Combat in Civilization V

[Camikaze]

The whole point with limiting SoDs is that they are unrealistically strong. Sure, they were prevalent in history (although not to the massive degree as in civ, i.e. not near what 100 units represent), but in modern history, they have largely been failures, which is what any penalties for SoDs would be trying to represent. The only time when these penalties will be a large determining factor would be when you have an inordinate number of units, and the only time when this would realistically happen is in the modern era, in which it has been proven that stacks are not the way to go.

 

[Rusty Edge]

We shouldn't be talking about mods untill after the game is finished.

I was just pointing out some popular and proven mods that would allow the Original Poster to play the game as he proposed it right now. We don't have to talk about CIV V to do it.

 

[Argetnyx]

The whole point with limiting SoDs is that they are unrealistically strong. Sure, they were prevalent in history (although not to the massive degree as in civ, i.e. not near what 100 units represent), but in modern history, they have largely been failures, which is what any penalties for SoDs would be trying to represent. The only time when these penalties will be a large determining factor would be when you have an inordinate number of units, and the only time when this would realistically happen is in the modern era, in which it has been proven that stacks are not the way to go.

The new thing is terrorism...

...which is not represented by civ.

 

[jeffreyac]

Who are you?

"No one of consequence"

"I must know!!"

"Get used to disappointment."

"k."

Sorry, it's hard for me to pass up an opportunity for a Princess Bride quote...

 

[rysmiel]

The new thing is terrorism...

...which is not represented by civ.

*cough* Civ 2 spies *cough*

 

[Argetnyx]

"No one of consequence"

"I must know!!"

"Get used to disappointment."

"k."

Sorry, it's hard for me to pass up an opportunity for a Princess Bride quote...

"As you wish."

*cough* Civ 2 spies *cough*

What are the Civ2 spies like? I think Civ3 spies are too seperated from the game, and civ4 spies are too merged into the game, but what are the Civ2 ones like?

 

[rysmiel]

What are the Civ2 spies like? I think Civ3 spies are too seperated from the game, and civ4 spies are too merged into the game, but what are the Civ2 ones like?

They are "invisible" units. You can use them to do a bunch of stuff; bribe units, bribe cities (the mechanism there is not really balanced right, cities should be more expensive, but that's a detail rather than a problem with the idea), build an embassy, demand a conversation, or alternatively poison the water supply or, once you are nuclear-capable, plant a nuke. All with a certain cost and a certain chance of success.

 

[Argetnyx]

That sounds much better than the Civ3, or civ4, approach

 

[Camikaze]

From what I can recall of Civ 2 spies, and from what I've seen of BtS spies, they are reasonably similar. Poison water supply, plant a nuke (with the possibility of everyone declaring war on you if you are discovered), etc. should definitely remain (or if they aren't actually in BtS, become) in the game as an additional spy/terrorism type thing. But perhaps, with regards to combat, the successes of these things would be dependent more so on the military pressure you are placing on a nation. e.g. if you are invading and destroying an AI, they should be more susceptible to your spy attacks than they otherwise would be, thereby assisting the role of your combat operations.

 

[jeffreyac]

eh, the civ 2 spies could essentially bribe cities - buying them into your empire. I remember playing just to become a financial powerhouse, then basically buying up the other civs until I won.

It was fun, but I actually prefer the spies in Civ IV BTS.

The thing I do NOT like is the way the AI uses spies in BTS. Friends and allies still poison my cities, civs with a peace treaty still unleash the spies... yes, yes, I know that friendly governments today still use espionage against each other, but I think the more destructive missions should be toned down in game between friendly civs.

Oh, and I desperately need a "call off your spies of I'll CRUSH YOU!" option in diplomacy! I can make demands, threaten, and go to war all I want, but I really want a way to send a diplomatic message specifically about espionage!

oops, looks like we've derailed the thread a bit here...

 

[Camikaze]

Why is this notion of time everytime i see this idea? Units shoud make a land ours as soon as it puts its feet on it, just like in civ2. (you could recover some enemy land -only in BFCs- by declaring war and placing a unit on the claimed land)

Back on this, I like the second part of this- reclaiming land (although to a more complex extent). It is similar to what was suggested here, and more recently, here.

 

[redbaron1123]

personally i feel that combat will unrealistic as long as every civilization uses generic units. instead, civ 5 should blend in the spore model of designing units based on level of advancement, money, etc and what you want your unit to have for your style of fighting. Throughout history, this has been the case. Germany and Russia didnt fight world war two with identical tanks with different promotions, Russia had better tanks and won. Also, allowing you to redesign when you get more technology would be accurate. According to civ 3 and 4, the Me-262 and F-15 would have the same ratings although the F-15 is lightyears ahead of the Me-262.

 

[rysmiel]

personally i feel that combat will unrealistic as long as every civilization uses generic units. instead, civ 5 should blend in the spore model of designing units based on level of advancement, money, etc and what you want your unit to have for your style of fighting. Throughout history, this has been the case. Germany and Russia didnt fight world war two with identical tanks with different promotions, Russia had better tanks and won. Also, allowing you to redesign when you get more technology would be accurate. According to civ 3 and 4, the Me-262 and F-15 would have the same ratings although the F-15 is lightyears ahead of the Me-262.

*sigh* realism again.

I am steadfastly opposed to this, because making a balanced game while preserving that will keep people who care about this level of realistic detail happy is just not something I can see as feasible; therefore I say, focus on a balanced game, and leave this level of realistic detail out.

 

[redbaron1123]

i would argue that this could make the game more balanced if done a certain way because a small nation could create units that are cheap and well tailored to defense of their territory, and a large nation could focus on more advanced units that are also costlier. It is also frustrating that technological superiority only lasts as long as it takes the other civs to research to the modern age and this way the player could constantly remake their units to respond to the changing opposing units making the game more flowing, realistic, and i would say, balanced. I would also argue that it definitely is feasible. There are games that have already done this (spore for one). Civilization is supposed to be a strategy game. Right now the only strategy in warfare is promotion, technology, and mass. That is not sufficient, in my opinion, to upholding the idea behind the game, and also in my opinion, gets boring because there is always a certain formula that will always win. By customizing units, not only does the formula change based on your situation, but also on what the ai does, making the game much more interesting and allows both you and the ai to counter an opponents units, and that is something that is both balanced and realistic

 

[rysmiel]

i would argue that this could make the game more balanced if done a certain way because a small nation could create units that are cheap and well tailored to defense of their territory, and a large nation could focus on more advanced units that are also costlier.

This could equally well be done by having a larger tech tree with all these options available to everyone, and selecting which way you research in ot depending on your environment.

It is also frustrating that technological superiority only lasts as long as it takes the other civs to research to the modern age

It would seem to me that if you don't actively like fighting tecnological equals, the solution is either to get better at playing the game such that you can mainatin a tech lead more decisively, or adjust the difficulty level at which you playy accordingly.

and this way the player could constantly remake their units to respond to the changing opposing units

Which is again possible by having a wide range of fixed units and selecting them accordingly, no ?

Right now the only strategy in warfare is promotion, technology, and mass. That is not sufficient, in my opinion,

I disagree profoundly. For one thing, I think promotion's unnecessary.

The strategy is logistics. It's building an empire that can produce more tanks, more advanced tanks, not fiddling around with the tanks once you get them. it;s all the steps you take along the way to have that empire. Winning a war through superior numbers and tech is a reward for playing the game well, not a bug.

and also in my opinion, gets boring because there is always a certain formula that will always win.

There are any number of ways around this without a unit workshop. Different AI personalities with different strategic goals. Different unit development lines that you can build or not given different resources. More complex environments of conflict in which other aspects of the game can better counter or defeat military strength.

 

[redbaron1123]

You bring up a lot of good points.

I actually agree with you that promotions arent necessary. I also agree that a larger tech tree would most likely solve the problem that i have with combat.

And logistics and strategy are two different things. Strategy should include logistics as part of it, but tactical considerations like how the units match up and the like are also a necessary part of combat strategy.And if that is your idea of strategy then many of the maps that i have played on are unbalanced because they dont permit a nation to grow on its own, or to conquer lands and grow that way.

 

[rysmiel]

And logistics and strategy are two different things. Strategy should include logistics as part of it, but tactical considerations like how the units match up and the like are also a necessary part of combat strategy.

This may be a philosophiocal difference; to my mind strategy is only ever a surface outgrowth of logistics.

And if that is your idea of strategy then many of the maps that i have played on are unbalanced because they dont permit a nation to grow on its own, or to conquer lands and grow that way.

How, unbalanced ? What kind of situation have you in mind ?

If you're stuck on a little island, go for navy early, no ? If you can't expand in number of cites, you can be making those cities more useful faster than people who are expanding first do ? (I'll grant that Civ's balance has always been off on this.)

 

[redbaron1123]

Im thinking of maps where ive started in the middle of a tundra with other civs fifteen, twenty squares away on beautiful grasslands with plenty of resources.

And i would say that combat strategy can be divided into logistics and manuever, where logistics determine what you can do, and your manuever tactics determine how you try to defeat the enemy. Both are integral to the strategy as a whole and both rely on the other. Logistics determine how you can manuever, and how you want to manuever determines how you want your logistics to shape up.

 

[rysmiel]

Im thinking of maps where ive started in the middle of a tundra with other civs fifteen, twenty squares away on beautiful grasslands with plenty of resources.

That definitely seems like an imbalanced start generator all right. I've never seen it happen in Civ 2 or Civ 3, and I've not played enough Civ 4, comparateively, to have the same sort of assessment of the spread of starting positions; I presume if this was a solved problem in Civ 2 and Civ 3 it could be in Civ 5.

 

[Camikaze]

Starting maps can definitely be a constraint through the awful positions they sometimes give you, but doesn't that still just create more strategic variation? You have to develop a strategy to suit the situation you are given, the land you are endowed with. It's a nice little random element of Civ that allows for variation between two separate games.