Crossing mountain ranges and rivers

[Woodmen Chief]

In Civ 2 units have basically no difficulties crossing a river or a mountain range. In real life they used to be safe borderlines which could not be crossed just like that. Think about the Roman empire, for example. The empire had hudreds of kilometers of "natural" borders, such as the river Danube, which couldn't be crossed by the barbarians. However, in Civ 2 these kind of natural borders are of no use. Any unit can simply walk over them without suffering any damage or penalties.

I suggest the movement modifier for mountains should be a lot higher and a unit crossing a mountain range should also suffer SEVERE damage, which would indicate the loss of men due to harsh conditions. Roads should of course decrease the damage suffered, but on the other hand building roads on mountain squares, especially in ancient/medieval period, should be very time (and settler!) consuming, a lot harder than it is in Civ 2.

As for rivers, you simply can not cross the Mississippi without a bridge or a boat. Of course you can send 1000 ancient warriors to swim over it and see how many of them makes it to the other side...

One kind of solution could be to make the rivers on the maps more realistic. The biggest rivers, The Amazon and the like, should be displayed with ocean squares. This would be realistic. There should also be two separate river terrain types. Small rivers could be crossed with small movement and damage penalties. Crossing large rivers would be harder, and the unit crossing them should suffer movement and damage penalties similiar to those that you suffer when crossing mountains. The bridge building advace could also be divided to bridge building, which would allow you to build a bridge over a small river, and advanced bridge building would allow you to build bridges over large rivers. Those HUGE bridges, like the one that connects Sweden and Denmark, should require advances like railroad, steel and the like.

------------------
Don't mess with me or my pet polar bear shall tear you to shreds! I'm a friend of the king of the penguins, too. Respect me!
[This message has been edited by Woodmen Chief (edited July 15, 2000).]

well, in CtP they had this feature that non-infantry untis couldn't pass mountains unless they had roads or railway on them

[Woodmen Chief]

Whoops. Sorry, I havent played CtP and didn't know. How embarrassing...

you don't have to feel embarassed about this. you haven't played and so you couldn't know. that's no problem. many here haven't played CtP.

some even don't play civ2. (those spammer guys in the Off-Topic forum)

[Par4]

HEY I'M A SPAMMER GUY!!!

Then again I don't play Civ2 or AC anymore anyway.

Diablo 2 on the other hand....

------------------
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

Woodmen Chief: ignore Par4.

Par4: ignore Woodmen chief

[Comrade Dan]

Well mountains should be crossed by anything...

There should be TWO river types - small river and large river. A large river would be the Danube, Mississippi, etc that units can't cross easily, and ships can move on (small ships however, no subs because they need to be low to be hidden, nothing huge like battleships because they're too heavy). Can be crossed once Civ discovers advanced bridge building.
Small rivers like the Darling river in Australia would be small rivers, no ships can enter a square containing it (apart from ports) and no unit can cross until bridge building is discovered.

The bridge building techs should enable a unit to cross without necessarily having an improvement like a bridge there...

What about temporary bridges like in WW2? They could be added to a unit formation like e.g. a diplomat in CTP. Then you could cross a river with reduced damage.

[UltraSonix]

There some kick-ass suggestions here! I'll sum it up plus give a few more ideas:

*There should be thin(civ2 type) and broad (ships, but not subs can travel) rivers. Units'll be able to cross, BUT with a chance of drowning/disappearing/damage.

*A mobile bridge unit should be available (but the AI'll probably go spastic over this )

*Mountains should be crossable, but maybe have different height mountains that are progressively harder to cross.

*Judging by the comments here, CTP probably isn't worth playing anyway compared to SMAC(hi Limey)

*I hate people playing Diablo2 cause my computer's too slow to run it (I'm still on a P166 )

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Woodmen Chief]

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Dan on 07-15-2000 10:50 PM Well mountains should be crossed by anything... There should be TWO river types - small river and large river. A large river would be the Danube, Mississippi, etc that units can't cross easily, and ships can move on (small ships however, no subs because they need to be low to be hidden, nothing huge like battleships because they're too heavy). Can be crossed once Civ discovers advanced bridge building. The bridge building techs should enable a unit to cross without necessarily having an improvement like a bridge there...

I think units should be able to cross small rivers with no difficulties after discovering bridge building, but crossing large rivers would still require a visible bridge, ie. it could only be done where you have built a road or a railroad over the river or in cities. An option would be that you could cross a large river within a city radius of your own or an allied city or something to represent the possibility to use boats there.

[Par4]

Hmm as I've said before most armies have engineer units with them, the Romans did, um Napoleon did I think, US does, everyone in WWI-II did. I would like to assume you automatically get engineers when you reach that advance. Having another unit on the map no! thatll kill the AI with that unit too !

------------------
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

[Adm.Naismith]

Ok, if you really urge to have that river crossing tactical problem, simply add the special funcion "engineer" for mines sweeping, bridges building, fortress making and the like (ability to balance with tech available, of course).

We can have this accomplished thru Unit Workshop as we already debated (I remember the thread about Romans), to add some engineer ability to common units (at a building price).

Firaxis used this in SMAC to add SAM ability to AI sea transports, just to help it do a better job instead of stacking transports with Aegis like ships.

BTW, I still will like that Special ability only add a partial benefit to a common unit, instead of the full dedicated unit.

I.e. a SAM unit should have more firepower than added SAM special ability to Infantry (you know, ligtht flak on truck and personal missiles like Stinger versus heavy flak and medium missiles on tanks), or some engineer ability like road buildings and trench digging versus dedicated engineers for railroads, main bridges, terraforming, main fortress.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[DarkCloud]

How about when crossing mountains it works like the Xenofungus movement in Alpha Centauri or you have a 10-30% chance in the years before the discovery of Alpine Troops to lose 1/4 to 1/2 of your force while traversing the mountains.

[Evil Capitalist]

That may be a little unrealistic. The Romans used to send lots of troops across the alps, they knew where they were going. Maybe you could give a unit the order 'survey' which would eliminate the penalty. You would need some advance similar to bridge building.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make in my 'The map.. again' post..

Another example :- Importance of mountain passes.. All invaders who came to India were deterred by the Himalayas and Hindukush.. This made passes like the Khyber Pass very strategically important and well-defended..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

Exactly the point I'm trying to make in my 'The map.. again' post..

Another example :- Importance of mountain passes.. All invaders who came to India were deterred by the Himalayas and Hindukush.. This made passes like the Khyber Pass very strategically important and well-defended..

------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@mailops.com
Web: http://www.crosswinds.net/india/~shiva
ICQ: 17719980

[Christantine The Great]

I think that an early sub (I.E. Pre-WWI U-Boat) should be able to traverse large rivers without detection because of their small size. Subs the size as WWII U-Boats should be able to go down a large river but be detectable. Large Nuclear Subs should not be able to go down a river at all because of their huge size.

Another point that should be mentioned is canals. They can let ships go through thin points on continents (i.e. Panama, Suez) or to connect rivers. These canals should come in different sizes since the land around the site is not always smooth and flat. There can be a lock-canal an an actual waterway. A lock canal can be used to transport ships over large hills and the regular canal would be used at flatter points.

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[phunny pharmer]

Double Post!!!!!
[This message has been edited by phunny pharmer (edited July 29, 2000).]

[phunny pharmer]

Canals...PHUN PHUN PHUN!!!!!! Been waiting a while to see those come up. The #1 naval necessity of Civ3!!!!

DarkCloud: Great idea!!! That's also a civ3 happening. They aren't molehills. However, all units should take damage except for places where there are roads. Even modern ground troops (except partisans and alpines) should take damage. Lets add some realism.

Question: where does an 800 pound gorilla sit? Answer: anywhere it wants.
Question: where does a several hundred ton nuclear submarine go?
Answer:...

All the rivers of Civ3 should be navigable. Any and all boats should be able to move through them. After all, if you are going to have canals in this game, what's the diff?

Of course, civs can chose to block rivers, or put mines in them...

[beyowulf]

Hey, how about canals, that could generate tax revenue? Depending on how many moves it would have taken to otherwise reach the destination.

See what I am imagining as a canal is something a settler can build after x amounts turns. Now say you build a canal to reach a city built alongside a lake, that would otherwise be landlocked. That would even increase the revenue, because there would be no other way to reach it by ship.

Though I suppose the nation in questions economic strenght would also have something to do with it. If you have a canal, and no wants to trade with you, and no one uses it, its not going to generate much money.

[Evil Capitalist]

About canals:
1. There should be 2 types- major and minor. Suezs and grand unions respectivly.
2. The major ones can cross isthemus-like areas (which should be like the old connection between 2 tiles on a diagonal) and can be sailed down, blocked, etc.
3. Minor canals should be built in the short period of time before railways as improved roads with e.g.1/5th movement bringing an extra trade/ production bonus. All cities which are linked by canals have reduced corruption.

I've tried to cover the effects of both European and Chineese canals.

[phunny pharmer]

OK. Now lets not have penalties just for moving anywhere, anyhow, anyday. That would be BAD.

I think that a 10% penalty for square of mountains crossed wouldn't be that bad...it would just encourage civs to go around them. That's all we want, right. Putting fancy bonuses for movement and stuff would defeat the purpose of the game.

Certainly, there should be no penalties for any other square crossed. Putting penalties for crossing PLAINS!?! That would kill exploration in multiplayer.

A few exceptions to the mountain-crossing penalty:

1) Alpine troops- no penalty at all
2) Gunpowder and later armies- 10% chance of getting the 10% penalty if there are no roads.
3) Roads with early unit- would do the same thing as #2.
4) Roads/Improved roads with late units- no penalty.
5) Railroads- no penalty.

Mountains would also act as SMAC xenofungus: only a certain percentage of the time can you cross them. However, if you can't cross, you still take the penalty!!!

Moral of the story- go around the mountains, or build roads.

An easy way to make a defensive barrier: take out the roads.

[Christantine The Great]

I think that canals can only be built 2 squares away from a water source so the AI doesn't go crazy by completely canaling a continent (i.e. fields of railroads; continents of farms).

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1

[DarkCloud]

Phunny:

That's what Explorers and Diplomats are for.
(They are greatly underused in the game) They should be able to cross anywhere without penalties for desertion (They WANT to explore)

On your 5 conditions I wholeheartedly agree. The same would go for hills I expect.

For plains if you build a road or achieve gunpowder or conscription there will be no peanalty on plains or anywhere except mountains.

However if you are in a democracy, communism or fanaticism since you are fighting for your beliefs you wouldn't desert.

Christantine:

How about the canals can *Not* be parrallel. THis would prevent the scenario you propose while still allowing the navigation of the 'Northwest Passage' in America.

[DarkCloud]

Evil Capitalist:

In response to , "They knew where they were going" There is no need for a survey, because, after the first unit has traversed the mountains that land becomes clear and no longer black space on the map.

Christantine the Great:

I believe that engineers should be the only ones to build canals. For, canals though some were made in olden times have been best utilized in this century. How about the engineers take 10-15 turns to build a canal on plains?

The rivers should be able to be navigated by a new kind of boat- The canoe or skiff, both with low attack ratios and defense but they would be perfect for early navigation (canoe) or troop transport (skiff) (1-2 units).

Phunny Pharmer:

How about having the damage be relative. Such as when on Plains damage (deserters) the chance will be 5% when you are not in a war, and 10% when you are in a war. Or in the hills 7%- no war 12%-war

The damage would be minimal, say 10%, however if you are on a road there would be no damage because of 'enforcer' citizens.

[Evil Capitalist]

By surveying the area, I mean a comprehensive earch for the lowest passes, highest mountains, accurate sources of rivers.

I'm not too sure about the two square idea. Britain got covered by (fairly unneeded) canals in about 20-30 years, although I can't speak for other nations.

[Az]

Evil Cappie :

well we don't have this problem in CIV . all Great Britain is About 25 tiles and it is 3 tiles wide so ......


Dalgetti


------------------
Prepare to Land !

[raingoon]

Maybe once a week I'll take advantage of Dark Cloud's excellent inventory of "Related Threads" and pick a dead horse to beat a signal drum on. Today it's rivers and canals.

Hey FIRAXIS. Look again at some of these ideas above here.

Canals? Don't even think about not including them.
Also the idea that SMALL RIVERS are crossable, LARGE RIVERS are not crossable without a bridge of some sort. Please, PLEASE tell me that these river rules will be included in the Civ 3 design...

Thanks to Dark Cloud again for making this so accessible.

[Cyclotron]

I liked the idea in the Civ2 Scenario Civil War of the river forts, a unit with 0 attack and movement that took up the "river" (they actually made the Mississippi a thin band of ocean so it could be navigable). Although I'm not really sure how you would place them, with no movement...

Canals: Yes.
Navigable Rivers: HUGE yes.
Two kinds of rivers: It would be cool, but not really necessary.

------------------
"Any shred of compassion left in me was snuffed out forever when they cast me into the flames..."
- Marsil, called the Pretender

[Urban Ranger]

Considering that a turn is equal to 20 years or more at the beginning of the game, units are going to cross rivers with ease.