Movement in Civ

Akaoz · October 24, 2001, 15:48

This has little to do with Civ3 in particular but...

How would increasing the movement rates of all units in the game by a factor of something like 10 affect the game?

-Alech

Stuie · October 24, 2001, 15:49

Everything would move ten times faster.

drake · October 24, 2001, 15:59

It would be incredibly boring?

I dont even like the 2x movement rate in civ2

Sabre2th · October 24, 2001, 16:00

It would make wars and combat suck.

Akaoz · October 24, 2001, 16:08

Very informative...

But what effect will it have on gameplay. Why will it be borig?

-Alech

drake · October 24, 2001, 16:16

It would be boring because, units would become too powerful. It would throw the balance of the game way off. Exploration of an entire planet would occur in a matter of turns and conquest of a "far away" civ could occur almost instantly.

1 well equipped unit could wipe out 5 or 6 under equipped units in ancient times.

I'm going home now, so I dont have time to explain really.....but I know it would be incredibly dull.

The Rook · October 24, 2001, 17:34

Movment rates in the early game are fine, but IMHO the later rates should be higher. If a warrior moves at 1, a tank should move at 10, but the way combat is related to movement, this is off balancing. If only combat and movement were separate.

Cyclotron · October 24, 2001, 18:19

It is a bad idea to increase movement by factors, because:

1) Number of attacks depends on movement, so a very powerful unit could attack multiple times and devastate an almost unlimited number of weaker units.
2) Transports would have no chance of being intercepted, because they would move so quickly.
3) Movement-inhibiting terrain would not be as powerful an obstacle as it is supposed to be.
4) The first side declaring war would get so many attacks in just one turn that he could completely overwhelm an opponent in just one turn.
5) Exploration and colonization would be way too fast, and the game would not last for long.

Akaoz · October 24, 2001, 18:23

How about limiting attacks to one per turn, and not increase the movement of ships so drastically.

-Alech

HalfLotus · October 24, 2001, 19:59

The Rook · October 24, 2001, 20:06

Attacks should not be tied to movement, or make it so that 1 attack for every 3 movement points after the first. That's the whole point about the blitzkreig, but it shouldn't happen until after mobilzation becomes in affect.

Terrain should be made tougher.

Units should be able to be set to "patrol" an area. That would solve the transport issue.

Lawrence of Arabia · October 24, 2001, 20:13

What if, what if...

Inverse Icarus · October 24, 2001, 22:55

how about you leave it alone and trust firaxis

i said trust and firaxis in the same setence!

multiplayer.

Cyclotron · October 25, 2001, 01:09

Why add confusion? There is really no need. Moves = attacks, and with that in mind too many moves is extremely unbalancing.

Earthling7 · October 25, 2001, 02:05

Nadexander · October 25, 2001, 02:36

Quote:

Originally posted by The Rook
Movment rates in the early game are fine, but IMHO the later rates should be higher. If a warrior moves at 1, a tank should move at 10, but the way combat is related to movement, this is off balancing. If only combat and movement were separate.

No. Very Untrue.
A modern ground army (tanks, mechinized infantry) dont move any faster in a battle situation than an ancient army of mongolian horseman. In a non battle situation, railroads and airlifts cover modern transportation teqniques in civ just fine.

Sarxis · October 25, 2001, 02:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Nadexander

No. Very Untrue.
A modern ground army (tanks, mechinized infantry) dont move any faster in a battle situation than an ancient army of mongolian horseman. In a non battle situation, railroads and airlifts cover modern transportation teqniques in civ just fine.

Agreed. Plus, in terms of the game, increased movement wouldn't be very tactical or fun.

yin26 · October 25, 2001, 02:50

Quote:

If only combat and movement were separate.

This is one of the things that makes Heroes of Might and Magic so much fun.

Good idea for Civ, too, if you ask me...

Akaoz · October 25, 2001, 09:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunikoba

Agreed. Plus, in terms of the game, increased movement wouldn't be very tactical or fun.

Silly me. I alway thought there was more tactics involved with a mobile army then with a slow one... Oh well, live and learn.

With more mobility, wouldn't the need for blocking units and control be greater?

I see the movement=attacks argument however.

I find it interesting that you dismiss this so out of hand. Has anyone tried this with the editor? I'm not saying "I don't trust Firaxis." I do. I was just wondering what sort of an impact it would have on the game.

I've always though it was funny how it would take about a 100 years (5 turns x 20 years) to move a phalanx from Rome to Paris.

-Alech

drake · October 25, 2001, 10:10

As I said, I think even playing 2x movement games thrwos off the balance of the stock civ game.

Adding moves means an almost completely offensive game. What good are defensive units if they arent gievn time to fortufy and prepare for attack?

Quote:

I've always though it was funny how it would take about a 100 years (5 turns x 20 years) to move a phalanx from Rome to Paris.

Its a game

Surely you cant expect it to be realistic.

By the way, we have these things called roads....they effectively triple the amount of moves a unit has....and in modern times, these things called railroads.....they allow UNLIMITED movements.

If youre so intent, just edit the file for movement and give it a test.

Spatzimaus · October 25, 2001, 10:15

I wondered the same thing, actually, in regards to the scenarios. If we're zoomed in on some part of the world, why don't the ranges for aircraft, bombardment, etc. scale up? Why is it on a small map a bomber can fly halfway across the world, while on a large scenario map they can't even go halfway across the country?

But, scaling up your map by a factor of X and increasing movement across the board by the same amount has other effects, some of which were mentioned above:

1> Each unit gets more attacks before the other side gets a chance to respond. If you played SMAC, it's like the difference between helicopters and jets; if you only ever used them for one attack they'd be equal, but against "soft" targets the copter was far superior.
This one could be solved by saying that attacks cost X movement points.

2> Zone of Control, spotting range, air intercept range, and bombardment range don't scale up, so it'd be more difficult to establish a defensive perimeter; the other side could always find a place to sneak through.
This one can be partially solved by splitting units into X "subunits"; so, the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment would be split into a few tank batallions, each of which would cover part of your border. It's still not the same, though, especially if you're using Armies (which have to be stacked and so wouldn't benefit). More importantly, an enemy tank that is attempting to defeat a static defensive emplacement could move in, attack, and back out of visual/bombardment range in one turn. Static defense sites (city, fort, colony) would be MUCH more vulnerable; you'd have to defend the borders. This might be a good thing.

3> The area of your city doesn't scale, so you're still limited to whatever resources are within radius. Of course, this would promote colonies, but thanks to the effects mentioned above they'd be harder to defend.

Of course, you could tweak all of this in the editor. If they allow you to define the number of movement points taken by each attack, it might even be workable.

Akaoz · October 25, 2001, 11:23

Quote:

Originally posted by drake
As I said, I think even playing 2x movement games thrwos off the balance of the stock civ game.

Adding moves means an almost completely offensive game. What good are defensive units if they arent gievn time to fortufy and prepare for attack?

Its a game

Surely you cant expect it to be realistic.

By the way, we have these things called roads....they effectively triple the amount of moves a unit has....and in modern times, these things called railroads.....they allow UNLIMITED movements.

If youre so intent, just edit the file for movement and give it a test.

Yes it is a game. So what?

Roads and Rail go a long way to help the situation, but...

The reason why I posted here was to see what you ppl think, before I go waste my time with something that is doomed to fail. From the posts here, it looks like a lot of you think it's a waste of time.

I think one solution could be to make defensive units cheaper than offensive units. Also re-adjusting the Attack vs. Defense values would be prudent.

As for Aircraft, I would expect their operational range to increase as well.

When I said increase movement by a factor of 10 across the board was perhaps a bit hasty. The object of this little exercise is to increase movement rates of most units by a significant factor. I have no idea how far one could take things.

The hope was to add more tactics and strategy to the game.

BTW, to fortify takes one turn right?

-Alech