Civilization: The Expansion Project
https://dev.civproject.net/forum/

Thoughts on Advanced Military
https://dev.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=195		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Jonno [ 2005-01-17 10:52:05 ]
Post subject: 
While proofreading the rules for minor errors (a hoby of mine ;)) I started to think as I read the rules for conflicts. This is realy three separete isues all regarding Advanced Military:

1) Advanced Military does not work if two or more players involved posseses Advanced Military. My question is why not? A full scale war between two militarized people could actully depopulate large areas, and as each turn represents a couple of hundred years, conflicts must be considered to represent wars and not battles, and possesion of Advanced Military should tend to reprecent militarized peoples.
Inclusion of this rule might lead to problems of what conflict to resolve first, but I think the rules are quite clear, first all wars involving tokens, AST order, then all involving cities, AST order. If one player is involved in multiple conflicts due to be resolved, he chooses in what order to resolve them.

2) Even during the most devestating wars no areas became 100% depopulated. Holders of Advanced Military should be required to leave at least one token in every neighboring area (optionaly this could include enemy tokens).

3) Advanced Military only provides very limited support while attacking cities. Sure, you can take causalties in neighboring areas even when attacking cities, but you still has to place 6 tokens on the city itself, or no combat will take place at all. Imo, for attacking players with Advanced Militarty, the requirement should only be one token on the city itself, and at least 6 posible causalties (i.e. tokens in the city area + tokens in excess of one in neighboring areas should be at least 6).

As rule 2 restricts use of Advanced Military, and 1 + 3 increases it, I think it would still be balanced with the current cost.

What does the rest of you think of this?
Author:  Velusion [ 2005-01-17 11:32:34 ]
Post subject: 
>My question is why not? A full scale war between two militarized people could actully depopulate large areas

Sounds like a good change.

>Even during the most devestating wars no areas became 100% depopulated. Holders of Advanced Military should be required to leave at least one token in every neighboring area (optionaly this could include enemy tokens).

Sounds good!

> attacking players with Advanced Militarty, the requirement should only be one token on the city itself

I think this makes it a very powerful civ card in this instance. A power could just sent one token off to multiple cities (which is easy via ships) and it would destroy cities with ease! Even Engineering only lowers the amount of tokens you need by one. I would suggest that we duplicate that engineering power and lower the amount of tokens by one and cancel it out if the other player has advanced military.
Author:  Jonno [ 2005-01-17 12:26:07 ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I think this makes it a very powerful civ card in this instance. A power could just sent one token off to multiple cities (which is easy via ships) and it would destroy cities with ease! Even Engineering only lowers the amount of tokens you need by one. I would suggest that we duplicate that engineering power and lower the amount of tokens by one and cancel it out if the other player has advanced military.


As I see it, they still has to have LOTS of tokens nearby (especially as you require them to leave one token in every area), so it will not be as overpowered as you might think. In the normal case, you will still need the same amount of tokens in total (posibly more, you'll have to leave units in all areas), but if your enemy has lots of nearby cities, you could of cource just destroy one token from each though, didn't think of that one...
Perhaps requireing half the required units (rounded up) to be in the area, and allowing the second half from neighbouring areas instead (similarly to Architecture). That way you would still need three units on every city (4 if defender got Engineering but attacker not) and can take three (2 if attacker got Engineering but defender not) from neighbouring areas. To destroy three cities (neither or both got engineering) would then require 13 tokens (three on each city, three to help, one to stay) of wich 4 will survive (the ones in the neighbouring area), but only in the most optimal case. Yes that is good, but I don't think having three enemy cities withing reach of one area is going to happen too often, and the more common senario of destroying two cities with 10 units isn't too overpowered, thats just two below normal, with the same amount of survivors, but you have not conquered any of the citycites (the most common reason to attack a city).
Author:  Jonno [ 2005-03-29 7:11:58 ]
Post subject: 
I have just added part 1 and 2 to my 2.06-draft3, and I have done some more thinking on part 3.

Firstly, Advanced Military should imo not lower the amount of tokens required to attack a city, only allow the units to be in neighbouring areas.
Secondly, just as in part 1 & 2 I do not want the effects of two players holding Advanced Military negate each other, I want both to be able to use the effect, resulting in a more devestating battle.
My current idea is that in an attack on a city where the defender have Advanced Military there will first be an attack between tokens EVEN IF THE DEFENDER HAS NO TOKENS IN THE CITY. In this fight the city is more or less considered a token, but the defender can not use it as a causalty. When the defender would choose to (or would have to) use the city as a causalty, the fight between tokens is over.
Now the amount of tokens required to attack a city is calculated as usual, but if the attacker as Advanced Military he might count the sum of attacking units on the city as well as tokens in excess of one in neighbouring areas bellonging to the attacker to determine if the attack succedes. If so the city is replaced with tokens and the battle continues as usual.

I would think that the senario above would be more "realistic" than the current rules, and conserning game balance my opinion is that in the most common situation, an atack on one city, there is no difference on the amount of units required. If there are multiple cities within reach from one area, it would require less units in total to destroy all those cities, but then the defender would still control the citysites and would be able to easily rebuild them next turn. If the cities neighboured to each other as well as the area the attack is comming from the defender would be able to use the tokens left in the first city to defend the second, and the attacker would still need the same amount of tokens to destroy the cities. So the only case when these rules would enable the attacker to destroy cities with a smaller force than normal is if there is if an enemy has two non-neighbouring cities that neighbours the same area. In this case the attacker could save up to 5 units (on on each city and 5 between, instead of 6 on each), and that only if the defender has no units neighbouring any of the cities.
If this worst-case-senario is still considered to grave the rules could be written so that the attacked might count 2 or 3 units in excess of one in neighbouring areas as if they participated in the fight when determining if the battle over the city is to take place.
Author:  Velusion [ 2005-06-25 19:21:08 ]
Post subject: 
Could you post what you think the actual wording should be?
Author:  Jonno [ 2005-06-26 2:08:23 ]
Post subject: 
Velusion wrote:
Could you post what you think the actual wording should be?


The current draft rules (2.06-draft4) only cointains point 1 and 2 of my proposal, as well as my Naval Warefare proposal. For a clarification of them, please see the Naval Warfare thread.

In the rest of this thread, I will address point 3 of my prior Advanced Military proposal, as well as expanding it to also adress Naval Warfare.

I'm not sure of the exact wording of point 3 I do want, as I'm not sertain of the game mechanism to use. The issue I want to adress is that in the current draft rules neither the attacker's nor the defender's posession of Advanced Military and/or Naval Warfare makes any difference to wheter a city is razed and replaced with 6 tokens or not.
Imho all of that should matter. I'm not sure of exactly how, but one option would be to state that a battle between token starts wheter the defender has tokens on the city or not. If the defender has no tokens on the city he will take causalties first, no matter who holds Metalworking. If, when the defender is to take causalties, he has no tokens on the city, he can decede if he wants to end the combat between tokens or take causalties somewhere else (tokens in an neighbouring area, or ships in the city area).
If, when the combat between tokens is over, the attacker still has at least one tokens in the city area, and can summon a force of at least 7 (tokens on city + tokens in neighbouring areas + ships in the city area), the city will be razed and replaced with 6 tokens, and a new, ordinary battle begins.
Compared to the current rules this does not make any difference if neither player has Advanced Military or Naval Warfare, but will allow the defender to use them for defence, and the attacker use them for offence, and if both has them the battle might become very devestating.
If neither or both has these advances (and the posibility to use them), razing a city is neither easier nor harder than currently, but if only the defender has the advances (or the possibility to use them), razing a city will be harder than with the current draft rules, as the attacker might have to take causalties before the city is razed at all, and if only the attacker has the advances (or the possibility to use them) it will be easier to raze a city, as he does not have to place 7 tokens in the city area itself.

However, the more I think on issue three, I think it is becomming more and more complicated, and perhaps we should just stick with point 1 and 2, as the current draft rules does.
Author:  Velusion [ 2005-06-26 18:00:45 ]
Post subject: 
Jonno wrote:
However, the more I think on issue three, I think it is becomming more and more complicated, and perhaps we should just stick with point 1 and 2, as the current draft rules does.


I agree. I think your 3rd point would make for a great future advance (maybe Adv Siege Weapons - 320 for the next expansion :)). It has great merrit - just a bit much for one advance that already it pretty nice.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/