Traps and Land Mines

[Baldyr]

You are absolutely right about the scale of Civ4, and I doubt Civ5 will have any less of a "scope". You realize how large the scale really is when playing on Earth maps. Regardless of size there are bound to be countries in the real world that would only be represented by one single tile... This pretty much defeats the point of the milefield or any other "traps". Like, you would booby-trap the entire country of Georgia?

I do, however, think that a defensive improvement representing a warzone like the trenches of WWI could be implemented, even on this scale. And I do believe that minefields in real life are to be considered as defensive measures. Maybe Forts could have an additional defensive bonus with the advent of land-mines? (Sure, as the front-lines get blurred and the war rages back and forth, your troops are bound to get trapped in one of your own minefields. But a minefield, in real life, maybe the size of an acre. One tile in Civ4 - or any Civ game - could be the size of an entire country or region/state!)

 

[trickofthehand]

lol booby-trapping the country of Georgia. You're absolutely correct.

I think that the trenches, barbed wire, etc.. are actually already represented in the game by the defensive bonus you accumulate every time you Fortify a unit. The shame is that they aren't represented with in-game graphics. I would like to see an Engineer unit that besides handling the minefields and what-not can also increase the gain of the Fortify bonus (because he's busy building those trenches). It would add another dimension and include a real life counterpart that is so important in warfare yet mysteriously missing from Civ.

 

[trickofthehand]

Another point about the scale of the map, notice in Earth map how England usually sucks cuz they're stuck in that tiny island? Ironic.

 

[Baldyr]

I think that the trenches, barbed wire, etc.. are actually already represented in the game by the defensive bonus you accumulate every time you Fortify a unit. The shame is that they aren't represented with in-game graphics.

You're of course correct, even if I couldn't care less about the graphical implementation as such. I do however think that fortifying could get more effective with new technologies. Say a maximum of +50% defensive bonus with fortifications complete with minefields and such. Or that it would be quicker to entrench with new technology.

I would like to see an Engineer unit that besides handling the minefields and what-not can also increase the gain of the Fortify bonus (because he's busy building those trenches). It would add another dimension and include a real life counterpart that is so important in warfare yet mysteriously missing from Civ.

I'm not sure about a dedicated Combat Engineer unit - it wouldn't get any real use in the long run since people only play with Tanks and Gunships in the late game, or whatever. It probably wouldn't add enough value (other than sentimental or for flavor) to the game - or just make it more tedious to micromanage.

The City Garrison promotion could however go some way to represent the ability to entrench more efficiently. This could be coupled with the Warzone/Minefield/Trenches/Whatever terrain improvement. (As you said yourself, it's basically a Fort.)

Other than that, I would like the opportunity to customize my individual units (or just use a template on the whole lot of them). Since modern units in real life have detachments of scouts, artillery/rocket launchers, engineers and whatnot. I would like to customize my own combined arms unit with elements of tanks, infantry and artillery, with the addition of scouts, SAM:s and engineers. The way you balance the first ones would give you a combined Strength (or rather an average), with a customized movement rate and different abilities (like the possibility of causing collateral damage, bombard cities or attack more than once). If you include any of the latter you'll get benefits akin to the promotions that we have now, but they could also slow the unit down or it would just take longer to heal.

This is, however, another mod idea altogether.

 

[trickofthehand]

Good idea about increasing the defensive bonus with more techs. It makes more sense that a unit now-a-days can entrench itself much more than a unit 2000 years ago. I also like the defensive promotion. It might increase a unit's fortify bonus when attacked, apply a passive fortify bonus even if not currently fortified or even just increase the rate at which it gains Fort bonus. The only problem I see is that wars in Civ are all about push push push! There isnt really much defense going on until you hit a city.

The only tactical defensive plots are decided by cities and extremely rarely by a lucky map layout. I've always felt that this was one of the problems of now allowing units to use enemy roads. Because ALL tiles have the same movement cost, there is no priority in acquiring safe avenues of approach. If there's an enemy defensive formation, simply go around it. Ofcourse this is also the problem with Forts, they're only useful as airfields.

Ofcourse this raises another problem, there's roads EVERYWHERE! I think Civ is due for a paradigm shift in design. There's a small group here talking about designing their own civ clone. Their clone would not use hex or tile based map system, instead it's a free flowing 3d world. I suggested that because you couldn't measure a unit's movement speed with tiles, instead units should have a movement bar and could move freely until it is depleted. I think that increasing the scope of maps by at least 1/3 and making the distance between cities greater you could open up new and more in-depth tactical combat. Specially if you took into account unit direction and allowed for flanking maneuvers and the like. A more detailed map would be one of the features that would make a Combat Engineer unit viable, coupled with the ability to clear enemy roads for use by your troops.

I absolutely love your unit customization wish. I am an avid player of Galactic Civilizations and I've always thought that Civ should adopt their customization feature. Allowing you to customize your own units would allow you to tailor them to your playstyle and also avoid the 'Tanks and Gunships' strategy that is so prevalent.

 

[Camikaze]

Perhaps it's already been mentioned; I might have missed it, but would minefields be built on tiles of their own, or would you be able to build them on tiles alongside other improvements?

 

[CivMyWay]

Perhaps it's already been mentioned; I might have missed it, but would minefields be built on tiles of their own, or would you be able to build them on tiles alongside other improvements?

Personally I think that they should be built WITH other improvements. HOWEVER, once the minefield is on the tile it basically switches off the other tile improvement; as if they weren't there (no bonuses etc).

This is obviously because if you were an invading army and you saw a bunch of land without improvements, while surrounding areas had improvements - it says "don't step here".

Once the minefield has been removed, the improvement functions again.

 

[Camikaze]

Well that makes it slightly better then; avoids minefield spam. But what would stop someone from placing mines on almost all tiles surrounding their city if it had a low population, and therefore wasn't working all of its tiles?

 

[Hail]

Well that makes it slightly better then; avoids minefield spam. But what would stop someone from placing mines on almost all tiles surrounding their city if it had a low population, and therefore wasn't working all of its tiles?

nothing would stop him

 

[moscaverde]

Well nothing would stop the person, but this is not bad either.

 

[Takhisis]

I think mines should be like civ3's cruise missiles, but defensive. Maybe they could be spawned by terrain improvements (e.g. a "minefield", similar to a colony), or by something like barbarian camps, but that would change the game radically.

 

[CivMyWay]

What would stop an African country from covering large tracks of land with minefields that are problems for generations... (nothing). I think that there should be a production cost (even if its a long time for the worker to plant them)... it certainly shouldn't be too cheap.

 

[Takhisis]

What would stop an African country from covering large tracks of land with minefields that are problems for generations... (nothing). I think that there should be a production cost (even if its a long time for the worker to plant them)... it certainly shouldn't be too cheap.

Yugoslavia was extremely poor and yet there's God knows how many mines left around the place.

 

[CivMyWay]

On second thoughts, I have to disagree with myself. They should be relatively easy to plant. At the end of the day, the cost is in having unusable land. They should however be fairly "expensive" to get rid of. (In terms of worker time).

 

[Takhisis]

On second thoughts, I have to disagree with myself. They should be relatively easy to plant. At the end of the day, the cost is in having unusable land. They should however be fairly "expensive" to get rid of. (In terms of worker time).

You can just do a bombing run over minefields to detonate them... however, they should get a production penalty, maybe crater graphics or something.

 

[CivMyWay]

You can just do a bombing run over minefields to detonate them... however, they should get a production penalty, maybe crater graphics or something.

Just like in real life, if you do that, you should also cause collateral damage on any tile improvements.

 

[Takhisis]

Just like in real life, if you do that, you should also cause collateral damage on any tile improvements.

well, yes, the bombing run would still have all the other normal effects like destroying roads, irrigation, and so forth.

 

[Camikaze]

Well nothing would stop the person, but this is not bad either.

It is a bad thing, and would definitely need to be stopped if any such feature were to be implemented. In real life, minefields are exorbitantly expensive, especially when on the scale of tiles in Civ. So it makes no sense to allow an easy spamming of minefields, with no apparent regard for the money required to build and maintain them in real life.

Additionally, if you allow minefield spamming, you allow for minefields to either be very overpowered as a feature, or very underpowered individually. Neither of these two is a good thing at all, and would be reason enough not to have the feature, which would either be horrific for game balance, or redundant in its abilities.

 

[moscaverde]

Hmm I understand, you're right Camikaze.
But it's a little bit sad that such an important thing get left out altogether. Maybe a promotion, dunno what it could do though.

 

[Baldyr]

As I said, land mines and minefields aren't so much booby-traps as they are a part of defensive structures. One could consider mines a part of the Strength factor of modern units, or you could possibly mod the game so that modern units get some sort of defensive advantage. Maybe that they are able to entrench faster.

I could, however, see the point of having some sort of improvement representing systems of trenches, bunkers - and land mines. It's not the most urgent addition to the game by any means, but could be cool nonetheless.

I realize I'm repeating myself, so I'll just shut up...