How to make more realistic wars in civ

[Komunyst_Indian]

Diplomacy is a must improvement for me.... the AIs are always cautious or pleased with you whilst being friendly with each other... this really makes my game a depressing one... especially when there are 3 or 4 diff religions and still there is man love...

diplomacy needs a overhaul thoguh i cannot fathom a system to replace this numberline one... any ideas.


I think units shoud be able to be bought by other players or from the AI in the diplo interface... or exchanged...

Question for you-- what else would / could YOU think of to add that would NOT be strictly military, or else if it is, would lead to more subtle / balanced game-play in not-strictly militaristic terms?

Quantitative resources... there is a mod on this being worked on by gaius octavius... more interactive trade routes... and i know this a big wish.. but TOTAL war style military engagement... think of the cash firaxis/sid would earn.. no game would be able to compete against it...

 

[rysmiel]

I don't particularly want it to be all about the military and war. But, IMO, a lot of the games problems and weaknesses come from not having good military, tactical and strategic facilities and abilities.

No argument there.

I personally thing the diplomatic stuff in the game sucks-- its not that I don't like or wouldn't want those features, I just don't think they're implemented very well (although civ4 did a better job than previous versions).

I would rather have some of the options that Civ 3 had - like per turn gold payments - implemented with better AI, they were removed in Civ 4 because of being deemed exploitative basically because the AI could not handle them.

Another thing is that it should be possible to have a minor skirmish, particularly out in the field, or over an unclaimed city, resource or something like that, w/o necessarily meaning you go directly to war. THAT is the kind of thing you're SUPPOSED to negotiate.

I would like more in-between states, yes. I would like, for example, to be able to have "open borders" for moving scout units around, or shipping military through your neighbour's territory to an enemy, without opening borders to a settler-and-defender coming to sit on a space that I was planning on putting a city on in a few turns. I also think it would really add to the game to be able to enforce uneven open borders, perhaps as a condition on a peace deal; if I've just hammered the living daylights out of Montezuma, I should be able to insist on keeping my troops on his ground for a bit without granting him the right to have his troops on my ground.

Another thing I would like to see improved is spycraft-- for example, it would be interesting / useful if spies would occasionally report "intercepted" communications between other civs-- such as overhearing peace talks or a potential alliance negotiation.

I want Civ 2-type spy units back, with more of the abilities they used to have.

Something I think would be an interesting game feature-- the ability to damn rivers to turn them into lakes for irrigation / water / navigation. There would be pros and cons to this of course, but the ability to alter & manipulate the terrain is only partially explored in any of the games.

Being able to dam or redirect rivers would be very cool, yes. All the terrain should be usable and mutable, given enough time and effort.

I've been thinking about roads some more-- perhaps the first roads ought to be implemented "for free" by the game itself-- as you move units between cities, the game could "wear in" the paths most used by the pieces (along the most direct movement-cost-based route).

I don't agree with this one, but then I prefer to get several techs into the tree before you can even build roads, which some Civ 3 mods support.

If you want to get away from war (military) then you need more stuff to spend money on, and ways to manage it.
(..)
Question for you-- what else would / could YOU think of to add that would NOT be strictly military, or else if it is, would lead to more subtle / balanced game-play in not-strictly militaristic terms?

I would be inclined to make military units more effective but also more expensive; go back to having them cost shields/food/happiness from a home city, as well as having to pay them.

I would strengthen the options for drawing ahead in non-military ways. I would like something that combined the notion of strategic resources with Civ 2-type having to actually build a caravan and deliver it to make a trade; there are definitely huge flaws in the Civ 2 caravan system but they are fixable, and with the "go to point X" command actually working it's not overly much micromanagement. I want spies who can bribe enemy units and even cities. I also want culture that depends entirely on buildings, rather than a slider, I want cultural conversion of enemy cities like in Civ 3 only much easier, and I want any enemy unit that sits on your territory to have a chance, increasing each round, of deserting to you, that is determined by your culture and theirs.

Spies who can bribe are basically a way to translate a strong economy into a victory. That, and better ways of building that economy, and culture that means something, and possibly a rework of how religion works, would all seem to me options for alternative ways to win. (Possibly also corporations, I've not played enough BtS to have a good feel for how they work now.) In a situation where someone who throws all their energy into building an army is leaving themselves way open to cultural conversion, bribery, and so on, the game is stronger in ways other than war.

 

[MehmedII]

One thing, I was thinking about was Unions and Pact. Both economic alliances (like EU) and military (like NATO) and I think it should work that to be a member, you had to agree with some rules, like defensive pact, open borders. maybe some civics like Free market, Free speech but also civics as the founder of the union choose, maybe serfdom or slavery or even certain religon.

 

[MehmedII]

I really don't know if its belongs here but in some forum somebody discus a naval type between galley (some hundreds years before 0) and caravel (in the late 15th century).
I agree, but they discus some type of warship(and for vikings longships). A problem with Civ, I think, is that its made in an America/Europe perspective, like knights,longbowmen,carvel and so on. A type of European warship thats just silly, lets make a djonk.

 

[UWHabs]

Naval improvement:
1. Do like in Alpha Centauri, where ships can bombard land units. If units are elevated (on a hill) or hidden (in a forest), they get bombardment defense (ie. -50% damage). Siege units have a 50% chance to intercept and fire back on the ship, damaging it.

2. Have your navy more as a navy. So, when you build ships, each have a power to define a "zone" around it (like a cultural zone). A ship can patrol and defend in its zone. To promote varied combat, you could even have zones of multiple battleships be okay together, but put a battleship and a destroyer near each other and they defend better.

So, when you build your fleet, they would maybe patrol together outside your land mass, giving you a seafaring cultural zone. Thus, on any turn, if an enemy tries to enter your zone, your ships would automatically go to defend (or maybe set it so that ships travelling through someone else's zone move slower, and if they end inside a naval cultural zone, you get a full-on naval war, with like all the ships in the vicinity attacking each other).

So, if I build a large enough flotilla, they should all basically automatically patrol my coastline, preparing to defend my empire. Or maybe even have it more complicated, so that I define a sea zone to defend with my ships, and they each get "split around". So I should be able to define a defensive zone as basically the entire US coastline. If I only assign 1 battleship to that coast, then opponents will have a good chance of evading me. But if I assign 7 battleships, 6 destroyers, and 12 subs, I'll be intercepting any attacking force and challenging it.

Basically it'd be nice to have a system in play to define my "naval superiority" in terms of cultural influence. You could still build individual ships to harass people without a big naval sphere of influence, or for defending your transports, or for picking off stragglers and such, but would make it so that you have to explicitly build a "navy" for protection.

 

[rysmiel]

Naval improvement:
1. Do like in Alpha Centauri, where ships can bombard land units. If units are elevated (on a hill) or hidden (in a forest), they get bombardment defense (ie. -50% damage). Siege units have a 50% chance to intercept and fire back on the ship, damaging it.

Bombard ? Bring back naval units being able to attack land units, is what I say.

 

[UWHabs]

Bombard ? Bring back naval units being able to attack land units, is what I say.

The only problem is thinking how a frigate could lose to something like a Phalanx sitting on a hill.

 

[rysmiel]

The only problem is thinking how a frigate could lose to something like a Phalanx sitting on a hill.

This is another one of those ways of thinking where realism gets in the way of good gameplay; don't think about it.

 

[UWHabs]

I think if boats can attack units on the ground, we should be allowed to charge the seas as well to take out coastal ships. Who doesn't want to send their quechua to take out my opponent's triremes wandering my coast?

 

[BigBaldDaddy]

Earlier versions of Civ allowed naval bombardment of units as well as improvements. This was good. Only bad part was that siege units could shoot back (cannons vs battleships?)

If a bomber can perform an airstrike, why can't a ship have the same functionality? Just make it so ground units cannot intercept a naval bombardment.

Air units would be no fun if they only shot air units, so fix/mod naval units!

 

[rysmiel]

Earlier versions of Civ allowed naval bombardment of units as well as improvements. This was good. Only bad part was that siege units could shoot back (cannons vs battleships?)

This is not a bug, this is a feature. I want it back.

 

[exhile]

Earlier versions of Civ allowed naval bombardment of units as well as improvements. This was good. Only bad part was that siege units could shoot back (cannons vs battleships?)

The ability of siege units to attack naval ships is unreal. I've never seen, heard or read of a catapult, cannon, artillery or mobile artillery attack a ship in any recorded combat. That's why there are cruise missiles.

 

[UWHabs]

Well, didn't Cannons on forts inland fire on ships passing by? That's what Alcatraz was built for - a fort to fire on ennemy ships to protect the bay.

Modern day that doesn't happen, since nowadays you don't have the forts inland as much, better to use missiles or planes.

Maybe you could make a new unit - some sort of "long-range cannon" which would be able to fire on ships or a stack of troops up to 2 squares away, and it would be like an air strike. Or if you want to simplify it, have a building you can build (some sort of "cannon fortress" after a fortress) which would open fire on any enemy ship within like 2 squares long the coast or something.

 

[rysmiel]

The ability of siege units to attack naval ships is unreal. I've never seen, heard or read of a catapult, cannon, artillery or mobile artillery attack a ship in any recorded combat.

What would you count a Napoleonic-era shore battery as, then ? I think cannon or artiller is a reasonable representation of that.

 

[exhile]

What would you count a Napoleonic-era shore battery as, then ? I think cannon or artiller is a reasonable representation of that.

A shore battery is a stationary defensive improvement that can be purchased by a city located along the ocean. This city improvement is called the "coastal fortress".

A cannon or artillery on wheels doesn't have support of a grounded position to shoot so far into the ocean.

 

[Frank327]

I really like the idea of units being able to attack adjacent squares. This could give a new dimension to using the landscape. For example, you could allow archers standing on a hill, fort or city to fire on adjacent squares that are not hills, forts or cities. Slow infantry would have a difficult time against them, because the archers can attack them before the real fighting starts. Chariots and cavalry on the other hand, can approach them without the fear of being shot down beforehand. This would also make forts a bit more useful.

Landscape like forests and rivers would still be meaningful, because rivers slow down the cavalry, and forests would give great cover from enemy fire.

Anyways, something must be done about the way war is done in civ 4. Basically, if someone attacks you, you have to attack the attacker, or he'll ruin every single improvement, and you'll go down over time. I'd like to see defending actually become defending again.

Another feature I'd like to see is supplying your army. After all, your army has to eat in order to fight properly, and it's not realistic and fun at all that armies can just walk anywhere for any time on the map without having to worry about everything. Maybe a promotion could be added called engineering. Units would be able to build very basic camps in one or two turns, which provide food and a tiny bit of defense for a number of units (for example 4 or 6). You could also supply your army by pillaging farms/cottages, or by standing on a fort. Another cool gameplay element would be providing your army food through routes, and if they'd be blocked then your army doesn't get any food anymore. Underfed units would slowly lose power over time.

 

[BigBaldDaddy]

Another feature I'd like to see is supplying your army.

Take a look at Fury Road, a post-apocalypse mod along the lines of Mad-Max. It implements fuel for most motorized units. Oil wells auto-spawn a fuel truck every so many turns. A fuel truck refuels all units in a square and dies. Units without fuel cannot move and fight at 50% strength. Fuel trucks are purely defensive and can be captured.

This could be mod'ed to handle all logistics (ammo for arty stacks!) with ONE HUGE PROBLEM. The AI sucks at refueling. It winds up with stranded units everywhere.

 

[vsipinen]

Diplomacy is a must improvement for me.... the AIs are always cautious or pleased with you whilst being friendly with each other... this really makes my game a depressing one... especially when there are 3 or 4 diff religions and still there is man love...

diplomacy needs a overhaul thoguh i cannot fathom a system to replace this numberline one... any ideas.

I think that the AI should treat the human player exactly in the same way as other AI players. It should not even need to be able to differentiate whether a rival civilization is controlled by human or AI. The diplomacy rules (and of course all other rules as well) should be always same.

 

[Infantry#14]

1. about supplying army, I'm thinking about this:

All military in neutral and foreign lands loses 5% health per turn and cannot heal if not supplied, cap at 10% health remaining. You can avoid this by building food carts. Units on the same tile as the food cart dont lose health on enemy or neutral land. Food cart auto destroy every 10 turns that remain in enemy land and cant be resupply.

2. Capture enemy ships and air units when you capture city
They shouldn't all be auto destroy if you have the prereq tech. Make it 50% chance of recovering enemy naval and air units.

3. POW
It's ridiculous that loser of combat are autokill unless you are a worker. Make it 25% chance of capturing POW workers instead of dead units.

4. Actual Siege Warfare
If you cuttoff food supply, the city defenders would starve and fight with less power. Let say you surround the the defending city (put land units on surround 8 land tiles of city) then the city is "starved". Defender can no longer heal and lose 5% health each turn. (Exception: they have open sea route, but can be blockaded; or simply have an airport)

5. Worker Action
Workers can chop enemy forests and jungles.

 

[Frank327]

1. about supplying army, I'm thinking about this:

All military in neutral and foreign lands loses 5% health per turn and cannot heal if not supplied, cap at 10% health remaining. You can avoid this by building food carts. Units on the same tile as the food cart dont lose health on enemy or neutral land. Food cart auto destroy every 10 turns that remain in enemy land and cant be resupply.

I like the idea of a food cart, but just imagine how bothersome exploring would be. Your exploring warriors would either have to turn around halfway, or you'd have to send a food cart to them if you don't want them to starve to death. I think smaller stacks or individual units should be able to supply themselves when on fertile land. So for example if they're standing on a tile that has a yield of 2 food, then it can supply for 2 soldiers. Food carts would still be implemented of course. It would also make tundra and desert warfare more interesting. Actually, why not make the food cart into a transport cart? In warfare you can use them to carry food to the troops, and in peace time you could let it send materials (hammers) to growing towns, and food to growing towns.