ok, as the secrecy is broken ... - Page 6

jim panse · March 15, 2003, 07:46

Ok fellows, major problem: The bridges .... I want them to be destroyable AND units to move over the rivers. Now I don´t know exactly how to simulate this.

(1) The first - and IMO - easy version would be to let cities be the bridges.
The problem: Can I make an terrain change (into water) when the city is destroyed?

(2) The other solution would be to simulate the bridges with units (in this case there are no problems with the terrain change via event but with the transport of units over the squares with the bridges ....)

Currently I have some units included with a land terrain below (to have units move on ....)

- Which one would you prefer/suggest?
- Do you have any other ideas how to build this in?

curtsibling · March 15, 2003, 08:57

You know how when you build a zero-move unit, it does not flash (awaiting orders) when produced in a city, etc?
Will a zero-move ocean unit (the bridge) allow units to be selectable on the following turn?

Or will you have go and select them yourself?

The city idea is good, but how do you stop the 'bridge city' growing in population?

curtsibling · March 15, 2003, 08:58

Quote:

Originally posted by jim panse
I´m tossing around ideas for improving the units. Shall I replace some of the shields of the German Tanks???

Maybe the German Balkenkreuz for the tank units???

I would keep the national war flag, it looks fine!

jim panse · March 15, 2003, 13:40

Quote:

I would keep the national war flag, it looks fine!

Ok, the national war flag remains.

Quote:

You know how when you build a zero-move unit, it does not flash (awaiting orders) when produced in a city, etc?

Yeah, I know. The large problem is that a UNIT cannot work as a bridge. It simply wouldn´t be realistic that you capture a bridge intact and cannot move on further ...

Quote:

The city idea is good, but how do you stop the 'bridge city' growing in population?

This is not too difficult. Just place some terrains round it that have only 1 or 2 food production ....

techumseh · March 15, 2003, 14:10

What did you think of the Market Garden model for bridge blowing which I sent you? It strikes me that you don't need to use cities or units to represent bridges, just a special 'bridge' terrain. Events to change bridge terrain to ocean are all you need to blow a bridge.

Alternatively, you could use immobile transport units to represent bridges. If captured a 'trigger attacker' event could replace the unit with the same type of unit, but belonging to the capturing civ. If the bridge was blown, it would simply not be replaced.

Either of these systems will require the allocation of one unit slot per blowable bridge. I'm not sure how you can allow for the blowing of individual bridges without doing that.

jim panse · March 15, 2003, 15:03

I know your system. The problem is this: I started with a Bridge terrain but then I reconsidered that:

How on earth could this be implemented? I mean: How you WILL go after these bridges?

I also thought over the immobile transport units. The problem would be that your units wouldn´t be moveable for one turn .... I won´t call this realistic.

*still thinking about it*

Palaiologos · March 15, 2003, 17:37

Why don't you have the bridges be represented by wonders and place them in cities?

So when a city is captured you would get the message:

"Our troops have captured the Nijmegen bridge"

or "We have lost control of the Nijmegen bridge"

etc.. They would be the only objectives in the scenario and the capture of all or some would signify the difference between marginal or decicive victory.

I have a gfx for a bridge attached bellow.

Palaiologos · March 15, 2003, 18:01

Other idea:

represent the bridges by cities of a second german civ, but with the city style graphic looking like a bridge.

They will therefore be capturable and defendable objectives.
The terrain can be changed to water when a city/bridge is captured, the event system does not have a city destroyed trigger.

I would propose:

Merge my two ideas. The bridges/cities will have a bridge wonder inside them.After the cities are captured and recaptured they will loose some levels and be destroyed thus making the bridge wonder "lost".Now if you change in the labels.txt or game.txt(do not know where is it) the word "lost" to "blown" could in a sense represent that the bridge was blown before being captured.
It is just a thought.

Anyway simulating the bridge blow up is hard enough already.

techumseh · March 15, 2003, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by jim panse
I know your system. The problem is this: I started with a Bridge terrain but then I reconsidered that:

How on earth could this be implemented? I mean: How you WILL go after these bridges?

Sorry, don't follow. Doesn't it work?

klesh · March 15, 2003, 19:51

I have the solution to your problem, but I will not let you in on it, as I plan to implement it meself, in a secret project.

curtsibling · March 15, 2003, 20:17

Oh, come on FMK!

Don't be evil, share your wisdom for the sake of Civ unity!

@Pericles, you ideas on the bridge problem are very sound.

Boco · March 15, 2003, 20:22

Tech, what are your triggers for the ChangeTerrain action? UnitKilled with a unique unit on each bridge? CityTaken? ReceivedTechnology? I guess CityProduction, CityDestroyed, and AlphaCentauriArrival are out.

Quote:

You are invited to gape with awe and amazement as FMK demonstrates the wonders
of Vulnerable Bridges. Absolutely no scribes will be allowed.

Send a spy over.

techumseh · March 15, 2003, 21:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Boco
Tech, what are your triggers for the ChangeTerrain action? UnitKilled with a unique unit on each bridge? CityTaken? ReceivedTechnology? I guess CityProduction, CityDestroyed, and AlphaCentauriArrival are out.

Each blowable bridge is one square of special terrain that looks like, well, a bridge.

On each bridge is a unique (to that bridge) German 'sapper' unit, which is immobile. When the Allied player kills this unit, one or more of the same sapper unit, but belonging to a third civ, is created near the bridge. If the allied player kills the new sapper(s) first, the bridge can't be blown. If the Germans kill it, that tiggers the 'ChangeTerrain' event which turns that bridge square into ocean, thus blowing that bridge. The sub flag hides the sapper, making it harder to locate.

When I did the model, I didn't realize that you could have units without a city, but a hidden/invulnerable settler unit is all you need to enable the third civ sapper units.

jim panse · March 16, 2003, 08:41

*hmmmm*

curtsibling · March 16, 2003, 10:48

Why not have a German sturm pioneer unit that uses the old settler trick of coverting tiles to oceans...

Although it would depend if this is an allied or axis scenario...

jim panse · March 16, 2003, 10:50

You - as the HI (Human Intelligence) - would play as the Allies .....

jim panse · March 17, 2003, 04:46

I´m thinking more and more in the direction of creating the bridges as cities ...... what do you think?

jim panse · March 17, 2003, 12:30

Ok, I think I had an idea to solve this problem: The bridges will be simulated by cities of a different (german) civ. Within these cities there will be a single bridge unit. Once the Allied Forces reach these "Bridges" and destroy the garrison and - after that - conquer the "Bridge" there will be another Bridge unit created via event. If the German defenders succeed in recapturing the bridges the terrain "under" the "Bridge" will be changed into water to simulate the blocked route.

o good!

o bad!

curtsibling · March 17, 2003, 12:59

Good idea!

The german bridge city, becomes your bridge city...

And back again!

be sure to give these bridge cities high pop levels to ake allowance for capture and recapture!

jim panse · March 17, 2003, 13:10

The porblem would be: to high pop level => all the other cities would look like bridges after being captured, liberated, captured, liberated, .....

Personally I think that if you capture a bridge intact, you´re fine. If your bridge gets recaptured it may also becomes slightly damaged caused by the fire-fight. After two times of combat I guess the bridge will be ruined. Would you agree?

Palaiologos · March 17, 2003, 15:16

Quote:

Originally posted by jim panse
The porblem would be: to high pop level => all the other cities would look like bridges after being captured, liberated, captured, liberated, .....

If they will belong to a second german civ then they will have their own bridge looking only city style.

I mean, they will have a seperate city style from the rest of the german cities.

jim panse · March 17, 2003, 15:42

Yeah but what would it look like if the Allies "capture" (I favor the term "take") a bridge that would look like a small city after the troops marched in ....

Leonidas · March 19, 2003, 13:40

Jim I like what I see so far. Thanks for all this effort.

I am a wargamer, and I am looking forward to playing it.

I hope that once it's released more improvements can be made to it based on feedback.

It would be nice to have another classic like Red Front

jim panse · March 19, 2003, 14:47

What about Second Front, Leonidas?

Leonidas · March 19, 2003, 16:21

Quote:

Originally posted by jim panse
What about Second Front, Leonidas?

I never could get into Second Front. I think it would have been far more interesting playing the Germans vs the Allied landings: trying to survive the overwhelming Allied numbers in men, planes and ships. . .

I prefer to play the underdogs in a scenario - to see if I can do better. Also, I think I prefer defensive scenarios best.

So perhaps a D-Day scenario playable as the Germans only might be an interesting scenario for someone to do. The map, units, etc are already available via Second Front.

The Allied AI would have certain objectives to achieve by a certain date. The human playing the Germans would achieve victory if he is able to stop the Allies. . .

ravagon · March 20, 2003, 00:20

I thought Nemo tried that but couldn't get the AI to work wrt amphibious invasions?
I know there was a comment along the same lines in John Petroski's Deadly Boot scen a few years ago.

Case · March 20, 2003, 00:50

The main trouble I see with getting a German-optimised version of SF is that the Allied AI would get all its units bogged down in the Bocage.

...A 2 player version of SF could be do-able and interesting though...

Leonidas · March 20, 2003, 01:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Case
The main trouble I see with getting a German-optimised version of SF is that the Allied AI would get all its units bogged down in the Bocage.

...A 2 player version of SF could be do-able and interesting though...

Maybe the Allied units (or some of them such as Rangers, paratroopers, etc) could be given explorer movement to prevent this?

jim panse · March 20, 2003, 09:15

Quote:

...A 2 player version of SF could be do-able and interesting though...

This I would favorise

Case · March 21, 2003, 20:49

Jim, you may have already seen this, but an order of battle for the Airborne forces used in Market-Garden is available at: http://www.orbat.com/site/history/op...garden1944.pdf