War Workers?

[Shackel]

Well, I was looking at topics and info about other wars, when it dawned on me that if walls, trenches, landmines, blockading resources(instead of pillaging), and spikes were so decisive, why should we not be able to build them?

War Workers take 2-3x the time to build, but they build war-related items like Spikes, a Minefield, or Trenches on tiles in AND outside of your borders(takes longer).

Some of them, like Minefields, would take out an improvement, or possibly even stop the tile from being used at all, while others(Bomb Testing, probably the only thing able to be built on a Desert) would increase Production, but they would have to be at least 3 tiles away.

Trenches would act like roads, but would provide a small bonus(10%) for allowing an improvement.

Does it sound nice?

 

[MosheLevi]

Civ 4 already has the 25% fortification bonus (5% per turn).
That pretty much represents Trenches, minefields and so on.

 

[Shackel]

That doesn't explain much, though.

However, it would be better for your units to be able to move into a good place.

 

[MosheLevi]

It is the same idea without getting into details.

What do you think the 25% fortification bonus is for?

 

[Lockesdonkey]

1. The name for such a unit would most likely be "Combat Engineer."
2. The 25% fortification bonus reflects this, as most infantry divisions have an engineering battalion (I estimate that a unit of infantry represents a division. It fits best).

 

[CivMyWay]

Fortifications cover most of this. I agree however that a combat engineer would be worthwhile; they could do only the combat related improvements, quicker than their civilian counterparts. I do however think that land mining should be an option. A tile could be either "Land mine (light)" or "(dense)". Dense "coverage" taking longer to build. This tile would then have a % chance of causing % damage to ANY unit which passes through it. After war, it would need to be cleared, or would cause civilian casualties and great unhappiness (if near a city). A tile that is land-mined should also be unusable for any other "resource gathering".

 

[Naokaukodem]

No need of a special unit to build trenches. Soldiers do it well.

However, I think there should be a system to reflect the different kinds of wars through History, like trenches wars, ancient wars (in a field, with melee combats, horsemen and range units), and intermediate (Napoleon wars, American war)

Ancients wars could be managed by the intermediate of an army. Units assembled in armies would be stronger individually than out of an army. I heard Civilization Revolution have such a kind of armies, so maybe i talk for nothing. Armies with horses would be very efficient against an army without horses, with equal forces. Armies with archers would have a quantity of free shots, before and after the beginning of the battle depending on the number of the enemy troops. (if they can shot enemy surplus without friendly shooting) Armies with a good general would be stronger than an army without of or with a worse general, at equal forces. Formulas should determine how supernumerary armies should prevail, what would not only be the case. Supernumeraryness and ability of the general should be only factors, not ground data. Retreat and number of units saved should be determined by odds and Generals. Etc...

Intermediate wars should be played as armies as well, except for the front line. Only 3 units could act in the same time from a tile. The rest would only be reinforcement. If two armies attack a third in the same time, that would be two fronts for the last army and count strongly for defeat.

 

[Shackel]

Sorry, at the time of posting, I did not feel like posting anything else.

Having units in one place, and having to stay in that one place, just for a bonus, is not going to represent the trenches, barbed wire, minefields, and so on.

Having mine fields would, like in real life, allow you to focus on one area without having to worry as much, as long as you have a unit that can clean the rest up. It is a mix of gameplay and realism.

Has anyone ever heard of the gigantic trench system that nearly covered the length of France in WWI?

Just a large, fortified line of Infantry isn't really going to work that well. Trench warfare was a large part of WWI, being a quick and easy way to get quick defenses up and being able to keep the other side at bay.

Minefields would represent more modern combat, as the trenches would be obsolete. These would add to the "Fort" series of things, which is nearly useless until you get to Physics.

Moshi, if you are not going to be helpful in the topic, then leave.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Sorry, at the time of posting, I did not feel like posting anything else.

No worries. Some people are satisfyed with "i want more of this" "ideas", so you are not the last one in originality, and at least your topic helped me to express some ideas.

Having units in one place, and having to stay in that one place, just for a bonus, is not going to represent the trenches, barbed wire, minefields, and so on.

My guess is that this bonus is way too soft for modern units. It's okay for ancient units, and maybe not even. Since gunpowder, fortifications were the key of the victory. I remember this japanese battle, where a small faction of fortified gunpowder units took out a huge stack of ancient army. The fortification bonus for such units should be of 100%, even maybe 200%. And the simultaneous hits, regardfull of "armies" i described above, should be limited to 1 in trenches. Don't get me wrong, you can have more than one unit in a square, but the battles would consider only one of them. Once a unit destroyed, it is replaced by another one, and the battle continues. Plus, you can attack adjacent squares if you are fortified and use an Infantry, with the right bonus.

Having mine fields would, like in real life, allow you to focus on one area without having to worry as much, as long as you have a unit that can clean the rest up. It is a mix of gameplay and realism.

I am not sure i want mines in Civ. That would be too much of a headache, and slow down many wars.

Has anyone ever heard of the gigantic trench system that nearly covered the length of France in WWI?

Yes (I'm french), and thats why i try to find a system to produce them.

Just a large, fortified line of Infantry isn't really going to work that well.

Except if you raise the fortification bonus like i said earlier.

Trench warfare was a large part of WWI, being a quick and easy way to get quick defenses up and being able to keep the other side at bay.

I agree. Trenches should be a special ability of Infrantry.

Minefields would represent more modern combat, as the trenches would be obsolete. These would add to the "Fort" series of things, which is nearly useless until you get to Physics.

Again, not sure i want this. After all, when a mine explodes, it doesn't kill more of 1 soldier/armor, what would be translated in Civ by a small health hit. There can be fields of mines, hurting more than 1 unit or killing entire units, but since only 1 mine only to explode, it should be possible to retreat. On the fly, mine fields should be visible, so nearly inefficient. I never heard that an army has been put in deroute by mine fields. They are only an lame way to defend.

 

[Shackel]

I suppose. Maybe the "Fortification Bonuses" themselves need to be revamped. Archers would usually stick spikes in front of them or on the side to slow down enemies, so maybe archers should have a fortification boost to the front, but any other hit would lower the bonus.

ALL Melee units should be able to dig trenches.

The minefield thing is for when you get that ultimate military stronghold, like a town sandwiched between a small mountain range(I have one), but there are two giant stacks heading towards you.

American troops have been stopped on the roads due to IEDs, so maybe minefields can slow units down?(Outside cultural borders)

Before, in the American Civil War, mines were a HUGE problem to both sides, due to them having no modern technology at the time. They would have to stop and dig small holes to look for mines, then detonate them.

Mines would probably be in the age of Musketmen and Riflemen, and would be something to slow down enemies later.

 

[Camikaze]

I agree with this idea, to a degree. War workers would, however, need to be not very easy to produce, or expensive to use, or something, to stop some sort of fortification/mine-field spamming.

 

[Shackel]

Maybe the Minefields should be 1.5-3x normal time, like the workers?

 

[MosheLevi]

I suppose. Maybe the "Fortification Bonuses" themselves need to be revamped. Archers would usually stick spikes in front of them or on the side to slow down enemies, so maybe archers should have a fortification boost to the front, but any other hit would lower the bonus.

Strange, in other threads you are so much against additional micromanagement yet here you are suggesting a new super micromanagement feature for something that is already working fine…

We also don’t need to have overpowering fortifications like in world war I.
That war came to a halt because of these fortifications.

 

[Shackel]

Each unit having it's own "Special" fortification, instead of the "All-In-One" fortification is not micromanagement.

"new super micromanagement feature for something that is already working fine..."

- No. Not at all, actually. A couple of different types of fortification would be much better than just one. Also, the trench idea was one of the longest used fortifications in warfare.

This would not be overpowered, either. It creates strategy(FLANKING).

 

[exhile]

I agree with a war worker that should be introduced in the industrial era. The war worke will replace the regular worker in building forts & airbases.

 

[rysmiel]

Has anyone ever heard of the gigantic trench system that nearly covered the length of France in WWI?

Just a large, fortified line of Infantry isn't really going to work that well. Trench warfare was a large part of WWI, being a quick and easy way to get quick defenses up and being able to keep the other side at bay..

Yep; and then in WWII it was superseded. So if you are hung up on our world's history as the way things are supposed to work, it's something you would find yourself having to build a lot of to cover a relatively brief period within the game.

 

[Shackel]

Rys, if you're going to be rude AND not pay attention to most of the topic, get out. I, personally, do not want any flame wars starting up.

In WWII, the trenches were replaced with airbases when it comes to importance. Therefore, war workers would still be helpful. Now, leave.

Moderator Action: Warned - flaming other members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[rysmiel]

Rys, if you're going to be rude AND not pay attention to most of the topic, get out. I, personally, do not want any flame wars starting up.

A detail under the topic is a legitimate point for comment; the point that some form of fortification-type terrain improvement to simulate trenches doesn't appeal to me much because it either be of short-lived use or annoy people who prioritise realism seems to me a legitimate comment in the context. No rudeness intended.

Thinking about it further, it could be a development from eighteenth-century defensive earthworks, but they are specifically about absorbing or deflecting period artillery and become useless once your artillery tech get beyond a certain point, so you could in theory have this as a kind of terrain improvement that got upgraded.

In WWII, the trenches were replaced with airbases when it comes to importance. Therefore, war workers would still be helpful.

I don't have opinions either way on the combat engineer notion, as opposed to having generic workers have the ability; have been waiting to see if anything would come up in the thread to incline me to a preference here. Though thinking it over, the idea of laying minefields (on land or at sea) seems much more suited to having a specific combat-engineering unit than any degree of basically digging holes in the ground.

Now, leave

Oh, grow up and stop being so defensive.

 

[Shackel]

A rude comment is a rude comment, no matter if it pertains to the topic or not. An argument is not the same as a debate. However, I do not prioritize realism, as this one is just something that is "off". Trenches, airbases, and other fortifications were highly ignored.

The "Now, leave" was towards your aggressive and rude talking, which was not as much going against the argument as just trying to start something. I do not want anyone trying to start things in this topic.

 

[rysmiel]

An argument is not the same as a debate. However, I do not prioritize realism, as this one is just something that is "off". Trenches, airbases, and other fortifications were highly ignored.

So my saying why I don't like trenches as a notion reads to you as ignoring the point about fortifications ? This does not make sense to me.