Occupying a Civilization

[exhile]

this should not be the case. it should be simple, yet enhancing gameplay sort of thing.

I'm saying if trade/supply units are implemented, these units should be added. I do not know what the position is of Fraxis but I know that trade/supply units have been removed since Civ2. The focus of unit movement seems to be concentrating on military units.

i dislike the promotion system in civ4 and i really dislike what was done to the units in civ3. well, actually 3-4 bars: health, ammunition, fuel, [morale].

Well, I am a part of a majority of civ players that like how the promotion system is. If you dislike the system, what do you suggest?

air units received terrain defensive bonuses and domains where not considered. e.g. if a bomber and a mech inf where on the same tile and a fighter attacked that tile, the game would choose mech inf to defend.

I wasn't discussing the combat odds of play but the ability to move air units. I'm sure the example you described would have been addressed if the movements for air units had been kept in Civ3.

i hope so too.

the "cultural" borders system must be replaced by some more general concept. perhaps influence? why not allow units, forts, cities project influence onto the surrounding tiles? and have the influence decrease by a factor the further it is from the emitting entity. whoever "projects" the most influence over some tile, gains ownership over it for the current turn. in case of tie, the tile stays neutral.

i dislike cultural borders!

Cultural borders should not eminate from units because they are not stationary for the entire game. Forts can be taken over by an opposing civ even though they did not build it and should therefore be excuded. Cities are fine because a city like Jerusalem has cultural borders that cannot influence the Arab cultural world.

I am not sure how culture will influence the air tile layer and it concerns me that the cultural border will spill over into ocean tiles of a civ. I would like to see cultural borders take into account of the coast because cultural borders are a figment compared to the real world.

 

[Camikaze]

A supply system is a realm I'm not too sure about because players must maintain that system similar to that of workers. If this is the case then commercial planes, container vessels, caravans, and freight should be added to the already tedious task of micro-managing.

I think the general consensus with supply lines is that they would not involve the tedium you mention, but would be, for the most part, automated, with you only having to provide a path, and the rest being assumed as done. The same goes for trade routes.

 

[exhile]

I think the general consensus with supply lines is that they would not involve the tedium you mention, but would be, for the most part, automated, with you only having to provide a path, and the rest being assumed as done. The same goes for trade routes.

Count me in with that "general consensus". It would be nice to see some background animation on a tile that shows the supply lines and or trade. Something in the lines of activity when a tile is being used by a city where farms light are lit, a mining cart moves in and out or carracks on a sea tile.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, a little continuous line of merchant vessels trailing across the ocean would be pretty sweet- and a nice visual reminder of the trade routes/supply lines that you have to defend. Same for land caravans. Have little animations on roads/railways.

 

[Argetnyx]

The promotions system is Civ4 is superb just as that in Civ3. There was not such a system in Civ1 or Civ2. Elite, Veteran, Regular & Conscript defined the health and experince of a unit quite well. There was discussion of 2 bars for a unit representing health & munnitions. I hope they scrap that idea because very few strategy games that I know of have implemented this system.

When I said 'promotions', I meant promotions, not combat experience (as it calls it in the Civ3 editor). The concept of promotions in civ4 is way too tactical. The Elite, Veteran, Regular, & conscript system is good enough, as you've already explained. Munitions is also too tactical for Civ. General supplies is acceptable, but that is as far as it should go.

air units received terrain defensive bonuses and domains where not considered. e.g. if a bomber and a mech inf where on the same tile and a fighter attacked that tile, the game would choose mech inf to defend.

No way that is good. Air units are entirely their own class, and they do not 'attack' ground units. Bombing/strafing is fine, but there is no risk to the aircraft (unless there's flak involved).

Yeah, a little continuous line of merchant vessels trailing across the ocean would be pretty sweet- and a nice visual reminder of the trade routes/supply lines that you have to defend. Same for land caravans. Have little animations on roads/railways.

That should be optional, for the players (not me) who have slow computers.

 

[rysmiel]

It just doesn't seem very civ-ish to me, to be adding another whole literal dimension to the game.

It worked fine in Civ2:Test of Time.

I suppose it could work, but I don't really see the point of air tiles, seeing as they would invariably roughly conform to cultural borders anyway.

I'm not seeing what you're getting at here.

I've just had what i think is a new thought for the underwater layer, too; salvaging the remnants of naval units sunk earlier on.

 

[rysmiel]

Promotions didn't seem very civ-ish at first either but hey, if the concept compliments the game and makes play more fun, keep it.

Promotions aren't civ-ish; they are evil and must be destroyed.

 

[rysmiel]

I think the general consensus with supply lines is that they would not involve the tedium you mention, but would be, for the most part, automated, with you only having to provide a path, and the rest being assumed as done. The same goes for trade routes.

Some of us really really want individual supply units, though. And to have to protect them, and be able to raid other players'.

 

[exhile]

Promotions aren't civ-ish; they are evil and must be destroyed.

Military units and promotions are good and must be kept. Promotions are how military units around the world are ranked. For example the 1, 2, 3, 4 star generals of the army, air force and marines distinguish ground units in battle. Hovering your cursor on an enemy tank that has 4 stars make you more conscientious than a tank with only 1 star.

I think naval units should have their own naming convention for promotions like that of the real navies. rear admiral, upper/lower admiral etc.....

 

[rysmiel]

Military units and promotions are good and must be kept. Promotions are how military units around the world are ranked. For example the 1, 2, 3, 4 star generals of the army, air force and marines distinguish ground units in battle.

If you want to concince me, give me an argument from gameplay, not from realism.

Hovering your cursor on an enemy tank that has 4 stars make you more conscientious than a tank with only 1 star.

But why have a separate mechanic for it ?

If what you are going to have at the end of the day is a set of units in the field with different abilities and characteristics, why not keep the tried and true mechanism of having them being different units rather than "unit X with promotion Y" ?

 

[exhile]

If you want to concince me, give me an argument from gameplay, not from realism.

Gameplay is awesome.

But why have a separate mechanic for it ?

If what you are going to have at the end of the day is a set of units in the field with different abilities and characteristics, why not keep the tried and true mechanism of having them being different units rather than "unit X with promotion Y" ?

A soldier unit and a mounted unit are 2 different X units with similar and dissimilar Y promotions. I don't understand your question.

 

[rysmiel]

Gameplay is awesome.

Gameplay with promotions ? It's incredibly (swear)ing irritating, is what it is. Because it requires one to think about units individually and separately far more.

A soldier unit and a mounted unit are 2 different X units with similar and dissimilar Y promotions. I don't understand your question.

OK, let me make up a theoretical example off the top of my head.

You have two possible models for Civ 5.

In one of them, if you want a rifleman to have a bonus for fortified defence, you give it a Fortified Defence Promotion, and if you want a rifleman to have a bonus for doing extra damage, you give it an Extra Damage Promotion. (Or whatever other names you like).

In the other, if you want a rifleman to have a bonus for fortified defence, you upgrade it to a Line Infantry unit with stronger defence, and if you want a rifleman to have a bonus for doing extra damage, you upgrade it to a Machine Gunner unit with heavier firepower.

These two models provide you, in the field, with exactly the same thing.

Now, unless you are proposing removing the unit upgrade functionality, the first option needs the overhead and complexity, for the programmer and for the player, of keeping track of two separate systems. The seconds uses one system with more options within it.

Soren's avowed philosophy with Civ IV was not to put any complexity in without taking some complexity out, yes ? (My own preference would be for Civ to have approximately 50% more complexity than Civ 3 and Civ IV have in their different ways, but that's another argument.) Which means that the promotion system is in there at the expense of something else.

So Civ IV has two systems for doing essentially the same thing, and is losing some other aspect by doing so.

This seems to me to be something the game would be better not doing.

 

[exhile]

Gameplay with promotions ? It's incredibly (swear)ing irritating, is what it is. Because it requires one to think about units individually and separately far more.

I still don't understand what you mean by thinking of units individually and separately.

OK, let me make up a theoretical example off the top of my head.

You have two possible models for Civ 5.

In one of them, if you want a rifleman to have a bonus for fortified defence, you give it a Fortified Defence Promotion, and if you want a rifleman to have a bonus for doing extra damage, you give it an Extra Damage Promotion. (Or whatever other names you like).

In the other, if you want a rifleman to have a bonus for fortified defence, you upgrade it to a Line Infantry unit with stronger defence, and if you want a rifleman to have a bonus for doing extra damage, you upgrade it to a Machine Gunner unit with heavier firepower.

These two models provide you, in the field, with exactly the same thing.

Now, unless you are proposing removing the unit upgrade functionality, the first option needs the overhead and complexity, for the programmer and for the player, of keeping track of two separate systems. The seconds uses one system with more options within it.

Soren's avowed philosophy with Civ IV was not to put any complexity in without taking some complexity out, yes ? (My own preference would be for Civ to have approximately 50% more complexity than Civ 3 and Civ IV have in their different ways, but that's another argument.) Which means that the promotion system is in there at the expense of something else.

So Civ IV has two systems for doing essentially the same thing, and is losing some other aspect by doing so.

This seems to me to be something the game would be better not doing.

I don't understand your example. Can someone else explain? If the game is to consider removing unit upgrades because of the promotion system, I agree to a point. Certain unit should still be upgradeable such as those that have never fought a battle.

 

[Camikaze]

Some of us really really want individual supply units, though. And to have to protect them, and be able to raid other players'.

Not me. Ideally, it would be fine, but I have a finite amount of time with which to play civ, and I don't want it to be taken up by moving merchant units around. But you're not really into the military thing as much as me, so that's probably why.

 

[rysmiel]

I still don't understand what you mean by thinking of units individually and separately.

If you have a hundred tanks that are the same, you do not have to remember which is which.

If you have a hundred tanks, and thirty have one set of promotions, and twenty have a different set, because you want to do different things with them, you have to remember which tank is which.

I don't understand your example. Can someone else explain?

In summary; there's nothing promotions do that upgrades can't.

If the game is to consider removing unit upgrades because of the promotion system, I agree to a point. Certain unit should still be upgradeable such as those that have never fought a battle.

That's exactly the opposite to my point; I am arguing for removing promotions and enabling upgrade paths that do whatever useful thing promotions now do.

 

[exhile]

If you have a hundred tanks that are the same, you do not have to remember which is which.

If you have a hundred tanks, and thirty have one set of promotions, and twenty have a different set, because you want to do different things with them, you have to remember which tank is which.

Nothing needs to be remembered. You just click on the stack and choose which tank you want to go in to battle. Besides the stack will already be ranked in descending order from the strongest to the weakest.

In summary; there's nothing promotions do that upgrades can't.

That's exactly the opposite to my point; I am arguing for removing promotions and enabling upgrade paths that do whatever useful thing promotions now do.

Upgrades are a totally new unit that cost money. Promotions come from battle experience.

 

[Hail]

Well, I am a part of a majority of civ players that like how the promotion system is. If you dislike the system, what do you suggest?

more unit types with different bonuses and/or weaknesses against unit classes.

Cultural borders should not emitted from units because they are not stationary for the entire game. Forts can be taken over by an opposing civ even though they did not build it and should therefore be excluded.

giving movable entities the ability to exert civ's influence will enhance gameplay in strange and unknown ways. and forts can be recaptured!

I am not sure how culture will influence the air tile layer and it concerns me that the cultural border will spill over into ocean tiles of a civ. I would like to see cultural borders take into account of the coast because cultural borders are a figment compared to the real world.

as for airspace, the owner of the underlying land/sea tile should be taken into account for trespassing considerations, etc.

I think the general consensus with supply lines is that they would not involve the tedium you mention, but would be, for the most part, automated, with you only having to provide a path, and the rest being assumed as done. The same goes for trade routes.

agree

Yeah, a little continuous line of merchant vessels trailing across the ocean would be pretty sweet- and a nice visual reminder of the trade routes/supply lines that you have to defend. Same for land caravans. Have little animations on roads/railways.

no?

When I said 'promotions', I meant promotions, not combat experience (as it calls it in the Civ3 editor). The concept of promotions in civ4 is way too tactical. The Elite, Veteran, Regular, & conscript system is good enough, as you've already explained. Munitions is also too tactical for Civ. General supplies is acceptable, but that is as far as it should go.

agree about the promotions' system of civ3. it's good and should have been kept.

Some of us really really want individual supply units, though. And to have to protect them, and be able to raid other players'.

no. you will like it for the first 15 minutes. play CtP. units pillaging trading routes was a real pain. i think your urge for mm can be satisfied in other ways.

Upgrades are a totally new unit that cost money. Promotions come from battle experience.

 

[exhile]

more unit types with different bonuses and/or weaknesses against unit classes.

giving movable entities the ability to exert civ's influence will enhance gameplay in strange and unknown ways. and forts can be recaptured!

as for airspace, the owner of the underlying land/sea tile should be taken into account for trespassing considerations, etc.

Play the entire Civilization series and we'll see if you'll still consider these suggestions or not.

 

[Camikaze]

no?

Then what would you prefer to symbolise the trade routes? Nothing at all? Then how would you know what you had to defend?

 

[rysmiel]

no. you will like it for the first 15 minutes. play CtP. units pillaging trading routes was a real pain. i think your urge for mm can be satisfied in other ways.

Not played CtP, but the way I still play and enjoy Civ 2 suggests I will not after all get bored with moving caravans around after 15 minutes.