|
Author
|
|
Topic: The Effects of War on the landscape |  |
|
FrantzX
Settler
May 99
|
 |
posted May 15, 2001 18:12
   | 
 |
 |  |
War ALWAYS has a severe effect on the land. You know, burnt crops, poisoned wells and the like. In all previous Civ games. all you had to protect was your cities and improvements. I think that should change.Battles should ruin the land, just like pollution does. The larger the battle, the greater the devestation. Also armies should be able to purpousely ruin the land: Instead of taking on that fortifies city, just lay waste to the land; city starves. With this in, you have to protect your borders as much as your cities. If a large army comes in and ruins your lands, it could that many, many turns to fix the damage. |
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Prince
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted May 15, 2001 21:10
|
|
| |
Good thought. I totally agree. also, not just armies and battles should ruin the landscape, but nuclear blasts, and well as nuclear testing and the like. For example, when you build the manhattan project, the message says that "Nuclear Tests Near Washington DC" or wherever your city that built the project takes place. It says that, yet nothing happens from it. When a nuke obliterates a curtain city, the entire city circumferance and perhaps even a few tiles out from that should also be blown away. I'm not talking just placing pollution there, I'm talking the whole works. for one thing, all the tiles should be completely destroyed, the agriculture, roads, railroads, everything blown away, and burnt fields take their places. there should also be a radiation field, to further damage the population in the surrounding cities. well, enough said. this should be put under one line. MAKE IT REALISTIC. |
SerapisIV
Prince
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Feb 2001
|
|
posted May 15, 2001 21:42
|
|
| |
The Manhattan Project never destroyed a city, the bombs produced as a result of Trinity, did, but the project itself only blew up the desert.I agree, though the damage should not destroy roads, as they really can't be destroyed, at least not until the automobile (damn finicky cars). It should be a random improvement lost on the defending tile. That would also force players to engage enemies outside of the towns and borders, not fortify in the corner of their city production. |
Gammaray fan
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted May 15, 2001 21:43
 |
|
| |
I agree but will take a different take on the issue.
SIEGE warfare should be a viable alternative to OFFENSIVE warfare.
there are a few steps to make this possible.
1. certain units should have a SIEGE value. The higher the siege value the more effective the siege. Additionally, the more units in a square the more effective the siege.
2. If a civ surrounds another civs cities with siege capable units, that city should be unable to receive food, or resources from anywhere by the square it is on. In Civ2, to do a siege, you had to put units on ALL tiles of the city radius (thus it was impractical to siege). The more effective the siege value of the sieging units and the number of them on each tile should determine how much food and resources 'trickle' through.
3. If the civ has a airfield, the siege would not be possible. (therefore, a prospective sieger would have to 'bombard' and destroy the airfield!) |
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Prince
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted May 15, 2001 22:22
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-15-2001 09:42 PM
The Manhattan Project never destroyed a city, the bombs produced as a result of Trinity, did, but the project itself only blew up the desert.I agree, though the damage should not destroy roads, as they really can't be destroyed, at least not until the automobile (damn finicky cars). It should be a random improvement lost on the defending tile. That would also force players to engage enemies outside of the towns and borders, not fortify in the corner of their city production.
|
Sorry, I never finished my thought on the manhattan project. I was saying that when you built it, it did nothing. in civ3, it should at least show a nuclear testing site outside the city, perhaps a lot farther away, but enough so we can see it. |
FrantzX
Settler
May 99
|
|
posted May 16, 2001 16:05
|
|
| |
Also, fighting in a city should near waste it. That will force people to defend all that they own. I would like military units to have the ability to just take land. An invading army could, instead of attacking cites, just take huge tracts of land. IDEA! In diplomancy, what about an ability to buy or sell land? You could recreate the Loiusiana Purchase! |
SerapisIV
Prince
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Feb 2001
|
|
posted May 16, 2001 21:50
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 05-15-2001 10:22 PM
Sorry, I never finished my thought on the manhattan project. I was saying that when you built it, it did nothing. in civ3, it should at least show a nuclear testing site outside the city, perhaps a lot farther away, but enough so we can see it.
|
I like that idea, it would be a real nice touch to the game, and probably not hard to implement either. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
