On why civ5's combat system is nothing more than a good idea...

[isau]

I think the AI should just not throw its whole force at you at once. There is some balancing to be done around unit costs and such, but turtling is really effective in this system of combat, and IMO it's something that wouldn't be terribly difficult to "teach" the AI--particularly to shore up catapults around major cities to blow away invaders. I definitely don't think the system is completely unworkable, although I don't think it works particularly well with the current version of the game either due to other concerns.

 

[civilapediac]

We all know that the console version is coming. Money is more important than satisfying loyal customers.

So true, and so sad. Civ has never made sense as a console game, and my guess is that even attempt will fail. Console gamers will not have the patience even this dumbed down version requires to play.

 

[MentatYP]

Why wouldn't decreasing military production times at least help? That along with tweaking what units the AI builds during a war would be an improvement I think. My experience so far has been that a) the AI can't recover quickly enough after exhausting units against my defensive wall to hold back my counterattack, and b) the units it manages to build during my counterattack are useless things like mobile SAMs. Wouldn't it improve the experience if those two things are fixed?

 

[JudgeDeath]

Sorry, but I think this is written without a full understanding of the options available. These will be discovered over time.

Certainly on higher difficulties the AI seems to have no problem spewing out troops, and if you've built up a gold reserve you can do something similar.

If you attack before you are ready then it seems entirely fair that you can't recover, whether human or AI.

 

[mrt144]

This post is so spot on in so many ways.

Wars shouldn't always have binary outcomes.
And as much as people hated the SoD it was an effective means to an end which was simulated warfare in a civ building game.

 

[JudgeDeath]

This post is so spot on in so many ways.

Wars shouldn't always have binary outcomes.
And as much as people hated the SoD it was an effective means to an end which was simulated warfare in a civ building game.

That's how you see it. For others combat is the most interesting bit, for without it we'd be in Sim City or similar games.

 

[mrt144]

That's how you see it. For others combat is the most interesting bit, for without it we'd be in Sim City or similar games.

Then obviously you never played any Civ before the current iteration.

 

[masterminded]

Sorry, but I think this is written without a full understanding of the options available. These will be discovered over time.

Certainly on higher difficulties the AI seems to have no problem spewing out troops, and if you've built up a gold reserve you can do something similar.

If you attack before you are ready then it seems entirely fair that you can't recover, whether human or AI.

Do you have an argument to back up that assertion regarding what understanding the OP lacks in particular or what will be discovered over time? It's not clear what you mean.

The AI can build more troops during an attack on its territories at higher difficulties due to the production bonus it is given. While this does somewhat ameliorate the problem, it is still insufficient. Most of the army is still directed toward you at the beginning and any subsequent units turn into a trickle that is typically easily managed.

That's how you see it. For others combat is the most interesting bit, for without it we'd be in Sim City or similar games.

This is a non-sequitur. mrt144 proffered that wars in civ should not have only binary outcomes, i.e., one side completely dominates and inevitably conquers the other. Your response implies that he is arguing for the elimination of warfare altogether and proposing that civ be nothing but a building game like sim city. This both mischaracterizes his argument and is non-responsive.

 

[mrt144]

Do you have an argument to back up that assertion regarding what understanding the OP lacks in particular or what will be discovered over time? It's not clear what you mean.

The AI can build more troops during an attack on its territories at higher difficulties due to the production bonus it is given. While this does somewhat ameliorate the problem, it is still insufficient. Most of the army is still directed toward you at the beginning and any subsequent units turn into a trickle that is typically easily managed.

Not only is it insufficient, it also contravenes the idea of making combat less tedious. More units in a 1upt is more tedious because of the issues of moving things around, and thats not even delving into the issues of what happens when theres nowhere for a unit to go except squares and squares beyond where it should go.

 

[Thedrin]

Good OP.

In summary, 1upt means that as you gain an advantage in number of units during a war, production rule for the game cause the result to become inevitable at a much faster rate than in previous civ games.

I disagree that hexes contribute to this problem.

Possible solution: Purchasing units. This already exists but grant production bonuses and penalties based on a few different factors:
1) The bonus is inversely proportional to the number of units you currently have.
2) The bonus in each city is proportional to the number of units that city has built in the past.
3) The bonus is proportional to the ratio of units in home territory to those abroad.
4) The bonus is proportional to the ratio of the enemy's strength in your territory to your own strength in your territory.

1) and 4) mean weak, threatened civs get the most bonuses - are able to conscript faster. 2) means that a civ can't ignore building military units until attacked - a city must have a history of building military units to be able to cheaply conscript units. 3) means that a civ will find conscription easier if it is on the defensive.

Complicated and could do with being simplified; something that is almost certainly possible.

 

[Danielos]

I haven´t played Civ 5, but wouldn´t a solution be to have limited stacking? If a unit have a new stat, called "Space", then each hex can have limited stacking up to a certain fixed number of space. It should be easier to stack light troops like infantry (low space) than tanks (high space). This compromise should bring the combat to a satisfying model.

 

[lietkynes]

When war starts in civ5, each side is compelled to take action. Whatever the sides are, and whoever is in charge, the fact is that one side will emerge victorious; in civ5 terms, this means something like "the last man standing". One army will be completely destroyed. Given the production costs and times, there is no way that any civ can recover after the first wave of battles. Movement of troops will always be much faster than the best production city.

This is correct.
Solutions ?

1) conscription: during war times, give cities the possibility to draft units in exchange for population. Then give drafted units a -33% malus, because they are not professional soldiers.
2) city defence: give cities more hitpoints. As it is now, if 4-5 units attack a city and your army can't get there in 1 turn, that city is lost

p.s.
I still prefer Civ5 combat system to the horrible SoD system

 

[cdcuase]

Civ V is steppng into murky waters. The developers had ambitious ideas to bring some zest into the franchise but they really only had vague guesstimates on how they could achieve that. Hopefully they will learn from Civ V and in 5 or so years Civ VI will be a much better game for it (similar to how Civ IV learned from the failings of Civ III).

 

[Rince]

Not sure that binary wars are more common in CivV. In CivIV, once you defeated the main stacks of the enemy, capturing the whole empire was easy.

 

[JudgeDeath]

Then obviously you never played any Civ before the current iteration.

Is that a flame? Oooh. I'm burnt.

I've been playing Civ since '91. How long have you been playing?

 

[man-erg]

The Europa Universalis system has some ingredients which could prove useful. Taking things which "don't belong to you" cause other nations to be upset with you, and they can even gang up together to make you give them back. If a war goes on for too long then you have revolts on the home front.

Excellent point. The designers should have used Europa Universalis rather than Panzer General as their inspiration for the way forward...easy to say with hindsight. Although I know Paradox games are more 'historical' than Civ, there are some good ideas in EU that could have been used in Civ5.

 

[JudgeDeath]

Do you have an argument to back up that assertion regarding what understanding the OP lacks in particular or what will be discovered over time? It's not clear what you mean.

I mean we've only been playing the game a few days. People will understand the game better with more time (all people, not just the OP).

The AI can build more troops during an attack on its territories at higher difficulties due to the production bonus it is given. While this does somewhat ameliorate the problem, it is still insufficient.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's not what others have found. Sulla got thrashed on Immortal.

This is a non-sequitur. mrt144 proffered that wars in civ should not have only binary outcomes, i.e., one side completely dominates and inevitably conquers the other. Your response implies that he is arguing for the elimination of warfare altogether and proposing that civ be nothing but a building game like sim city. This both mischaracterizes his argument and is non-responsive.

I wasn't objecting to wars not having binary outcomes (I just disagree that they do, as already noted), but that Civ is "simulating warfare" and that the SOD was therefore OK. I prefer more strategy in the battles. This should have been fairly obvious I thought, but I over-estimated my audience.

 

[tupisac]

You've nailed it there. I love Paradox games. Victoria 2 and EU3 have done very well to limit warmongers.
You've got war weariness if you war for too long and especially if you start losing units.
You've got badboy points if you are too greedy.
You've got war goals now where massive greed is punished and more realistic peace treaties are signed.
You actually have realistic alliances and in EU3 royal marriages.
So much better than ciV's free for all. I see your point about the ancient era however. They do need to work something out though as it clearly isn't fun as it is.

Well, my theory is that we should blame Paradox for Civ5. I've learned about EUIII on this very forum few years ago ('Ive been lurking here since civ3 ) and it was just like some freaking revelation. The concepts behind it are so genius, especially the Casus Belli system. So accurate and imersive that I just cannot think of a better solution. Advanced diplomacy really matters there, makes for another mini-game. And then the annexation rules, you literally have to chew the guy up before swallowing. This is a real limitation in blitz conquers. Then we have attrition, winter attrition (want to invade Russia? Really?) dynasties, economic issues like inflation and budget deficits, war over colonies, holy wars, epic armies etc.

Each time I've played it I had a feeling that Firaxis should implement many of those brilliant concepts and make this uber-mega-civ game. But it is technically stealing, and the game would be far too complex for mainstream. I think Firaxis knows that there already is a developer making games for wonks like me and taking it to the next level. So they just stepped away and produced this "streamlined" version for... I don't really know who, but presumably more mainstream consumer.

 

[drachasor]

Civ V is steppng into murky waters. The developers had ambitious ideas to bring some zest into the franchise but they really only had vague guesstimates on how they could achieve that. Hopefully they will learn from Civ V and in 5 or so years Civ VI will be a much better game for it (similar to how Civ IV learned from the failings of Civ III).

No, the game was released something like 6 months too early. Hence it lacks polish.

 

[JudgeDeath]

No, the game was released something like 6 months too early. Hence it lacks polish.

That's certainly what it feels like. And it's better than the alternative - that they meant to release it as it stands.