The only units that should be allowed to attack/conquer any cities deeply imbedded within an empire (with surrounding still un-conquered cities) is the combination bomber/paratroopers. Any other of your military unit must have, either...

- Their own civ-empire border adjacent to the border-creating foreign city.
- "No mans land" adjacent to the border-creating foreign city.
- An allied AI-civ's border adjacent to the border-creating foreign city.
- Any ocean-squares adjacent to the foreign coustal city (all ocean-squares is neutral in terms of foreign city-conquerings - but, of course: NOT in terms of expected-to-hold diplomacy-rules).

... in order to conquer any foreign cities.

Now that borders will be included (like in SMAC), we can at least ask Firaxis that movement inside enemy territory are somewhat limited: i.e. RailRoad working as roads for enemy units, roads only double movements, etc.

We can justify this with minefields, sabotage, attrition defense, limited form of ZOC etc., but the important reason is playability against dumb AI, as you correctly underlined.

Perhaps railroads can reduce the movement cost to 1/6? Artillery can no longer simply land (using one movement point) and then nail an interior city some 5,000 miles away with its remaining, unrestricted movement point. The further in it goes, the weaker its "remaining" attack becomes. Even in non-combat situations; it's ridiculous watching a land unit zipping past all these air units from one end of a gargantuous continent to the other. :-)

Oops! Sometimes one goes for water on the other side of the creek. I agree: adjusting the railroad movement rules is perhaps a simpler/more direct way to deal with the described problems.

Quote: "Now that borders will be included (like in SMAC), we can at least ask Firaxis that movement inside enemy territory are somewhat limited: i.e. RailRoad working as roads for enemy units, roads only double movements, etc.

We can justify this with minefields, sabotage, attrition defense, limited form of ZOC etc., but the important reason is playability against dumb AI, as you correctly underlined."

I see your point! Although I think they should perhaps avoid shifting move-rates depending on if you are inside, or outside enemy-at-war territory. The reason for this is the feature-mistaken-for-a-bug problem. Not everyone bother to read manuals.

Or maybe it IS a good idea! Now I have become undecided.

CRONUS QUOTE:
"I have to agree with the Admiral. One of the few things I did like about CTP was the movement cost of railroads. They made movement easier than roads (as it should) but did not make it unlimited.

Perhaps railroads can reduce the movement cost to 1/6?
Artillery can no longer simply land (using one movement point) and then nail an interior city some 5,000 miles away with its remaining, unrestricted movement point. The further in it goes, the weaker its "remaining" attack becomes."

Railroads with a movement cost of 1/6 seems reasonable. About "the further in it goes, the weaker its remaining attack becomes" idea: I would add "The further in it goes within that same game-turn. I think that restriction is enough. Or is it?

"Railroads with a movement cost of 1/6 seems reasonable. About "the further in it goes, the weaker its remaining attack becomes" idea: I would add "The further in it goes within that same game-turn. I think that restriction is enough. Or is it? "

Yes ... that is how I pictured it. The unit would regain all its movement points the next turn as usual.

quote: Originally posted by Ferdi on 01-28-2001 10:46 AM In the reality supply lines are essentials during warfare. To implement that, a military unit must claim the land when it moves on. This "claimed" land becomes an area controled by your civ (not your borders but controled by you). Each army should have a link with its civ borders or allies through these controled areas. If the link is broken (no more supply line) then the power of each units isolated inside the enemy borders should be highly reduced. Claiming land should also take movement points in order to reduce units progession.

If they can implememt this one, it would be great!
However, I am worried that the human player can take advantage of this much better then the AI-civs can.

I think the burden should be placed mainly on the human player, instead on the AI-civs. This would in practice mean: supply-lines needed for the human player = optional Yes/No, but supply-lines needed for any AI-civs globally = always No.

CHRONUS quote:

Currently, moving on a road one square reduces an attack strength by 1/3 (assuming the unit is on its last movement point). With the 1/6 rule for railroads, a city further than 6 spaces from an artillery "landing" point will be safe. On a practical basis, cities even within 4-5 spaces of the "landing" point would be safe since the artillery's strength would be seriously reduced.

Yes, I will only add/amplify: