Unit support

[~Corsair#01~]

What if unit support was calculated due to the distance from your nearest city? This could be in 5/10 tile increments, for example, if I had troops 5-9 tiles from the nearest city (note: this may not include ships, or settlers), it would cost 1 gold per unit, on top of what you're already paying, 10-14 tiles would be 2 more, 15-19 would be 3, and so on. This would be far more realistic, also I think it would greatly benefit the game from a strategic point of view. For instance, if I was attacked by a stronger opponent, I could lead the the enemy army on a wild goose chase, until eventually it costs so much for the enemy to maintain them that they have to retreat. A similar strategy was in fact used by Russia during the Napoleonic Wars. The way the game is at the minute, there is no real cost for war (unless you're in representative government)- I have even went to war on occassion just so I could kill off some troops to ease my unit support! Any thoughts?

 

[Yuri2356]

Not bad, But the penalty should only apply if you enter enemy lands. (as in, neutral land would have no Extra support) Otherwise, early exploration would be almost impossible.

 

[MeatWad]

I had started a thread concerning this very thing. See 'More Realistic Military Support'. I had wanted to primarily address unit stacking, but I think this fits that bill as well. An exponential increase in GPT required for support depending on distance from said support is a great idea! But what about garrisoning of troops? To quote myself from that thread:

It seems strange to me that you can stack as many units (remember in CIV, each one represents a legion, brigade, etc.) in a city with no supply problems. It takes more than gpt to support an army, and I feel this should be addressed somehow. Maybe limiting the number of units to a city's size. That sounds fair, and perfectly natural as far as the flow of the game goes. By the time you actually NEED to stack units, most of your cities should be at least size 4 or 6. Too many units could be represented by starving - 1 food for every unit over the city's limit. I mean, in the AA we are talking about units made up of thousands of men. Even today with modern transport, supplying soldiers on the lines is an ongoing battle unto itself. Nothing cheeses me off more than trying to take a size 2 city that has a ba-jillion defenders (and I get creamed). I know they can't all fit in that Barracks!

Nothing hampers a Military like supply problems. Not even the enemy. Supply lines are THE most important aspect of any successful campaign. No supplies, no army, or just one that will be beating a hasty retreat VERY soon. It's that simple.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

@Meatwad- Yes, that sounds logical.
I have another idea- what if the distance from the nearest city was changed so that the larger the city, the cheaper it is to keep units close to it. For instance, being 20 tiles from a metropolis would be as cheap as being 10 tiles from a town, or something like that.

As far as keeping units in a city...the number you can have in a city should increase if you have a barracks, and of course the larger the city, the more units should be allowed in.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

It sounds good. But I think the penalty should only apply in enemy territory.

 

[Yuri2356]

It sounds good. But I think the penalty should only apply in enemy territory.

That's what I said.

 

[MeatWad]

Not bad, But the penalty should only apply if you enter enemy lands. (as in, neutral land would have no Extra support) Otherwise, early exploration would be almost impossible.

Explorer and other non-combat units wouldn't be subject to the same rules of supply that a legion of soldiers would. Explorers and scouts have the ability to 'live off the land', and shouldn't require any extra upkeep, or even supply lines. Same with Naval units. Let's assume that they keep enough supplies in stores for a reasonably long journey, plus we're not talking about 10,000 or more individual soldiers. That's a lot of hungry mouths to feed. How about this proposal - the further from a city a unit gets, and the longer it's away, the unit starts taking damage. Or maybe just factor in terrain type (i.e. Tundra, Desert, etc.). This would represent several factors, from harsh enviroment to morale failure. It would be even more prohibitive than just an increased cost of operation, something that could be temporarily offset by pillaging the local tile. This would be a reason for you to destroy your own improvements as you retreat, a historically proven strategy that has saved Russia many times, for example. Only a fool wants to wage war when their soldiers are sick and tired. So you got stuck with a crappy starting position, take heart! The enemy will find your terrain as forboding and inhospitable as your guns.

 

[El Loco]

A huge invasion in a far away continent would bankrupt you...

 

[Yuri2356]

Explorer and other non-combat units wouldn't be subject to the same rules of supply that a legion of soldiers would. Explorers and scouts have the ability to 'live off the land', and shouldn't require any extra upkeep, or even supply lines.

What if your Civ doesn't have acces to any "explorer" or "scout" unit early on? I'm taking about when people send out 2 or 3 warriors to search for good city sights and other Civs. If you still had to pay extra maintinence for these, it would ruin your starting economy! That would kill off so many noob Civ Players that they would instantly hate the game. They would remove the CD, Throw it in the fireplace, then break the case in half and use the sharp pointy edges to kill as many Firaxis emplyees as they could!

My exagaration is obvious, and is intended to be mildly amusing. But the point is that adding too many things like this would scare off new players and kill the almighty franchise that is Civ.

 

[dh_epic]

Right of passage or mutual protection pact (or a new kind of deal) could bring support from a nation even closer to your troops. Like stationing American troops in Britain to launch an offensive to take back france.

I always thought supply problems would make military campaigns more challenging and would open up a new strategy for nations on the defence -- if we can't take out their powerful tanks, try to crumble the supply lines. Up until this idea, there was the dreadful idea of going back to a Civ 2 system -- which would be too tedious to maintain for the strategic benefits.

This system sounds largely automated. And I definitely like that.

 

[Mewtarthio]

What if your Civ doesn't have acces to any "explorer" or "scout" unit early on? I'm taking about when people send out 2 or 3 warriors to search for good city sights and other Civs. If you still had to pay extra maintinence for these, it would ruin your starting economy! That would kill off so many noob Civ Players that they would instantly hate the game. They would remove the CD, Throw it in the fireplace, then break the case in half and use the sharp pointy edges to kill as many Firaxis emplyees as they could!

My exagaration is obvious, and is intended to be mildly amusing. But the point is that adding too many things like this would scare off new players and kill the almighty franchise that is Civ.

Well, it's a sequel! Let's just give everyone scouts (Expansionists could get cheaper Settlers)!

 

[MeatWad]

Well, it's a sequel! Let's just give everyone scouts (Expansionists could get cheaper Settlers)!

Now there's an idea!

 

[~Corsair#01~]

A huge invasion in a far away continent would bankrupt you...

It normally does in the real world too.

 

[Hellfury]

A huge invasion in a far away continent would bankrupt you...

But if it doesnt and you take one town you unit costs will plumit. The best way to stop prblems like this would be to include Palace/FP/other similar wonders in the equasion somewhere to stop huge drops in unit up-keep when you take a far away city.

 

[Yuri2356]

Perhaps the City would have to build some kind of "suppy depot" inprovement, or have to be connected to your capital? That could work to counter this problem.