How will terrain effect battles?

Jusbaummer · October 15, 2001, 05:50

Northern civs like Russia should have advantage when fighting in tundra against Zulus or so...

In Sid's Colonization Indians had advantage when attacking Europeans in forests or mountains, like colonists had when fighting against mother country (mean:independence war).
Civ III should have that far more advanced...

Grumbold · October 15, 2001, 05:54

To the best of my knowledge Civ 3 is using the traditional approach of automatic defence modifiers depenent only on terrain type. There are no 'native' bonuses. Apolyton did discuss the potential merits of having terrain preferences and special units depending on the makeup of your home terrain but it has not happened.

LaRusso · October 15, 2001, 07:06

yeah, it would be nigh impossible...with all random generation etc, and given the resistance to UU would probably be slaughtered at forums anyway....

Skanky Burns · October 15, 2001, 07:08

Besides, invaders get a movement penalty when they move through your territory - they dont get any bonus from roads or railways.

Grumbold · October 15, 2001, 07:11

I got the impression that the people like me who don't like fixed UU's becasue they are nonsensical were the ones more in favour of allowing civilizations to 'grow' their own bonuses depending on where they lived and how they acted. It was the 'keep it simple' and 'Civ is a game, not history sim' camps who were less in favour of this approach.

Dry · October 15, 2001, 09:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Jusbaummer
In Sid's Colonization Indians had advantage when attacking Europeans in forests or mountains, like colonists had when fighting against mother country (mean:independence war).
Civ III should have that far more advanced...

This could be simulated:
if the attacker is a partisan within its country border or within 3 turns after its creation, then the defender bonus becomes a malus.

Jason Beaudoin · October 15, 2001, 10:12

I don't like the idea of allowing certain civs to be better at attacking or defending in certain climates because there would be too many variables to calculate when going to war. Already, with the introduction of culture, it's going to be difficult to wage war as it is.

Besides, on a historical side, armies usually adapt to climate eventually. Even if an army had an advantage at first, at one point, the other side would overcome climatic obstacles.

Rasbelin · October 15, 2001, 10:46

Wouldn't that be quite detailed? I mean, isn't their
enough detailed things in Civ III already?
I can hardly think many new additions to the game
now, perhaps in the expansion...

Urban Ranger · October 15, 2001, 13:09

Why would we have such minor details when major factors like supplies aren't in the game?

Immortal Wombat · October 15, 2001, 13:40

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
yeah, it would be nigh impossible...with all random generation etc, and given the resistance to UU would probably be slaughtered at forums anyway....

Locutus added it to CtP2 using SLIC, you'd think Firaxis could hard-code it. Or let us add it with a scripting language Grrr

Asesino_Virtual · October 15, 2001, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Why would we have such minor details when major factors like supplies aren't in the game?

What du mean with "supplies"

?

Gramphos · October 15, 2001, 14:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Asesino_Virtual
What du mean with "supplies"

?

I guess he meant stockpiling resources.

Crouchback · October 15, 2001, 15:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos
I guess he meant stockpiling resources.

No I think Ranger means feeding troops, who have never heard of Napoleon in Civ 3. And I plan to try putting mountain troops in by using the Editor, with reduced movement/attack penalties on mountains and improved defence stats. All possible without a scripting language I'm hoping Wombat.

David

Gramphos · October 15, 2001, 15:53

Let's admit it; We hardcore Civ players want each turn to be one day.

Immortal Wombat · October 15, 2001, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Crouchback
And I plan to try putting mountain troops in by using the Editor, with reduced movement/attack penalties on mountains and improved defence stats. All possible without a scripting language I'm hoping Wombat.

Depends how many flags Civ3 includes. Civ2 had too few for my liking, and with more flags it might be possible, but with a scripting language, then not only could you customise what the rules apply to, you can make new rules. Much better.

Sarxis · October 15, 2001, 18:27

Hmm, its a good concept, but its not too realistic and it would overcomplicate the game. Maybe to help simulate this- units within their own borders might get bonuses. But just because Siberians are fighting in snow doesn't mean that no one else should be able to fight well in snow.

Veitnam War is a good example: I don't think the Vietnamese did so well against U.S. soldiers because of the terrain, but more because it was their homeland.

Xmudder · October 15, 2001, 20:26

What happened in Vietnam was largely China's fault. We knew if it looked like we were winning the war China would come pouring across the border, like they did in Korea. Johnson was an criminally incompetant. He got us into a war we could not win.

As for Civ III, a defensive bonus for operations within your culural area would be good. Didn't SMAC have something like that?

EDIT: Mixed up name

Lorizael · October 15, 2001, 20:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Besides, invaders get a movement penalty when they move through your territory - they dont get any bonus from roads or railways.

Yah, I think that is probably enough of a bonus to simulate "home-field advantage".

And to those who want a script language. Civ III is still going to be highly modifiable, but by changing the fundamental rules of Civ III, it's not Civ III anymore. At that point, you're just taking advantage of the engine Firaxis has given you in order to make your own game. Be a programmer, that way you can make a game that suits you perfectly.

Rasbelin · October 16, 2001, 01:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos
Let's admit it; We hardcore Civ players want each turn to be one day.

Shouldn't we move from turnbased to realtime?

More time to play, if every second would be counted.

Sarxis · October 16, 2001, 02:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Xmudder
As for Civ III, a defensive bonus for operations within your culural area would be good. Didn't SMAC have something like that?

No, not necesarily. Certain improvements, as well as the sensor towers, would impart an 'in border' bonus to defense.

Rasbelin · October 16, 2001, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael
Be a programmer, that way you can make a game that suits you perfectly.

Good! Shortly in a nutshell.

Jusbaummer · October 16, 2001, 11:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
I don't like the idea of allowing certain civs to be better at attacking or defending in certain climates because there would be too many variables to calculate when going to war. Already, with the introduction of culture, it's going to be difficult to wage war as it is.

Besides, on a historical side, armies usually adapt to climate eventually. Even if an army had an advantage at first, at one point, the other side would overcome climatic obstacles.

Yes, I thought that this terrain thing would make too many variables to calculate when going to war, but two examples of climate stopping invaders: Napoleon against Russia and Hitler against Russia. Both times winter stopped attackers.

Note: I'm not Russian.

Faboba · October 16, 2001, 11:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
I got the impression that the people like me who don't like fixed UU's becasue they are nonsensical were the ones more in favour of allowing civilizations to 'grow' their own bonuses depending on where they lived and how they acted. It was the 'keep it simple' and 'Civ is a game, not history sim' camps who were less in favour of this approach.

As far as I understand that is very much the way the resource system is going to make it. Those who live on plains, with horses will build more cavalry type units thus adding to realism and reacting to their placement regardless of their historical origins ( i.e - worldmap iroquois will probably have lots of horsemen.

Faboba · October 16, 2001, 11:31

Yes but that can be covered by giving the tundra terrain defense bonuses ala civ 2 and will be added upon now by the prevention of foreign units utilisting domestic transportation networks ( Russias a big place - You attack it in a ww2 scenario and it's going to be a long hard road to moscow. )

Just thought of something - now that they've changed the rues about using other people roads, the importance of paratroopers will be emphisised. Think I'm gonna do that as my next

Trifna · October 16, 2001, 11:33

I think it would be a good idea to implement such a feature, but question is more how to applicate it.

I guess that firstly, a unit that is on a hostile terrain since a certain time could gain resistance on that kind of field? Or a unit that was made in a city with lots of jungle around could get an advantage in jungle? Temperature (latitude and ese) could also have some effects.

The thing is that to put this idea correctly, NORMALY, it would demand to build a way to make more realistic maps, making less tiles distributed less aleatorily. For exemple, a continent may have more chances of having this or that in the middle, etc, etc. By this way, we wouldn't really consider the tile on which a unit is, but the area in which it is. Now, I guess an area thing like this would demand some theoric modeling before beeing made correctly...

Jusbaummer · October 18, 2001, 09:29

But hey, is war that simple after all...?

Dry · October 18, 2001, 09:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Faboba
Yes but that can be covered by giving the tundra terrain defense bonuses ala civ 2 and will be added upon now by the prevention of foreign units utilisting domestic transportation networks ( Russias a big place - You attack it in a ww2 scenario and it's going to be a long hard road to moscow. )

I guess this 'long hard road' will be simulated by the fact that culture range is city specific.
Imagine that in a ww2 scen, as German, you take Minsk, then next turn Smolensk. You are at the gates of Moscow, but behind, Minsk and Smolensk cultural ranges are still 0.
Some sneaky soviet partisan manage to cut the railroad...

BTW: what will you build first in a city you've just taken? City walls to help defenders? Temple to extend cultural border?

Gramphos · October 18, 2001, 10:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasbelin
Shouldn't we move from turnbased to realtime?

More time to play, if every second would be counted.

No I don't like RTS.

Theben · October 18, 2001, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Jusbaummer

Yes, I thought that this terrain thing would make too many variables to calculate when going to war, but two examples of climate stopping invaders: Napoleon against Russia and Hitler against Russia. Both times winter stopped attackers.

Note: I'm not Russian.

Ever had a combat where you knew you were going to win, only to lose- sometimes badly? Bad enough to consider reloading?

There's your 'Russian winter'.

Grumbold · October 18, 2001, 12:15

I was playing CtP2/Medmod recently and had an army lined up to attack. As soon as I discovered Gunpowder and got the 25 turn feat of wonder advantage I declared war and invaded. The first city fell easily. I hit the end of turn button eager to continue the advance on to the enemy heartland. I had forgotten to adjust the city morale with entertainers. The city rebelled immediately and slaughtered my invincible 12 unit army instantly. I suddenly realised that my last save was in 4000 BC so it was a case of endure or start from scratch