BATTLE ENGINE - The most unrealistic aspect of the game.
- Thread starter tutankamon
- Start date
Machete Phil
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 78
Let's remember that civilization is not a simulation, please.
Really imagine this scenario... a single batallion of infantry trying to capture and control, oh, say, Pittsburgh, PA.
Now, regardless of who or what is defending the city, can you not imagine that the task of taking/maintaining control of that territory with a single batallion would be a monumental task that could span several years?
What if one of the Warrior batallions is defending the western side of the city, and another is fortified in a building on the other end?
You're oversimplifying the game. Each "square" does not represent just enough geography to contain a single unit.
This is why you're able to occupy the same square as friendly Civs -- it's not that your armies are all mixed up standing together -- they're just in kind of generally the same area. They could be miles apart.
Really imagine this scenario... a single batallion of infantry trying to capture and control, oh, say, Pittsburgh, PA.
Now, regardless of who or what is defending the city, can you not imagine that the task of taking/maintaining control of that territory with a single batallion would be a monumental task that could span several years?
What if one of the Warrior batallions is defending the western side of the city, and another is fortified in a building on the other end?
You're oversimplifying the game. Each "square" does not represent just enough geography to contain a single unit.
This is why you're able to occupy the same square as friendly Civs -- it's not that your armies are all mixed up standing together -- they're just in kind of generally the same area. They could be miles apart.
BearMan
One More Turn...
Sorceresss said:Your Weltanschauung needs a radical paradigm-shift if you really believe that !
And you really need to calm down...
The fact that there are no dragons, alien spaceships or portal to others worlds, that is what I call : "based on our world", eg. not based on "another world".
Eigenvector
Molekh has nothing on me!
I might add that this same thread has been popping up for a long time now. As much as the purists out there try to write them off as changes that don't need to be made, I think its obvious that the combat system leaves far too much to be desired.
I believe it was suggested by someone (who shall remain nameless - ahem) that simply upgrading older units to partisans would do a LOT toward suspending disbelief. However I have always sorely felt that the huge disparities between the ancient, medieval, renaissance, and modern units should be expanded. I am beginning to understand why you wouldn't want a single infantry or tank unit to roll over an entire medieval civilization - after all (as its been suggested) in reality a single division, squad, battalion of tanks/men wouldn't be capable of taking a city of any appreciable size and holding it. The logistics would be too much. One possible solution for this would be to allow that modern unit to break the ancient/medieval army, but before the city could be made useful at least x units would have to be stationed there. I believe that would be true even for an ancient army taking an ancient city.
The arguments against a modern unit rolling all over ancient or medieval units are hollow, because we all know that a modern army would crush an ancient army with ease. Let's not kid ourselves here please, I don't care what you saw on the Cartoon Network or Return of the Jedi - there would be no contest. Holding the land would be a different story. That could be solved by having a minimum of x amount of damage inflicted upon a unit for every battle it engages in regardless of the outcome. That way a modern tank would crush waves of ancient archers while at the same time get worn down from battle strain. Yes a tank division would literally grind those archers into the dirt, but at the same time modern units need maintenance. After a while those tanks would run out of gas, out of ammo, engine break down, mechanical failures, whatever.
So I'm beginning to understand why the system works reasonably well now, but I sure would like to see some tweaks. There's no reason why it couldn't be improved and made more realistic.
I believe it was suggested by someone (who shall remain nameless - ahem) that simply upgrading older units to partisans would do a LOT toward suspending disbelief. However I have always sorely felt that the huge disparities between the ancient, medieval, renaissance, and modern units should be expanded. I am beginning to understand why you wouldn't want a single infantry or tank unit to roll over an entire medieval civilization - after all (as its been suggested) in reality a single division, squad, battalion of tanks/men wouldn't be capable of taking a city of any appreciable size and holding it. The logistics would be too much. One possible solution for this would be to allow that modern unit to break the ancient/medieval army, but before the city could be made useful at least x units would have to be stationed there. I believe that would be true even for an ancient army taking an ancient city.
The arguments against a modern unit rolling all over ancient or medieval units are hollow, because we all know that a modern army would crush an ancient army with ease. Let's not kid ourselves here please, I don't care what you saw on the Cartoon Network or Return of the Jedi - there would be no contest. Holding the land would be a different story. That could be solved by having a minimum of x amount of damage inflicted upon a unit for every battle it engages in regardless of the outcome. That way a modern tank would crush waves of ancient archers while at the same time get worn down from battle strain. Yes a tank division would literally grind those archers into the dirt, but at the same time modern units need maintenance. After a while those tanks would run out of gas, out of ammo, engine break down, mechanical failures, whatever.
So I'm beginning to understand why the system works reasonably well now, but I sure would like to see some tweaks. There's no reason why it couldn't be improved and made more realistic.
Jonathan
Prince
Machete Phil said:
I'm hardly going to "remember" something that's obviously untrue. If you choose to believe that Civ is an abstract game, despite all the evidence in front of you, you're entitled to your opinion; but don't expect me to share it.
Machete Phil said:
1. An infantry unit in Civ is a significant part of a national army: at least divisional size, I'd say.
2. Each turn in Civ is a year or more. It doesn't take that long to move from one side of a city to the other.
3. Taking control of the city is a separate matter in Civ from defeating the military defenders. It takes a few turns, and that's about right.
Jonathan
Prince
Kolyana said:
Strange how the word "simulation" seems offensive to some people. I suspect that their understanding of the word is entirely different from mine. Maybe I should politely use some other word instead...
Pvblivs
Scriptor
Civ may try to simulate SOME aspect of the game. But this is, indeed, not the point 
Moving a warrior in early game stages takes so damn long (2,5 meters an hour?). But: Every single aspect in this game is abstract:
In fact a war was much more complex. In fact, even with a grand superior army, Troy could not be taken for years. In fact rome did not ran across whole europe with some Praetorians to rush it in a hundred years. Even the rise of rome was a process of some hundred years. In fact the "warmongering" Germans in ancient times did not warrior-rush the romans but it was a slow process of migration, settlements, disasters and victories.
So even an infantry marching through enemy territory is NOT just an infantry marching NORTH. In reality, this would be much more complex.
So if you think this precious game to be a simulation, consider that every Civ4 details is a very rugh and abstract simulation of its counterpart in reality.
I always try to simulate some history with civilization. And I have to say that Civ4 is much better than every single of its predecessors about that.
But in the end it is a game with tiles, lion and warrior units and very strange cities (having just one barrack, one temple, one cathedral etc.) and not with millimeters, 6 billion inhabitents, nasty insects, terrorists, diseases and catastrophies, unemployment, income taxes etc.
All is abstract. But anyway hell a lot of fun
Moving a warrior in early game stages takes so damn long (2,5 meters an hour?). But: Every single aspect in this game is abstract:
In fact a war was much more complex. In fact, even with a grand superior army, Troy could not be taken for years. In fact rome did not ran across whole europe with some Praetorians to rush it in a hundred years. Even the rise of rome was a process of some hundred years. In fact the "warmongering" Germans in ancient times did not warrior-rush the romans but it was a slow process of migration, settlements, disasters and victories.
So even an infantry marching through enemy territory is NOT just an infantry marching NORTH. In reality, this would be much more complex.
So if you think this precious game to be a simulation, consider that every Civ4 details is a very rugh and abstract simulation of its counterpart in reality.
I always try to simulate some history with civilization. And I have to say that Civ4 is much better than every single of its predecessors about that.
But in the end it is a game with tiles, lion and warrior units and very strange cities (having just one barrack, one temple, one cathedral etc.) and not with millimeters, 6 billion inhabitents, nasty insects, terrorists, diseases and catastrophies, unemployment, income taxes etc.
All is abstract. But anyway hell a lot of fun
Darkness
Shadow creature
Jonathan said:
You're comparing apples and oranges here.
And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the historical simulation bit.
You believe it is a historical simulation.
Most other people (at least in this thread!!!!!) do not.
To each his own.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
The concept of Civ is a unique blend of simulation, economic management and military strategy, that tries to make these 3 different types of game work together using a common pace.
If you see each turn as a blend of 3 timelines it actually starts to make more sense.
Simulation of history:
The default timeline description of 1-50 years for each turn should be seen in relation with technology and empire wide actions (such as Anarchy etc.)
Economy of empires:
All city operations such as production of units/buildings, growth, trade, resistance, trade etc. takes place at a pace of approximately 1 month for each turn
Strategy of military:
For moving units and engaging in combat each turn could be seen to represent approximately 1 week.
There is currently no tactical level (more detailed handling of each individual battle) to the Civ concept and I suspect that this is what some people are missing - and would like to see included in the game in one form or another.
If you see each turn as a blend of 3 timelines it actually starts to make more sense.
Simulation of history:
The default timeline description of 1-50 years for each turn should be seen in relation with technology and empire wide actions (such as Anarchy etc.)
Economy of empires:
All city operations such as production of units/buildings, growth, trade, resistance, trade etc. takes place at a pace of approximately 1 month for each turn
Strategy of military:
For moving units and engaging in combat each turn could be seen to represent approximately 1 week.
There is currently no tactical level (more detailed handling of each individual battle) to the Civ concept and I suspect that this is what some people are missing - and would like to see included in the game in one form or another.
Jonathan
Prince
Just for the sake of interest, let's see if we can nail down this "simulation" thing.
To me, a simulation game is a game that simulates reality in some way: its pieces represent real-world objects and they interact roughly in the way that the real-world objects do. In this sense (the sense I've been using) Civ is obviously a simulation game.
Some other people seem (as far as I can tell) to be using the word to describe what I'd call an "accurate simulation": that is, a game that very closely and seriously models reality. Civ is obviously not an accurate simulation.
I don't see the point in making an artificial distinction between accurate and inaccurate simulations: they shade into one another.
The alternative to a simulation game is an abstract game, such as Bridge, Poker, or Chinese Checkers, which represent nothing in reality as far as I know.
Chess may have started out as a crude attempt at simulation. By now, it doesn't recognizably simulate anything and can be regarded as an abstract game.
To me, a simulation game is a game that simulates reality in some way: its pieces represent real-world objects and they interact roughly in the way that the real-world objects do. In this sense (the sense I've been using) Civ is obviously a simulation game.
Some other people seem (as far as I can tell) to be using the word to describe what I'd call an "accurate simulation": that is, a game that very closely and seriously models reality. Civ is obviously not an accurate simulation.
I don't see the point in making an artificial distinction between accurate and inaccurate simulations: they shade into one another.
The alternative to a simulation game is an abstract game, such as Bridge, Poker, or Chinese Checkers, which represent nothing in reality as far as I know.
Chess may have started out as a crude attempt at simulation. By now, it doesn't recognizably simulate anything and can be regarded as an abstract game.
jeremiahrounds
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2003
- Messages
- 404
I think a serious and major alternative is to have a "battle resolution" button. In this game the turn is divided into 3 phases:
1) opening moves (give battle orders)
2) battle resolution
3) closing moves
The idea is you would give all your battle orders at once before you see what the rules were then things like picking defenders and consequences to not defending and withdrawal could be handled.
I think it might make for a more interesting turn based game ala magic the gathering. But its far to large a change for civ. Perhaps one day another turn based sim will appear.
Also i personally would really love it if civ went the way of moo2. But thats a huge change too. In moo2 once you commited a stack to battle you would then go to a wargame screen and fight out the battle with the computer. However the caveat is there is a lot of pressure for a really good battle AI otherwise the whole game crumbles.
1) opening moves (give battle orders)
2) battle resolution
3) closing moves
The idea is you would give all your battle orders at once before you see what the rules were then things like picking defenders and consequences to not defending and withdrawal could be handled.
I think it might make for a more interesting turn based game ala magic the gathering. But its far to large a change for civ. Perhaps one day another turn based sim will appear.
Also i personally would really love it if civ went the way of moo2. But thats a huge change too. In moo2 once you commited a stack to battle you would then go to a wargame screen and fight out the battle with the computer. However the caveat is there is a lot of pressure for a really good battle AI otherwise the whole game crumbles.
As for civ being a "simulation" of history, I think that's rubbish, currently we can barely make an accurate flight simulation & there a lot less variables involved with a plane flying than there is for the running of entire countries.
Civ, as I see it, is a very entertaining game. Granted there should be some tweaks to the game. Read the thread titled "useless flight" for more issues with the (combat?) system.
As for the whole infantry vs. 2 warrior thing, I completely agree with previous posts about one battallion not being able to control a whole city etc...
The reason I think the infantry should not be able to attack 2 times, is combat fatigue. If we use a little imagination, each combat encompasses a battle, even if they're just mowing down partisans which are throwing molotov cocktails & rocks & perhaps the leaders are shooting with a small firearm;
a) There's more warriors (Ancient armies always had more people)
b) Many battles in history were won against significant odds. Perhaps the partisans just tired out the infantry enough (while getting destroyed) to make them comeback the next day/year whatever.
Real world example.... It took Cortez more than a couple of months to dominate Technotitlan & that was with the aid of certain locals who had beef with the Aztecs. Finland made the soviets take heavy losses with just a massively underpowered and overnumbered bunch of soldiers shooting from skis.
Conclusions:
Get a tank/cavalry with blitz/another infantry unit.
Let's all lobby to fix the real issues like removing the river-crossing penalty for helis, & flight being underpowered.
Civ, as I see it, is a very entertaining game. Granted there should be some tweaks to the game. Read the thread titled "useless flight" for more issues with the (combat?) system.
As for the whole infantry vs. 2 warrior thing, I completely agree with previous posts about one battallion not being able to control a whole city etc...
The reason I think the infantry should not be able to attack 2 times, is combat fatigue. If we use a little imagination, each combat encompasses a battle, even if they're just mowing down partisans which are throwing molotov cocktails & rocks & perhaps the leaders are shooting with a small firearm;
a) There's more warriors (Ancient armies always had more people)
b) Many battles in history were won against significant odds. Perhaps the partisans just tired out the infantry enough (while getting destroyed) to make them comeback the next day/year whatever.
Real world example.... It took Cortez more than a couple of months to dominate Technotitlan & that was with the aid of certain locals who had beef with the Aztecs. Finland made the soviets take heavy losses with just a massively underpowered and overnumbered bunch of soldiers shooting from skis.
Conclusions:
Get a tank/cavalry with blitz/another infantry unit.
Let's all lobby to fix the real issues like removing the river-crossing penalty for helis, & flight being underpowered.
Civ from the very start was a board game. I remember getting a few friend over and playing a game of civ long before the first PC civ game. This is the first I've heard of civ being called a simulation. That's like calling Monopoly or Risk a simulation.Jonathan said:
EdCase
Defender of the Faithless
Jonathan said:
Actually I have to disagree Civ is a 4X game (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate) with a sprinkle of historical flavoring.
The main problem is unlike 99.9% of 4X games this one uses recognisable game pieces (units), leading to "but its a SPEARMAN!"
With regards to turnbased WARgames, well yes they do have combat systems that are more detailed, convoluted and involved..but then again they are WARgames pure and simple.(I've been playing since the mid 70's myself)
TheJediMaster
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 21
lightnng said:
Well if you play pangea or archepelio, you are playing on earth.
Iteresting. I just did a little bit of a test (it was actually a game that turned into a test because I would have lost if I didn't give myself everything) with regards to tanks and infantry marching over all other units. Here's how it went...
Me: a stack of modern tanks and an equal amount of mech infentry and a lot of stealth bomers for support.
Them: 7 civs. 2 industrail, the rest modern, all with a LOT of units!!! (This spanned several days)
Plan of Attack: Bomers reduce all enemy units to half health, tanks move in, mech infentry there for backup.
Result: In a matter of three days (real time with life getting inbetween) I managed to use the same stack of units to walk all over the small map and take out about 30 or so cities with the loss of ONE tank.
Even fighting 10 times (or more) units that were individually half my strength in a given city I normally never had a loss. Yes...you are right...that does seem unballanced to me...I should have suffered a lot more losses then that! Especially in the end when I was fighting against the exact same types of units!
Honestly, I have NEVER had a modern unit loose to an archaic unit except when attacked by hordes of them.
That being said, the whole group attack thing would be nice to see come back...IMO
Me: a stack of modern tanks and an equal amount of mech infentry and a lot of stealth bomers for support.
Them: 7 civs. 2 industrail, the rest modern, all with a LOT of units!!! (This spanned several days)
Plan of Attack: Bomers reduce all enemy units to half health, tanks move in, mech infentry there for backup.
Result: In a matter of three days (real time with life getting inbetween) I managed to use the same stack of units to walk all over the small map and take out about 30 or so cities with the loss of ONE tank.
Even fighting 10 times (or more) units that were individually half my strength in a given city I normally never had a loss. Yes...you are right...that does seem unballanced to me...I should have suffered a lot more losses then that! Especially in the end when I was fighting against the exact same types of units!
Honestly, I have NEVER had a modern unit loose to an archaic unit except when attacked by hordes of them.
That being said, the whole group attack thing would be nice to see come back...IMO
Jonathan
Prince
Smidlee said:
You must be thinking of the original Civilization game from Hartland Trefoil, later taken over by Avalon Hill. That was a completely different game, nothing to do with Sid Meier's Civilization. I still have a copy of the Avalon Hill version.
Sid Meier's Civilization started out as a computer game. Much later, a board game version has been made of it.
Smidlee said:
Sure, as I see it Monopoly and Risk are also simulation games. Crude and simplified, but they recognizably simulate real-world activities. They're not abstract games.
A number of people here seem to have a highly specific idea of what a simulation game is. Perhaps it's an age-group difference (I'm 51). To me, a simulation game is just a game that simulates something -- as opposed to an abstract game, which simulates nothing.
Pvblivs
Scriptor
Maybe the world "simulation" is really a lead into the void here. Most people understand "simulations" to be very very accurate about real-life-things.
Civ does not really simulate aspects in real life, even not rughly. Civ is based on a set of rules that represent such aspects. But if you look into the rules you will see, that they are not an >accurate< abstraction. Take religions. Or combat. Or cities. Civ represents those aspects, but it does not simulate them in the meaning that it tries to find some formular that covers the whole aspect on a certain abstraction level accurately. Many real-life things are ignored, others simplified etc. Take religions or great people for example. They have a huge impact on your gaming experience. But if Civ4 would have been a simulation, was Civ3 a simulation as well ignoring those aspects completely?
Is it even suitable to assume that a great artist like elvis can take over foreign cities just through effect of his latest single and only if the foreign cities are near the town were he wrote that song ;-)? Is a game a simulation that melts down various possible effects of cultural greatness (like everybody loved rock&roll) to a one-dimensional conquering aspect that I so far have hardly recognized in history books? There would be many, many similar examples.
I still try to simulate historic things with civ (like I found cities on their ancient places). But I do not think about civ as a simulation game. Of course it's not. Though I understand what people mean if they say so. Many games are real fun because they copy various aspects from the real life. Like boys that like to "simulate" cowboys and indians. Like girls that like to "simulate" supermarkets or how the event of their doll meeting her best friend would be really nice etc. pp.
You want to call every game that has some apsect of real life a simulation. So, that way, simulation isn't very distinguishing as a game category, because almost every game would be a simulation.
I prefer to categorize the whole civ series as some sort of "rich chess in an historical timeline". There is an x*y board. There are units/pieces/pawns with certain abilities that, of course, can change through the timeline. There are rules to change the board/battleground. There are as well rules how to get new units (cities, production speed depends on the board). And (updated) there are dice rolls
So, board game, seems to fit. Even though it is a very artless category for such a rich game.
Civ does not really simulate aspects in real life, even not rughly. Civ is based on a set of rules that represent such aspects. But if you look into the rules you will see, that they are not an >accurate< abstraction. Take religions. Or combat. Or cities. Civ represents those aspects, but it does not simulate them in the meaning that it tries to find some formular that covers the whole aspect on a certain abstraction level accurately. Many real-life things are ignored, others simplified etc. Take religions or great people for example. They have a huge impact on your gaming experience. But if Civ4 would have been a simulation, was Civ3 a simulation as well ignoring those aspects completely?
Is it even suitable to assume that a great artist like elvis can take over foreign cities just through effect of his latest single and only if the foreign cities are near the town were he wrote that song ;-)? Is a game a simulation that melts down various possible effects of cultural greatness (like everybody loved rock&roll) to a one-dimensional conquering aspect that I so far have hardly recognized in history books? There would be many, many similar examples.
I still try to simulate historic things with civ (like I found cities on their ancient places). But I do not think about civ as a simulation game. Of course it's not. Though I understand what people mean if they say so. Many games are real fun because they copy various aspects from the real life. Like boys that like to "simulate" cowboys and indians. Like girls that like to "simulate" supermarkets or how the event of their doll meeting her best friend would be really nice etc. pp.
You want to call every game that has some apsect of real life a simulation. So, that way, simulation isn't very distinguishing as a game category, because almost every game would be a simulation.
I prefer to categorize the whole civ series as some sort of "rich chess in an historical timeline". There is an x*y board. There are units/pieces/pawns with certain abilities that, of course, can change through the timeline. There are rules to change the board/battleground. There are as well rules how to get new units (cities, production speed depends on the board). And (updated) there are dice rolls
So, board game, seems to fit. Even though it is a very artless category for such a rich game.
Similar threads
