army caused pillaging

[sabrewolf]

imagine a nation invades another one and crosses the hostile landscape with it's armies. do all the tanks and cavalries drive or ride behind each other in a row and just leave one small thin line?
NO, usually they (especially when attacking) move or attack next to each other.

that's the reason why i think irrigiations on the tiles should automatically be pillaged when heavy units (e.g. wheeled and mounted units) cross enemy tiles.

or do you believe that hundreds of tanks can cross your farm and no harm is done?

what do you think?

[Inverse Icarus]

are you also alking about friendly tanks?

in any case, i dont like the idea. realism != civ;

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by UberKruX
are you also alking about friendly tanks?

in any case, i dont like the idea. realism != civ;

no, friendly tanks will try to cross the land without destroying it.

ofcourse realism!=civ, but imho the more (realism==civ) the better...

[Phil_de_geezer]

Hmmm, depends on how big a piece of land you think a single tile represents. Personally, i think the tile represents quite a large area of land and any damage inflicted by passing units would be minimal compared to the tile as a whole. Besides, tanks would use the roads because it's quicker (and yes, i know that's not the case in the game but slow movement in enemy territory represents something else).

Also, i believe your poll is biased as the top option is worded so that it can not be logically chosen.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Phil_de_geezer
Besides, tanks would use the roads because it's quicker (and yes, i know that's not the case in the game but slow movement in enemy territory represents something else).

i tried to explain it in my first post: when you're in enemy territory you expect to meet the foe any moment, so the tanks won't drive behind each other (the enemy otherwise would destroy one after the other) but next to each other.

at least when the troops attack the fields should get destroyed...

[Willem]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
imagine a nation invades another one and crosses the hostile landscape with it's armies. do all the tanks and cavalries drive or ride behind each other in a row and just leave one small thin line?
NO, usually they (especially when attacking) move or attack next to each other.

that's the reason why i think irrigiations on the tiles should automatically be pillaged when heavy units (e.g. wheeled and mounted units) cross enemy tiles.

or do you believe that hundreds of tanks can cross your farm and no harm is done?

what do you think?

Well when you consider that a 256 X 256 map, the largest possible, has a square that's roughly equivalent to 100 miles, I'd say no. Have you ever heard of a line of tanks travelling 100 miles abreast? They follow each other in a more or less single line, or at least in a tight group, not fanning out across the countryside. They'd really have to go out of their way to destroy farmland etc. as they passed.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Willem
Well when you consider that a 256 X 256 map, the largest possible, has a square that's roughly equivalent to 100 miles, I'd say no. Have you ever heard of a line of tanks travelling 100 miles abreast? They follow each other in a more or less single line, or at least in a tight group, not fanning out across the countryside. They'd really have to go out of their way to destroy farmland etc. as they passed.

that makes sense. on the other hand: have you every heard of a city with 10'000 square miles are (100x100 miles) and the diameter of 500 miles (5 tiles)? And the next town/city is at least 200 miles further away?

and you're talking about a world map, in a regional map (e.g. british isles) both measurements are more possible

As someone said before: realism != civ3, so i guess no real solution can be found (but it's still a lot of fun!)

[Trifna]

It depends alot on what the army/tanks are doing... If they're just passing on sand roads to go from A to B, it's not as if they were passing onto crops or as if they were on a bitumed road... Damage of war, I guess, could be pictured. Like field beeing damaged when you tryed to hit an infantry.

All this is called COLLATERAL DAMAGE

[Willem]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


that makes sense. on the other hand: have you every heard of a city with 10'000 square miles are (100x100 miles) and the diameter of 500 miles (5 tiles)? And the next town/city is at least 200 miles further away?

and you're talking about a world map, in a regional map (e.g. british isles) both measurements are more possible

As someone said before: realism != civ3, so i guess no real solution can be found (but it's still a lot of fun!)

Well yes, if you start argueing realism, then nothing in the game makes sense. The point is though, that pillaging improvements requires extra effort. It generally doesn't occur just with troops passing through, since they're only concerned with getting from point A to point B. In order to pillage, they would have to slow down their advance to set fire to crops etc.

And yes, here in Canada we do have cities that are that far away from each other, with a hinterland that large. Not many mind you, but it happens.

[Jahi]

i do rember the french being able to grow crops after the germans invaded and took over. a tank or a number of them may destroy a harvest in a single field or a number of fields but there is a whole lot of farm land out there.. (ever looked out the window of an airplane?)

[Jahi]

also, the germans had to go out of their way to destroy everything in russia when they invaded.. i'm sure it would have been easier if all it took was traveling through the land

[Pythagoras]

I might want to keep all those useful improvements! I might need them after I take this city and want to move on to the next!

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


that makes sense. on the other hand: have you every heard of a city with 10'000 square miles are (100x100 miles) and the diameter of 500 miles (5 tiles)? And the next town/city is at least 200 miles further away?

and you're talking about a world map, in a regional map (e.g. british isles) both measurements are more possible

As someone said before: realism != civ3, so i guess no real solution can be found (but it's still a lot of fun!)

Which is why I tend to think of "cities" more as "provinces", with the named city being the capital of that province, and the worked tiles representing smaller cities / suburbia.

Of course, this tends to fall apart on water tiles, but hey...

[Willem]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

Of course, this tends to fall apart on water tiles, but hey...

Not really. Current international agreements gives every nation bordering on oceans territorial rights to that space for 200 miles from their coast. A bit of compromise is in order for ocean nations less than 200 miles apart however.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Jahi
i do rember the french being able to grow crops after the germans invaded and took over. a tank or a number of them may destroy a harvest in a single field or a number of fields but there is a whole lot of farm land out there.. (ever looked out the window of an airplane?)

*smile* ... the french more or less surrendered without any real resistance

[sabrewolf]

ok, ok, ok, i've suffered a humiliating loss (see poll)

but what do you think of the idea that at least the attacked field could (customizable value) get damaged. so those who see the tiles as 10'000 square miles can set it to zero and others who see the tiles about the size of an army, an airport, a fortification, a city, etc. could set it somewhere near 100%

[PGM]

IMHO this would damage gameplay and fun beyond repair.

[Willem]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
ok, ok, ok, i've suffered a humiliating loss (see poll)

but what do you think of the idea that at least the attacked field could (customizable value) get damaged. so those who see the tiles as 10'000 square miles can set it to zero and others who see the tiles about the size of an army, an airport, a fortification, a city, etc. could set it somewhere near 100%

What's the point? There's already a Pillage command, why try and complicate things more than they have to be? I don't see any real value of your suggestion.

[Jahi]

hehe, ok, so the french were over run and could not mount an effective defence.. then what about the japanese invasion of china? the crops still got planted and harvested