• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Mechanisms of War

Thanil.Bernetar

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 18, 2002
Messages
3
Hi. I have had a look at the threadlist and it seems to me that nobody discusses about the mechanisms of war in Civ4.

I have played Civ I and Civ III for days, weeks, months and years, and I generally like the game very much. But I think that wars are resolved in the wrong way.

First of all I am grateful that in Civ4 AI players have to respect your borders or declare war. It is so annoying having all those foreign military units running through your empire all the time, and it is totally unrealistic.

Secondly the movement rates of Civ are totally unrealistic. Instead of the movement rates of CivI to CivIII there should be operation ranges, that are basically like todays movement rates, but there should be an option to operationally transport any given unit to any other place under your control within one round. Instead of normally moving, you rightclick on your unit, select "operate" or "transport", you pay a certain price for this transportation, and then you choose a destination, where the unit has to be moved to. The unit can't move afterwards and is ready for action in the following round.

Wars in Civ III are essentially thirty rounds of moving your units around, then - if you are lucky - you capture one enemy city, and the war is over. It is really unrealistic.

With the operate/transport option you get new strategic options, and the feature could be easily balanced by its costs. Also it could be a requisite that the destination place has to be connected with a road or a railroad. The transportation costs could be calculated by distance and the quality of the connection (road tiles are more expensive, railroad tiles less).

What do you think?
 
Wlecome to CFC [party]

IMHO, in civ3, wars are not this way. Generally, when the attack really starts, it is not long until some one wins, especially after replacable parts. "War" is too things, and the first is a diplomatic state where the AI produces mainly military units. If you know another civ on the other side of the world and declare war, the AI will think it is at war, but it won't be able to cause damage. It is also a sate of facts, when there ARE battles, pillage, attacks and counter-attacks. Those two can also be different phases, in the first you build your army, in the second you act.
 
Thank you for your warm welcome! I have been lurking for several years, but sometimes I haven't returned for several months. :)

In my experience it takes about ten to twenty rounds to effectively strike an enemy (unless you have prepared this war a very long time), and in this time you and/or the AI players develop one to three new technologies, which sometimes render your current military tactics obsolete. Also in this long time the overall diplomatic picture sometimes changes dramatically.
 
Thanil.Bernetar said:
Thank you for your warm welcome! I have been lurking for several years, but sometimes I haven't returned for several months.
I've seen that: Join Date: Mar 2002
 
I'm with mastertyguy.

Wars don't take that much time (age depending ofcourse) if you have good intel and the right combination of units. Taking a couple major cities will do it. Capturing every city is another bag, one that I rarely go for. I'd say the current system is as realistic as one could hope for, ancient age wars take a long while, modern ones don't. Makes sense to me.
 
Well, I for one think that it would be easy to maintain gameplay balance if you combined greater overall movement rates with a decent limitor of 'Operational Range'. This would allow for very rapid movement within your own nation, whilst seriously limiting foray's into unknown/enemy territory. It would also make combat much more strategic, as capturing of key cities and forts would become an important factor in how deep you can penetrate enemy territory.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Thanil.Bernetar said:
First of all I am grateful that in Civ4 AI players have to respect your borders or declare war. It is so annoying having all those foreign military units running through your empire all the time, and it is totally unrealistic
I agree! It's a very good solution and I think it should have been in Civ3. Maybe the new concepts being introduced to Civ3 blinded the development team in addressing this part of the game :)

Thanil.Bernetar said:
there should be an option to operationally transport any given unit to any other place under your control within one round
Railroads are infamous for it's unlimited movement so the 1-round transportation you're proposing is already there (it's just limited to land units having access to connecting rails) :)

Thanil.Bernetar said:
Instead of normally moving, you rightclick on your unit, select "operate" or "transport", you pay a certain price for this transportation, and then you choose a destination, where the unit has to be moved to. The unit can't move afterwards and is ready for action in the following round
How would you handle intercepting transporting units with this method? For example, at the moment, sea-transports carrying units could be sunk , effectively taking the ship and the units out of the game. There's also the Zone of Control feature to take into account as well as the terrain movement costs. Would you just take those into the cost factor? What's your definition of "cost"? In gold? A fixed value depending on the unit?

Aussie_Lurker said:
This would allow for very rapid movement within your own nation, whilst seriously limiting foray's into unknown/enemy territory
In Civ3, roads/rails in enemy territory couldn't be used without a Right of Passage agreement so the limitation was there - move fast in your territory, move slow in foreign territory :)
Still, I don't think it was enough of a limitation. Terrain movement costs should have doubled if inside enemy territory as well as roads/rails being ineffective. You can't just have your army ("army" being used as a generic term) strolling leisurely along enemy territory at regular pace. If anything, armies should be moving more carefully inside foreign territory, with or without roads/rails.

-Pacifist-
"Move, move, move!"
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
Well, I for one think that it would be easy to maintain gameplay balance if you combined greater overall movement rates with a decent limitor of 'Operational Range'. This would allow for very rapid movement within your own nation, whilst seriously limiting foray's into unknown/enemy territory. It would also make combat much more strategic, as capturing of key cities and forts would become an important factor in how deep you can penetrate enemy territory.

I think the normal movement rates are mostly okay. Only the sea units could be a little bit faster, to my mind. But I am not sure if I understand you right. But I will try to further shed light on what I tried to say in my first posting.

Pacifist said:
Railroads are infamous for it's unlimited movement so the 1-round transportation you're proposing is already there (it's just limited to land units having access to connecting rails) :)

Well, firstly railroads are only available in the endgame, and secondly this issue could be resolved by changing the underlying mechanics. You would have to discern between standard movement (like operating in the field) and a transportation round. Roads could - as before - triple your movement range, while railroads could multiply it by factor 5 or 6. But if you want unlimited movement in order to build up your armies in a certain (far away) place, you have to pay AND you can't attack in the same round as the movement takes place. It would be far more realistic, and it would open up new strategic possibilities.

Maybe - if it seems too powerful as a feature - it could be further restrained by the prerequisite of a "troop mobilization" (similar to the war-time mobilization possibility of "Nationalism"): if you want to be able to transport your units all over your nation, you have to disrupt your normal peacetime economy and therefore you get some economic penalties.

Pacifist said:
How would you handle intercepting transporting units with this method? For example, at the moment, sea-transports carrying units could be sunk , effectively taking the ship and the units out of the game.

Yesterday I read the "Big Vision" pdf file, and they suggested to insert trade routes into the game. For troop transports on the sea you could have several prerequisites:

- a harbour in both cities
- an established trade route
- the harbour must not be blocked by enemy vessels
- the trade route must not be blocked by enemy vessels

If the enemy blocks one of the connecting harbours, then you can't use this feature. And if the trade route is blocked, then it either doesn't work as well, or there is a certain chance, that the transported units get damaged or even lost. You get a warning beforehand, and then it is your decision to take the risk.

Pacifist said:
There's also the Zone of Control feature to take into account as well as the terrain movement costs. Would you just take those into the cost factor? What's your definition of "cost"? In gold? A fixed value depending on the unit?

As I wrote, I would only allow for this strategic movement, if there is an undisturbed connection between the starting and the ending point of the journey. Also it must not cross any enemy territory. Enemy units blocking a railroad connection or a road disallow the transportation, unless there is another way around. Zone of Control - for example an enemy fortress directly by the road/railroad - disallows for this feature as well.

I would also rule that you can't disembark on the open track. You need certain infrastructure to unload the transported units. Therefore you can only transport to friendly cities (but to cities of allies with Right of Passage/Military Pact as well).

The costs would be calculated by distance mainly. As it only works with roads and railroads, the terrain movement costs are unimportant. A road is a road, and a railroad is a railroad. You built it in the past exactly for this purpose - sometimes with great efforts (workers in mountains -> several rounds).

Pacifist said:
In Civ3, roads/rails in enemy territory couldn't be used without a Right of Passage agreement so the limitation was there - move fast in your territory, move slow in foreign territory :)

That's okay - in principle. But I would add this "strategic movement" feature anyway. I think it is part of several war-games (Hearts of Iron, Strategic Command, etc.pp.), and it works well. It's realistic and it is fun.

Pacifist said:
Still, I don't think it was enough of a limitation. Terrain movement costs should have doubled if inside enemy territory as well as roads/rails being ineffective. You can't just have your army ("army" being used as a generic term) strolling leisurely along enemy territory at regular pace. If anything, armies should be moving more carefully inside foreign territory, with or without roads/rails.

I don't agree on that point, because "normal" movement exactly reflects movement through the wilderness. Enemy territory is exactly like that, unless you get additionally under attack. Normal movement is no leisure at all. This is why units are so slow at normal pace.

I think what I am talking about is a lot like the airport transportation feature, only it should be available from the beginning, and much more complicated (several prerequisites), as well as more expensive. As described above.
 
I'm completely against this feature. I am strongly against anything which allows a unit to move anywhere that far in a single turn. I am for increasing movement rates in general but I feel it removes huge amounts of strategy when you can move a unit from one end of your empire to the other in a turn regardless of its combat capability at the end of the move. In fact the idea that movement in itself prevent combat on any given turn galls me when I think of how many battles are fought on the move or unexpectedly. (Significant example in US history: Gettysburg) Wars are not fought (in reality) with a movement phase and then an attack phase. Many times as the troops move they may encounter the enemy and engage or retreat or any number of things. I suppose thinking about the current system I can see a need for change, Railroads are overpowered, roads undervalued, infrastructure not totally addressed. When a change is made however, I'd like to see it done correctly and well.

As a side note: Considering the title of this post I would like to point the serious issues with peace treaties in the current system. Currently, when you capture a city it is yours unless your enemy recaptures it. This conquered territories are never addressed in peace treaties. This is not how it works in the real world. I would like to see a system implemented in which you did not recieve any territory at the end of the war except what is agreed to in the treaty itself.
 
when i first started playing civ 3 (some 4 years ago) i quickly got bored, because you dont have alot of control in the battles. For example- if u attack an enemies flank there dosnt seem to be any bonus, and if uve wiped out half an enemies armys there is no change in the agressiveness of ur opponent. As i started playing online i realised how much more complicated it is, but in pretty much any war with the AI except on deity it is a breeze. (Deity is just hard because on the 3rd turn everyone else has 29 cities and giant numbers of troops...and tanks)

Basically there needs to be more advanced effects. To what texan general said about gaining territories in war i agree with you- but the AI has to be more willing to give up cities. If you have invaded and captured 8 of there 11 cities it should be willing to give quite a bit of them too you. Also i am for the prospect of when u capture other cities in war you dont own them like other cities- but u occupuy them and they turn the color grey. An occupied city cannot become a reg city until its former owner recaptures it, or you negotiate for its ownership from its former owner. If you wipe out an opponent, you should have to deal with either setting up a "puppet" governement or annexing it, annexation taking a toll on ur world rep
 
Top Bottom