Stacks of DOOOOOOOM: A solution?

[trickofthehand]

I think we can make it easier still (while retaining the same effect). Simply make the unit maintenance cost dependent on the number of movement points needed to reach the nearest friendly city.

To get the idea of managing supply lines this needs to be combined with an occupation mechanic, where units can occupy a tile as an action to give you access to the tile improvements such as roads. You could then occupy roads to reduce the numbe of movement points needed to reach your cities. This however requires you to spread out your forces to occupy the route. Reducing the size of stacks.

Excellent. This coupled with new Fort mechanics and firebases for the modern era.

 

[padlock]

Perhaps, if instead of the game always selecting the best defender, some sort of 'initiative' system was in place which would sometimes allow the attacker to select who it was attacking, SOD wouldn't be so powerful.

I'm not really sure what such a system might look like, but I imagine it could include modifiers for things such as unit type, upgrades, battle location (hills, cities, forts), etc.

 

[w2w2w]

Speaking of Forts;

I think forst should be allowed to be built in enemy territory and still give defensive bonuses and any other reason (such as canals). if you are in war and not capturing cities, your nearest city/fort can be a 5 turn walk.

 

[Terrance888]

Perhaps, if instead of the game always selecting the best defender, some sort of 'initiative' system was in place which would sometimes allow the attacker to select who it was attacking, SOD wouldn't be so powerful.

I'm not really sure what such a system might look like, but I imagine it could include modifiers for things such as unit type, upgrades, battle location (hills, cities, forts), etc.

Maybe a pinned system, where a unit defending might not have enough time to retreat to the main group for another to come out, like a spearmen caught out in the open to axes after fending off a Chariot group.

 

[Lord OST]

Maybe a pinned system, where a unit defending might not have enough time to retreat to the main group for another to come out, like a spearmen caught out in the open to axes after fending off a Chariot group.

I have an idea for manouverability that might answer to the system you ask for:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=8778240#post8778240

 

[Camikaze]

I already addressed Trias' suggestion as to an occupation mechanism of roads/railways in another thread, so I won't bother here.

But RE: what Kullervo said. I fail to see how limiting stacks is counter-intuitive. And also, what you suggest is rather arbitrarily defined, and would be rather hard to have without it being arbitrarily defined. That detracts from it an awful lot.

 

[rysmiel]

For me the intention with supply lines is partly to nerf the military. Civ is currently far more a war game than an empire building game as originally imagined, and having to supply your soldiers makes war that bit more difficult. This is in addition to adding another facet to war

I think there are more interesting ways of nerfing military, though, like allowing them to be culturally converted.

 

[rysmiel]

If you want good games with no regard for realism, go play some Arkanoid.

I didn't say no regard for realism, I said realism subordinate to gameplay. These are different positions.

 

[Takhisis]

I think there are more interesting ways of nerfing military, though, like allowing them to be culturally converted.

Or bought off... or just deserting and becoming bandits/barbarians/pirates. If recruited from recently conquered populations, they could have penalties when fighting aganst their own countries, and/or plain defections en masse. A bit of it could be copied from Europa Universalis.

I didn't say no regard for realism, I said realism subordinate to gameplay. These are different positions.

But Civ is all about realism and being historical accurate as far as possible.

 

[Gangor]

But Civ is all about realism and being historical accurate as far as possible.

I especially like it when a spearman historically takes down a tank!

 

[rysmiel]

Or bought off... or just deserting and becoming bandits/barbarians/pirates.

My point with being able to cutlturally convert them - or indeed being able to bribe them - is that it gives a non-military-focused player ways of countering a military-focused player; not sure I see just deserting as providing the same flex.

But Civ is all about realism and being historical accurate as far as possible.

Who set that in stone ?

At very least, it's about that as far as possible whithn the bounds of a game worth actually playing.

 

[Spartan300]

i personally think SOD's though not desirable are a fact of life.
armies gain strength through size, its a fact when germany avoided the french and cut through belgium it was a difference in the size of the armies that made that choice, so it is something that should be present in Civ.
however i think military obsessed civ's seem to have an unfair advantage on culture/city growing civs, i think supply lines should bnecome essential, and that the more tech you aquire the better supply handling you recieve (to save time im going to copy some text fromanother post i replied to)
first i think to support an army you should have supplies, otherwise your army is basically a barbarian army and should by all rights be out of your control (if you cant lead/feed an army its going to feed/lead itself, perhaps another intresting concept for future civ5)
i think you need to decide how much percentage you intend to put into supplies from the tax bar, and i also think that in cases where for example a city is poisoned these supplies could be 'rushed' to the city in question that is starving.
but i also think it silly to have supply lines running across land/sea irrespective which is why i they should be split again.
OK perhaps escorts are too much, i also could not see a way to incorporate it but thought someone else may? I think you should choose your supply lines but lets compromise if you can designate supply depots (with workers?) then the supply line should be the most direct, and if any physical or enemy item/unit/border is in the way then obviously the supply line in real life would avoid it and so this should incur a negative impact along the supply line as it would obviously take longer to get to the front.
as i said before i still think the fewer the better in regards to supply lines, you dont have a 10 motorway's running parallel down the country do you? its not cost effective and is more difficult to manage, same with supply lines.
and a depot should have an automatic 'feed' radius as this to me seems quite obvious, i guess on reflection a city border limit is ideal.
another line of thought in regards to this is the complexity of a unit, warriors dont need much supllies as perhaps a group of warriors were maybe 50 strong? but an infantry brigade has more men and more equipment so should have more demand

the discussion is under 'Dealing with SOD's, supply, and generally reducing everyone's reliance on war '
rob

 

[Takhisis]

My point with being able to cutlturally convert them - or indeed being able to bribe them - is that it gives a non-military-focused player ways of countering a military-focused player; not sure I see just deserting as providing the same flex.

If I was Carthage, I'd trade with everyone and bribe Romans away. Mercenaries are also of strategic importance.
Another important idea is soldiers' nationality. Garrisons are usually softer and more on their own countrymen, that is why Carthage usually garrisoned southern Spain with African troops and African colonies with Spanish mercenaries.

Mercenaries were of huge historical importance. Maybe they should be incorporated into the game somehow.

Maybe animals could be traded individually from other regions (elephants, camels, and so on) but that would be too complicated.

 

[Spartan300]

perhaps troops that would run out of (at the moment theoretical) supplies would become barbarians?
after all barbarians in the game are really only solely there to pillage and destroy so why cant these be bribed as mercenaries like the early civ games?

 

[Takhisis]

Even better, have barbarians be capable of establishing pseudo-civs after conquering cities, like in, IIRC, Civ II.

 

[Spartan300]

cant see why that would be difficult, you can set up your own colonial civ after all so the basic formula must be there

 

[Takhisis]

I remember that in Civ I or II (or both) if barbarians captured one of your cities, they turned into "barbarian" cities. I'm not sure what units and buildings they had.

 

[Spartan300]

they still do but you cant talk diplomacy with them
i guess that the problem, what level of tech should they have?

 

[Takhisis]

Maybe they should have a separate tech tree and actually be capable of building their own cities, but these wouldn't grow past small towns, otherwise you'd have civs sprouting all over the place. Maybe the barbarians should have a city cap.

 

[Spartan300]

if they have there own tech tree they will never be civ's just educated barbarians who you still cant trade with.
perhaps it should work the same way as when they 'upgrade units' the computer seems to work on some algorithm that determines this so perhaps it could be made into something similar for tech
rob