Stacks of DOOOOOOOM: A solution?

[Takhisis]

Maybe they should get the techs that other civs do, but only after a given percentage of the in-game factions have acquired that tech through either discovery or trade.
So, that could mean that, if the percentage was 60 and there were 10 civilizations in play, when 6 civiliaztions possessed a given tech, the barbarians would autmopatically acquire it, but they'd have no researh of their own. How 'bout that?

 

[Spartan300]

sounds good but im now thinking about another aspect.
what if barbarian cities could be influenced? if for instance there is one barbarian city on its own regardless of whatever techs it may have is pretty useless. now occasionally in games there is an unreachable island (until later game) that 3 or more barbs appear on. they should become civ's in their own right but on the major continents with 2 or more civs on occasionally barbarians either capture or make their own cities now how about after upto (for instance) 50 turns that city must either be coerced into joining a civ (by culture plus gold i guess) or automaticcly side with the most culture impressive civ near it.
or we could just leave it as it is! lol

 

[Takhisis]

They'd be at war with everyone, but peace could be negotiated with them. So, if one of those barbarian city states expanded early in the game and spawned masses of troops which would have the same stats as yours, so you'd have to race in your techs and always keep ahead because, after something becomes common knowledge, the barbs would get it.
However, they should be nerfed. Maybe they'd have a pop. cap, or they couldn't build improvemnts and wonders...

 

[Gangor]

How about if X number of barbarian cities exist within Y radius then they become a new civ?

 

[moscaverde]

Interesting, if I recon correctly CIV II had this.

 

[Spartan300]

Gangor that sounds feasible and basically works i should think the same way for the computer as when the annoying minister asks if you would like to liberate a colony out of your civ.

 

[Takhisis]

How about if X number of barbarian cities exist within Y radius then they become a new civ?

D'you mean, a civ with techs and all the rest of the regular stuff? Might work. But then the barbarians would "settle". How would that affect diplo? Which techs would these barbarians get? Would they capture random techs from the civs whose cities they conquer?

 

[Gangor]

D'you mean, a civ with techs and all the rest of the regular stuff? Might work. But then the barbarians would "settle". How would that affect diplo? Which techs would these barbarians get? Would they capture random techs from the civs whose cities they conquer?

I suggest they have an "average" of the tech levels of nearby civs.

 

[Takhisis]

And how would you define "nerby"? Remember that many of the Artificial Idiots place their settlers everywhere they can. Perhaps it's every civ the new "barbarian" civ has come into contact with? If they've only met one civ, then they'll get most, but not all, of that civ's techs.

 

[Camikaze]

The problem with units turning to barbarians if they don't have supply is that it doesn't really fit with the model in which units lose health without supply. Assuming that you would try and have a period in which units would not be supplied and would lose health (which would make sense), then fitting in a switch over to barbarians would be rather tricky without some sort of completely arbitrary switch.

 

[Takhisis]

In civ III, if you can't support your units you start getting buildings demolished and sold off. Maybe, instead of that, unpaid troops would become barbarians.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, I absolutely love that idea if it were to be applied to this proposed new game element. However, I think it's more realistic to have them lose health. I mean, even if they become barbarians, then they would still be without supply. And the simple fact is that they cannot survive on no supply. So they would need to lose health in that circumstance anyway. So why not just have them lose health from the get-go and remain as your units?

 

[Takhisis]

New idea. Base it on which nation the troops were recruited from:

• They belong to your own nation or a nation that is currently one of your allies (MPP or Military Alliance) They lose health but stay loyal to you.
• They belong to a foreign nation that is neutral -trade and ROP agreements don't have any bearing on this- They become free troops (i.e. barbarians, no allegiance)
• Hired mercenaries, barbarians -hired thugs-: they rescind the contract with you and attain their original status as mercs/barbs.
• Their fellow countrymen are at war with you and/or are "civilised" barbarians. They flip back to their original faction.

This would require enabling the barbarian and mercenary features proposed elsewhere.
Also, some sort of Allegiance/Nationality/Loyalty feature.

The game should also have some sort of "unofficial" negotiation, i.e., when you right-click on an enemy unit, you can either establish communications with their rulers or try and bribe them over to your side.

 

[Camikaze]

Well most of that idea is better (although I'm not sure about the buying enemy units bit by right-clicking and negotiating), but it stills leaves the fact that these units need supply regardless of who they are fighting for. So even if they became free units, or barb units, they would still need supply for the system to be at all realistic. And where would that supply come from? There would be no gain for units if they had lost supply and then went into a state in which they still didn't have supply.

Perhaps another option to go with a penalty to a unit's health would be units without supply automatically pillaging the tile they are on for a turn, regardless of what you want them to do (so you lose control of the unit for a turn), and then refusing to fight for any subsequent turns in which they have no supply (hence becoming POWs if attacked, and being useless in attack themselves).

 

[Takhisis]

Well most of that idea is better (although I'm not sure about the buying enemy units bit by right-clicking and negotiating), but it stills leaves the fact that these units need supply regardless of who they are fighting for. So even if they became free units, or barb units, they would still need supply for the system to be at all realistic. And where would that supply come from? There would be no gain for units if they had lost supply and then went into a state in which they still didn't have supply.

Barbs and mercs don't need supplies, meh.
Nao, if they turn to other civs, they'll stay loyal to those civs, since they're their own. But it will be their problem to supply those troops. If they don't feed them, well, they'll suffer for their motherland. Still, something should be done about this, otherwise you could conquer all but one of your enemy's cities, starve your recruits, hand the cities over to a third party and let loose all your starving troops among them. This kind of exploit should be limited somehow.

As to neutral nations, I'm not sure whether the player-controlled troops should flip back to these neutrals or go rogue into barbarianism. Maybe it should be a 50-50 split. If those unsupplied, starving troops are not your own -and not from barbarian civs- then there's a 50% chance that they'll join the enemy and a 50% chance that they'll strike out on their own.

In addition to the above, if you have this "Allegiance" characteristic, then troops fighting against their motherland should get an attack/defense penalty which should be set in the editor. So, then, you could set it so that your foreign recruits attack their countrymen, they'll get a penalty, and/or they could just let themselves be killed -or captured if you set the def penalty high enough - if you try using them as cannon fodder, and the enemy will breeze through your defenses and might actually outflank you. Think of the strategic implications: you really have to be careful where your troops come from, or risk having your soldiers turn on you and split your forces into two.

Perhaps another option to go with a penalty to a unit's health would be units without supply automatically pillaging the tile they are on for a turn, regardless of what you want them to do (so you lose control of the unit for a turn), and then refusing to fight for any subsequent turns in which they have no supply (hence becoming POWs if attacked, and being useless in attack themselves).

What happens after the tile has no improvements left to be destroyed?

 

[Camikaze]

To answer the last bit; when there are no more improvements on the tile, the unit would automatically move to a tile with an improvement, if within its range, and pillage that. The turn it moved, seeing as it doesn't get any supplies through either supply lines or through pillaging, it would incur a health penalty. When there are absolutely no improvements left within a reasonable area (let's say, when there are no more adjacent improvements), then every single turn, a health penalty would apply:

One question that hasn't been answered yet (IIRC) is what the effect will be on units that have no supply? I would suggest that some parameter be established effecting their strength. Say, a -20% strength modifier for every turn they are without supply, max-ing out at 80%. Or perhaps an exponential, or sinusoidal, modifier on their actual health, whereby they lose health each turn that they do not have supply, in the function (where y = percentage of original health (0≤y≤1), and x = number of turns (0≤x≤10):
y = cos ([∏x]/20)
So that after 10 turns of no supply, the unit dies.

From this thread.

This would be a more realistic representation, IMO. I mean, history shows that if you don't supply your troops, then they might not fight for you, but they aren't going to fight against you, or suddenly become barbarians. Mutiny is a much more realistic option.

Also something I forgot to mention before- I think that units should be able to go for 1 turn without any ill effects other than a hit to health. Realistically, units will tolerate a short term loss of supplies without mutinying. Two or three turns without supplies, though, and the mutiny could kick in.

Now, as for the first bit of your above post, well, I think the supply system should extent to all units. That makes sense, after all. Even barbarians need supplies. They are just more likely to pillage for them. So, if we consider that they would need supplies, then units becoming barbarians would, if anything, reduce their chance of gaining supply. And then there is the whole thing again about the allegiance of troops, and the fact that historically speaking, units do not switch sides because they don't have supply. They might mutiny, but they don't often (actually, I can't think of any examples) switch sides, especially when the other side cannot assure supply.

 

[Spartan300]

they might switch sides in the case of vassals.
for instance, England has often been in control/at odds with scotland/ireland and wales.
when it came to henry V attacking the french there were a few of these nations fighting with the french, and for a odder side to the tail before Joan of Arc was eventually captured the only soldiers who remained loyal to her were not french but i belive Irish and Scottish.
so i think vassels should be able to break away to an opposing nation in order to redeem their 'freedom'
rob

 

[Takhisis]

To answer the last bit; when there are no more improvements on the tile, the unit would automatically move to a tile with an improvement, if within its range, and pillage that. The turn it moved, seeing as it doesn't get any supplies through either supply lines or through pillaging, it would incur a health penalty. When there are absolutely no improvements left within a reasonable area (let's say, when there are no more adjacent improvements), then every single turn, a health penalty would apply:

One question that hasn't been answered yet (IIRC) is what the effect will be on units that have no supply? I would suggest that some parameter be established effecting their strength. Say, a -20% strength modifier for every turn they are without supply, max-ing out at 80%. Or perhaps an exponential, or sinusoidal, modifier on their actual health, whereby they lose health each turn that they do not have supply, in the function (where y = percentage of original health (0≤y≤1), and x = number of turns (0≤x≤10):
y = cos ([∏x]/20)
So that after 10 turns of no supply, the unit dies.

From this thread.

This would be a more realistic representation, IMO. I mean, history shows that if you don't supply your troops, then they might not fight for you, but they aren't going to fight against you, or suddenly become barbarians. Mutiny is a much more realistic option.

Also something I forgot to mention before- I think that units should be able to go for 1 turn without any ill effects other than a hit to health. Realistically, units will tolerate a short term loss of supplies without mutinying. Two or three turns without supplies, though, and the mutiny could kick in.

Now, as for the first bit of your above post, well, I think the supply system should extent to all units. That makes sense, after all. Even barbarians need supplies. They are just more likely to pillage for them. So, if we consider that they would need supplies, then units becoming barbarians would, if anything, reduce their chance of gaining supply. And then there is the whole thing again about the allegiance of troops, and the fact that historically speaking, units do not switch sides because they don't have supply. They might mutiny, but they don't often (actually, I can't think of any examples) switch sides, especially when the other side cannot assure supply.

In Civ III (by far my favourite ) there's an option that allows for units to require maintenance or not. So this option could be reused so that certain units can live off the land. "Irregular" troops don't need supply, while "regulars" do. So, guerillas wouldn't need anything, right-o? Of course, most of this falls in the "modding" category.