Control of Battles

[Magma]

I apoligize if this already have been posted.

In civ 4, wat about that when a unit att a another one, there will be full screen battle with the army that the unit ''is'' and the other army that u can control youreself like, in Warcraft or in Generals.
Then if u dont want this feture(i know it gets anying when u need to do this with 20 units) u can simply turn it off, then it will be like a normal civ3 fight.

Thats all

 

[warpstorm]

No. I don't tlike this because it would shift the emphasis to the tactical level instead of up at the strategic/operational level. You say it could be an option, but that's a false option. If I now that I can play the tactical battles well, I will do this whenever the going gets tough strategically. An option that you will always choose is not really an option.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I agree, Civ shouldn't go in that direction, not for the next civ anyway, it would become a whole new game and I'd rather see Fireaxis put more time in other areas.

It's not a bad idea but you should keep an eye out for Rome: Total War if your into the idea of controlling the troops in realtime, I loved Medieval: Total War and hopefully R:TW will be at least as good as M:TW.

 

[searcheagle]

I do not want a full battle simulation, but there are times when I would love to make a unit retreat. This way I would not lose a unit, which was red-lined. I think this could be included without changing the focus of the game. Agree/Disagree?

 

[Moonsinger]

No. I don't tlike this because it would shift the emphasis to the tactical level instead of up at the strategic/operational level. You say it could be an option, but that's a false option. If I now that I can play the tactical battles well, I will do this whenever the going gets tough strategically. An option that you will always choose is not really an option.

I think the tactical battle would make the game more real. For example, if we send a group of 4 archers and 2 spearmans to attack a group of 2 spearmans. Without tactical battle (like in Civ3), we can attack only with 1 unit at a time. The end result, a couple of our archers probably will die.

On the other hand, at the tactical combat level, we would simply fortify our 2 spearmans protecting our archers. Of course, our 4 archers will fire a few round of arrows at the two spearman defenders. The defenders don't have much of a choice here. If they don't move forward to intercept the attacker, they will be eliminated by the incoming round of arrows. If they move forward, they will have to face our two spearmans protecting our archers first. The end result, our two spearmans against their two spearmans back by some around of arrows (range attack) from our 4 archers, their two spearmans will be eliminated while all our force will survive.

At the tactical battle, an group of 4 archers and 2 spearmans should and should always be able to take out 2 spear defenders without getting kill. Btw, Age of Wonder, Heros of Might and Magic, and Master of Magic are all like that.

 

[dh_epic]

I agree -- any option that you always choose, even if you don't really want to -- isn't really an option. While I agree that making war more multidimensional couldn't hurt, taking an RTS stance on it isn't the right solution.

 

[Pook]

I do not want a full battle simulation, but there are times when I would love to make a unit retreat. This way I would not lose a unit, which was red-lined. I think this could be included without changing the focus of the game. Agree/Disagree?

Agree in full.

I also agree with Warpstorm that the battle concept would be too tactical. I'd prefer to stay at the operational/strat-ee-geric level.

 

[Moonsinger]

I'd prefer to stay at the operational/strat-ee-geric level.

You can always let the computer to auto-resolve any combat for you. Just like Age of Wonders, just turn off tactical combat and it will be just like old time (in Civ3 style).

 

[dh_epic]

The problem is letting the computer auto-resolve anything for you brings you down to their level. You win the game because you're smarter than the AI, not because you use the same mechanisms. Imagine the problems in multiplayer: the winner would be the guy who mastered the tedious tactical combat system, and the other guy would be forced to learn it even if he didn't want to.

I feel that way about Civ 3 now. I feel like I've mastered really stupid techniques like dropping down my science on the last turn of research, or manually moving my workers around to keep them out of harm -- things that are boring and take a lot of time and take zero intelligence, but that I feel obligated to do because doing them gives me an advantage.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, this reminds me of Lords of the Realm II and Imperialism.

There was a tactical mode (one of the focuses of LOTR, actually) where you could pretty much always whip up on the AI unless you were greatly outnumbered.

The problem is that unless you give the tactical AI enough time, it will always be a weak link in the armor and thus the human will always have an advantage (and thusly the player should/will always go this route). Splitting time between a strategic and a tactical AI will only make both worse.

I do not want a full battle simulation, but there are times when I would love to make a unit retreat. This way I would not lose a unit, which was red-lined. I think this could be included without changing the focus of the game. Agree/Disagree?

That is already modelled for fast units like Horsemen.

If you could always retreat every unit then there would hardly be any real battles fought between units (after all, everyone would simply retreat from every battle they were losing). Plus it would be incredibly tedious to do that for every single battle. Just think about how much fun it would be babysitting a battle if you had 100+ units fighting a battle on each side!

 

[Harald]

As dh_epic stated, if I know I can do a better job than the auto-combat option, I will always choose to do so.

This will also mean that it will take much more time to play. And even if I like Civ wery much I don't want to spend an entire day just playing one turn. Full scale war in industry/modern age on a huge map takes long enough without having to contoll all battles manualy.

 

[Moonsinger]

Yes, you guys probably right! If I want tactical combat, I can always go play Age of Wonders or something. There is really no need to add that option to Civ4.

 

[croxis]

I play civ because I want a 4X game, not a rts

 

[Philips beard]

Tactical battle will make the AI Civs even worse then today waging war! Its easy to beat the AI in games like Generals and Warcraft! This would make it to easy to conquer the world in no time.
I'm sure this would lead to alot of complaining from the fans: Buhuuuh, the AI is so stupid, Buuuhuuuh, this is no fun any more!!!!

 

[dh_epic]

Maybe it's easy to beat the AI in Warcraft, but at least you feel like you have control. In Civ, you feel like you basically walk your units up to the city you want to take, and let the mathematics figure it out. Feels pretty mechanical, in my opinion.

Not to say the solution is going Warcraft. In fact, I think that would add a whole new other world of problems. I'm not into this whole "control of battles" thread.

But maybe they could add a new factor or two that makes battle that much more tactical without it necessarily taking longer. (e.g.: different unit types with bonuses versus other units)

 

[Jon Shafer]

The thing is that the game is strategic in focus. Emperors and Generals don't determine how well the front-line troops perform, they only know their quality and tell them where to go.

 

[Zarn]

I would like to see some control. Perhaps not AOE or even Lords of the Realm control but more like HOMM (Heroes of Might and Magic) control. Units are still turn based, but now you can do some maneuvering and can even have mulitple units.

Do tanks occupy cities without infantry?

If three musketsmen attack one musketman, the defending musketman has a good chance of winning, but in real life, the larger army has alot higher chance. The defenders may have a defense advatage implemented, but infantry should be able to invade like this. Infantry (regulars, marines, militias, paratroopers, etc...) have always been the backbone of invading and not just defending.

 

[Moonsinger]

The thing is that the game is strategic in focus. Emperors and Generals don't determine how well the front-line troops perform, they only know their quality and tell them where to go.

When I send my SOD of 1000 archers and two spearmans against 2 spearmans, I would expect no lost. With at least 1000 arrrows firing at the two defenders, I'm telling you...they don't stand a chance! With the Civ3 combat system, a couple of my archers will usually die.

 

[dh_epic]

I think the focus on realism would only make combat more frustrating. Then the game would be 100% pure predictable numbers. 7000 troops versus 5000 troops -- the prior would win, and survive with 2000 troops.

I'd like to see the winner be someone who didn't outgun the competition, but outsmarted the competition. However, I still don't think an RTS style combat is the solution. More just opening up one or two more main choices in combat (even if it's Rock-Paper-Scissors style unit-type bonuses).

 

[xau99]

How about multiple attacks at once. e.g. If I have three warriors and I attack a spearman one at a time the chances are I would lose that battle. However if I could make all three attack the spearman at the same time - there is a chance I would win the battle