|
Author
|
Topic: Damage/prisoners Current Date/Time:
March 31, 2000 02:42:40
|
Stefu
Emperor
From: Why would you want to know that?
Registered: b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted March 23, 2000 10:18
    
|
 |
|
Sicne thread "One big bundle o' ideas" didn't gain much callback, I now attempt to break it to smaller pieces.I've been wondering bout damage. In real combat, all units do not die, some of them just get wounded.
Therefore, I propose that damage is modified. It could include both wounded and killed. Wounded can be healed in normal Civ2 style, ie resting for a while. Dead, on the other hand, can't be revived, so you'd have to go to city where you can recruit more men to unit. Wounded men cannot fight, but still et supplies; If enemy attacks unit, and the defending unit has to retreat, wounded men die (they are left behind.) The ratio of how many of men die and how many are wounded is modified by technology, particulary medical one: It could be 1-to-5 in start of game, 2-to-5 with discovery of Medicine, 3-to-5 with Surgery, and so on. This would make combat bit more realistic, I believe, while it would not worsen the game by making it too complex. My other idea is particulary good if cities have exact figures of population (ie. 16378, for instance) as well as units. When unit retreats, maybe wounded men could get captured instead; That makes them prisoners of war. These prisoners are then sent to nearest city. After war is concluded, they can be article of negotiation. There
are several modes you can take with them: 1) Kill. No prisoners are taken. This is considered an atrocity.
2) Forced Labor. They are put to hard labor. In this case, they are considered as "temporary citizens." They act almost exactly like slaves, except it is not so bad for reputation.
3) Recruit. You try to actively recruit these to your own army. How well you fare depends on nationalis of army, maybe also morale of the soldiers.
4) Brainwash. You attempt to change their patterns of thinking to favor you. This is more efficient than option 3, but is considered an minor atrocity.
5) Imprison. They are kept as prisoners, in hard conditions. They don't eat much, and don't work, but hey, there's no reputaiton penalty (at least until Geneva Convention.)
6 Treat Well. Like 5, but they gain more food and therefore more support. This might even improve your reputation, as well (slightly) lower morale of enemy's units.
7) Release. Soldiers are returned to their cities and become ordinary citizens. This is usually done at end of war. |
The diplomat
Chieftain
From: madison,IN USA
Registered: Sep 1999
|
 |
posted March 23, 2000 11:25
|
|
|
Good idea!
But it does work best with "real" population. With the current system in civ2/SMAC, your idea would probably be more difficult to implement. I am not bashing your idea. On the contrary, I am bashing the civ2/SMAC model for units. It needs to be revamped to include your idea and other ideas along the same lines. That is why I proposed a recruitment system in the EC3-new ideas. Instead of building units as "chunks" like you do in civ2, they should simply be a certain piece of your army. This would make them flexible. A unit might have 500 warriors. After a battle, instead of just having the unit take damage ala civ2, the unit would suffer casualties. Maybe, 100 warriors died, 60 were seriously wounded, the unwounded plus the wounded gained experienced (promoted to veteran, for example). Now your unit would be 340 veteran healthy warriors plus 60 veteran wounded warriors. The wounded could be taken as prisoners if the unit retreated. If you took prisoners of war, it not just adds diplomacy (France: I demand that you return our soldiers that you took as POW, or we will crush you once and for all!) but adding them as a labor class, like slaves, would boost your production but would add a new dynamic to the game (slave rebellions etc...) But basically, your ideas can be implemented really well if the unit model is changed. ------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends. |
Christmann
Settler
From: Denmark
Registered: Jan 2000
|
|
posted March 24, 2000 11:30
|
|
|
This is actually one of the only truly excellent suggestions i've heard on these boards, and one i think will improve gameplay signifigantly.
Well done, Stefu! |
OrangeSfwr
Settler
From: Pennsylvania
Registered: Feb 2000
|
|
posted March 25, 2000 11:03
|
|
|
Real population must be used in Civ III. I think everyone is getting sick of the little heads. However I don't know about taking it to the last digit. For example, it's simple enough to say 50,000 people. I don't need to know that I have 50,126 people in my city. The simpler the better. But the population thing can tie in with armies. P.S. I'm liking the whole P.O.W. thing. ------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
|
Stuff2
Chieftain
From:
Registered: Sep 1999
|
|
posted March 25, 2000 15:10
|
|
|
I agree with the idea of 'real armies' instead of clumsy units. I also agree to the 'real numbered pop' -idea aswell.
But for keeping the screen clean from too many numbers (and too big numbers) i still propose that city size on the map is measured in another way. But when opening the city window u should see it in real numbers.Actually I would really like a RTS with no visible units at all. |
My Wife Hates CIV
Emperor
From: Juaa nt vyrr!
Registered: b.02-15-99
|
|
posted March 31, 2000 02:42
|
|
|
POWs, I like that. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
