BATTLE ENGINE - The most unrealistic aspect of the game.

[tutankamon]

Situation:

2 warriers in the city against 1 infantry. Infantry attacks and killes the warrier with no prob. But than it has to wait ONE WHOLE turn to attack the other. Which represents years of time.

Now imagining this in reality. If Russia was to attack one city in Azerbayian with intention of destroying it and killing everybody around. Would that take years?

If I put 10 warriors in the city, I can hold off 2 infantries for 5 turns....that is a hell of a lot years. Which is nonsense, because no matter how many of warriors the infantry is facing, there should be more bulllets on the infantry side than soldierson the warriors side.

I had a spearman in the city killing my infantry, canon, and cavalry. They were a bit damaged, but still I ask .... WHAT?

 

[Turner]

That's just how TBS works.

 

[alva848]

Warriors Vs infantry???

I didn't know there was a difficulty level lower than settler?

had a spearman in the city killing my infantry, canon, and cavalry. They were a bit damaged, but still I ask .... WHAT?

Just how damaged were they?

 

[Pyrion]

So mod in a blitz capacity for gunpowder-era units and later.

 

[tutankamon]

Warriors Vs infantry???

I didn't know there was a difficulty level lower than settler?



Just how damaged were they?

it was just an example....i play on noble and catapults vs infantry is a normal thing.....not only that....but they are able to cause collateral damage and even kill some of my infantry and rifleman....nonsense as well.

 

[Shakes]

Most unrealistic? No way.

Early turns go in 40 year increments. Your warrior moves one square per turn. There are 84 squares around the globe on the standard map size.

Given that the Earth is ~40000 kms around the equator, your warriors are moving at a rate of ~12 kms per year. That's ~1 km a month. ~30 metres a day. ~2.5 metres per hour.

No wonder it takes you units so long to take a city, I've seen snails move faster than they can!

 

[GeneralZed]

andif you are attacking a city, i recommend you to get more than 1 unit, even if those are just barbarians.

 

[Seanirl]

I don't see how that's nonsense at all. Huge rocks being hurled at people at great speeds are as lethal as ever today and it's not like the people are in a tank or have any kind of armour.

Seems fine to me. I mean, if people HAD used catapults in WWI instead of artillery, it would've done some damage too. Although the infantry'd have to be grouped tight out in the open I suppose.

But I can understand catapult vs infantry.

 

[Dairuka]

One has to remember that sieges generally lasted on the upwards of 4-12 years prior to the invention of Gunpowder. If it was an Infantry versus a Catapult though, there could be many reasons as to why it would take so long. Just use your imagination and think that the Catapults all come with marginal defenses even when they're not entrenched.

Even after gunpowder, sieges on forts and cities lasted around 6-9 months.

I have to admit though; that there are far too few turns in the game, which cause unrealistic time increments. However; this was to make the game's themselves shorter so people could finish them in a day, rather than in a week.

I myself have won 9 games since I bought it. 1 on Noble, 2 on Prince, 6 on Monarch. I've also lost 6 games since I bought the game. 1 on Prince, 3 on Monarch, 2 on Diety.

Epic speed however sucks balls... They really need to address it to make it more fun. I prefer Standard Speed.

 

[TerraHero]

big rocks dont repsect ranks

 

[Carver]

Situation:

2 warriers in the city against 1 infantry. Infantry attacks and killes the warrier with no prob. But than it has to wait ONE WHOLE turn to attack the other. Which represents years of time.

Now imagining this in reality. If Russia was to attack one city in Azerbayian with intention of destroying it and killing everybody around. Would that take years?

If I put 10 warriors in the city, I can hold off 2 infantries for 5 turns....that is a hell of a lot years. Which is nonsense, because no matter how many of warriors the infantry is facing, there should be more bulllets on the infantry side than soldierson the warriors side.

I had a spearman in the city killing my infantry, canon, and cavalry. They were a bit damaged, but still I ask .... WHAT?

I wouldn't call that unrealistic. Bring more troops.

 

[Yellonet]

I don't see how that's nonsense at all. Huge rocks being hurled at people at great speeds are as lethal as ever today and it's not like the people are in a tank or have any kind of armour.

Seems fine to me. I mean, if people HAD used catapults in WWI instead of artillery, it would've done some damage too. Although the infantry'd have to be grouped tight out in the open I suppose.

But I can understand catapult vs infantry.

Big rocks are only effective against large masses of people and structures.
Riflemen should be able to get out of the way when they see an incoming boulder as they aren't massed together in the same way as sword and spear armies would be.

 

[Chieftess]

So mod in a blitz capacity for gunpowder-era units and later.

Actually, that's a promotion, too...

 

[vbraun]

Realism is over rated...

 

[Inflammatory]

Most unrealistic? No way.

Early turns go in 40 year increments. Your warrior moves one square per turn. There are 84 squares around the globe on the standard map size.

Given that the Earth is ~40000 kms around the equator, your warriors are moving at a rate of ~12 kms per year. That's ~1 km a month. ~30 metres a day. ~2.5 metres per hour.

No wonder it takes you units so long to take a city, I've seen snails move faster than they can!

Civilization time has always been very loosely based in reality. It is only there for reference and should in no instance be regarded as an absolute contra technologies, production times and troop movement.

 

[CustodianV131]

Realism... I get that everyday.

Rather give me something that plays good!

 

[monsterfurby]

I think they should really slow down the game - 40 years per turn is way too much considering what happens in the game at the same time. Sure, Rome was not built in one day, but it didn't take 40 years to get to northern Italy from there either.

 

[Inflammatory]

Realism... I get that everyday.

Rather give me something that plays good!

Exactly. Want realism? Run for President.

 

[Matte979]

Its strategy game. Realism is for real life, these rules has to be there to make the game balanced..

Adapt to the strategy, dont be a civ girly man.

 

[Dominico]

It actually makes sense too in so many ways that they move slower earlier on.

I mean you could say they only move 1 square in 100 years but this is what most ancient civilizations did. They hardly moved about.

In the early years of Rome, when she was just a single city, they fought a war against their neighbour city. The Roman soldiers actually rebelled because they were scared/annoyed about how far they were from their home!!

Compare this to 1000 years later, when they were ranging across arabia and Britain.

In game terms their movement per turn had increased

Also many attacks on cities lasted years. As for the posters example here you were outnumbered. Yes you had infantry but they had lots of soldiers (again in ancient times armies were much larger then modern days, usually including the entire city ect)

So although you have greater tech, they have more people so it took 2 years to wipe them out.

It all makes sense with a little imagination!!