What do we want in Civ V?

*sigh* I suppose I'll indulge myself ( ;) )

1. Put rivers back inside the tiles as in Civ2, and be able to allow only certain units to benefit from increased movement (gunboats etc.). This also scales back the effect of flood plains, which I believe are overdone in Civ3.

2. Pet peeve: limit units as to how far they can move from a friendly city. Myths to the contrary, no Roman emperor ever ordered a legion to march to China. Even (especially) Alexander the Great's conquests were city-based. Why? That's where the food and supplies come from. And btw yes this should be removable by a tech.

All For Now,

Oz
 
How about having units reduce in stats the farther they are from cities. That way you can have caravans/supplies like Civ 2, coupled with a sort of logistics/atrittion thing- if you have a logistically flagged unit in your stack (or withing X range) then the atrittion effects are negated.
 
There is a better solution: To give the units the need of certain supplies. The longer away from a depot the less the supplies. And the need of having transports for giving food, ammo and oil (later units) for the units. So you can have a huge fleet or army far away. But it will be difficult to do so.

Adler
 
OOh OOH and pillaging gives food and supplies.
 
We mustn't forget, there's a certain limit to ones santiy. Micromanagement can only go so far. Keep things deep but not too complex.
 
Yes, it was a Civ 2 feature. The problem, why it was scuttled for Civ 3 was, that the research of tech became nearly completely unnecessairy. Why to invest a lot in researching, if you easily can get with this investment in offensive units enemy cities, their economy and additional techs and a good position for a domination win?

The decisions to make research "worthy" by cutting down this feature for Civ 3 was the right one in my eyes. Do you really want, that all decisions about techtrees are secondary features?
 
how about only gaining a tech when one defeats a race entirely, or perhaps captures its capital?
 
I've never found research unnecessary in ToT, but that could be just because I'm such a passive leader. I don't really capture a lot of cities, except when I'm getting my captured cities back, or when I'm playing Extended Original and those damn humans are trying to colonize Centaurus.
 
I agree that logistics are a factor in warfare that Civ really doesn't address. But I'm not sure making cities = supply nodes would correct the problem.

The problem with having units based in cities and limited in how far they can move from cities is that 90% of the people in Classical Antiquity lived in rural areas, not in cities, and it is from these rural areas that Alexander got his food, not from cities. As Donald W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army (1980) makes clear, Alexander's movements were predicated on the availability of supplies from region to region, namely harvest time and climate. Also, ancient armies carried supplies with them, as Alexander was forced to do. This includes the so-called barbarians, like the Huns, who most certainly did not travel from city to city on the steppes (since there were none) but lived off the land. Cities were not plundered for food (since they produced no food but consumed it) but for wealth and slaves. A just conquered city would not become an instant source of food supplies (if anything, Civ treats captured cities too kindly: cities that are captured should suffer random collateral damage as a result of the attack). If Attila had to depend upon a supply line composed of cities, his campaigns would be impossible and unrealistic.

Without making the game incredibly complex, and changing its focus entirely, I'm not sure Civ can accurately model logistical considerations. Perhaps supply units would be a middle course. Every army since the dawn of time has had a logistical train. Perhaps each turn an army is not in a city it needs to consume supply units, or perhaps every time it fights it needs to consume supply units, and this consumption becomes necessary at a certain distance from a friendly city (we can imagine those supply NCOs scrambling back and forth to a nearby friendly force to keep it supplied) or when on terrain that does not produce food (like mountains or swamps). Old tabletop wargaming grognards like me remember games with supply units, which represent an easy fix if the designer wanted to provide the game with a little historical "chrome."

Unfortunately, in C3C, enemy armies use mountain ranges for their axis of advance and this is unrealistic in the extreme. The mountains are the one place attacking armies would avoid. The Europeans sat complacently behind the Carpathians thinking they were safe from the Mongols because they knew armies of their era could not traverse mountain ranges. The only people who seem unaware of this fact are the game's programmers, who rather than creating barriers have turned mountain ranges into highways. Logistical rules like those I've outlined above would render this less likely, as would triggering an "attrition roll" (something table top wargamers are familiar with) which would inflict a "hit" on units entering mountain terrain. By the time you traversed the mountain range to get to the enemy, your army would be in no condition to fight and this would be realistic.

If terrain became a factor in supply (as opposed to cities) then armies would follow river lines, as is historical. Easy foraging, lots of water for the horses and men - namely, the same thing that has caused so many cities to be build along riverbanks. And if, as somebody else has suggested, Civ went back to rivers IN the squares instead of alongside the sides of squares, then river transport could be introduced into the game, as in river flotillas such as the Romans used on the Rhine and Danube and the USA used in Vietnam. And these too, can be used to keep armies supplied in the field.

Just my two cents worth.
 
Civinator said:
Yes, it was a Civ 2 feature. The problem, why it was scuttled for Civ 3 was, that the research of tech became nearly completely unnecessairy. Why to invest a lot in researching, if you easily can get with this investment in offensive units enemy cities, their economy and additional techs and a good position for a domination win?

The decisions to make research "worthy" by cutting down this feature for Civ 3 was the right one in my eyes. Do you really want, that all decisions about techtrees are secondary features?
Click to expand...

all the issues you address are solvable...

have a set amount of research points alloted to each research building. When you capture a city, you get a number of research points equal to the buildings in the city...the number can be kept low enough that you would need to take 15-20 cities to get a free tech. You could also only allow the points to count for 50% total of the skill being learned, so that until you finish that tech, no points would count...Or like was suggested, make it only the Capitol(exploitable) or make it so that you have a 30-40% chance when defeating a Civ....

Also, I have found that beyond early industrial era, research is a minor concern anyway, and Im still usually learning a Tech in 4 turns...
 
Hrafnkell said:
I agree that logistics are a factor in warfare that Civ really doesn't address. But I'm not sure making cities = supply nodes would correct the problem.

The problem with having units based in cities and limited in how far they can move from cities is that 90% of the people in Classical Antiquity lived in rural areas, not in cities, and it is from these rural areas that Alexander got his food, not from cities. As Donald W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army (1980) makes clear, Alexander's movements were predicated on the availability of supplies from region to region, namely harvest time and climate. Also, ancient armies carried supplies with them, as Alexander was forced to do. This includes the so-called barbarians, like the Huns, who most certainly did not travel from city to city on the steppes (since there were none) but lived off the land. Cities were not plundered for food (since they produced no food but consumed it) but for wealth and slaves. A just conquered city would not become an instant source of food supplies (if anything, Civ treats captured cities too kindly: cities that are captured should suffer random collateral damage as a result of the attack). If Attila had to depend upon a supply line composed of cities, his campaigns would be impossible and unrealistic.

Without making the game incredibly complex, and changing its focus entirely, I'm not sure Civ can accurately model logistical considerations. Perhaps supply units would be a middle course. Every army since the dawn of time has had a logistical train. Perhaps each turn an army is not in a city it needs to consume supply units, or perhaps every time it fights it needs to consume supply units, and this consumption becomes necessary at a certain distance from a friendly city (we can imagine those supply NCOs scrambling back and forth to a nearby friendly force to keep it supplied) or when on terrain that does not produce food (like mountains or swamps). Old tabletop wargaming grognards like me remember games with supply units, which represent an easy fix if the designer wanted to provide the game with a little historical "chrome."

Unfortunately, in C3C, enemy armies use mountain ranges for their axis of advance and this is unrealistic in the extreme. The mountains are the one place attacking armies would avoid. The Europeans sat complacently behind the Carpathians thinking they were safe from the Mongols because they knew armies of their era could not traverse mountain ranges. The only people who seem unaware of this fact are the game's programmers, who rather than creating barriers have turned mountain ranges into highways. Logistical rules like those I've outlined above would render this less likely, as would triggering an "attrition roll" (something table top wargamers are familiar with) which would inflict a "hit" on units entering mountain terrain. By the time you traversed the mountain range to get to the enemy, your army would be in no condition to fight and this would be realistic.

If terrain became a factor in supply (as opposed to cities) then armies would follow river lines, as is historical. Easy foraging, lots of water for the horses and men - namely, the same thing that has caused so many cities to be build along riverbanks. And if, as somebody else has suggested, Civ went back to rivers IN the squares instead of alongside the sides of squares, then river transport could be introduced into the game, as in river flotillas such as the Romans used on the Rhine and Danube and the USA used in Vietnam. And these too, can be used to keep armies supplied in the field.

Just my two cents worth.
Click to expand...

:agree: However you need the units to have a certain ammount of ammo and food or fuel for the units. So if one is depleted the movement points are down to 1 as well as the fighting stats. Or even 0. Then it should be able to capture these units for the other side. A tank without ammo and fuel is an easy target. Not always but with a decent chance it can be captured if attacked. The same can be said by capturing enemy cities and forts or generally big forces. There should ever be a chance that the attacked unit is not destroyed but captured. And even if it is only simulated for vehicles, ships, planes and perhaps cavalry.
But back to supply. Each unit should have a certain ammount of "resources" with them. With no resources from supply trains they can't do much. Resources are:
a) Food (all infantry and cavalry)
b) Ammo (only for long range units and modern firearms one)
c) wood (early ships and catapults, archers and crossbowmen)
d) Fuel (vehicles and modern ships, oil and coal)
If this is depleted the unit has to stop. It should have however the possibility to try to gain something back by pillaging resp. requiring the things (the latter for later times. And that should not be limited to squares, which are used (farms, mines,...). I mean if you have an archer unit in enemy territory, which lost the supply routes. The archer is low on food and wood. But you are on a forest square, so your archer can make new arrows and hunt deer to fill your reserves. However they get a defense malus for doing so. Be it a malus on their values or better a kind of negative fortification. Fortified units hold in these territories their reserves generally. So in a forest the archer can fill up their supplies on wood and food on their own and stays so. On plains they can only get new food but have to be aware that the wood is not going out. The modern units have much more problems in doing so. Ammo and fuel are much more problematic to be found. Attacking trade routes nevertheless can give you not only raw materials but also resupplies.
However these problems don't occur if you have enough supply units.

Adler
 
:hmm: all above, and of course:

SERBIA
 
Hrafnkell said:
I agree that logistics are a factor in warfare that Civ really doesn't address. But I'm not sure making cities = supply nodes would correct the problem.

The problem with having units based in cities and limited in how far they can move from cities is that 90% of the people in Classical Antiquity lived in rural areas, not in cities, and it is from these rural areas that Alexander got his food, not from cities.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but- with the exception of Egypt being Rome's granary - these rural dwellers were centered around urban centers. And the Egypt/Rome and similar scenarios could simply be resolved by reinstating the Civ 2 trade system.

Hrafnkell said:
If terrain became a factor in supply (as opposed to cities) then armies would follow river lines, as is historical. Easy foraging, lots of water for the horses and men - namely, the same thing that has caused so many cities to be build along riverbanks. And if, as somebody else has suggested, Civ went back to rivers IN the squares instead of alongside the sides of squares, then river transport could be introduced into the game, as in river flotillas such as the Romans used on the Rhine and Danube and the USA used in Vietnam. And these too, can be used to keep armies supplied in the field.
Click to expand...

Rivers within tiles is a fervent hope of mine just for those reasons (related pet peeve: it should be possible to limit units to RRs to simulate the importance of armored trains in the first half of the 20th century).

Best,

Oz
 
Adler, it would be nice if units could pillage squares for supplies, perhaps causing something like pollution in the square, and that depending on the terrain this supply would support x number of units. An army could then live off the land and units being unable to so supply themselves in mountains, the computer player's penchant for "mountain roading" it would come to an end.

Oz, I liked the Civ2 trade system too. I think they did away with some perfectly good game mechanics when they made the transition to Civ3. Shouldn't get rid of something just to put in something new, which seems to be the driving force in game design these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
[C3C] Is there way to make nukes kill nukes?
Replies
2
Views
266
Alekseyev_
Alekseyev_
B
[C3C] A Question on The Rules Editor (original scenario editor), Units, and Resources...
Replies
2
Views
425
timerover51
timerover51
M
Adjusting retreat ability on a per-unit basis?
Replies
3
Views
366
Predator145
Predator145
R
[C3C] Civ3 Wonder Tennis Court and Tournaments Graphics Creation Guide
Replies
2
Views
254
rukasujjk
R
Predator145
Implementing a Supply Convoy type of unit
Replies
5
Views
634
Predator145
Predator145
Back
Top Bottom