Supply lines

[apatheist]

Only at the way you quoted it does it seem like it doesnt tie in.

If I can separate the pieces like that with each piece still making sense on its own....

I think that while it might seem like bloodninja is going off topic, the stuff that he brings up is going to be important for how exactly supply lines materialize.

If we go with an in-depth economic system like what bloodninja is suggesting, which for people like me is very desirable, then supply lines becomes a component of this economic system rather than a separate entity.

Yes. It becomes part of the broader economic system. However, that's not the same thing as saying that the whole economic system must be implemented at once in one swell foop.

In short, I appreciate bloodninja's expansion of his thoughts because it works with what form supply lines could or would take.

Oh, certainly it's a good thing to think about these things (though I wish people would look at the archives). I just think it's best to do one thing at a time. Note the quote below, after all.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Naturally it should be done one piece at a time... but determining the nature of the system also helps determine where to begin.

 

[_bloodninja_]

Has anyone tried the editor for Civ 4 yet? Does anyone know if something even close to this calibur possible?

 

[tulcas]

I think this thread is dividing into two seperate topics:

First resource requirements:
I think that it would be easier to mod that if you lose access to oil, oil dependant units, such as tanks, would move slower, fight at reduced strength, and/or have their hitpoint max reduced. Or they could incur an increased maintenance cost penalty, simulating the effect of having to synthesize the resource.

For ships having access to coal, oil, or uranium should allow them to work. However coal incurs a -1 movement penalty, and uranium gives a +1 movement bonus (oil is neutral). Having none of these resources is a -2 penalty to movement.

I don't know if it will be possible to mod in dependancies such as this into game without the XML. I just got the game and have been too busy playing to get into modding. I will check tonight.

Second supply lines:
I think that supply lines are abstracted decently well already by having units heal at a reduced rate while in enemy territory. Yes you cannot cut off the supply lines of the attacker and incur him penalties. That would be kind of neat I guess.

What you would really need to get a system like that going is to have a layer in addition to culture which would be a control layer. For example if America is in German territory. Once America enters a square they now control that square and will until germany comes to reclaim it. German retains it as a square on the culture layer. As America marches across the German countryside all units do not incur a supply line penalty if a trade route can be traced following all squares controlled by American's or any one they share an open borders policy with to the resources required for that unit.

While at peace & open borders with another country you would not exert control over their squares.

Could be doable after the SDK. Though the AI will definitely have to be rewritten as well. May be best left to multiplayer.

 

[pathos]

I'm not sure of the complexity in modding supply lines into the game, but a sort of alternative would be making a unit in enemy territory cost a certain amount of upkeep per turn, which I'm sure wouldn't be too hard to edit in. The upkeep could be constant for all units, though I would think a tank would cost a bit more to supply than some spearmen. That way, the larger then army you send in, the more taxing it can be on your coffers, and it'd add in a new level of strategy. But like many posts above said, I'm not sure how to make the AI understand why they're losing gold every turn. Just an idea....

 

[Dom Pedro II]

I'm not sure of the complexity in modding supply lines into the game, but a sort of alternative would be making a unit in enemy territory cost a certain amount of upkeep per turn, which I'm sure wouldn't be too hard to edit in. The upkeep could be constant for all units, though I would think a tank would cost a bit more to supply than some spearmen. That way, the larger then army you send in, the more taxing it can be on your coffers, and it'd add in a new level of strategy. But like many posts above said, I'm not sure how to make the AI understand why they're losing gold every turn. Just an idea....

This is already how it is... units operating outside the home borders cost more to maintain.

The AI doesn't need to know the "whys" of anything... "why" is just a question for people

 

[_bloodninja_]

If I can separate the pieces like that with each piece still making sense on its own....

Not necessarily. It's easy to take fragments of an idea/sentance/etc., present them on their own, and misconstrue their meanings. This is an act habitually performed by the media, opinionists, etc. More often then not this is done rather tactlessly.

Since it was the beginning of the thread, I was merely brainstorming ideas with the objective of having a mutual goal reached on exactly what could be done to implementing supply lines. Like I said before, I was brainstorming. Brainstorming is the act of thinking quickly and creatively. A number of the thoughts were spontaneous, so I apologize they weren't explained to the caliber that you, or anyone else interpreting it similarily, could understand. I also apologize for shortening the thread, thereby not fully explaining the complete inner workings of each idea for you, and/or to anyone else who arrived to that conclusion.

Yes. It becomes part of the broader economic system. However, that's not the same thing as saying that the whole economic system must be implemented at once in one swell foop.

I tried to look for where exactly you arrived at the conclusion that I was suggesting that the whole new economic system must be implemented in one "fell swoop" (I'm sure that was the phrase you were going for), but I'm not sure where exactly you interpreted that from. None the less, it wasn't my intention to suggest that at all. Now that you know it wasn't my intention to do so, I don't feel it is necessary to discuss that point any further. My apologies for not making that fully clear for you, and/or to anyone else who arrived to that conclusion.

I just think it's best to do one thing at a time.

I'm glad you have that thought, because that is exactly my, and I'm sure Dom Pedro's, preferred method of tackling this. As I previously mentioned above, I was brainstorming (I also gave a brief definition of what brainstorming is, in case you're not familiar with that method of problem solving) as to arrive to an ultimate objective of what exactly we could achieve. With that we would be able to figure out where a proper beginning would be, and move from there. Additions of anything, notably changes to the resources (for example, quantifying them), would implemented, if and when necessary to do so, as to compliment the supply line system.

The purpose of my brainstorming was to spark ideas in others, and to help everyone to think about, and to mutually decide, what is commonly called the 'bigger picture'. It allows for decisions to made such as "what do we want to achieve", "how much are we willing to change", and of the like. Brainstorming is a common practice used for problem solving in most businesses, classrooms, government, households, etc. around the world. I apologize that my brainstorming led you, and/or anyone else to misinterpret what I was suggesting.

Note the quote below, after all.

Pseudo intellectual references to ambiguous quotes aren't really the topic at hand right now. I'm sure if you search any of the General Discussion archives, you can find various pseudo intellectual threads that will be more to your liking. You're even welcome to start your own thread in the General Discussion about if your particular favored quote has any validity anywhere, at anytime, for any reason. Bogus and ambiguous quote references do not require nor is required by the supply line concept development.

I have also noticed you have put forward no legitimate ideas whatsoever of your own in this thread about supply lines. You have merely tactlessly and inadequately attempted to analyze thoughts. Personally I think you've hindered any development more than anything. If you can't constructively and politely participate in this thread, I'm going to ask you civilly if you wouldn't simply come in and quote everybody in the manner you have been doing so. I for one want a resolution to this thread, to figure out how exactly supply lines could be implemented. I'm asking if we can constructively go about this. Thank you everyone for your time.

Cheers,
Bloodninja

 

[_bloodninja_]

@ Dom Pedro, Pathos, and Tulcas (or whoever else who knows lol)

Have you checked out the editor yet? I don't have the game yet, I'm kind of in poverty at the moment

I only have Civ3, not conquests or play the world. But according to the civ3 official website, there are outposts available to be built. (I'm familiar with the airport building function from CivII) but what exactly the Outpost does in Civ3 Play The Worlds I'm not too sure. But my thought is this, is there a similar thing such as the outpost in Civ4? Perhaps it could be modded to be built in enemies territory? Or perhaps that worker's abilities could be modded to allow an Outpost to be built, and maybe the outpost ability could be to lessen the upkeep value of all friendly units within 8 squares or something. Something like that anyways. I think you understand what exactly I'm trying to communicate here.

 

[pathos]

This is already how it is... units operating outside the home borders cost more to maintain.

The AI doesn't need to know the "whys" of anything... "why" is just a question for people

lol I guess I didn't realize it while I was invading Egypt....