Terrain features and units

[Commander Bello]

Haven't found this topic, so I think I start it:

My ideas so far are to have:

1. Offensive bonus for "higher" terrain
2. Rivers blocking movement

1) A unit occupying terrain of higher altitude than another unit's terrain should have an attack bonus. Example: your infantry (on hill) attacks another infantry (on plains). As your men can look farther, they know better about the position of the enemies. They even can shoot farther, and are less likely to be hit, since the enemy can't shoot that far and most human beings are bad in estimating distances in the 3rd dimension.

2) Under the assumption that the Civ4 map will be similar to the current ones, we know that the rivers displayed on the map are major rivers. They are quite equal to the Nile or the Amazonas, or the Mississippi.
I would like those rivers to block any movement, until the invention of bridges (new concept, of course). Every once in a while (but really not to often), there could be a ford, though, allowing for crossing the river, but any additional movement point left after crossing would be lost. Those fords automatically would become strategic points (and therefore should be identified as such by the AI)
Extansion: even bridges should limit movement (as they would be quite narrow), until advanced bridges are invented in the industrial area.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

I think that this is related to our battlefield perception: there are two ways of fighting
A.close quarters battle
B.medium(or later long) distance engagement

In civ they are both modelled in the same way with the exception of artillery and defensive bombing by the archers.
So in the ancient age you can assume a mixed battle where archers soften the enemy(offensive bonus) but then the warriors have to leave the hill in order to engage in the melee(no bonus there)
At latter ages battles become medium and long distance(although there are still cases of close quarters battles). How do we modell that? with offensive bonus in most cases . The obvious exception should be attack on a city:arty and archers will have an off. bonus but mot infantry and tanks because this is definitely a case of close quarters.
The next thing is:what do we do with units that have the ability of both kinds of engagement?
A modern armor is rarely in nowdays used at close quarters(if not in a city).How do we factor that in? (bombard ability?)

...as for the rivers I'm in total agreement...bridging should be a tech and bridges upgradable, river crossings rare but clearly indicated on the map...

 

[Mgoering]

First idea : no need, actually the case. I recently attacked a Riffleman with a Tank, on tundra terrain. My Tank (4) got distroyed as the Riffleman survived with only 1 point out of 5 off. After that, I attacked one, with 4 points, on flat terrain. It was the absolute inverse : he got killed and I became Elite.

The second idea : I don't think so. Not that bringing the idea is stupid, but I dont think it as a good idea at all. Because when you have a river on your field you are natualy pushed to construct always better bridges. I think that's why they didn't allocated a tech for this, like it was in Civ2 (to build a road over a river). But completely stop a unit, is too much.

 

[Commander Bello]

First idea : no need, actually the case. I recently attacked a Riffleman with a Tank, on tundra terrain. My Tank (4) got distroyed as the Riffleman survived with only 1 point out of 5 off. After that, I attacked one, with 4 points, on flat terrain. It was the absolute inverse : he got killed and I became Elite.[...]

???
I don't see, why this would prove anything, except for the working of the RNG. In both cases, you had a battle on the same altitude level. So, where is your point?

 

[ybbor]

well, you notice how a road crossing over a river stops the road's bonuses? yeah, that's essentially what your proposing, and you know how that penalty stops once you research enginnering? again, that's what your proposing

 

[Commander Bello]

You refer to the commerce bonus? Well, that is balanced by the river's commerce bonus.

and you know how that penalty stops once you research enginnering? again, that's what your proposing

... and this line, I didn't understand... ???

 

[Brutha2]

The first idea seems a good idea, except that in many battles in history (Hastings, for example) where soldiers have gone down from the hills they were defending, they often lost, so I'm not sure about the bonus.
The second idea is good, but many peoples have build the fords themselves, so maybe they could build them with an ancient advance?

 

[ybbor]

okay, start a new game. build a road from one side of a river to another. cross the river on the road. you notice you don't get the rivers 1/3 movement point bonus, crossing a river even on a road takes up the units full movement point. keep playing the game...build cities...yada yada yada...devolp engineering (opening tech in the middle ages)now cross the river. you get the road's 1/3 movement point bonus!

 

[redstang423]

the sarcastic, pompous retort was unnessecary.

what is being said is that until bridges are invented (in Civ 3 terms, engineering is researched), you shouldn't be able to cross a river AT ALL, unless it is at a specific ford spot that would be shallow enough to walk across. Once bridges are developed, roads can cross the river, but you still don't get the movement bonus of the road when you cross since earliest bridges are rather primitive and you can't really move as efficiently on them. Later, as more modern bridges are developed at some point in the industrial era (with steam power perhaps?), you can recieve full movement bonuses from the road since bridges no longer inhibit the speed of travel.

only problem i see with this idea, however, is that using logic, you still wouldn't be able to cross the river where ever you wanted, regardless of the era, because you would still need to use a bridge. also, any river flowing through territory that is owned by another civ would be uncrossable because you can't use their roads without a right of passage agreement.

 

[rcoutme]

Given the number of years that go by in the AA, I really think that an army would be able to build a few barges to cross the Nile, Mississippi, or Amazon and be able to get to the other side. Saying that movement can not go across a river is not a good idea. In fact, requiring that a specific unit (e.g. galley) ferry units across a narrow strait is even somewhat unrealistic (although I can live with it). Rivers can, are, and always were crossed. In fact, according to the DNA migration route, primitive men crossed the Red Sea near Yemen long before wandering through Israel and Palestine. They even went to Australia!

Crossing rivers, IMHO, is fine the way it is.

 

[redstang423]

agreed. i think given the size of land each square is supposed to represent, it is assumed each river square intrinsicly has a ford location somewhere.

and the world supposedly looked a lot different way back when people were still really migrating, but we get the idea.

 

[rcoutme]

and the world supposedly looked a lot different way back when people were still really migrating, but we get the idea.

Not 35 - 40 k years ago, it didn't. The continents don't move that fast! I hope...

 

[redstang423]

i confused this with the thread about wandering and thought it was included in this concept...thought we were speaking of the time wayyyy back when there was the land bridge between north america and asia

 

[Commander Bello]

I admit, that any river of the world could, would and has been crossed in the past. Even without bridges.
Nevertheless, I think "uncrossable" rivers with fords would add quite a strategic element to the game.
The problem with rivers, as they are in the current game is, that they don't do foot units any harm. So, the historical fact of rivers making for natural borders is not reflected in the game. Look at the Roman Empire, which in the northeast was limited by the rivers Danube and Rhine. First, they hindered the Romans to successfully invade Germania, later the Romans used them as border - and built the Limes to protect the area between both rivers.
As far as I see it, it would make for a more logical gameplay, although I admit that my proposal requires some abstraction.

 

[ybbor]

The problem with rivers, as they are in the current game is, that they don't do foot units any harm.

have you listened to a word i said?!?!?!?!?!?!?! they stop the 1/3 bonus roads provide until engineering! read my above posts!!!

 

[Khift]

have you listened to a word i said?!?!?!?!?!?!?! they stop the 1/3 bonus roads provide until engineering! read my above posts!!!

No, he heard you. It's just that rivers do no serious harm to attacking troops - in fact, they do the opposite, they cut short the retreat of the defenders, because the attackers do not get the road bonus for it to be taken away. All he is suggesting is that it should be made alot harder to cross a river. Perhaps, when a unit had just crossed a river, it would suffer defensive penalties if it is attacked before it can move again? I think that would be fairly realistic.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Given the grand strategy scale of the game, I think this is too fiddly.

Besides, crossing a river is basically only a problem if you've got enemy troops waiting on the other side (or if you're forced to retreat over a river in contact with the enemy). This is already simulated by the defense bonus for attacks over rivers.

Also, it seems to me that the importance of rivers as natural borders is exaggerated, and that the Rhine and Danube borders of the Roman Empire was somewhat of an exception. The only other longstanding example I can think of offhand is the middle Euphrates as border between the Romans and the Parthians/Sassanids. On the whole, rivers are more likely to connect than divide.