Field/castle battles and espionage.

[Camikaze]

As I said in my second post on this thread, I think too that it would need some serious modification of the mechanics of Civ. We could try to reduce those changes in a minimum way, like for example conquered cities flipping back to its former owner pretty quickly if the king is still alive. If the king is well perceived by his population, this last one could rebel to its newer ruler. You would have to keep a good army in the conquered cities if you don't want them to flip back (that would work for short border wars) to its former owner, that reducing you power in a long war (to be continued with a lot less troops) . But as soon as the king is killed/emprisonned, the cities cease to rebel or rebel a lot more less.

Late reply as promised.

This would work, as another modifier to city rebellion. I think that it would have to have a lot to do with happiness throughout your empire, also. And perhaps a city in which the king unit is receives either a happiness bonus or penalty depending on what the populace think of them.

I don't really see where you go there. Why would it need a serious change of the tile system?

Well, currently tiles are mainly populated with improvements. But if castles and forts were to necessitate having drastically more importance, then these would be needed on nearly every tile, almost making void the concept of tile improvements, without some other modification to the system.

With the nowadays Civ system that is: no ZOCs, impossibility to build a castle on a farm or cottages, etc... I think that first we should be able to build castles on improved tiles.

Well, there you go. That is a solution. Although this would need a nerf to stop absolute and total castle spamming. Perhaps the tile would have -1 or or if it contained a castle.

Second, we should be able to intercept any enemy unit, with a system a little like ZOCs, but with more range. For example, if the movement of a unit is 2 (on roads), it should be able to intercept any enemy unit in a range of 2 tiles around. The problem being: would this interception be an attack or a defense? If it's an attack, that should be problematic if the enemy units are on a forest hill, for example. If it's a defense, that would mean that you couldn't enter an unoccupied enemy forest hill if a castle or city or any unit being able to intercept is at 2 tiles of it.

That goes against the basics of the turn based nature of civ. Ergo, I don't like it. It would be very confusing and detrimental, IMHO, to seriously mess with the turn based system like this. Sure, fighters do it, but air units are a completely different kettle of fish.

The best thing may be to nullify the defense/attack system, it is to say that defense would not be prevalent to attack anymore, unless we've time to build serious defenses, like walls. Walls should be able to be built by any kind of military units, and it should not be variable with time like the Fortify command in Civ4 (when we have to wait only 1 turn in order to increase our defense), it should be 0 or 100%, only when entirely completed.

I think that attack is much more dangerous than defence as it is now anyway, in that those that attack a city generally win. Sure, it may be at great cost, but making attacking even easier for the player would put out game balance. Then again, you could probably say the same thing for defence.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I'm sorry, but I still do not see the link between surrendering and field battles. You could as well surrender when inside a castle or a city.*

That being said, surrendering could be an interesting option, and more realist, such as field battles.

But AI surrendering should logically be represented by the ownership of all AI cities of one AI civ by the player. But in term of Civ4, that would not be productive at all, because the civ implied in it would simply vanish: it wouldn't be very logical to surrender. Within its limits, Civ4 represents this pretty well already, with the capitulation feature and its consequences.

However, total surrendering could be interesting if an obliterated civ could re-emerge later.

Late reply as promised.

This would work, as another modifier to city rebellion. I think that it would have to have a lot to do with happiness throughout your empire, also. And perhaps a city in which the king unit is receives either a happiness bonus or penalty depending on what the populace think of them.

I don't think that rebellions based on happiness would be wise, because it would be based on faults of attention, because we can easily manage happiness in the cities of Civ4 ("no growth" button), but does not feel that good.

Well, there you go. That is a solution. Although this would need a nerf to stop absolute and total castle spamming. Perhaps the tile would have -1 or or if it contained a castle.

To build castles is fine, but full them is trickier. If you build 20 castle with 2-3 units in each, that would not make the deal, and would give fortified places for enemy armies in your own territory. That's here that the idea of a king hits: it would act as a magnet.

That goes against the basics of the turn based nature of civ. Ergo, I don't like it. It would be very confusing and detrimental, IMHO, to seriously mess with the turn based system like this. Sure, fighters do it, but air units are a completely different kettle of fish.

Anyway that wouldn't change more than simply attacking, so it is a bad idea.

I think that attack is much more dangerous than defence as it is now anyway, in that those that attack a city generally win. Sure, it may be at great cost, but making attacking even easier for the player would put out game balance. Then again, you could probably say the same thing for defence.

Attack seems simply more effective because of the means we put in it. We won't attack a too strong city, and Civ AI with Civ4 now does it also.

However, it is true that attack is more efficient than defense in the sense that attacks are concentrated, while defense is spread. It is then more difficult to maintain an efficient defense in all your frontiers than attacking in a single and concentrated point. That's IMO why defense has an advantage over attack in Civ games. Unfortunately, this does not always work. I agree to say that attack is still avantaged. But if you nullify the city defense bonus and do not destroy the building in it when cities are captured, it would be easier to take them back.

* No, wait, I got it. It would more be linked with the idea of massive and decisive battles. Like if I want the AI to surrender, I provoke a massive battle concentrated in one point of the map, and the AI doing the same. So that if the AI wants this battle, it puts all his army in one castle and wait for its enemy.

 

[moscaverde]

I believe a good way to create more field battles would be the return of ZOCs (I liked the civ 3 way of a free shot on passing enemies). Probably we would have less SODs too.

 

[Flying Pig]

There's a lot of sods among civ leaders - oh wait...

 

[Wimsey]

Just a quick question before I throw myself into this discussion: Civ2 ZoC was so you couldn't move from one tile within a unit's ZoC to another, right? (And the ZoC was the 8 tiles immideately surrounding the unit?) It's been a bit too long since I played that game...

From what I hear on these forums people used to hate that ZoC - But I seem to remember that the problem was that this ZoC also applied to neutral units, so your units would constantly get stuck and be unable to move without declaring war. If this hard ZoC was brought back, but only applied to enemies, it could be possible to forse field battles more often, as you caould now make a defencive line by occupying every other tile rather than each one. I would feel more confident about bringing a stack out of a city if I knew the enemy couldn't just walk right past it and attack the city in my absense.

Also, reduce the defence bonuses for forests and hills somewhat. It is just impossible to be the tactical attacker under such circumstances, unless you've got loads of siege weapons (which make for for silly and boring battles anyway).

To further force the defender out his city, make the penalties for a raided countryside much more severe. For example:
- A citizen is considered to live on the tile he is working. If tiles are switched, there is a delay (10 turns or so) before the citizen moves to his new home. When a tile is pillaged, the citizen living there is killed (-1 pop in the city)
- Loss of culture in a city for having enemies in fat cross, more so if it is pillaged (think of it as loss of prestige because the city can't protect it's local peasants).

Okay, it seems I threw myself into the discussion without waiting for my question to be answered

 

[Camikaze]

I'm sorry, but I still do not see the link between surrendering and field battles. You could as well surrender when inside a castle or a city.*

That being said, surrendering could be an interesting option, and more realist, such as field battles.

But AI surrendering should logically be represented by the ownership of all AI cities of one AI civ by the player. But in term of Civ4, that would not be productive at all, because the civ implied in it would simply vanish: it wouldn't be very logical to surrender. Within its limits, Civ4 represents this pretty well already, with the capitulation feature and its consequences.

However, total surrendering could be interesting if an obliterated civ could re-emerge later.

We were talking about the surrender of individual units, not a civ as a whole.

I don't think that rebellions based on happiness would be wise, because it would be based on faults of attention, because we can easily manage happiness in the cities of Civ4 ("no growth" button), but does not feel that good.

But I don't really think that rebellions should be based on the life or death of a single 'king' unit. Realistically, a rebellion would probably be exacerbated by regicide, not quelled by it. Somehow relating it to happiness seems to make more sense, and would include other factors. Sure, you can easily manage happiness, but you may not be doing so in the most beneficial manner. That's why there are things to consider when playing the game such as whether to build a happiness building or not. This would just add another layer to it.

To build castles is fine, but full them is trickier. If you build 20 castle with 2-3 units in each, that would not make the deal, and would give fortified places for enemy armies in your own territory. That's here that the idea of a king hits: it would act as a magnet.

I suppose that would act as some sort of protection, but even so, it would be better overall to have castles than to not have them. If SoDs are to be reduced in power, than perhaps 2-3 units would be sufficient for every castle and would easily repel an attack. Not having anything to prevent the widespread use of many castles would make defending really easy.

Attack seems simply more effective because of the means we put in it. We won't attack a too strong city, and Civ AI with Civ4 now does it also.
However, it is true that attack is more efficient than defense in the sense that attacks are concentrated, while defense is spread. It is then more difficult to maintain an efficient defense in all your frontiers than attacking in a single and concentrated point. That's IMO why defense has an advantage over attack in Civ games. Unfortunately, this does not always work. I agree to say that attack is still avantaged. But if you nullify the city defense bonus and do not destroy the building in it when cities are captured, it would be easier to take them back.

But currently when you take a city, the defence bonus is nullified, thereby making it easier to take back the city.

I would agree, on second thought, that defence is somewhat advantageous, given that units stay in cities to defend as a better option than going and attacking the attacker.

 

[Naokaukodem]

We were talking about the surrender of individual units, not a civ as a whole.

Ah, well. I don't very like the idea. What would a nation do of its prisonners?

But I don't really think that rebellions should be based on the life or death of a single 'king' unit. Realistically, a rebellion would probably be exacerbated by regicide, not quelled by it.

You do not need to rebel anymore when the king is dead. At most it may create a civil war.

Somehow relating it to happiness seems to make more sense, and would include other factors. Sure, you can easily manage happiness, but you may not be doing so in the most beneficial manner. That's why there are things to consider when playing the game such as whether to build a happiness building or not. This would just add another layer to it.

Attaching it to happiness would be a real pain. If you want to be able to improve the 'no rebellion' factor in your empire by building buildings, this could be done anyway.

I suppose that would act as some sort of protection, but even so, it would be better overall to have castles than to not have them. If SoDs are to be reduced in power, than perhaps 2-3 units would be sufficient for every castle and would easily repel an attack. Not having anything to prevent the widespread use of many castles would make defending really easy.

In Civ2 it were not the case. I pretty never use them though, because of the position of the player in face of AIs. Don't know how it was in multiplayer though.

But currently when you take a city, the defence bonus is nullified, thereby making it easier to take back the city.

Yes, right. But the unfun thing is that buildings disappear.

 

[Camikaze]

Ah, well. I don't very like the idea. What would a nation do of its prisoners?

Well you would be able to trade them for prisoners that your enemy had taken. Also, perhaps they could be used as labour, 'settling' in a city adding a production bonus to the city, or perhaps they could be used like workers for the entirety of their time as prisoners.

You do not need to rebel anymore when the king is dead. At most it may create a civil war.

Rebellion is probably more based off the oppression and power vacuum that come with a military takeover rather than the death of a king who may or may not have been universally hated.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Rebellion is probably more based off the oppression and power vacuum that come with a military takeover rather than the death of a king who may or may not have been universally hated.

No, rebellions would raise more if the king is alive, not dead. The idea is to make the taken cities rebel more if the king is alive.

But a king, emperor or even president is the symbol (and, the main ruler) of a government. Within my idea, it would be very possible that if the king is alive, rebellions could occur against the conqueror. One would have to cut the head off if one wants to rule in its place.

All in all, that would be a good game mechanic.

 

[Flying Pig]

Very few rebellions happen because people don't like the king, president etc.

 

[Camikaze]

No, rebellions would raise more if the king is alive, not dead. The idea is to make the taken cities rebel more if the king is alive.

But a king, emperor or even president is the symbol (and, the main ruler) of a government. Within my idea, it would be very possible that if the king is alive, rebellions could occur against the conqueror. One would have to cut the head off if one wants to rule in its place.

All in all, that would be a good game mechanic.

But it's a rather simplistic determination of rebellion length. It would be more accurate to base it off, say, the occupier's civics, if anything. The King may be the figurehead and symbol of power, but that doesn't mean that everyone will be placated by their death. By the same token as the King being all important, the citizens may be enraged to action by the death of the King, making the rebellion last longer.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Very few rebellions happen because people don't like the king, president etc.

And the governement that they represent?

But it's a rather simplistic determination of rebellion length.

What in Civ is not simplistic?

The King may be the figurehead and symbol of power, but that doesn't mean that everyone will be placated by their death. By the same token as the King being all important, the citizens may be enraged to action by the death of the King, making the rebellion last longer.

But that would be still a good game mechanic: you have to capture/kill the king in order to stop the rebellions. What would create field battles if the king is in an army.

 

[Camikaze]

What in Civ is not simplistic?

But that's no reason make future concepts simplistic. I would say that most aspects of the game have some layer of complexity, but this idea seems to ignore many obvious factors, focusing on just one.

But that would be still a good game mechanic: you have to capture/kill the king in order to stop the rebellions. What would create field battles if the king is in an army.

It could work in that way, but it seems like a pretty construed excuse to force field battles; you're inventing some nonsensical game mechanic in order to attempt to force a field battle- other methods (like advantages for attacking over staying in a city to defend) are better for achieving that end.

 

[Naokaukodem]

But that's no reason make future concepts simplistic. I would say that most aspects of the game have some layer of complexity, but this idea seems to ignore many obvious factors, focusing on just one.

Granted that the game relies on simplistic mechanics, we could not avoid simplistic mechanics. I mean, people birth when the granary is full, is that serious? My idea is not more simplistic or crazy than the whole game.

It could work in that way, but it seems like a pretty construed excuse to force field battles; you're inventing some nonsensical game mechanic in order to attempt to force a field battle- other methods (like advantages for attacking over staying in a city to defend) are better for achieving that end.

It is just like the "kill the chief" story. (you kill the chief and the other ones run or stop fighting) It is not nonsensical. It is even a well known cliché of many video games.

 

[Camikaze]

Granted that the game relies on simplistic mechanics, we could not avoid simplistic mechanics. I mean, people birth when the granary is full, is that serious? My idea is not more simplistic or crazy than the whole game.

But just because the rest of the game has simplistic mechanics doesn't mean we should advocate the implementation of more simplistic mechanics, and mechanics that, IMO, are more so simplistic than those currently in the game. To use a cliché, 'Two wrongs do not make a right'.

It is just like the "kill the chief" story. (you kill the chief and the other ones run or stop fighting) It is not nonsensical. It is even a well known cliché of many video games.

But it's hardly realistic to any degree.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Note that I'm not talking about rebellions in a general way, but only in the case of an invasion. The spontaneous rebellions in a single civ would have to be treated differently. So it is not really related to the general rebellion topic. (about if happiness should be a factor of rebellion or not)

The "kill the chief" thing is realistic to a degree. People want to kill the chiefs in reality. (attacks against Hitler, Saddam Hussein imprisonment, Ben Ladden search...)

That's a pretty realistic thing in order to achieve a new gameplay mechanic.

People whom chiefs have been killed or emprisoned may not have always surrendered (see rebellions in Iraq), but that's a compromise on reality that would help the game pretty well, and match with the other Civ mechanics.

 

[Camikaze]

Well it could be a determining factor towards rebellion length, but should certainly not be the only one. I would compromise on that. It would also have to be effected by approval rating, IMO. If a civ is really unhappy at a leader, it won't mind being occupied quite as much, and won't mind as much if the king unit is killed, so will have a shorter rebellion. If, one the other hand, there is a very high approval rating, citizens won't want a new administration, and will be angered into rebellion by the death of the king unit.

 

[Naokaukodem]

you are going away from the "kill the chief" effect there.

Simulating rebellions the way you want it would be a whole another topic.

And don't forget that invaded people know they are facing an enemy, so rebellions after city taken is not very realistic either regarfull of this. It should not always be a rebellion, but accorded to the forces in presence. However, in Civ4, no matter the number of troops amassed in a taken city, the rebellion will sue its course.

The point of the above thing being that it is vain to want absolutely "realist" things at all cost.

the "kill the chief" effect should be sufficient for what I want to emulate from a gameplay perspective. (hunt the chief)

 

[Camikaze]

Sure, it is sufficient to emulate what you want, but I don't like want you want as a stand alone aspect of the game, and I don't really think that the reason being that it isn't at all realistic is a particularly bad one. Sure, you can't get everything to be realistic in the game, but when introducing elements that are not necessary to the game, it should be aimed for, at least to a degree.

 

[Flying Pig]

Having a king unit is a really bad idea. The capital could take on that function if you really wanted it