly less defence, zero attack, and can only load/unload directly into a friendly city. If you want to do a seabourne invasion, or want top-end sea transports, you still build them normally.