Realistic WAR

[BlackStone]

A key factor in making a more realistic Civ game has to be that of an integrated resource and supply structure for both the cities and the armies. One of the key problems in call to power and the other civ platforms that I have played is that there is no automatic sharing of basic resources between cities. Food is a prime example I would have thought that there would be an automatic internal market that would be able to distribute the food from all cities on a demand basis. This could also be done with other natural resources to make an integrated economy matching the needs with the supplies available where ever in the empire and with special consideration to trading resources with other empires. This happens in the real world and I think it should be integrated into the next civ.
More importantly though is the supply of military units. I am constantly annoyed by foreign nations who send a lone unit deep into my territory and leave it there for the next thousand years. How on earth are the buggers being fed, reequipped and supplied? As the game stands in CTP2 I can take an army half way around the world and leave it there with no tangible route of communication between it and me. I think this leads to a completely unrealistic scenario.
The answer is to make all military units subject to re supply routes using the nearest city, subject to a maximum number of squares and degraded the closer to the limit it gets. This could also be substituted by supply dump improvements to act as conduits, I also think that there should be a limit on the amount a city and dump can effectively supply. The main result of this would be an end to unrealistic incursions by lone units, a more realistic development of empire structures.
The game, militarily, would centre on, as it does in the real world, protection of supplies. It would become possible for a player to encircle and so cut off a whole army and that armies fighting ability would diminish (the speed dictated by the amount of action it was engaged in and the lack of supplies coming in). This would make the fighting more tactical and not just a contest between who could hammer the other faster. Small armies could out fight bigger ones with fast long distance units like tanks playing a more accurate historic role.
So to conclude lets put a emphasis on the whole supplies system within the empire as a whole and the military in particular.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

That sounds good, but it is too advanced/ complicated/ late for civ III.

Maybe if we can modify thre game it would be great if this could be implemented.

btw, you could send a food caravan in Civ II to share the resources between cities.

[M. le Comte]

Yeah, that would be great.

[BlackStone]

re food caravan I was looking for an overall internal market that would automatically distribute on demand and that could be specifically tailored to what ever needs you might have.


It certainly is too late, but i don`t think that it would be to advanced or complicated, and it might add the stability to ensure a more realistic game. I am sure that macro controls could be used with mod units to make quick supply possible for the prepared player, and to ensure that it would not become a heavy burden on the game just a consideration that would add to the tactical play.

[Admiral]

Good idea
Maybe, if they make a Civ3.5 it can be included.

[Skanky Burns]

For a Realistic War

Well, at least Firaxis are half-way there... At least in Civ 3 we actually have a reason to go to war with another civ since the addition of resources. One step at a time

[BlackStone]

I have seen a few other good ideas one is that there should be a limit on the ammount of manpower available ie proportional to your civ population, and the ability to sell units (or give them) to other civs. The combination of these two would mean that you would sell the hardware not the personnel.

I suppose it will be a few years before we see anything like this.

[Mark_Everson]

There's also under things I consider important:

Simultaneous movement and/or 'fog of war'
combined arms effects (admittedly Very crudely represented in CIII)
mobilization/demobilization and their economic effects

and some others that the Civ III team didn't bite on...

If you are interested, Clash of Civilizations has a detailed military model of the sort most of you in this thread seem to be looking for. You can see it on the Clash Web Site under 'Military' and give us comments on what you think on the forum hosted by Apolyton that you can reach thru the 'Forum' link off the web page.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled disappointment

[K.J.H.]

Is the (de)mobilizing part out of civ 3?
AAAAAAAH!!
Even CTP had it!!

I like the economic effects of (de)mobilizing and maybe diplomatic effects? Mobilizing your armies have bad effects on foreign relations. In the First World War, was one of the causes of that war the mobilizing of the army of the Czar.
And maybe domestic effects? I wouldn't be comfortable to live in a country with a mobilized country.

[K.J.H.]

Sorry country = army

[BlackStone]

I am sure that i have read that civ3 will have the (de)mobilizing effects similar to ctp but what the actual format would be i don`t know.

I think that you are right it did add an interesting bonus to the game, especially in diplomacy. I would have liked to see some extras though - faster mobilization at a cost to the empire, or something along those lines.

[Urban Ranger]

Why should there be an automatic sharing of internal basic resources? Historically in Europe city-states are mostly self-sufficient. Trades between city-states were mostly in luxurious items and things such as weapons.

There's no mobilising. It only makes sense if a civ can enter into a war-time economy. Since there's no such thing IIRC, what's the point?

There are a lot of things that can be done but not done. It lacks a detailed combat resolution system, for example. The thing is you must make the cut off somewhere, therefore tradeoffs must be done. What is the point of having certain features? Will they add to the fun/addictiveness of the game? This is what Sid aims for, fun.

Other games clearly have different sets of design criteria. Ask Mark, he knows

Look at the List. There are many well-developed ideas that didn't make it into Civ 3, let alone of some sketchy demand.

[BlackStone]

Food has always been a commodity and its free movement and production a key part of any nations economy. Two examples would be Romes securing egypt for its grain and the USSR`s collective system which continually under performed in the early stages and forced them to seek substitues through international trade. Most nations have areas that make the majority of the food for distribution else where. Food is also used as a political counter - look at EU use of food aide to gain favour and influence with countries in africa and the middle east.
It is true that most settlements start off self seficient in one form or another but the ability to pool resources is a key factor in the development further. No town or city has ever been solely dependant on producing all of its food for long. This is also true for nations, just look at the UK during WW2 when the German blockade began to bit they had to introduce rationing.

Industries have been localised for convenience to the main sources of the natural resources required, to claim that cities have been self reliant throughout their development IS rediculous. If this has ever occurred it is the exception not the rule.

As for the military supplies- the great battles of WW2 the out come of campaigns and the extent of advances and defeats where dictated too by the resources available to the armies in the field. None of which can be duplicated in a civ game because all of the forces are free standing. It is not possible to encirle your opponents forces to inflict crushing defeats (Barbarrossa) and their is no limit to the distance a force can travel.
I don`t thin that the introduction of a supply system would take away from the fun it would add depth to a strategy based game built around the organisation and management of nations wealth (in what ever form) for its survival and domination. Its not a colourful shoot-em-up.

[BlackStone]

La la