Military doctrines

[Loppan Torkel]

What military doctrines should be available for research and what should the mechanics be for them? What kind of bonus should they give?

For example, these military doctrines could allow you to merge specific unit-types to take advantage of certain, historically developed tactics that you've researched. A sort of variant of armies..

 

[KrikkitTwo]

None...at best they should be researching certain units (Blitzkreig is part of researching tanks, etc.)

 

[Thormodr]

I really like the military doctrines in HOI3. I am not sure if you want much of that in ciV though. Maybe some general stuff but nothing too elaborate.

 

[luchofeio]

i wish civ had "sub tecs"
its so lame that when you discover tank it stays the same till the modern one...

 

[Ahriman]

If you want a whole bunch of different tanks, then play a mod aimed at that period of history. Don't try and put that level of detail into the game trying to simulate all of history.

I think doctrines are too detailed to be represented in this type of game. The best way to do anything like this I think is through some of the unique civ bonuses; eg England could have bonuses favoring a navy (maybe faster movement for ships?), mongols could have bonuses favoring mobile cavalry warfare, etc.

 

[luchofeio]

i try to put a level of detail anywhere i want to
i think it would be real great for those that like long games
in fast ones there is no point

 

[Desertsnow]

Even with computer technology whizzing upward as fast as it is, there will still be the compromise between scope and detail. Granted there may be some distinction between early and later types of a unit, but at this point including too many is still impractical for the six thousand years (or however much) of history to be covered by the basic game. Including a fuller gamut of disciplines or types can be done in a scenario geared toward a specific period of history in a specific theater, or maybe a specific type of war, but otherwise among the umpteen (or however many) civilizations across a whole world through what is effectively (for game purposes) the full span of human history is not feasible.

 

[sputnik323]

If you want a whole bunch of different tanks, then play a mod aimed at that period of history. Don't try and put that level of detail into the game trying to simulate all of history.

Seems like many people resort to all or nothing thinking when it comes to modern units. Just because someone would like more detail than 2 modern units doesn't mean they want every variant of tank ever made.

I would much rather slow down the speed of the modern era (maybe splitting it up more than previous versions of civ) and allow for a few generations of modern units. Maybe 4-5 generations (eg tanks/fighters/bombers - WWI, WWII, Cold war, Modern, Future Weapon systems).

In fact I would be for getting rid of a timeline all together. It only riles up people who like to argue over the scale of civ. Civ is about rewriting history, so if I make it to the middle ages 400 years before true history, why would it matter if more turns were given to modern times?

Wars becoming more tactical may end in more stalemates than previous civ game allowing for play well into the modern era.

 

[Ahriman]

Maybe 4-5 generations (eg tanks/fighters/bombers - WWI, WWII, Cold war, Modern, Future Weapon systems).

Why should we have 5 generations of 20th/21st century weapons tech, when we have only included 5 generations of pre-20th century weapons tech (ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, napoleonic)?

That kind of modern detail is better suited for mods than the main game.

How much difference is there really between 1980s "cold war" tech and "modern" tech? With a handful of exceptions (laser-guided bombs, drones) the tech is basically the same - particularly outside the US army.

why would it matter if more turns were given to modern times?

Because that isn't most of human history.

 

[Jamuka]

I could imagine a system where you could change military doctrine similar to civics. It wouldn't need to be complicated. For instance, one 'civic' may give you +10% power to naval units, +10% production of infantry, or +20% strength to ranged units.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a system similar to this is already in civ 5.

 

[sputnik323]

Why should we have 5 generations of 20th/21st century weapons tech, when we have only included 5 generations of pre-20th century weapons tech (ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, napoleonic)?

How much difference is there really between 1980s "cold war" tech and "modern" tech? With a handful of exceptions (laser-guided bombs, drones) the tech is basically the same - particularly outside the US army.

There is a lot of difference between Vietnam cold war tech and modern tech. Look at the persian gulf war. Iraq had the 8th largest army in the world and were battle hardened from a 10 year war before that and were decimated.

How much difference is there really between a guy with a club and a guy with a sword? The tech is basically the same. (there is more real world difference in tech between the cold war era to modern than club to sword) CiV is already revolutionizing many game mechanics... why stick to eras or "generations" of units and instead have a more dynamic flow of military over time?

Because that isn't most of human history.

Human history is already represented in civ as exponential rather than linear with turns going from hundreds of years to just a few years. Historical change is exponential where more change to culture, war, science, and tech in comparison to the last 250 years compared to all the history before combined. Why should historical time have more precedence than historical impact?

I hope the devs are more interested in creating good gameplay over tradition of old civ versions or realism. However, if making dynamic military advancement instead step-leap-bound advancement ruins gameplay - then keep the old way.

 

[Ahriman]

(there is more real world difference in tech between the cold war era to modern than club to sword)

If you're comparing a random tribesman in skins to a trained classical swordsman with armor and a shield, then I massively, massively disagree. Its relatively difficult to kill someone in a single blow with a club - and to do so you have to bring the club waaaay back to get a good swing, which leaves you very vulnerable to being skewered by a sword.

Similarly, an 1870 rifle is massively superior to an 1810 rifle, and similarly 1870 artillery piece vs 1810 cannon vs 1510 cannon, but we don't bother to separate them in-game.

A 1975 tank can still kill a 1990 tank.
Hell, when do you think most of the 1990 tanks were produced? Its not like every couple of years they rebuild the entire US army from scratch. A lot of the tanks they have now a pretty old; they maintain them, and they add a few extra technological things, but the core model is still the same.
The M1 Abrams started production in 1980 and is still being produced today, 30 years later - slightly different models, but still basically the same thing. And its scheduled to be in use until 2050 - 70 years!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

Also, don't judge the world by the US military, which far outclasses any other technologically. The Soviets kept pace in some areas (including tanks) for a while, and sometimes some of the European designs, but no-one else really did.

Human history is already represented in civ as exponential rather than linear with turns going from hundreds of years to just a few years.

Yes, but there's a limit to that. In Civ4 we basically had: ancient (chariot, archer, etc, roughly 1000 years), classical (spearman, swordsman, horse archer roughly 1000 years), medieval (knight, pikeman, maceman roughly 500 years), renaissance/enlightenment (musketman, curaisser 250 years), 19th century (rifleman, cannon, cavalry, 150 years), WW1 (infantry, artillery, machinegun, 30 years), ww2 (marine, tank, fighter, bomber, 30 years), modern (modern armor, jet fighter, mech inf, 30 years).
So we're already massively over-representing modern era, there's no need to shift the balance even more that way. Rather than differentiating between 1970s and 1990s, I'd prefer them to just add a ~2010-2050 future era.
The changes in warfare between 1970 and 2000 are really evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Its just incrementally better versions of the same units. Precision bombing and now unmanned drones are the only really "new" advances in warfare that hadn't been seen before. And cruise missiles, depending on which eras you're comparing.

 

[frekk]

Well, there are lots of minor doctrines that should never be in the game, but a few of the major ones could conceivably make an appearance. Some already have in previous iterations of the game (Mobile Warfare, for instance).

I would keep the list fairly short, though. Maybe no more than 2 ancient, 2 medieval/renaissance, and 2 modern or so. There's nothing terribly wrong with regarding the really major ones (for instance, Hutier tactics or Deep Battle/Mobile Warfare) as techs, which could unlock units or promotions.

 

[sputnik323]

Yes, but there's a limit to that. In Civ4 we basically had: ancient (chariot, archer, etc, roughly 1000 years), classical (spearman, swordsman, horse archer roughly 1000 years), medieval (knight, pikeman, maceman roughly 500 years), renaissance/enlightenment (musketman, curaisser 250 years), 19th century (rifleman, cannon, cavalry, 150 years), WW1 (infantry, artillery, machinegun, 30 years), ww2 (marine, tank, fighter, bomber, 30 years), modern (modern armor, jet fighter, mech inf, 30 years).

Yes, but why should we accept the limit that is already in place? Now Im not suggesting that we have 300 different units, or even match the complexity of many mods. But what is keeping the game in the tradition you suggest above? Why couldn't there be more diversity in every age (while at the same time not going overboard like some mods).

 

[Ahriman]

Why couldn't there be more diversity in every age

Because that makes the game too congested and cluttered, IMO. If you were going to have 5 20th century eras, then I would imagine we'd have to have ACW/Franco-Prussian, Napoleonic, 7 years war/18th century, 30 years war/English Civil War, Renaissance/Elizabethan/armada/exploration, late medieval (100 years war), early medieval/crusades, Dark Ages/Charlemagne, Late Roman Empire/byzantine, Early Rome/Hellenic world, Ancient. At a minimum, 16 eras. Too cluttered.

I like a bunch of the mods that add more detail (eg Rise of Mankind) but I think that's appropriate for mods, not the main game.

 

[frekk]

The M1 Abrams started production in 1980 and is still being produced today, 30 years later - slightly different models, but still basically the same thing. And its scheduled to be in use until 2050 - 70 years!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

Yes, or look at the B-52. In use since 1955, and will not be replaced until 2037. That's over 80 years.

So we're already massively over-representing modern era, there's no need to shift the balance even more that way. Rather than differentiating between 1970s and 1990s, I'd prefer them to just add a ~2010-2050 future era.

Instead of adding an era, I'd rather they just flesh out some eras a little better. Particularly the renaissance/early modern period.

The changes in warfare between 1970 and 2000 are really evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Its just incrementally better versions of the same units. Precision bombing and now unmanned drones are the only really "new" advances in warfare that hadn't been seen before.

Can't entirely agree here. Command and control has been vastly revolutionized by advances in computing and communication technology. Computer advances have also revolutionized all forms of fire control - counterbattery fire, air defence systems, everything. It's even allowed for missiles that can intercept other missiles and man-portable anti-aircraft weapons like the Stinger.

 

[sputnik323]

Because that makes the game too congested and cluttered, IMO. If you were going to have 5 20th century eras, then I would imagine we'd have to have ACW/Franco-Prussian, Napoleonic, 7 years war/18th century, 30 years war/English Civil War, Renaissance/Elizabethan/armada/exploration, late medieval (100 years war), early medieval/crusades, Dark Ages/Charlemagne, Late Roman Empire/byzantine, Early Rome/Hellenic world, Ancient. At a minimum, 16 eras. Too cluttered.

I like a bunch of the mods that add more detail (eg Rise of Mankind) but I think that's appropriate for mods, not the main game.

You are right... adding in too much would make it too cluttered and is better for mods and I have been careful to mention that... However, again, without going too extreme, mods indicate that things could be more fleshed out and more diverse in the main game than sticking to overly simplified military paper, rock, scissors of past civ games.

 

[Magma]

Personally I always liked the ancient, classical and medieval eras more than the rest. I would like them to be fleshed out to the detail of the modern era, but problem is - whatever we invest in one era is lost in another. They do not have unlimited time and resources to make this game. Five 20th century eras will also get boring as hell.

 

[globalempire]

Seems like many people resort to all or nothing thinking when it comes to modern units. Just because someone would like more detail than 2 modern units doesn't mean they want every variant of tank ever made.

I would much rather slow down the speed of the modern era (maybe splitting it up more than previous versions of civ) and allow for a few generations of modern units. Maybe 4-5 generations (eg tanks/fighters/bombers - WWI, WWII, Cold war, Modern, Future Weapon systems).

In fact I would be for getting rid of a timeline all together. It only riles up people who like to argue over the scale of civ. Civ is about rewriting history, so if I make it to the middle ages 400 years before true history, why would it matter if more turns were given to modern times?

Wars becoming more tactical may end in more stalemates than previous civ game allowing for play well into the modern era.

cold war tanks are practically modern, most have just been refurbished and upgraded in a few places to "modernize them" but yah i agree, modern is way to quick

 

[globalempire]

lets stay on the topics of military doctrines. they could be the sixth set of civics.????