Originally posted by Arathorn
What if my goals aren't always so black/white as redline/injure/destroy? How long am I going to have to spend in submenus to get anything close to what I want? How long is going to take to program options that might never get used?
Why would I accept something as broad as elites before veterans or veterans before elites? I'll often send a vet tank, two elite cavs and then an elite tank, then vet tanks for a while and then.... Well, I think you get the point. No, I don't accept the AI's ordering of units. I use "W"ait a lot. I wish it were better, but I don't think the proposed solution would be. It'd be exactly the same.
Yes, of course. Those were just examples of "quick tactics". They would not be all you could do. The "shift"-click and "control"-clicks would be your primary tools. No intelligent military campaign is based on some pre-designed options. By control-clicking you could choose whichever units you wanted and in whatever desireable order. With the AI-ordering I ment only the list. The list of units follows no logic that I have yet deciphered, I only made a statement about how it could be made so that units of the same kind are found all in one place. My suggestion is that you could choose first two vets to attack (so that you wouldn't be so devastated if they got themselves killed), then two elites to finish the defenders off. This could be done by simply choosing the vets first, then the elites, and then ordering them to attack.
Now, I understand your worries, I really do. Many tactics are so refined, that you must attack with one unit at a time to be satisfied. This is one thing that this suggestion does not take into account too well, but notice that it is supposed to be thought in
conjunction with the latter idea of increased cost. I am sorry if I didn't manage to get this point across. Both ideas are insufficient to repair the problem, but together I think they could do it. You said that the game is very well balanced in the earlier ages, and I think you are right. Now the increased cost of units would make the modern ages more tolerable (I think they should be even more costly than your suggestion of 200, with 200 most of my cities would still produce them in two turns. With lowered factory-efficiency comes into play the problem of costly improvements. I wouldn't undermine the importance of factories, but keep the bonus. I would only fix the relational shield needs of modern age improvements and units), but there would still exist the problem of having 50 units (which is too much, as judgement pointed) attacking a city. This could be fixed to some extent by adding the choosing of multiple units (improved stack-movement/attack/bombard/workers). Together there would only remain the scenario where there's 50 units and you would for strategic reasons be forced to use them separately.
Is this a problem, then? As someone pointed out in some thread, the minimization of micromanagement and automatization of everything would only lessen the possibilities of tactics. One should indeed move one unit at a time to get the best results in a combat. Lessening the unit-numbers too much would shatter the feeling of great battles. Joining units into armies and divisions and others would result in the same complaints that you made about wanting to attack with two vets there, with one elite there, with the sassy regular there... If you want to control every little aspect of your battles, you should be allowed to. By making it possible to simply shoot the full load with your artilleries would fix the
unnecessary micromanagement. I think most people are annoyed about this because they don't want to press the bombard button 50 times just to shoot with all the 50 artilleries, as they has planned to do from the start! I
enjoy micromanagement in battles
if it serves a purpose. Judging from your attitude, I think you do too. It wouldn't be as much fun to even script all your attacks into the game and then choose from them, now would it?
What I am arguing here is this:
First of all: both my suggestions should be implemented - implementing just the other would resolve only some problems, but would not be considered a fix to the problem at hand. So try to argue against it or for it
keeping in mind that they must be taken together.
Secondly: Micromanagement is a good thing, when it serves a purpose, when there are tactics involved. Micromanaging something that you would like to do with one button (full load with your artillery) is not fun. Neither is micromanaging your citizens to get optional food, as there is very little tactics involved (and if there are, it's fine by me), only making them get the best out of the city. Micromanagement is a prerequisite to full out tactics and thus what separates the master from the amateur. Or would you recommend that a pianist should be able to switch the piano on automatic with the hardest technical parts, as he should only concentrate on the overall picture? Surely not.
Thirdly: Increasing the cost of modern units would create a greater gap between mediocre and premier units, thus perhaps resulting in people using modern armors only as one part of their armies, as they would be too expensive to wholly constitute your army. This would also lessen the number of units in game. As judgement pointed out, difference between, say, three units and eight units is huge (both in results and in tactics), but the difference between 50 and 70 is minimal. It is the percents that count: having unit ratio of 100:50 is in effect the same as in having 2:1, but not in tactics. Lesser numbers should be advocated. This is my aim with this part of the two-part idea.
Fourthly: Allowing the player to skip all tedious and mechanical strategies with automatic movement and choosing the units would eliminate the tedious micromanagement everybody is complaining about. Stacks are of no use when you
want to move your units one by one, but neither should they be. The simple idea is to replace all repetitions of the same action with a single click. If you are not repeating anything, then there shouldn't be any automation, as that is certainly not what you are after.
Fifthly: I am
not arguing that my system is perfect and most realistic of them all. I am arguing that it is simple, does not introduce any new concepts to the game, it is playable and most importantly: adequate. Go ahead, design unit-groupings and such, but remember that you are changing the game. You are adding concepts, thus increasing complexity. I am suggesting this because I see no real need for complex unit-groups. Civ's combat system is simple and good enough for a game like this. CTP proved that armies in such a way are a bad idea. Now you may decide what you want about this, of course, but keep in mind that I am only suggesting a simple, but effective solution. I'll leave the complex and realistic solutions to you people.
Hopefully I have somewhat cleared my views on this short explanatory post.
