"Luck" Ruins civ's "professional" appeal.

Luck or randomness had had a great part in history, unless you want a tactical combat which in my opinion would really change what is civilization series you can't deprive the game of combat odds so i really disagree about this statement.
In opposition to the OP I would like more randomness in the game like casual events, in this way the game can become more interesting above all in modern times when things are already decided
 
One horseman to another -
"Duh frank, do you think we with our superiour movement should flank these heavily armored pikemen and side swipe those archers like we were ordered or just go over the top of them"
"Gee bill, your such an idiot. we will be able to take them out quicker if we just go over the top"
"Frank, your so smart"

That's typical one-sided thinking against a static opponent. Perhaps the pikemen would actually actively PROTECT the archers from cavalry attacks? But still, how can you ask for realism in a game as abstract as this?

If you could choose which unit to attack within a stack, that would ruin the whole idea of units having plusses and minuses against certain unit types. You're supposed to use combined arms to beat whole stacks instead of doing precision attacks against units you can beat. Learn to use the different types of units and stop complaining about something this abstract being unrealistic.
 
A+ombomb said:
I know there have been lots of complaints about luck already, so I won't go into that directly. The purpose of this is to point out how luck affects the ability of civ to generate long lasting appeal for a professional gaming community. Civ is a great game - we all know this. But I would really like to see it along the lines of other great games that have worldwide professional communities. Civ *won't* have this, because it's too LUCK oriented. I'll admit that civ4 is big steps above previous civs, luck wise, but why not use systems already around for the combat systems, for example? A somewhat Warcraft 3 style of combat would be perfect for civ. Doesn't anyone else really like the idea of civ someday having a true professional community?

So, it's important to you that Civ be played by 14-year-old Korean schoolboys who get paid big money and are considered superstars by the pop-press idiots in their own country? Why? Because you are tired of fantasizing about being a Warcraft 3 pop star and now wish to fantasize about being a Civ 4 pop star?

No thanks. The western world doesn't have 'professional' gaming communities. Nor does Civ 4 need drivel of that nature to affirm itself as a good game.
 
There is a need of some luck.
In all fights, you have some luck that occurs. (your sword falls down, bad meteo, having a headache...)
Luck is a part of the game that It would be better not to be changed.
 
Vonreuter said:
That's typical one-sided thinking against a static opponent. Perhaps the pikemen would actually actively PROTECT the archers from cavalry attacks? But still, how can you ask for realism in a game as abstract as this?
If you could choose which unit to attack within a stack, that would ruin the whole idea of units having plusses and minuses against certain unit types. You're supposed to use combined arms to beat whole stacks instead of doing precision attacks against units you can beat. Learn to use the different types of units and stop complaining about something this abstract being unrealistic.
An so is 1 unit attacking at a time combined arms to you? huh? because thats what currently happens with the battle system even when they are in a stack, one unit attacks why the others watch. Not only that they then give the enemy time to re-organise themselves back into their max defensible position.
Attackers behave as if they are all alone however defenders have a little group effort going... they simply move the injured to the back so they cannot be destroyed & heal up next round, apparently this tactic never occurs to the attackers because according to you they are too stupid.
So meanwhile after the battle the defenders simply get a little rest and everyone that was killed before mystically gets replaced not only that they also get to keep the experience of those that were killed... while at the same time the attackers get annihilated, no experience gained, no progress made.

...who cares about realism, i just want a fun & sensible battle system. I never said elimate randomness all together, just to fix the current battle system. I would like to see random world events implemented in the game... such as flooding, volcanos, tornados and stuff like that.
 
Without luck, every combat would be wholly predictable and no sensible player would ever attack when defeat was certain. Taken to the extreme, there would be a fixed set of maps and player skill would lie in remembering the details of each for use next time, if indeed there should ever be such a time. Even at that, a small amount of luck would be involved during the first run, as you would not know if you were moving into trouble until you found it. It is the random element that makes Civ (any version) such an absorbing game, and one with so vast a number of variations.
If you want a game with no luck, try chess. Playing Civ, I quite often win despite frequent streaks of bad luck.
 
I don't see why people are so opposed to the game having a more strategic design to it. I have not played Total War Series but I would bet that it has a random calculation in it somewhere. How is damage calculated? AOE has random values assigned upon damage. My fav TBS now is AOW and it has random values assigned upon damage. But there is no strategy in civ. The most effective strategy is pile 'em into 1 tile and go. Only now you need some cavalry to take point. Whoopty doo.
The strategic layer of combat is currently that of a 5 year old. That's why playing on diety isn't hard because of decisions concerning military, rather the player's tedious management to keep up with an AI that gets insane bonuses. I don't know... it's basic. Can't get much more plain than that.

EDIT: I want to throw in though that I could care less about it's "appeal". So maybe I am off the original point but seriously, the tactics involved in civ are minimal. I would like to see them perhaps one day evolve this ancient system to a more strategic one.
 
King Flevance said:
Yeah, that particular part was an amusing little rediculous feel behind "Civ 4". It is what I think of when I lose with 94% chance of victory, sometimes 98%. :eek:

But on the flip side, I've won plenty of battles where I only had 20-30% odds. The player gets those breaks too. (I had a stack and he had a well defended city and I was willing to lose several units to take the city, but won).

IMO, this game would be totally boring if you could look at his city and see 2 archers guarding it and figure out that if you attacked with 2 ax men and 1 horseman that you'd automatically win. Taking out the "roll of dice" factor would turn the entire combat system into micromanaging the assembly of stacks to attack the enemy
 
and another note. I think it is good that the defender basically chooses the matchups in his favor. It was far to easy in earlier civs to conquer the world. It's still easy, but having the matchups favor the defender is a step in the right direction.
 
Total War does have its random elements. Combat is decided randomly, for example. The thing is, when you have thousands of individual soldiers on each side of the fight, and each soldier has its own values for elements such as attack strength, defense strength, health, and experience... the random element tends to average out, making combat much more predictable.

The most random element in the game are the soldiers themselves. They don't always do what you tell them to do, because among their stats are courage and impulsiveness. Nine times out of ten they might, but that tenth time is what makes you grind your teeth.

Will they rush headlong into battle, disrupting a carefully crafted strategy because the prince and his bodyguard are trying to make a name for themselves? Will they break early, turning what should be a meatgrinder for the enemy into a route for your side because the new conscripts couldn't stand up to a single cavalry charge?

Watching an elite unit of cavalry get surrounded by pikemen and cut apart because they were having too much fun cutting down retreating peasants to heed your recall orders is frustrating, especially when its led by the heir to your throne.

And then there's the time it takes to resolve a single battle. There are so many elements in a battle, that large ones can last forever. I once spent fifteen minutes in Total War just deciding what units I wanted to bring in first, the order reinforcements would come arrive, considering the lay of the land I was defending, and positioning units for maximum effect. The battle itself lasted an hour. There were two huge armies involved, so there were breaks between engagements as my attacker and I waited for reinforcements to arrive and to redress our battle lines before resuming the fighting.

On the other hand, it was exciting to watch the battle unfold. The whistling hiss of arrows, the creaking and thuds of catapults, the ring of swords, the rumble of charging horses, and especially the screams of the wounded and dying all make for an exciting battle. But that single battle, and tidying up afterwards, was all I did that day.

I personally like CIV's abstract combat system. Even the largest battles can be resolved in less than ten minutes. It's just that with so few units involved on each side, you feel the effects of luck, good or bad, much more strongly than a more tactical combat system like Total War, where even the smallest battles take time to resolve.
 
bfordyce said:
But on the flip side, I've won plenty of battles where I only had 20-30% odds. The player gets those breaks too. (I had a stack and he had a well defended city and I was willing to lose several units to take the city, but won).

IMO, this game would be totally boring if you could look at his city and see 2 archers guarding it and figure out that if you attacked with 2 ax men and 1 horseman that you'd automatically win. Taking out the "roll of dice" factor would turn the entire combat system into micromanaging the assembly of stacks to attack the enemy

How many times have you had 2-4% chance of winning and won? I am sure someone out there has, or will say they have, but it is of no matter to me. I don't care about that. As I said, above this very post I am quoting all you have to do is pile up your SOD and run cavalry/marines in point to knock out artillery on the way. Artillery is NOT the SOD fix it is claimed to be. There is still one strategy as there has ALWAYS been. And it is STILL SOD.

I am not suggesting having units automatically kill another unit at 100%. I am saying we need an alternative combat style. Tile A smacking tile B is simply boring and involves no strategy. Just group the troops and attack, it automatically picks the units that will go first, or you can do it manually and take more time to do the same thing.

I would honestly love to see a battlefield zoom come in where you command your troops but I am just yanking the idea out of AOW. I would like to see Firaxis come up with something entirely original to have Civ gain it's own unique feel. Tile A vs. Tile B got old on civ 3. But they tried enhancing it with the ranged bombard. I give them credit for trying something new on that, and personally I liked it but I know it wasn't everyone's cup of tea. But here we are on 4, going back to the old way. IMO to implement needless things like religion and graphics that do little to the overall aspect of the game.

I do like that they made a paper rock scissors system as oppose to the best unit you have is what you should build, but other games have been using these system forever. Honestly, 3 should have had this. It's cool it is in now I guess, but I am not fooled into thinking that combat is alot more "complex" because of it and promotions.

As the system is now, yes it needs % chances with a random value in there. Although I think the units should have an Era attachment to them. That way you know that even a beat up tank can kill an axeman. Or even if you wanted to say that is possible by some odd train of logic always used to justify it, how about the thread I saw a while back of an axeman beating a helicopter. I mean, seriously, this is rediculous that people justify it.
 
I hate it when "people" use quotation marks when they clearly don't understand how to use them properly.
 
DarkFyre99 said:
Watching an elite unit of cavalry get surrounded by pikemen and cut apart because they were having too much fun cutting down retreating peasants to heed your recall orders is frustrating, especially when its led by the heir to your throne.

LOL the game sounds fun. I intend on checking it out sometime when I get around to it. At times I wish I had went for the ROME double pack instead of Civ 4. :(

I personally like CIV's abstract combat system. Even the largest battles can be resolved in less than ten minutes. It's just that with so few units involved on each side, you feel the effects of luck, good or bad, much more strongly than a more tactical combat system like Total War, where even the smallest battles take time to resolve.

I agree that this layer of depth is way too deep for civ.

This is also why I think tactical combat should be checked at the start of the game if it was implemented, which I doubt it ever will. I know some people that we would spend a long time on games if it was similar to this in multiplayer. But from what I see online, people want to play a 5 min rush game of civ. At most I have seen people wanting to play for 2 hrs.

Once my friends all have Civ 4, we are going to run alot of multiplayer games that probably will last around 4 weeks a piece with the way our schedules run. But it will probably involve around 80 hrs of play per game at least. We talk too much though so the timer has to be off. :p

EDIT: I "hate" it when "people" post only to feel "superior" to "someone" else "based" on "grammer", yet having "nothing useful" to say "related" to the "thread".
 
I'm not sure that I get this thread. The Civ series is one of the top selling computer game series of all time. It's right up there with Doom, Quake, the Sims, Sim City, Warlords, etc... Maybe it doesn't have the appeal to some gamers that, say, doom does, but it's not that kind of game.

By "professional appeal", I'm not sure I understand. It has a brilliant appeal worldwide. Probably moreso than a couple of the games I mentioned. I visit a lot of forums throughout the internet and none of them have as many posts as CivFanatics. That tells you of it's worldwide appeal.

If you mean that people don't sit around and discuss the merits in the same way as, say, Hearts of Iron, then you're right. It's not that much of an intelectual game. It's not meant to be, though. More people prefer the only slightly intelectual appeal that Civ has.
 
Luck is an essential part in Civ. This is not chess, it is a replayable game that will turn out differently every time.
 
Any attempt to make the combat system more complex is doomed. One of the worst things about Civ is that the AI is too stupid to even use the current combat system effectively. Making the combat system more complex just means the AI would be even worse at waging war.
 
@Naismith - Check out Age of Wonders 2. It is 6 years old I believe. "AOW2:Shadow Magic" is a bit younger but I haven't tried it yet. Same basic idea as civ, better combat idea though IMO. Only it involves magic. (fantasy)
 
King Flevance said:
@Naismith - Check out Age of Wonders 2. It is 6 years old I believe. "AOW2:Shadow Magic" is a bit younger but I haven't tried it yet. Same basic idea as civ, better combat idea though IMO. Only it involves magic. (fantasy)

Thanks for the tip. By the way, I don't think it's impossible to substantially improve the AI and/or combat in Civ. It's just that they have made it obvious that for some reason improving the AI isn't much of a priority. Civ4 is a good game, but they have to tackle improving the AI, or it doesn't have much room to evolve. IMO, adding new buildings, units and traits is nice, but it's window dressing.
 
IMO the combat system IS fun and entertaining. Certainly the basic grind favours the defender, but then the attacker still retains the important element of initiative: you can choose which stacks to attack or ignore, on which location to fight, and exactly how many units you commit to battle when you attack. Until now CIV has always favoured the attacker and global domination has been a matter of building a huge offensive force, so bolstering the defending force is a step in the right direction to make domination more challenging.

Besides, even when you attack, you don't actually have to attack. Move your own killer stack in the enemy's strategic locations and they will have to push YOU out. After all, most of the time the attacker gets to fight on the defender's land, which can have a serious effect on the defender's economy. You don't have to rush. Divide and conquer!

If you could choose which units to attack, you couldn't take your archers anywhere without some cavalry unit coming and picking them off even when you had spearmen covering them. Now would that be fun? It seems that you think that you're always the attacker, and you want more advantage for yourself. How about building more units and attacking wisely? Or how about enjoying the defender's benefits and fighting a defensive war? It is possible to attack defensively just as you can defend offensively. In CivIV you can!

According to my math: new challeges + different types of unit specializations + different strategies than rushing = more fun.
 
You would like Civ IV combat be like Chess ? It's not a big difference. In Chess every piece can take every piece. Even the pawn can take the Queen. Every piece has a value which is most of the times static, telling you if you made a bad or a good exchange. But even in Chess "Randomness" comes into play - it is the way that mistakes happen. There a lot of factors which impact a mistake. It's the playing skill of the opponents, the position, the health of the players, and other circumstances like the environment you're playing in. A mistake is in no way predictable, but even the Top 10 GMs will make some during any game.

In Civ IV you have your units which represent the pieces on a Chess Board. Of course the attack on a unit does not give certainty of taking it as in Chess, but it is close to the mistake problem: Even if you have preferable odds you may be losing the battle, and capturing a piece at Chess doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake. Both moves are dependable on random factors.

I like it how it is.

Another point on the "Stack-em-into-one-tile-and go" thing: From my point of expierence this no longer works from Monarch on and above. If you fight a capable enemy he will tear down your pretty SoD with Cats/Cannons/Artillery/Fighters/Bombers and then mop up. A SoD is never invincible.

·Imhotep·
 
Back
Top Bottom