|
Author
|
Topic: MOVEMENT, SUPPLY, ETC. (ver1.0): Hosted by don Don
|
don Don
Civer
IP:  |
posted June 07, 1999 03:54
    
Diodorus Silicus: Hmmm, a troopship… postwar occupation army, maybe?Mountains/Desert (and I would add Glacier and Jungle) inflicting damage. Even with roads crossing a major mountain range took a toll on an army. Interesting idea! (But I think the problem with finding the source of the Nile was the unfriendly native population.) Suvorov? Who he? Limits to going outside city radius due to supply… did you check out the Movement 1.0 proposal (link at top of thread)? Section 4 covers some Supply ideas, but I hadn't fleshed out how to gauge damage to out-of-supply units. Would ships have to return to port, or just to friendly waters? I for one already hate the way aircraft movement is done in Civ/SMAC, and wouldn't want more of the same. (The suggestion will be in the list… I'm just wondering whether you think return to port is critical.) Ecce Homo n Flavor Dave: Support is different from supply. I've been trying to think which thread has some stuff about support in it. |
Theben
Civer
IP: |
posted June 09, 1999 17:09
Diodorus, Flav dave, don Don,As an early subscriber of damage to units due to unfriendly terrain I must support Diodorus da Sicilian. Chariots, armor passing thru mountains w/o roads? Don't think so! And Hannibal spent months recruiting new soldiers from northern tribes after crossing the Alps because his army was so depleted. Okay, fine, but what about playability, you say? I say, as a player, that I believe those mountains to the east and the desert to the west should protect ME from invasion, not give the enemy great defensive positions to attack my city from(unless I garrison the mountains!) or allow easy access to my empire (desert=no penalty to movement). The defender loses playability as it currently stands in civII, because bad terrain usually gives you poor resources. Balance would prevent the enemy from doing the above; as it is the defending city gets penalized twice. Now not every unit should be penalized the same, nor should all terrain be equal in penalizing movement and/or damaging units. FE, chariots & tanks trying to traverse MT's w/o roads or passes would be denied. Trying to pass through swamps, jungle, would cause damage (bogged down units and disease) and loss of movement. Regular infantry could cross MT's and such with less damage than chariots and tanks would receive. Alpine units can traverse mountain, glacier, and tundra, w/o penalty(but no "as road" mutliplier); marines, in addition to amphibious capabilities, could pass thru jungle & swamp w/o problem as well. Explorers, settlers/engineers can travel thru all terrain w/o damage(settler/engineer because they improve the land; if another unit will do these functions then I'd transfer the abilities to it). Just my 2 cents. |
Theben
Civer
IP: |
posted June 09, 1999 17:11
BTW, no port maintenance. |
VaderTwo
Civer
IP: |
posted June 10, 1999 12:04
I also like the idea for possible damage to units for moving through certain hostile types of terrain (mountains, jungles, swamp, glacier) but I wouldn't limit it to land unit damage. As I posted earlier (although I don't know if it was here), also include icebergs and reefs in the sea zones to possibly create damage as well. |
don Don
Civer
IP: |
posted June 10, 1999 14:31
ATTENTION, PLEASE!The initial submission for this topic being due soon, I can't guarantee suggestions posted after midnight today, June 10th will make the cut. (I'm sure we'll continue to monitor these threads and send more to Firaxis later on.) I thank everybody who has contributed to date and will post a summary when completed. ------------------
*a friendly note from your favorite heretic |
Ecce Homo
Civer
IP: |
posted June 10, 1999 21:12
Moving armies overseas usually means lots of micromanagement. Civ 3 should include
"sealifts"
which would work like airlifts, but not necessarily be instant.By the way, what is the difference between supply and support? [This message has been edited by Ecce Homo (edited June 10, 1999).] |
don Don
Civer
IP: |
posted June 11, 1999 08:42
Support is long term unit maintenance cost in resources modelled (in Civ2, shields). Supply is a generalization of whether that unit has instantaneous access to supplies (the resources modelled as well as unmodelled) and communications, and freedom to move unhindered. Supply rules are a nod of recognition that the supply line of a fighting unit is far more vulnerable than the unit itself. |
wheathin
Civer
IP: |
posted June 11, 1999 11:36
don don:
even though it was totally ignored by most of the contributors to this forum, make sure to include my SeaLanes idea from June 4.wheathin |
don Don
Civer
IP: |
posted June 11, 1999 12:48
I am going to a galaxy far, far away to learn at the feet of the Jedi masters (2½ weeks max; I'm a quick study  ). The rigors of this training may not leave me time to spend on Apolyton, and as I pack and prepare my aged starfreighter for the journey I will be lucky to get a thorough topic summary to Yin. I'll leave this thread open until such time as I can start a new thread with a decent summary.Fear not wheathin, it was not overlooked  [This message has been edited by don Don (edited June 11, 1999).] |
korn469
Civer
IP: |
posted June 15, 1999 08:10
i think the way units are supported should be changed. i think that a certain number of units should create a soldier specalist. it could be handled on a national basis so that depending up your support level that would be the number of soldier specialist spread throughout your empire. the soldier specailist would be like all other specialist(scientist, tax colloector, entertainer, doctor, engineer, transend)...one population of a city not working the land and this would represent the logistics and people need to keep a military machine running. like specialist in alpha centauri the soldier specialist would modify labs and economy. the modifier would be -2 economy -2 labs support level three 4 units create a soldier specialist 6 units to a soldier no penalties for the first solider two 4 units create a soldier 6 to a soldier one 3 units create a soldier 5 to a soldier zero 3 units create a soldier 4 units to a soldier minus one 2 units create a soldier 3 units to a soldier minus two 2 unit creates a soldier 2 units to a soldier minus three 1 unit creates a soldier 2 units to a soldier minus four 1 unit creates a soldier 2 units to a soldier each soldier specialist has a -3 labs/-3 economy modifier for example if 2 units create a soldier and there are four units to a soldier, you build one infantry man you don't have any soldiers, on your second infantry man you get a soldier and then you get your second soldier when you have 6 infantry men naturally when units were disbanded or killed the soldier specialist would turn back into regular workers if you lost soldier specailist in one city and couldn't create them in another you would have to disband units
|
yin26
Moderator
IP: |
posted June 16, 1999 05:37
-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=- |
don Don
Civer
IP: |
posted June 17, 1999 12:49
[b]Thread CLOSED![b]
(This means you! )Please see the new thread at MOVEMENT, SUPPLY, ETC. (ver 2.0).
------------------
*a friendly note from your favorite heretic [This message has been edited by don Don (edited June 17, 1999).] | |
Thread Closed 
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
