Flying Settlers

[PGM]

Originally posted by Loopy
How can it possibly be considered sloppy progamming if the flag's there? Settlers and workers, in addition to representing a gameplay unit, are 2 population points and 1 population point respectively. Being able to airlift in population into captured cities would unbalance the game in terms of pop rushing, culture flipping, and city production. Very clearly a game design issue and not "sloppy" programming.
Leaders are also a game play issue. They're given three movement and no defense for a reason -- so you have to walk the leader to the city where you want to use it. Before you use the leader to rush a project or build an army, there's the risk that it'll be destroyed. That risk helps tone down the strength of leaders.
Armies could either be game design or sloppy programming. You could argue game design in that airlifting in a defensive army pretty much guarantees the city won't be taken. It could also be sloppy programming in that the programmers were having a hard time keeping the units together (see early stack movement).
Just because it's not the way you would have made it or because you wish you could exploit something doesn't make it stupid and sloppy programming.

It's definitely a gameplay decision and not sloppy or stupid programming, besides you get the option to edit it.
But IMHO, it's a wrong concept. Airlifting settlers/workers unbalances the game? Like you can't already move settlers/workers into every city you're connected to by road, without a 1 turn penalty, and on the very same turn you conquered the city...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Jaybe
If you want to complain about things not being 'realistic', complain about Modern Armor being airlift capable. A single C-5 transport can lift TWO M-1 tanks. I think one heavy armored brigade was airlifted to the gulf for Desert Shield, and it was a major effort to do so.

Desert Storm was considered a major mobilization, and included substantial tank and infantry power. It was a big stack by any reasonable standard. There would be about 30 units of modern armor with each unit consisting of about 100 tanks; similar numbers for APC's.

Iraqi tanks 4230, lost 4000.
Coalition tanks 3360, lost 4.
http://www.desert-storm.com/War/

On the issue of flying units, every unit should be able to travel by air transport -- at least with advanced flight.

[Jaybe]

Zachriel,
Other than some heavy equipment air-rushed shortly after Kuwait was taken by Iraq, all the heavy armor units were sent by ship. Some was taken from the stockpiles at Diego Garcia, the bulk from Europe and the U.S. That is a major reason that Desert Shield (as opposed to Desert Storm) took so long.

[King of Rasslin]

I would consider the M1A2 to be true modern armor. And the U.S. only has around 70 M1A2 tanks. I love this fact. It helps me consider that a few dozen riflemen or infantry CAN overwhelm a single tank. This just helps me accept unusual losses in Civ 3. Besides, tanks are overpowered anyway. Air power should be a major force in the modern era.

And yes, the M1A2 is too big to be airlifted. I DO agree that units with more than 1 movement (with the exception of mech infantry) shouldn't be airlifted. I think the use of airports is very unfair, and the rate of transfer should be limited. But it doesn't hurt the AI much, it would really be more of a multiplayer issue.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Zachriel,
Other than some heavy equipment air-rushed shortly after Kuwait was taken by Iraq, all the heavy armor units were sent by ship. Some was taken from the stockpiles at Diego Garcia, the bulk from Europe and the U.S. That is a major reason that Desert Shield (as opposed to Desert Storm) took so long.

That's is of course correct. The point was that the forces were put in place in weeks, not years. In order to model it correctly in Civ3, you would have to significantly change the way sea transportation works in the game. Even increasing movement would not be sufficient, as they should be subject to attack on their travels. (One of the many problems of turning reality into a turn-based game. It's not as if one side gets to move while the other side waits patiently for their turn.)

[Chronus]

darn, if the game was less editable we might have been saved...

You people are too much!

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Zachriel
That's is of course correct. The point was that the forces were put in place in weeks, not years. In order to model it correctly in Civ3, you would have to significantly change the way sea transportation works in the game. ...

"Time" has to be considered as being very elastic in this game. Modern wars do not take decades for a "WWII". Pay no mind to how many years a turn is. "Years" are just a label, and I think too many players try to tie those years to some sense of time or reality.

Would you want for an airlift to take one turn, and for a sealift to take just one or two turns?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Jaybe

"Time" has to be considered as being very elastic in this game. Modern wars do not take decades for a "WWII". Pay no mind to how many years a turn is. "Years" are just a label, and I think too many players try to tie those years to some sense of time or reality.

Would you want for an airlift to take one turn, and for a sealift to take just one or two turns?

Actually, I'm happy with the game compromises as they are. Sometimes the tiles represent strategic distances, other times tactical. It's a happy mixture of strategy and tactics.

Basically, if you want to be "realistic," then nothing or at least not much can be air transported. Perhaps just one unit outgoing or incoming per airport, but then it might not be as much fun.

I figure the xp will have improved game mechanics.