Civ5 Combat: Why it isn't needed

[CivFanaticMan]

Ok so everyone got hyped when Fraxis announced the new combat system. It sounded really promising. What ended up happening was that became Civ5's biggest downfall. Almost every other aspect of the game is boring. Its like Fraxis expected the combat system to be the one thing that entertained the Civ5 player.

Intact every person I have seen on this forum who argues for Civ5, combat is always on top of their list. ALWAYS! The fact of the matter is, combat isn't why we play Civ5. Waging war is valid reason to play Civ, not combat. Civilization is about BUILDING A CIVILIZATION! Actual strategic combat is pointless if Civ is about building a Civilization to how you see fit. While I understand it is a very interesting concept, it just doesn't fit in. If they wanted to improve the 'war' aspect of Civilization, improve the WAR part, not the combat.

I hear by decree the argument of Civ's combat system an illegitimate excuse in claiming any Civ games quality. If your arguing for or against Civ5, the combat system is not a valid argument.

 

[speegler]

I find that the combat system is my favorite yet in any civ game, but I am also a big fan of the Panzer General games and that old style of combat.

But you do bring up a valid point that Civilization should be about building a civilization and not being a general managing a war. So it would be very interesting to MOD out the combat aspect of any Civ game and have wars fought like a politician or a football coach.

 

[bryanw1995]

I agree that the combat system shouldn't be the highlight of the game. Hopefully with future patches/expansions we'll get more of a builder emphasis and less of a "kill everybody in sight" emphasis. although "kill everybody in sight" has always been the strongest early game strategy in any civ game.

 

[Kudos123]

So in order for it to be a civ game the combat HAS to be boring and one dimensional? Sure, empire management is more important, but why not have both?

 

[Biz_]

civ5 improved many strategic aspects

the combat is the weakest component of the game

 

[Volstag]

There is little to no difference between the civilization / empire building aspects of Civ IV and Civ V. It is virtually the same between the two games. I really wish people would stop pretending that Civ IV was, somehow, more sophisticated / nuanced than it really was. Let's be honest: the AI sucked, diplomacy sucked, warfare sucked, etc... but it was still damned fun to play (just like Civ V).

The EXACT same thing happened when Civ IV came out. Please check old forum posts if you don't believe me -- tons of people decrying how "bad" Civ IV was compared to Civ III. And when Civ VI comes out.... it'll start all over again.

-V

 

[Zechnophobe]

There is little to no difference between the civilization / empire building aspects of Civ IV and Civ V. It is virtually the same between the two games. I really wish people would stop pretending that Civ IV was, somehow, more sophisticated / nuanced than it really was. Let's be honest: the AI sucked, diplomacy sucked, warfare sucked, etc... but it was still damned fun to play (just like Civ V).

The EXACT same thing happened when Civ IV came out. Please check old forum posts if you don't believe me -- tons of people decrying how "bad" Civ IV was compared to Civ III. And when Civ VI comes out.... it'll start all over again.

-V

You see, this is why the fight goes on. Little to no difference? That is a really hard thing to backup. How about how trade routes work? How about the differences in tile yield? How about the difference between city maintenance and national 'happiness'?

These are not similar things. The warfare alone is massively different. Love or Hate civ 5, I cannot see how you could EVER argue that warfare are similar in these two games. That'd be like comparing Starcraft to Hero's of Might and Magic.

 

[cf_nz]

You see, this is why the fight goes on. Little to no difference? That is a really hard thing to backup. How about how trade routes work? How about the differences in tile yield? How about the difference between city maintenance and national 'happiness'?

The devil is in the details I guess. Whilst there are things that no doubt work differently between Civ IV and V, they don't make any difference to me in terms of playing the civilization / empire building side of the game. It might just be a by-product of only ever playing Civ IV on noble level, maybe the strategic value of the differences matters more at higher levels.

 

[bryanw1995]

at very high levels cIV is definitely much more of a challenge, and cIV bts had a ton of options for gameplay/citybuilding/etc. hopefully when we see expansions in the future we'll get more of those options back. I'm a huge ciV fan, but to say that it is just as complex as cIV (other than combat obviously) is disingenuous.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

Kudos to the OP for making this point so clearly. Clausewitz would have understood, remember: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." [Marx, no doubt, would have added that politics is the continuation of economics by other means.]

It's not that Civ doesn't need a clear and workable combat system, it does (and Civ5 doesn't even provide one), it's that war shouldn't have to be the only, or even primary, driver for a Civ game. But for Civ5 everything revolves around the crippled 1upt combat system.

Any hint of a sophisticated approach to diplomacy, politics and above all economics is missing from this game. Civ4 was flawed but some thought went into these areas so often as not you can fight wars on the basis of Clausewitz's dictum.

 

[Nares]

What ended up happening was that became Civ5's biggest downfall. Almost every other aspect of the game is boring. Its like Fraxis expected the combat system to be the one thing that entertained the Civ5 player.

That sounds less like a problem with the combat system than it does like a problem with Firaxis.

No doubt they lacked the resources to develop the new engine and upgrade to 1upt, while also lacking the vision to implement Civ's other popular features in an attractive manner.

In other words, it sounds like they bit off more than they could chew, which seems to be a problem many developers are facing the past few years. More often than not it's prompted by some innane quest for better graphics, inviting countless bugs and shrinking their potential market. I'm completely mystified by the lack of intelligent executives; why do they always fall for such easily avoided pitfalls?