Traps & using natural weapons

ShADoW^HawK

The Shanksta Ganksta
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
129
Location
California
I think one feature that should be implemented into Civ4 is the ability to set up traps and the ability for certain units to detect traps. Of course, if your units aren't well informed (or aren't paying attention), they can get caught into a trap, even your own trap! These traps would vary from taking 1 (out of 4 or 5) Hp point away all the way up to the trap killing the unit, depending on the technology and the amount of time invested in setting up the trap (which would be done by a worker/engineer).

I would also like to see the use of natural weapons and the possibility to mix attacks to surprise the enemy. For example, in Troy, I loved how they fired arrows that lit the ground on fire, and all the Greeks thought they were stupid and missed, and then bolders rolled and caught on fire when they passed over the arrows that were set on fire. That would be great to do. If I could have a unit be hiding in a moundtain and then he would, instead of going off directly, he would try pushing a loose bolder off of the mountain or something to crush the other units. Also, it would be great to have, say, my archer being followed by swordsman, and he would sprint into the forest where they wouldn't be able to see him, and then he would stand on one side of an unknown quicksand, and when the other swordsman would try and cross that area, some of them would be killed by the quicksand. These features of natural weapons would add a lot more strategy to the game.

Also, the spys could be implemented into both of these features, where you could use covert ops to discover where the traps and natural dangers are, helping the spy's user to be more prepared and aware.

I think that both of these features would improve the amount of strategy applied to the game tremendously, and wouldn't only make people that have Modern Armor's (and other good things) first be the best.
 
Using terrain traps is very interesting when you are being invaded and are the weaker culture.

I belief there has been research on what the usual ratio is of overwhelming power one needs to conquer a country and that ratio is 1:3. Meaning you need to have a force 3 times bigger than the enemy to conquer him.

In Civ 3 it was a little bit of but i think this ratio could get very close when natural traps are allowed in the game. Think of jungle terrain with those spikes burried under the surface or perhaps anti-tank mines and such. Although thats not really natural defensive, it might be great to have overally have deffensive weapons added to the arsenal
 
doesn't defencive fortifications include this?
of course you can always expand on something.
 
killingdjef said:
I belief there has been research on what the usual ratio is of overwhelming power one needs to conquer a country and that ratio is 1:3. Meaning you need to have a force 3 times bigger than the enemy to conquer him.

Bigger in urban warfare metinks. that program with jeremy clarckson said a figure. cant remember what, but it was big
 
Still, traps need to be introduced which will actually do damage to the enemy (and possibly yourself, if you're not careful enough). Maybe if you put traps near a city, your population could wander out and some could die from it, that would also affect world opinion and make it known that you have traps there (that is, if you're not a dictatorshipish type of government).

Traps need to be added, as well as using the natural environment more often. Environment always plays an impact in wars.
 
t3h_m013 said:
Bigger in urban warfare metinks. that program with jeremy clarckson said a figure. cant remember what, but it was big

you are right there! I forgot to mention it was applyable on the wars arround WW2. Naturally with population growth, thus urban growth, Urban warfare is an upcoming (or already is) scenario which modern warfare deals alot with

As for traps... i think that would be very interesting to add to the game. Whether its mechanical or natural.. i like them both. That kinda gives the homeland an advantage over the invader since in Civ 3 the odds are quite equal.
 
I feel the scale of the game is wrong to support this. I think this is already covered in the defender "home field advantage" that is factored into Civ3 combat already.
 
I agree with warpstorm.
Civ 3 is in such a huge scale that traps would feel very misplaced.
 
Well, they should at least have some text box that may pop-up when an enemy invades your land that would say that "part of x's squad stepped on a mine" and then 2 HP would go away from him. I think that it would be quite a good idea to have traps, because there isn't that much of a homeland advantage. Besides, this would allow one to easily kill tanks & other heavier military units, which are generally quite hard to kill. I mean, have there been any major wars where traps weren't utilized somewhere. Besides, I'm not saying that traps would only affect enemy units, they could affect your units as well, as well as population, if you set up traps (natural or mechanical) near your cities. Also, there could be different sizes of radius of where civilians from towns roam in for each level of city (town, city, metropolis) which would make one have to think of urban sprawl before putting his traps near his cities. Also, if someone's traps would explode on some of his population that would affect the world respect that person has. TRAPS NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED!!
 
ehh,, boulders landing on armies? Thats sounds absurd.


But landmines would make sense, perhaps.
 
Anti-tank ditches and mines could be nice, and of course something
to counter it or another improved strategic aspect of offense.
 
Bwahahahahaha! Quicksand.

If you consider each unit to be a unit, instead of just a single dude, then traps look kinda silly.

One of the principles of defense I was taught in The Basic School for Marine officers is that all obstacles must be covered by fire to be effective. That is, you set out barbed wire and mines, and then you train your machinegun on them, and lay your mortars to cover them, too. When the enemy encounters them, the traps make him more vulnerable to the machinegun fire, and vice versa.

I think this is all covered by the "fortify" command though...your unit fortifies itself, which includes digging in, laying wire, emplacing mines, whatever. Building fortresses also would seem applicable.

Silly little VC style booby traps, or the IEDs over in Iraq now aren't really reducing the strength of our military units over there, but they are increasing war weariness at home!

One thing I'd like to see that might produce the effects you are talking about is the ability to engage in non-decisive combat...one unit could harass another, and cause some damage, then withdraw, and stand only a small chance of being destroyed. Of course, you can already do this (sort of) with artillery.

DogmaDog
 
Well, I think the reason you think that one mine would destroy a unit is absurd, is because you think I'm talking about one mine and not a minefield! that's because when I say traps, I'm talking about setting up something undetectable, which also don't need units nearby. Of course, one of the cons is that there are possibilities for it harming your own units, as well as your population. I mean, Many civilians in places like Vietnam and Chechnya are dying because they wander out and end up stepping on a mine. Not only would these minefields (and other large sets of traps) help a lot in the caution that enemies take in entering your terrain, but also they would create a large part of warfare which I would love to see implemented (TRAPS)!

And, the traps wouldn't even need to kill a unit, but at least give it 1-2 or 1-3 damage (depending on the trap and how complex it is, and how much time was taken in making it--if the workers are used in making it).

Traps are ways of hurting enemies without directly confronting them. They must be implemented!
 
Speaking of VC, having units that would be able to hide in forests or jungles and then ambush passing enemy units would be cool. Like a submarine, except on land.
 
That's not a bad idea, but the stuff you mentioned at the top is on a scale much smaller than Civ - closer to AoE. I like the idea of mines increasing the defenses of a city, as well as putting your population/workers at risk, but again, isn't that already in place given the advantages of a fortified unit in a large city?

I suppose you could argue that you're talking about mining specific squares and the like, but that seems to be getting a little small scale for what Civ is. Again, the icons represent units, not individuals. When you can only move troops in groups of a thousand, dropping a mine here or a stake trap there seems like it would majorly interfere with gameplay.

I don't see anything here that's not really covered by the bonus given to defenders. I mean, when was the last time you read about a batallion running across a minefield two hundred miles from any enemy troops? These things are, as DogmaDog said, part of troops digging in.

Good idea, just the wrong scale. Anyway - that's my $0.02.
 
Traps are already represented in the game.
Why, do you think, do your units progress slower in enemy territory than in uncovered or own space? Because they can't read the traffic signs?
 
I think traps should be included, both for the civ with home territory and those in unfamilar territory. It should be reduced for the civ in home territory then for those in unfamilar territory those.
 
Top Bottom