Thread Tools
Old July 13, 2000, 18:25   #1
Adm.Naismith
King
 
Adm.Naismith's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Milano - Italy
Posts: 1,674
More use of damage points
I'm starting this thread to summarize some use of damage points I suggested in others thread.

Firaxis has used damage points to reproduce damages taken in combat.
Damage points are also used to reduce helicopters radius, because every turn ended outside of a base add some damages.

Trireme have a chance to get lost outside of shorelines (it may appear a different topic, but you can see it's another way to reproduce the damages inflicted to the ship from a hostile environment).

Some people already suggested that early units shouldn't simply have slow movement on bad terrain, and that exploring an unknown world can take its toll in human life.

Throw here also the problem of "full or nothing" unit production, where we know units are a reproduction of a group (army division, naval group, air wing), still...
Why, if it take eight turn (year) to build a whole wing of fighter, I can't have anything ready till the end of the eighth turn?

Wonder what? My suggestion is: use damage points everywhere.


Exploring losses

If a unit is exploring, it will take some % (e.g. 5%) of damage every turn it spent outside of known terrain.

To avoid cheats, as a chain of units moving "one over the others shoulders", the check
about known terrain must be done matching previus turn status.

This way you must spend some turn repairing the unit (rest mode) or you'll end with a destroyed unit. This approach will slow down quick explorer players, helping to have time to grow a bit more before first contact, and it can be considered a bit more realist of early exploration.

If nomadic tribes will be in, they can have s bonus to suffer less or no damage (people more prepared to long journey).

Explorer units (a dedicated unit as in CIV II or a special ability a la SMAC) and fast units will have benefits, the former because more trained to explore, the latter because they move quicker in proper terrain: same damage taken by any turn, but exploring more terrain.

Same concept can be extended to known but hostile terrain (polar regions, deserts, high mountain).

Lost trireme effect
Also early sea units as trireme can take damage on deep sea, to reproduce the CIV II feature of risk loosing a trireme far from shores (shores will be considered "known and safe" for this use).


Building half force units

Instead of let the player rush build every units by money in a turn, using unit damage attribute Firaxis can let a player to "force out on the battlefield" a unit after two/third of development (max "rush build" limit, in my proposal), with -let's say- half of damage points already taken: we get an untrained, half force unit.

This way you can oppose some resistence against any incoming weaker enemy, avoiding the "empty city syndrome" induced by barbarian raids.

Of course this approach has at least a flaw: with current SMAC rules, your unit is automatically repaired of some percent of damage every turn it rest (no fight).
It doesn't repair to 100% outside of a city, yet, until with a late tech advance you
can repair it 100% in one turn everywhere.

This way we can have the unit completed for free at the end of a repair process: no good.

We can counter this introducing a "repair cost" equal or more expensive to the cost of rush build the remaining unit part.
This rule will also be more realistic, because it add same cost to repair units hitted by enemy.

Repair cost can be equal everywere or kept higher on the battlefield (outside cities,
fortress or airbases).

Cost will be deducted from whole civ tresury or from supporting city (as already happens
to city improvement costs).

So, you can e.g rush build your "ten turn" Knight to the eight turn level (new limit of the actual rush button), but it'll have the lower morale level (corrective points from barracks/s.e. level apart) and half the points of strenght taken (as if damaged).

Next (resting) turn it will cost some money to regain a 25% of strenght, then next turn
again it will pay same amount to go to full strenght.

Now you have the unit full force after the original ten turns, but keeping the morale
penalty, in change of the advance of using it in emergency some turns before.

In the process you use money (instead of shields) as in actual rush building.

Well, it appear to me quite easy to implement without too much code change, I let to you to vote it as an interesting improvement or just an unbalanced, silly idea.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
Adm.Naismith is offline  
Old July 13, 2000, 19:44   #2
Par4
King
 
Par4's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:24
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,543
Explore stuff-I agree well actually I just have no real ideas on this(gasp)

Triremes-Good, I wanna see a storm natural disaster to wipe out trireme fleets. I mean Rome lost a fleet that wiped the floor of the Carthaginian fleet on its way home.

Rush build repair- Well rush building IMHO shouldn't just cost money but still need shields to complete. I would like to see it use storage of shields to complete a massive army in a couple turns in large cities. Think WWII US production carriers every 6 months hundreds of tanks a week. This would cost much money and the city would be hurt because all improvements would work at less than 1/2 capability or something. Loss of manpower. The release unit before completed should be what replaces the rush building stop army at your door situation.

Repairing should only cost money. It should cost less at a base, I've talked about the need for bases somewhere, or a city with the base upgrade.

Rush building-Offensive and defensive
Release unit-defense, last resort

------------------
King Par4!!

fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai
Par4 is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 00:11   #3
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:24
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
You haven't defined what constitutes "unknown terrain". I assume you refer to squares that were dark on a previous turn but have been uncovered. Since most units have a move of 1 they'll never enter the "unknown" until the turn after it becomes "known". And it would unfairly penalize move 2 or greater units.

I'm already on record supporting "hostile" terrain causing damage to units. FE, chariots in swamps or mountains w/o roads. Explorers would be exempt from hostile terrain. I think that covers terrain damage sufficiently.
Theben is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 04:12   #4
Adm.Naismith
King
 
Adm.Naismith's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Milano - Italy
Posts: 1,674
Theben, you are right:
quote:


You haven't defined what constitutes "unknown terrain". I assume you refer to squares that
were dark on a previous turn but have been uncovered. Since most units have a move of 1
they'll never enter the "unknown" until the turn after it becomes "known". And it would unfairly penalize move 2 or greater units



Shame on me!

In fact I'm opening to suggestion on this definition. In this case I simply supposed that the unit moving to a "dark" terrain (sight area not considered) is going to the unknow, "hic sunt leones", part of the map (where no one has gone before ).

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
Adm.Naismith is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 09:20   #5
TheLimey
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 384
Personally, I don't believe hitpoint loss for helos makes any sense at all... but for an exploring trieme, or another explorer, its much better.
TheLimey is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 20:33   #6
Par4
King
 
Par4's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:24
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,543
Let's hope Firaxis overhauls the movement, movement since a turn takes a year should be hindered by terrain and distance from cities etc.

I think damage shouldn't be taken by just going into unexplored terrain but by having units enter terrain that they are unaccustomed too or has high damage levels and if they keep going then they will die.

Jungle, tundra, snow, mountains high, desert would all have high damage
forest, grassland, plains, mountains low
would all have lower damage
but if you are first visiting this terrain it would alway be damaging.

This only really happens at first until your civ visits many other types of terrain. And high lvl units won't be affected at all.

------------------
King Par4!!

fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai
Par4 is offline  
Old July 14, 2000, 23:56   #7
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:24
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
This is the summarized version of the original "damage due to terrain":

Giant Squid: New idea, Dangerous Terrain. Give every terrain a danger rating. Forests, grassland, hills, and plains are completely safe. But for example, give deserts a 25% danger rating for heat. If a normal unit enters a desert square, it has a 25% chance of being lost. Some units might have special resistance, say Cameleer, resistance to heat 20%. This would give cameleers a 5% chance of perishing in the desert. Other danger categories are cold, elevation, maybe wild animals. Cameleers would not resist the cold on an Arctic square. Maybe a civ would acquire cultural adaptations depending on its starting terrain: A city has 5 desert squares in its radius; units produced in that city are given a 15% resistance to heat (suggestion: number of squares x 3). This might accurately represent guerrilla warfare: more powerful units would die in perilous terrain which the locals are adept at traversing. A road through such a square would reduce danger by 10%. Oceans squares would have danger ratings, too: Ocean, danger rating for storms 20%, danger rating for giant squid attack 2%. Polar ocean might have danger of icebergs, coastal ocean rocks. If done right, this could eliminate the need for the trireme penalty.

Theben: I suggested something like this a while ago. My idea was inhospitable terrain damages units. Every turn spent in an unhealthy square could take 1-2 points of damage. Elephants would be damaged in mountains, chariots would be damaged in swamps. Chariots and armor can't cross mountains without a pass. Various flags would give units resistance, alpine units in the mountains, marines in the jungle, etc. Explorers and partisans would be immune to all inhospitable terrain.

What was left out in my version was that some of those terrains would damage everyone (swamp, mountains) but that certain units would get it worse (everyone suffers from disease in swamp, but chariots and armor can get stuck as well).

Exploring by itself isn't too dangerous. It's when units start operating outside their supply range, for which there are also many suggestions. You can't feed an army on it's feet if the tile isn't farmland but jungle instead. There's also various disease factors which could vary depending on the terrain entered and comparing it to the terrain the unit originated from. I made a disease model but it was completed before I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" so it needs updating. Unfortunately I seem to have misplaced it.

Anyway I don't see exploration itself as a cause for damage.
Theben is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:24.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team