Limitation war

[luca 83]

Limitation of war : in an intelligent and realistic game a war should not last centuries and centuries , men should be limited to finish after a certain time the state should collapse after years of war. Like Germany in 1918 , or Russia in 1917

 

[pokiehl]

I think you’re giving too much credence to the calendar in the game. The calendar is arbitrary and has no effect on gameplay. It’s also impossible for the calendar to align with both empire management and war. The two happen at entirely different scales.

States collapsing after war is already modeled by the war weariness mechanic and warmongering diplomatic penalties.

 

[Patine]

Limitation of war : in an intelligent and realistic game a war should not last centuries and centuries , men should be limited to finish after a certain time the state should collapse after years of war. Like Germany in 1918 , or Russia in 1917

Wars in history has lasted between the half-hour of the Anglo-Zanzibari War in 1896 through the 116 years of the Hundred Years War in 1337-1453, as well as, "states of war," between two or more nations over certain long periods that alternate between fighting and cold truce. Also, usually only, "total war," leads to the notion of one or more nations collapsing after a certain period, and only a smally minority of wars qualify as that. Guerilla and raiding wars can carry on nigh without cease it seems. I had thought someome who constantly quotes historical accuracy would know this.

 

[luca 83]

Wars in history has lasted between the half-hour of the Anglo-Zanzibari War in 1896 through the 116 years of the Hundred Years War in 1337-1453, as well as, "states of war," between two or more nations over certain long periods that alternate between fighting and cold truce. Also, usually only, "total war," leads to the notion of one or more nations collapsing after a certain period, and only a smally minority of wars qualify as that. Guerilla and raiding wars can carry on nigh without cease it seems. I had thought someome who constantly quotes historical accuracy would know this.

The Hundred Years' War, like the Thirty Years' War, was fought in different phases. The war provoked revolts as in 1917 in Russia after the failure of the Western offensive, or in Germany in 1918, tired of war and famine. in Italy in 1943 after the invasion of Sicily and the collapse of the African front came the collapse of the Mussolini regime on 25 July

 

[Marla_Singer]

Civilization is a turn-based game. As long as war resolutions imply multiple turns they will take a disproportionate time compared to war resolutions in the real world. The only alternatives are:

• Make more turns overall (like 10,000) but I'm not sure that you can keep the interest of the player that way. I played some mods like that and they turn insanely repetitive and tedious. As much as I love long-plays (Marathon speed), that is interesting only if that allows you to do more. If slower pace only mean longer waiting times, it has no interest.
• Some form of time dilation making it so a war turn would be shorter than a peace turn, but then I don't know how you can keep time coherent overall considering that some civilizations are at war whereas others are at peace. Therefore that would imply that 1 turn for player A that is at peace would be 10 turns for player B that is at war. At first sight it looks extremely hard to balance that out without creating exploits in a way or an other.

Now let's not forget that Civilization is more an Empire-building game than a Historical simulator. There's no civilization that could last in a unitary form from 4000 BCE to 2050 AD. That's not realistic, but it's fun for the player to grow an Empire from Neolithic crossing the ages up to space conquest. That doesn't mean it cannot be made more interesting with a more dynamic world, but to me the game shouldn't lose focus from that 4X Empire-building aspect which is what makes it fun.

 

[Patine]

The Hundred Years' War, like the Thirty Years' War, was fought in different phases. The war provoked revolts as in 1917 in Russia after the failure of the Western offensive, or in Germany in 1918, tired of war and famine. in Italy in 1943 after the invasion of Sicily and the collapse of the African front came the collapse of the Mussolini regime on 25 July

That's not a contradiction to what I said. I was talking about not all wars are of the same sort or, "intensity," and military, "investment," and the OP implies that all wars in game will be, "total war," by the point made.

 

[luca 83]

That's not a contradiction to what I said. I was talking about not all wars are of the same sort or, "intensity," and military, "investment," and the OP implies that all wars in game will be, "total war," by the point made.

There is a quantity of men that a nation can send to war after only old men and children . Even the means are limited a perennial war is not realistic, Russia after. The brusilov offensive has stopped and the defections have begun and in the city due to lack of food the strikes that will lead to the February revolution , always forget the home front , and the internal politics in a nation !

 

[Patine]

There is a quantity of men that a nation can send to war after only old men and children . Even the means are limited a perennial war is not realistic, Russia after. The brusilov offensive has stopped and the defections have begun and in the city due to lack of food the strikes that will lead to the February revolution , always forget the home front , and the internal politics in a nation !

As I said, the type, intensity, and military investment of the GREATLY affect that period of viabe military conflict. That's the point I'm making.

 

[dagriggstar]

It's not really a suggestion if you don't suggest how it should be implemented in the game

Personally I'd like to see
Turn 0 - (Before war declared) Obviously your units are all where you have put them on the map
Turn 1 - (War Declared) You instruct your units what their objective is (Hold/capture this tile for instance). Your opponent does the same. Any units too far away can rebase closer to the frontline to take part in battle next turn.
Turn 1.5 - Units move (concurrently, following their instructions) and resolve battles
Repeat until peace treaty, which would be possible 1 turn after war is declared.
Importantly units would be able to move much faster than they do currently.

 

[Naokaukodem]

To make a nation collapse after X turns of war, you need this war to be total, like the WWs, as pointed out Patine. Now that doesn't say me much how many wars (including in Antiquity) were total. Maybe the Troy War, if it even existed, or maybe Greeco-Persian wars, although if I'm right the later went back home after a disaster and Persia maybe didn't collapsed ? As to wars of conquest, like Alexander's, Gengis Khan's, Napoleon's, Rome's, etc. there's obviously a winner and a loser, not a stalemate.

I always thought that wars outcomes, not battles but surrenders, should be made on the battlefield, not everytime in cities. City sieges are the only way to win a war in Civ. I would want that the military score can decide whoever vassalizes the loser, and maybe also depending on how the military score goes down quickly. Like an opponent could still fight but surrenders, to avoid more casualties and to be offered (or in the hope of it) better destiny.

That said, if wars can be resolved this way, I wouln"t automatically give all control to the winner. If that were the case IRL, Hitler would have probably win the WW2 with basically all Europe under his control, minus the oil shortages and the likes. I'm too ignorant of history in general to imagine gameplay concepts around strategic resources shortages, and their importance (Boris said it never happened), but if it was really the or one of the main causes of Nazi's defeat, it could/should be represented by other more global means or their equivalent.

 

[luca 83]

To make a nation collapse after X turns of war, you need this war to be total, like the WWs, as pointed out Patine. Now that doesn't say me much how many wars (including in Antiquity) were total. Maybe the Troy War, if it even existed, or maybe Greeco-Persian wars, although if I'm right the later went back home after a disaster and Persia maybe didn't collapsed ? As to wars of conquest, like Alexander's, Gengis Khan's, Napoleon's, Rome's, etc. there's obviously a winner and a loser, not a stalemate.

I always thought that wars outcomes, not battles but surrenders, should be made on the battlefield, not everytime in cities. City sieges are the only way to win a war in Civ. I would want that the military score can decide whoever vassalizes the loser, and maybe also depending on how the military score goes down quickly. Like an opponent could still fight but surrenders, to avoid more casualties and to be offered (or in the hope of it) better destiny.

That said, if wars can be resolved this way, I wouln"t automatically give all control to the winner. If that were the case IRL, Hitler would have probably win the WW2 with basically all Europe under his control, minus the oil shortages and the likes. I'm too ignorant of history in general to imagine gameplay concepts around strategic resources shortages, and their importance (Boris said it never happened), but if it was really the or one of the main causes of Nazi's defeat, it could/should be represented by other more global means or their equivalent.

war there is always a breaking point: the front collapses, internal revolts, defections , a total war for centuries and absurd ,

 

[pokiehl]

Can you describe how your suggestions could be implemented into the game?

 

[Patine]

war there is always a breaking point: the front collapses, internal revolts, defections , a total war for centuries and absurd ,

A total war that long, yes. But that was only a tiny minority of a wars in history. It sounds like you want to apply a one-size-fits all mechanic to all wars based on total war expectations. That is unrealistic, as you like to say.

 

[BuchiTaton]

War Weariness is supposed to cover war exhaustion. It comes from things like losing units in combat and have effects that could result in unrest and revolts.
If the focus is casualities, games from Paradox already have a Manpower mechanic that in CIV's terms can turn into the capacity to recover HP based on your population (total, growth, class, etc.). It is in nature a combat factor that could be seen as resilence capacity.

Those are in game abstraction that can be worked, but before this remember that CIV is a turn based game that covers 6K years in a limited ammount of turns, making incompatible a "realist" representation of war with the enjoyment of it for the average player. This is the first "intelligent and realistic" realization that some person should make.

 

[pokiehl]

If the focus is casualities, games from Paradox already have a Manpower mechanic that in CIV's terms can turn into the capacity to recover HP based on your population (total, growth, class, etc.). It is in nature a combat factor that could be seen as resilence capacity.

Not really that all those factors are what “manpower” traditionally connotes.

Civ 5 has a fine manpower mechanic that puts a soft limit on how many military units you can create. It didn’t require a complex population mechanic.

 

[luca 83]

A total war that long, yes. But that was only a tiny minority of a wars in history. It sounds like you want to apply a one-size-fits all mechanic to all wars based on total war expectations. That is unrealistic, as you like to say.

war and always brutal and violent lasting 7 or 20 years in the United States the south collapsed after 4 years total war or not men finish , the resources , end , morale collapses , civilization does not take into account the internal front , and the type of government that administers the nation , and the politics and opinion of the population , example in 1943 in Italy after the invasion of the Shekel the bombing of Rome and the defeats in Africa, led to the collapse of the regime . in England Hitler shot London and Coventry to undermine morale but the country stood alone for a year

 

[BuchiTaton]

Not really that all those factors are what “manpower” traditionally connotes.

Civ 5 has a fine manpower mechanic that puts a soft limit on how many military units you can create. It didn’t require a complex population mechanic.

The word I used is CAN(also could) and I was talking about Paradox approach. One thing is to field armies but also have manpower to replace combat causalities for those units. CIV5 barracks are not far from Paradox manpower upgrade from militar infrastructure, but is logical that your total population is a factor also.
(Total Population) x (Training Capacity) = Recovery Speed this is not complex is a simple multiplication. Meanwhile the total number of Armies(units) could be defined by the amount of Generals you can appoint.
Remember that how many units you can create is not the same than how fast they can recover.

So you have different ways to combine these, CIV with few Armies but huge Manpower reserves could resist longer in key possitions, others civs could field a lot of armies for an overwhelming attack but if they dont succeed fast they would crumble from exhaustation in no time.
There is also a "quality of life" element on this, since to replicate it with the simple "Manpower=NumberOfUnits" model would need to stack and/or micro a lots of units, meanwhile the "Manpower=Recovery" plus Armies model let you manage it in a simplified way that relay in the capacity to resist and recover of such armies.

 

[Patine]

war and always brutal and violent lasting 7 or 20 years in the United States the south collapsed after 4 years total war or not men finish , the resources , end , morale collapses , civilization does not take into account the internal front , and the type of government that administers the nation , and the politics and opinion of the population , example in 1943 in Italy after the invasion of the Shekel the bombing of Rome and the defeats in Africa, led to the collapse of the regime . in England Hitler shot London and Coventry to undermine morale but the country stood alone for a year

Again, both examples you've given are total wars, which also WW1, given above. But, as I said above, only a tiny minority of military conflicts in world history could be called total war conflicts. I've said this several, and you've kind of ignored it, and kept using the same general examples.

 

[luca 83]

Again, both examples you've given are total wars, which also WW1, given above. But, as I said above, only a tiny minority of military conflicts in world history could be called total war conflicts. I've said this several, and you've kind of ignored it, and kept using the same general examples.

And the same the Soviet Union had to withdraw from Afghanistan because of military disasters and the incessant guerrilla warfare itself in Vietnam : no matter how big a country or a war there is always a breaking point , a discontent, between the people and the government if the war goes badly or lasts too long, an aspect that civilization has never simulated!

 

[Patine]

And the same the Soviet Union had to withdraw from Afghanistan because of military disasters and the incessant guerrilla warfare itself in Vietnam : no matter how big a country or a war there is always a breaking point , a discontent, between the people and the government if the war goes badly or lasts too long, an aspect that civilization has never simulated!

The Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse for completely other reasons, and the U.S. didn't withdraw from Vietnam for fear of national collapse or realistic insurgency or revolution. And, again, my several-times-state point was been ignored, and not addrressed.