Battle system : complete disaster

Tatran

Deity
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
4,184
After some major battles I must conclude that the current battle system will ruin the fun in CivWorld for a lot of players.

Let me (try) explain why :

- you have to be on-line to command your troops changing their stances + replacing losses

- wonder events : Call to arms versus Secret weapon
Call to arms only destroys invading melee units
Secret weapon affects all defending units and will destroy, just like Call to arms, a percentage of the enemy units.
Both wonder events require the same amount of GP, but are not equal in power.
Secret weapon is overpowered, because it's almost impossible to replace lost units to have any chance to win the war.

- Major wars take a huge amount of time, 3-6 hours. It's even possible the war will go on for days or weeks.
Here occurs another problem, the wars take place in real-time and the invaders determine the time when the war will start.
There's a good chance you'll be asleep or at work when the battle starts.

- The players who contribute units and thus filling slots, but are off-line during the battle, are more an obstacle then a helping hand.
I've seen large stacks waiting/rusting away, because small stacks of people who weren't on-line were filling all the slots.

- And yes, stacks of doom are back.
There is a limitation on slots, but there's no limit on units in a stack.

- You can't remove units from a stack and you can't also compose your stack.
All available units (melee, naval, ranged or mobile) will fill their slot.
Only new units (produced or bought) can be saved to put later into a slotted stack.

- Units get a weather bonus, but the weather is very unpredictable.
The weather changes take place between 1-1.5 hours or 2-10 minutes.
A weather change close before the start of a war can have a huge impact.

- You can't build longbows after Gunpowder. They will be replaced by riflemen.
That's a problem, because longbows fill ranged slots while riflemen fill melee slots.

- The lack of communication between players who are on-line is another annoyance to control the battlefield.
When the defense minister, the only person who can remove other player units from slots, isn't on-line,
you'll have to ask people to remove their small stacks or put more units into it. A good chance you will be ignored.

- The winner gets all the defender technologies + wonders which is IMHO too much.
In most games, halfway the tech tree, you can see who will be winning the game.
Wonders should simply be destroyed when conquered.

- There are no rewards when you help in a foreign war.

The current battle system will be a huge turn-off for the pacifists, the people who like
to build wonders and refusing to build an army trying to protect their hard labor.
And 90% (maybe even more) of the CivWorld players are wonderwhores.
 
The miniwonders destroy 50% of melee and ranged units, except rocket launchers. It is not almost impossible to replace lost units, if you're online.

You can remove units from a stack, by giving a retreat order and cancelling it before all units have retreated.

The reward for participating in a foreign war is indirect. You influence the outcome.

I think battles in general are huge turn-offs for pacifists. :mischief:
 
Battles also cancel if the attacking team does not put any units on the battlefield by a certain time. Unfortunately I have no idea what that time is so my team all turned up this morning for a battle to place out units before it started to find it gone.
 
Battles should work like tactical games (heroes, etc), where you get to attack with one stack, then the enemy, then you with a different stack, etc... atm, it is way to random and makes no sense (we lost a battle where we attacked, while our 64 catapult stack did not fire a single shot)
The defense minister can choose who attacks next or something...

There should also be a pool from civilization troops, out of which the defense minister could pull troops for the battle...

And you really should consider a chess-table battle format with infantry having range 1, archers 2, artillery 3 or similar... cavalry could move 2 tiles, tanks 3 etc...
 
Battles should work like tactical games (heroes, etc), where you get to attack with one stack, then the enemy,
This is a 100% failure in CivWorld!!!
I've watched a few battles where one side overpowered 10:1 the other side.
The other side never got a chance to fire back during the battle and thus lost all its units.
No tactics, no strategy, simply outnumber the opponent with units in huge stacks.
 
Battles should work like tactical games (heroes, etc), where you get to attack with one stack, then the enemy, then you with a different stack, etc... atm, it is way to random and makes no sense (we lost a battle where we attacked, while our 64 catapult stack did not fire a single shot)
The defense minister can choose who attacks next or something...

There should also be a pool from civilization troops, out of which the defense minister could pull troops for the battle...

And you really should consider a chess-table battle format with infantry having range 1, archers 2, artillery 3 or similar... cavalry could move 2 tiles, tanks 3 etc...
How about the Sid Meier's Pirates land battle system?
 
And you really should consider a chess-table battle format with infantry having range 1, archers 2, artillery 3 or similar... cavalry could move 2 tiles, tanks 3 etc...

I agree that the battle should be more like a chess board setup. Or, really, more like the tile-based battles of all the previous Civs. In addition, I think they should implement terrain, and let the defender have first choice on how to array their armies. This would be much more realistic, since a defending army usually has the ability to choose the ground they will fight on.

As far as the reward for winning... I think it should be changed to technologies OR wonders and the winning Civ would choose which one. There might also need to be more of a penalty for failing as an attacker. Right now, you lose your units, but so does the defender. Granted, that makes you vulnerable to other Civs, but by the time they finish a vote and wait 10 hours that advantage is probably lost. I don't see any other disincentives for attacking right now, and that means the downside is very small while the upside is quite large.
 
I agree that the battle should be more like a chess board setup. Or, really, more like the tile-based battles of all the previous Civs. In addition, I think they should implement terrain, and let the defender have first choice on how to array their armies. This would be much more realistic, since a defending army usually has the ability to choose the ground they will fight on.

Totally agree with all this.
 
Back
Top Bottom