CIV 4 - "Where's the Beef?" a Meat and Potatoes take on the game

[Nuh Uh]

Zeeter, the glory of AI is that you don't have to deal with micromanagement. I intellectually appreciate what you are saying about supply vehicles. In both ancient and modern times caravans/trains are used. Such things could be interesting, but I tend to think - tedious. The less nit-picking work the better playability. What I would like to see is no visual component to supply nor the necessity of manually maintaining supply, except for the use of a beach or bridge-head (taking the place of the normal City determinant) as they are called for units operating overseas on foreign soil, and otherwise, outside the AI system's acknowledgment of the need to use aircraft to bring supply to forces outside of supply chains.
Its so simple. Unsupplied units attack and defend at half strength. On the battlefield, being attacked simultaneously at 180 degrees of separation would likewise incur the effect of being out of supply, and unless your defending unit had the inferred Promotion of 'HEDGEHOG', which would counter being surrounded and cut-off (NOTE: PIKEMEN are natural Hedgehogers. That is the style of combat the Pike was designed for - both front-line and circular phallanx type formations), they'd be at half-strength, and if there was a retreat for surrounded defending units they'd be significantly disabled, and if not destroyed.

 

[screwtype]

Nuh Uh - I'm sorry but to me the combat system is so abstracted in Civ that asking for a supply rule just doesn't make any sense. I mean, this is a game where it can take you 200 years to get your combat units to the front line! What the hell is realistic about that? In terms of realism, movement is a far bigger issue in my view. Movement, and the build rate for new military units.

Personally, I think I'd be interested in seeing a game where you can move your units an unlimited distance in any one turn, assuming a viable communication line. That's what you can do in, for example, Imperialism II, and it works fine. After all, Civ is a game where a single turn equals years or even decades of game time!

Let's say you could move a military units any distance in one turn when moving from one city to another, assuming an LOC. Basically, a strategic movement option. That would probably open up the possibilities a lot more. But face it, we're not going to see this in Civ. Civ is based on a far more conservative, old style, beer-and-pretzels model. As are most computer games.

Game designers aren't wargamers. That's why we don't get more sophisticated combat systems from them.

 

[Wodan]

Thought about this some more, and took a step back.

Concerns about realism aside, I thought about overall game balance. Right now, it's quite hard to capture a city, and almost impossible to seriously perform a conquer strategy. There are some benefits of this, such as it makes it difficult to knock someone out of the game (thus increasing player satisfaction, whether against AI or MP).

However, I do think that I'd rather see combat slightly enhanced, rather than slightly degraded. To this end, a "flanking" system would be better. It doesn't have to be complicated. Even as simple as +15% if you have at least one unit in a second tile adjacent to the defender.

Wodan

 

[Nuh Uh]

Some people just like to argue, and knowing human nature, I've seen what people do to games just because they think it works, and without any framework or model. In that instance, call it Tiddly-Winks and play Tiddly-Winks. If it had supply rules from the beginning, I have a distinct feeling you'd be fine with it. Anyway, I'm not out to change your mind, but to wake up the designers, hopefully.

Have you seen the game mods? Played them? The time table doesn't have to be so abstract. But its okay if it is. Its balanced by Tech. What shouldn't be abstract is the strategy as determined by the format, and the way you get strategy by the format is by modeling after the properties of the TECH the game is so obsessed with. Supply is an inseparable part of it. Otherwise, screw all the headache, and play RISK. Not to complete such a miniscule but high impact feature is like painting half of a picture - or completing half of a thought. It just doesn't make ANY sense. So for people like yourself, who don't want supply rules for whatever bizarre reason, it should feature it as an advanced option. Then the other 10% or more of the people who play the game with wargame skills, can actually enjoy it.

 

[Jimbo30]

I agree on the first point, the game is way too fast. The ancient era years disappear in a matter of minutes (assuming your system can cope with the turns )...it's often 1700 BC before I place my first settler. 5 minutes later I'm in the medieval era with macemen. Before I know it, gunpowder has been in and made reduntant. The techs have dropped to 3 turns each and I'm still probably defending my cities with archers because I know I can buy lots of tanks if I *really* need them fast. It's just click, click, click and the game is almost over.

The early game needs slowed down to the levels of Civ 3. Buildings need to be built quicker than what they are too. Even on epic speed at Prince level the AI frequently assaults me with modern armor in the early 1800's.

It is a bit of a mess, but it's nothing that can't be fixed. Civ 3 was rubbish when it was first released too.

 

[Blarg]

Whoa - take it easy, dude. Really, it's a game that can be won by war, and you almost certainly can't win the game without at least a war or two, many people enjoy playing the game as a build game.

And again - the lack of using enemy roads simulates supply for the units.

I find the game fairly dull and exceedingly elementary as a war game. Therefore I enjoy building more than anything pretty much by default. When a medievall swordsman can take down a helicopter gunship, I don't know what you're getting into, but it's no kind of a war game by my standards. When my city is attacked by units automatically and I can't decide which units fight back which units, same thing. When units "pop" into sight suddenly behind your front lines, and not just guerilla units or something, what gives? When Hitler rolled into Paris, people may not have been able tos top him, but they at least saw it coming. This may be a sort of a war game, but clearly it's not a real one and isn't at all competitive with halfway decent wargames. The combat seems like a part of the game, but with not a lot of care put into it. Not enough to make it interesting at all. Sort of like a tangent or an afterthought.

I like wargames that are tightly put together, but that isn't the case here, so for me Civ 4 is more fun as a building game. So far the fighting has been spectacularly lifeless, and I've had more fun trying for culture, domination, and space race wins.

 

[screwtype]

Some people just like to argue, and knowing human nature, I've seen what people do to games just because they think it works, and without any framework or model.

Isn't that what you are indulging in? We all have our pet ideas about what would make a game better. You've got a bee in your bonnet about supply making the game more 'realistic'. I've already pointed out that the combat and movement systems are so ludicrously unrealistic that adding a supply rule would be like putting alloy wheels on a Morris Minor. To no avail.

The point is, you only think that a supply rule would make the game better. You're not in a position to actually playtest it. My guess is that if you tried it, you'd quickly find it to be unworkable under the current paradigm. It would just add to the considerable frustration you have already expressed about waging an effective military campaign.

 

[Nuh Uh]

And then there's exagerration to emphasize the futility of it all... The true appeal of the game is the ability to play a coherent game from any number of venues. As a compendium of different dimensions of play, the game is anything but 'simple'. Wargames themselves, however tightly put together, are governed by very simple principles. The tightness, beyond micromanaged play, evolves within the player, and the player's ability to utilize the simplistic principles innate to play to their fullest. Given Civ's environment, the 'potential' for it to be a solid game in any number of different approaches. Its versatile and thereby engaging, which is why I haven't abandoned it (yet). Fun as a 'build' game? I guess... whatever floats your boat. Personally I'd rather do the laundry than just build stuff that you can't use past watching a few minute film at the end... la di da...

Jimbo - yes - a very funny and true depiction of what its like playing Civ 4. Its frantic. LMAO

 

[yendorII]

Nuh Uh I have a question. Under your model for supply how in the world would you work in a scenario like Shermans march to the sea? His army fed off the land the entire time no supply, no communications, no backup. Just an army with a mission that was to be completed at all costs.

BTW the game is WAYYYY to fast you are right about that OP. I really cant wait for this to be fixed or modded.

 

[Nuh Uh]

The reality of it is, it would be very simple to implement, and as a feature, would go unnoticed by just about everyone that wasn't aware that unit performance modifications as based upon supply were in effect.

I can't make sense with someone whose bending over backwards to not make sense, Screw. Your point now is arguing about arguing and that its just my opinion. Its about logistics MODELS and the ability that they have to add more dimension to the STRATEGY. Its not opinion - its FACT. You, as someone who - "YOU KNOW - its just a game - I just like to build stuff - and play around with it...", wouldn't even know its there as a COMPONENT. So, I got the IDEA - you don't like supply - got it - thanks for sharing.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Nuh Uh I have a question. Under your model for supply how in the world would you work in a scenario like Shermans march to the sea? His army fed off the land the entire time no supply, no communications, no backup. Just an army with a mission that was to be completed at all costs.

BTW the game is WAYYYY to fast you are right about that OP. I really cant wait for this to be fixed or modded.

Thats why wargames deal with averaged circumstances. Desperate times cause desperate behavior, and while not aware of Sherman's march specifically, I'm sure their (unsupplied?) ability to defend and fight was greatly encumbered, and despite any heroic and or forage performance on their part.

In the history of warfare, Friedrich Paulus had it bad. The 6th Panzer Army was left decimated by the effects of supply deprivation - they ran out of ammo - they starved - and they got their butts kicked. You can forage and chase rabbits and deer through the trees, but soon you'll cease to exist as an 'organized armed unit'.

 

[thedaian]

For those looking for a slower research time to make the game move in a better way, and experience the eras as they should be (about 100 turns to mess around with knights, or early gunpowder, or macemen), check the mod forums, there's a few dicussions going on about making the game that plays out well, instead of a sudden rush to the modern era.

 

[bluefenderstrat]

What thedaian said.

 

[Loka]

I do agree on at least one of the main points - in regards to military tech, by the time you build the units necessary to take your opponent's city, your units are already obsolete.

 

[Ravinhood]

@NUH UHH, while the game can be played and considered somewhat of a wargame. It's NOT a COMPLEX wargame. I played enough Avalon Hill games without suppy that weren't complex wargames to know you can have a wargame and not have to have silly suppy rules. If you want COMPLEX go play some Matrixgames titles. This ones' for the beer and pretzels fans out here.

Also, concerning your supply, yeah there's supply in this game, try to make swordsmen when someone cuts off your road supply to iron, try to make cavalry when someone cuts off your road suppy to horses. Try to feed your population when someone cuts off and pillages your nice farmed wheat square. There's plenty of supply in this game, just not COMPLEX supply like you'd like to have, but, it ain't gonna happen. It's a "SIMPLE" supply method. Everything in one spot, knock out that square and you knock out suppy for that unit or resource. Works for me and the majority of others as well I'm sure.

 

[yendorII]

Thats why wargames deal with averaged circumstances. Desperate times cause desperate behavior, and while not aware of Sherman's march specifically, I'm sure their (unsupplied?) ability to defend and fight was greatly encumbered, and despite any heroic and or forage performance on their part.

In the history of warfare, Friedrich Paulus had it bad. The 6th Panzer Army was left decimated by the effects of supply deprivation - they ran out of ammo - they starved - and they got their butts kicked. You can forage and chase rabbits and deer through the trees, but soon you'll cease to exist as an 'organized armed unit'.

Okay I am no military historian and in fact havent heard of Friedrich Paulus however I do know some civil war history. Shermans march to the sea was very succesfull. Sherman was able to go through the south right in the middle of the harvest and therefore there was plenty of food sitting in (silos? did they have silos then? sorry I know its stupid to those who know.) He made his march all the way to the atlantic like he said he would much to the suprise of many people. As far as I know(which granted isnt all that much compared to some of the peps on this board) Shermans army suffered no lasting effects from going without his supply train.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Well thanks for the 'beer and pretzel' logic, Sir Winky, who believes he speaks for 'the majority'. Can you say, obtuse?

Sure Vendor, but I don't know what the point is. The army didn't die, but it was surely encumbered.

 

[yendorII]

Encumbered how exactly? I'm not sure of your meaning here. The army moved effectivly, completed its mission, suffered no harm and severly weakened the enemy WITHOUT a baggage train. I wanted to know how you would work this scenario in with supply the way you want it.

You see you are wanting strategy and realism but I wanted to show that try as you might you cannot have these things because there is just too much that is real and too much strategy. The game would have to be 5x bigger to hold what you suggest becuase once you got your supply lines and decided to cut mine I would want the ability to cut my own lines and live off your land. Then someone else would want some other strategy and so on and so forth.

If this game started to get more strategic than it is with this community then Firaxes would have to find some way of programming in every military strategy ever created since before the days of Sun Tzu. Then they would somehow have to get the AI to learn these MILLIONS of strategies so that it could counter those who know strategy as you do.

But then comes the problem. If the AI has those millions of strategies then it certainly has plenty to defeat even the best human strategist because we simply cant retain that much information.

I guess what I am mostly saying here is is that a line must be drawn somewhere or else things get out of hand. So where should it be drawn? You think supply should be included. Ummm ok what makes you so special that someone is going to listen to you. Dont take that wrong I mean it seriously. What makes your opinion about that supply line the right one?

It is right for you and that is what matters but that doesnt mean you can just degrade people for disagreeing with you as you have done here a few times. So if you want the game right for you MOD IT! If you cant do that then play the game or dont but dont try and make grand pronouncments that come off as being the majority opinion when you have no basis for the belief that it may be. That is the beauty of the civ series it is good for many different people and play styles. I for one see no point in the supply system as you envision it so why should Firaxes put it in? Because you want it? Seems abit egotistical to me.

 

[Venger]

Okay, a few items to the original poster...

Yes, the game goes to quick - seems to me the techalanche happens even easier in Civ4 than Civ3. But you can change that - I did, and have been using Praetorians for dozens and dozens of turns now. The only unit I won't get much use out of is Ironclads - too close to Combustion, where your 12 Ironclad is no comparison to a 30 destroyer. So why build them? But that's a minor complaint. If you make changes to the game .xml you can have a much more rewarding experience.

Supply... first of all, supply ISN'T as easy as it always seems - HoI never did get it bug free, at least last time I had played it. Anyways, some things are designed to extrapolate the supply effect - slow healing in enemy spaces, inability to move on enemy roads, etc. I mean let's be honest, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to drive down the enemy's road...

Venger
P.S. Yes, the manual is a little disappointing... as is the Civilopedia...

 

[Nuh Uh]

I understand what you are thinking, Vendor. You are dealing with a microcosm. A specific example, and you want to 'recreate' the reality of their experience. Could a simple supply rule, as a broad macrocosm of game management, that states: "in-supply full-strength and out of supply half-strength" do that? Yes. Just because I'm encumbered doesn't mean I can't perform a duty or task. Just because Sherman's army was in whatever unsupplied scenario, doesn't mean he couldn't perform his job. I don't have all of the details of how strong they were while unsupplied and however long that was (mind you, game supply rules denoting unsupplied status imply MONTHS of no ammo and food replenishment - armies carry supplies) and I don't know how experienced they were or how strong they were normally and not to mention that of the enemy they fought. IOW you are thinking only about the microcosm and saying that this specific example is how unsupplied units behave in all circumstances. It isn't a matter of applying the logic to theirs or anothers specific circumstance, its a matter of whether or not the rule encompasses their experience. If I'm normally a strength factor 12 and suddenly I'm a 6 and you're always a 2, I'll still kick your butt.