Open Letter to Firaxis

From my perspective there is no need to control battles tactically in Civ, what I would like to see is some acknowledgement of the tactical nature of engagements (especially between stacks) in the computation and thus results of battles.

When two stacks engage rather than resolving it piecemeal...do it as a battle with units assigned as front rank, flanking, bombardment, etc.
This would make the strategic selection of units in stacks more meaningful as, for example, archers would get ranged strikes (within the tactical combat resolution) and one Pikeman could not defend the entire front rank against 3 units of Knights assigned to the flanks.
This would require players to take into consideration the tactical implications of strategic choices.

Note, I am not suggesting the player have control over this tactical battlefield (although it would be a step towards allowing that for those who would like to) just that it be modeled by the combat engine.

I remember something similar to this in another Civ-like game. If I recall correctly that allowed the player to choose the formation of units though I'm not sure such detail is required. Perhaps just the ability to assign roles to units in a stack (flank, bombard, ranged, front rank, reserve, etc) and then choose a tactical battle plan for the stack.

It shouldn't add time to the game since you have to attack, attack, attack with each unit now anyway. Just some up front chance to make interesting choices and then a single attack.
 
Ah, I remember Legions (a very old and unknown game). You could pick an engagement tactic when fighting-- echelon left/right, flank left/right, outflank, withdraw (which is more like feinting as it's described), assault and defend.

They have their strengths/weaknesses to determine who takes more/less damage. So, you have a degree of tactical control without having to distract you from your main duty as a strategist and not a tactician.
 
more compact XML files and offical giude lines for moding
 
But the game already tactical elements. And the new units promotion system can be view as tactics.
Civ is not only a strategy game, even more since the four.

Actually 3 was more tactical than 4 is. Unit promotion is only minor tactics as it doesn't change the units to a large degree. Not to mention that the promotions are only defensive except CR (which is mostly a CG counter promo), Amphibious (Mostly river defense counter promo), and STR (which is both defensive and offensive equally.)
All "offenive" promotions are just defensive counters. And then str which is basically all that the old veteran/elite status was. Not to mention that promotions are limited to what they can go onto to. For instance, even though archers are meant as defensive units - They may not ever get the Woodsman promotion, the most defensive terrain defensive tile in the game.

mjs0 said:
From my perspective there is no need to control battles tactically in Civ, what I would like to see is some acknowledgement of the tactical nature of engagements (especially between stacks) in the computation and thus results of battles.

When two stacks engage rather than resolving it piecemeal...do it as a battle with units assigned as front rank, flanking, bombardment, etc.
This would make the strategic selection of units in stacks more meaningful as, for example, archers would get ranged strikes (within the tactical combat resolution) and one Pikeman could not defend the entire front rank against 3 units of Knights assigned to the flanks.
This would require players to take into consideration the tactical implications of strategic choices.

Note, I am not suggesting the player have control over this tactical battlefield (although it would be a step towards allowing that for those who would like to) just that it be modeled by the combat engine.

I remember something similar to this in another Civ-like game. If I recall correctly that allowed the player to choose the formation of units though I'm not sure such detail is required. Perhaps just the ability to assign roles to units in a stack (flank, bombard, ranged, front rank, reserve, etc) and then choose a tactical battle plan for the stack.

It shouldn't add time to the game since you have to attack, attack, attack with each unit now anyway. Just some up front chance to make interesting choices and then a single attack.
This sounds interesting. Sounds a little like a game I played before too. Although there was a battle view zoom when engaging combat with a castle. I remember a similar system from somewhere though.
Although, it wasn't either of the two games mentioned I don't think.
 
mjs0,

Great idea, I think this would be perfect. I wouldnt want to change civ, but a system like this would add another level of complexity to the game, and would also open up many different styles of warfare for different players. As I said before, the tactical side of war in civiv is the biggest disappointment for me, because the depth in every other part of the game (Civics, economy, policy technology etc) is stunning, and yet in battle, it's essentially just point and click.

Pawna
 
There is only one thing that i want, and that is for England to be changed to Britain (Or at least an option). There is a good mod out there but nothing can beat the real thing.

I don't understand why the largest empire the world has ever know should not be involved in the core game. And before ignorant people say England is Britain, it's not. Britain imo is very deserving to be in the game and i am surprised that it hasn't been so far.

The majority of people here support this and some people dont really care but people from across the U.K want this and i am not talking as a patriotic Scot and i am not asking Scotland to be in the game but i am asking for England to be changed to Britian.

Here is the link to the Poll.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=202545
 
To everyone who has posted thus far: Thank you for very much for all your ideas and comments! I've PM'd the Firaxis guy who chimed in, and he assures me they are getting ideas from this thread from and the forum in general. I notice his email is listed on the Firaxis site as customer support.

I don't think for a moment that we will get everything we ask for. That would be impossible - time, software limitations, game balance issues, etc. But I do believe that in the remaining time until this expansion is released, we have a chance to make a difference, to get the game a little closer to what we want. That was my intention in starting this thread. So please keep the ideas coming!

Thanks again everyone!
 
Hmm my wishlist for Civ 5:

1. Random Events would make the game far more enjoyable and less predictable

2. Try to get away from the endless city upgrades after a while these just get monotonous and you dont even bother looking at the city half the time before making a choice. Cities should be larger, less numerous and should play more importance in the overall game so you dont end up having loads all the same.

3. Bring back the palace building bit.

4. Bring back the detailed 3d city view.

In my view Civ has gradually moved further and further away from its basic design which is a civ building game and more into wargaming realms which is bad in my view. Future games should avoid this tendency for attacking people and concentrate more on the building and creating aspects.

One major thing that barely gets in the game is social interation with your citizens. I would like to see advisors proving the info that the static screens do at the moment and a screen where your citizens can speak to you.

I agree. Bring the focus back to civ building. I also like the train depot idea.

I would also like to see the ability to set up a custom civ when starting a game. Empire Earth lets me do this. This would give me the ability to play as any civ I wanted to be. Let me name my civ. Let me name my leader and pick his traits from a generic set of trait combinations. Let me name my UU and UB and choose from a generic set of UU's and UB's. I know it would be impracticle to make a graphic for every possible leader but I'm sure that there are modders out there that will make plenty of them.
 
civ4 has forced me to become a warmongerer. been a builder before. i like to see civ as a more "peaceful" game once again, with less forced wars.

i think what changed this is not only the AIs that like to go for much more wars now and the high city upkeep that forces you to settle with a small empire at first and then aggressively expand. it's also the buildings and wonders what's effects have a much smaller impact now. many city improvements are just nice to have or crucial for one specific strategy. but you also easily get away with not building them. in fact you don't even see that big a difference when you build them.

in older civs there's been strategy guides to teach people how to get along without building wonders cause they were just so good and getting used to them too much could crush you on the higher difficulties. in civ4 it's just "oh well, i won't build any wonders anyways, i need to expand and conquer!"
 
- Increase carrier capacity. It is ridiculous that one carrier can carry only 3 fighters. At least 6-8 to make carriers useful and cost effective.
- There should be advanced artillery that can move faster and injury defending units through bombardment. (looks like already in BtS)
- Naval movement scale with map size
- submarine should be able to pick out an ship from a stack to attack (just like in Civ3), so they can sneak up to a stack of ships and sink the transport. Destroyer should have a chance to intercept submarine attacks.
 
Ultraman said:
Hey, check this out! Some of our wishes have been granted!

http://pc.ign.com:80/articles/791/791168p1.html
  • There are on-map ocean trade routes that enhance the importance of your navy.
  • There are colonies splitting from their motherland to form new civilizations.
  • Espionage in Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword deserves special attention because it has become a more integral part of the game than ever before. Its importance to your empire is now comparable to scientific research, culture, or income from taxes. This is because, through an "espionage slider," you have the ability to divert part of your income towards espionage activities against other civilizations. (Then covering new spy missions.)
  • Players can block foreign corporations from operating in their cities by adopting the Mercantilism civic, and they block all corporations (even their own) by adopting the State Property civic.
  • The above mechanics make it advantageous to control as many instances of certain resources as possible - something that was not important in previous versions of Civilization. Therefore, securing resources, one of the most fun elements from the early game, is now extended into the late game.

Those were my favorite parts of new info.
 
When I started out in Civ I was a pacifist. Civ 4 has turned me into a warmongerer I'm afraid and I've resorted into killing friends and even nice humans simply to stay afloat against all the other warmongerers.
 
Top Bottom