Real Time Strategy Battles for Civilization?

LOL now the chances of this actually happening anytime soon are really slim, but what if Civ were to adapt a combat system similar to Total War? That would make combat FAR more complex, increase the number of units, plus it might eliminate the spearman vs tank problem...unless if they have spearmen stabbing tanks to death in real time

Not saying that it should actually be implemented (it probably, and maybe even shouldn't be), just bringing up the idea.

It would be a little awkward going from a turn-based strategy to a real-time strategy for combat. I'd love a good RTS civilization builder like Civ is, but wouldn't want to mesh the 2 genres.

And I've heard Total War is real clunky to play.

hewhoknowsall said:

LOL now the chances of this actually happening anytime soon are really slim, but what if Civ were to adapt a combat system similar to Total War? That would make combat FAR more complex, increase the number of units, plus it might eliminate the spearman vs tank problem...unless if they have spearmen stabbing tanks to death in real time

Not saying that it should actually be implemented (it probably, and maybe even shouldn't be), just bringing up the idea.

Click to expand...

It would make the game completely unplayable to those of us who can't play RTSes.

I probably wouldn't get Civ V if they did this.

They already have the Total War games for this (which are good games in their own right). Civilization V is a turn-based strategy game only.

This is never going to happen. If it did it would just flat out not be civ

FYI, I didn't mean the entire game being real time, just the combat. Wouldn't that make combat a lot deeper? Or would it make combat too dominant over the other components of gameplay?

hewhoknowsall said:

FYI, I didn't mean the entire game being real time, just the combat. Wouldn't that make combat a lot deeper? Or would it make combat too dominant over the other components of gameplay?

Click to expand...

It would make combat awkward and un-fun for people buying Civ for a Turn-based strategy. There are plenty of ways Civ 5 could improve combat, but RTS is not one of them.

hewhoknowsall said:

FYI, I didn't mean the entire game being real time, just the combat. Wouldn't that make combat a lot deeper?

Click to expand...

No, it would mean you'd have to mess around with the details of combat, which is not fun, when what many of us are here for is the high-level running the empire, which is fun. I am not physically dexterous enough to play anything at all complex in real time. Tactical real-time combat would kill the game for me.

Or would it make combat too dominant over the other components of gameplay?

Click to expand...

Combat is already too dominant over the other components of gameplay but it would make things a great deal worse in that direction.

hewhoknowsall said:

FYI, I didn't mean the entire game being real time, just the combat. Wouldn't that make combat a lot deeper? Or would it make combat too dominant over the other components of gameplay?

Click to expand...

If I wanted deep combat I would play an RTS, or Total War.

If they make it like the game 1066, but better, then I might take it.

The thing is that combat would still have the same high level strategy, it's just that the actual battles you could fight out instead of just letting the computer decide. Naturally there would have to be a much greater variety of units in order to make combat interesting. Also, you could have an option to auto resolve. It would be like a total war - civilization fusion.

Of course, this is very unlikely to happen and might make combat far too dominant (as well as take too long to develop), but it would be cool to roll over cavemen with tanks

I have an idea thats similar to this, but it wouldn't take away the turn-based strategy aspect at all.

Similar to Total War, upon 2 units' engagement, the screen would zoom down to the battlefield, where all of the units in a stack (Up to a certain amount, because 50 different units is alot. The rest past a certain number would be 'reinforcements') are shown on the battlefield and arranged as preferred. The battlefield would consist of a more detailed version of the tile the defender is on.

Now, unlike TW and keeping in tune with the turn-based aspect of the game we all love, the battle would be more like a chess board. Players would take turns moving their troops across the battlefield, engaging as needed, until either one player is totally destroyed or all of their troops retreat. There wouldn't be a 'moral' system like there is in TW. Overall it'd be like a complex form of chess, using whatever units each player brings into the battlefield.

War in Civilization atm is no where near as tactical as it should be. Total War has that aspect, but it is in real time, which doesn't play out well for those who love turn based games. This way, those of us who want more detailed battles can have them, without taking away any turn based gameplay. And yes, I agree that there should be an 'auto resolve', that would work out much like the current combat system does now.


What do you guys think?

I can't help but think that this thread was designed specifically to piss me off...

The following is a smattering of my posts on the subject (to save me repeating myself). Click the link thing next to my name to get the context of what I'm saying.

Camikaze said:

Okay, well that might be a nice idea for some, making the game more enjoyable for a few people, it epitomises exactly what the majority of players do not want. It is expressly what Civ is not, encapsulating what is the essence of other games, at the cost of what is Civ. Civ is a strategy game, not a tactical game. Whilst it may improve the game for some, there are other games that fulfil that purpose, such as Total War. If people want to micromanage battles, they can play Total War. If they want to play an TBS, they play Civ. It would just be a complete departure from what Civ is to fulfil something that is already fulfilled by other games.

Click to expand...

Camikaze said:

The problem with many tactical things in the game is that even if they are an option, they discriminate between those who are good at using them and do so, those who are bad at using them but use them anyway, and those that automate. The system would be redundant if the automation gave the optimal result, and it would be too tactical for the game if it meant that you could a far better result out of micromanaging a battle yourself than you could out of automating it. And the fact that the people who are good at using tactics and do so have an advantage over those that automate, in a strategy game, is a bad thing, seeing as advantages in the game should be decided on strategic skills, instead of tactical ones.

Click to expand...

Camikaze said:

But it's a strategy game, so that's fair enough. Giving advantages based on tactical skill is like winning a game of tennis because you're the best at kicking the ball.


But the skills used would be tactical skills, not strategy skills. So, in order to make it so that greater tactical skills (in a strategy game) resulted in much better game performance, the alternative to using tactics (automation) would have to be as good as what could be achieved through the best possible application of tactics.


Yeah, I wouldn't mind the graphics, but not in any way that your interaction with them would effect the outcome.


But those losses would be less based upon RNG (what a large part of what Civ is based upon) than on tactical skill.


I suppose I don't mind the option, so long as you cannot be advantaged through its use. But that would make it redundant, with no benefit being derived from its use that couldn't be derived from actually playing Total War, i.e. a gameplay one.

Click to expand...

Camikaze said:

Welcome to CFC.

While the ideas you present may seem intriguing, they don't really have anything to do with civ. Civ 5 incorporating these things would be akin to FIFA '11 being all about Basketball. Civilization is an empire management and development strategy game, not a military tactics game. I don't really understand how you envisage 'first-person missions' working, but I can't see any possible way of incorporating them without completely breaking from what Civ is.

Click to expand...

Basically, if you want Total War, buy Total War. Civ is not Total War. It is not an RTS game. It is not a tactical game. It is not a military game. It is a turn based empire building and managing strategy game. What is being suggested is a concept totally removed from that type of game.

Camikaze said:

I can't help but think that this thread was designed specifically to piss me off...

The following is a smattering of my posts on the subject (to save me repeating myself). Click the link thing next to my name to get the context of what I'm saying.









Basically, if you want Total War, buy Total War. Civ is not Total War. It is not an RTS game. It is not a tactical game. It is not a military game. It is a turn based empire building and managing strategy game. What is being suggested is a concept totally removed from that type of game.

Click to expand...

Have you played Total War? Once you get into it and learn the mechanics, it can be very fun and exciting. And you could always have an auto resolve option for those that don't want to fight it out.

Even if you wouldn't enjoy the new mechanic, it wouldn't really negatively affect the game; you could just ignore it if you don't like it.

hewhoknowsall said:

Have you played Total War? Once you get into it and learn the mechanics, it can be very fun and exciting.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it is. But if I wanted to play Total War, I would play Total War, not Civ.

And you could always have an auto resolve option for those that don't want to fight it out.

Even if you wouldn't enjoy the new mechanic, it wouldn't really negatively affect the game; you could just ignore it if you don't like it.

Click to expand...

This is the main problem. Even if there is an auto-resolve feature, it will negatively impact on the game. In order for the feature not to be redundant, the auto-resolve would have to result in an average result, i.e. you could get a better result out of a battle by participating in it Total War style than you could by using the auto-resolve feature. This means that those that are able to use, and do use, the Total War style system will be advantaged. So there is a major advantage in the game for those that are good at Total War. That's a problem. This feature would mean that the best players of the strategy game that is Civ, would not be the best strategy players. And that constitutes an unnecessary abstraction of Civ, and what is required of you to win it.

I'm playing Civ for empire building - strategy and Total War for battles . TW city management is simplified compared to civ and for me are just a pretext for building the next army tier. BUilding a library in civ is part of a strategy, building a library in TW is just when I want better traits or perhaps some city order, it's just not the same.

I would prefer a different approach to combat in civ (V) though, either having only armies, not single units or a HOMM like tactical combat (turn based of course). I think I favour the second option it's more fun for me (and no HOMM 6 on the horizon).

Camikaze said:

I'm sure it is. But if I wanted to play Total War, I would play Total War, not Civ.



This is the main problem. Even if there is an auto-resolve feature, it will negatively impact on the game. In order for the feature not to be redundant, the auto-resolve would have to result in an average result, i.e. you could get a better result out of a battle by participating in it Total War style than you could by using the auto-resolve feature. This means that those that are able to use, and do use, the Total War style system will be advantaged. So there is a major advantage in the game for those that are good at Total War. That's a problem. This feature would mean that the best players of the strategy game that is Civ, would not be the best strategy players. And that constitutes an unnecessary abstraction of Civ, and what is required of you to win it.

Click to expand...

Sure, players good at tactics might get an advantage in a war (although I doubt that they could have this for multiplayer, because if two armies meet in real time, what are all of the other players not involved going to do? Sit there and watch?), but then again that's the same with real life as well. People good at micromanaging also get an advantage, as do people good at long term planning, etc.

Again, this addition is highly unlikely, but it would be neat if they somehow did get it in and DO IT WELL, although the coding necessary for them to make it at/above total war quality only spanning all of human history would be ridiculous to the extreme. I really don't see how it would detract from the experience...sure people with tactical prowess get an advantage, but it would make sense to get that advantage in a war, it's not like as if the skill is entirely unrelated.

Also, you have to admit that playing large scale, (mostly) realistic and epic battles with troops and tactics that greatly evolve over time (it would be nice how you will slowly change your tactics over time due to the evolving technology, especially in the transition to 20th century warfare) is more enjoyable than watching a really abstracted animation of your tanks getting destroyed by spearmen in a battle in which you have no control over.

However, as I have said many times, they might want to just stick with improving the core aspects of the game (including combat, but perhaps not changing it this drastically) instead of spending a LOT of time developing this (which may negatively affect sales, given that many people here say that they won't even play the game if this is included).

hewhoknowsall said:

Also, you have to admit that playing large scale, (mostly) realistic and epic battles with troops and tactics that greatly evolve over time (it would be nice how you will slowly change your tactics over time due to the evolving technology, especially in the transition to 20th century warfare) is more enjoyable than watching a really abstracted animation of your tanks getting destroyed by spearmen in a battle in which you have no control over..

Click to expand...

No, I don't.

I have to insist, again, as this point seems to being missed, that watching an abstracted animation of a battle is, for me personally massively more enjoyable than playing a large-scale tactical battle. Because one of them is a small event within a world-level view where I am running an empire and winning, overall, by being better at grand strategy and logistics, and the other is messing around with piffling inconsequential details.

rysmiel said:

No, I don't.

I have to insist, again, as this point seems to being missed, that watching an abstracted animation of a battle is, for me personally massively more enjoyable than playing a large-scale tactical battle. Because one of them is a small event within a world-level view where I am running an empire and winning, overall, by being better at grand strategy and logistics, and the other is messing around with piffling inconsequential details.

Click to expand...

But TW battles can be very fun once you get into it, and what do you mean by "inconsequential"? Let's say that you're playing a scenario about Alexander's conquests. Are you to say that the details of all of those battles and actually getting to control Alexander's army as you fight against a massive Persian army are inconsequential? That's what Alexander is known for the most! Same thing with Napoloen: is the battle of Waterloo "inconsequential"? Using the regular Civ combat engine, when you play a historic scenario, battles such as Waterloo, Constantinople, Thermopolye (or however you spell it), etc. never really amount to anything other than random RNG calculations.

Oh, and "logistics"? In the current Civilization engine logistics doesn't exist, as a half naked warrior can live in the North Pole without any extra clothing for thousands of years without any food or water, an invasion of a distant civilization is (unlike real life) perfectly plausible even when a desert seperates the two of you, etc. If real life were like civilization, then Rome, The Mongols or any other superpower could've conquered the world quite easily.

Another problem (other than what I've mentioned, which on its own should be enough to keep this out of the game) is that creating a complicated, or good, Total War type combat system would mean basically creating another whole game within Civ, which would invariably divert a massive amount resources away from the rest of the game. So the overall quality of the remainder of the game would be bound to be greatly diminished.