Military

[globalempire]

i like the no stacking, look at kurgans post above, you have to be tactical sort of.

 

[The Tollan]

Let's discuss. As you may have heard, Civ5 will be using hexagonal squares with a max of but one unit on each. So... how will this work? I heard it would add more to tactical thinking (that's for sure!). Say you had a few units of spearmen and archers.

The system sounds more tactical than existing Civ games and terrain appears to be more important than hitherto. Fortresses may be more significant as well. I anticipate that the new system is going to be substantially more interesting overall (although this is subjective) than the previous Civ combat systems. I consider Civ 4 to have much better than Civ 2 and Civ 3 (never played the first game in the series).

Will defensive bonuses be issued? I think it is a little bit ridiculous that forests give 50% defensive bonus to nearly any unit. A hill's 25% defensive bonus can be argued and could just stay. Also, it would be great if more strategic improvements could be added, other than just forts. I know that it would add even more to the tactical thinking of the game.

I think that many terrain types should have useful defense bonuses but not so high that they consistently give an excessive advantage to the defender. Hopefully a balance will be struck. Still, terrain differences and modifications are critical (doesn't have to only be defensive).

I agree that fortresses should be more useful than they have traditionally been. I did not find them to be very helpful in Civ 4 (I rarely have a no man's land for them) and didn't find them too great in Civ 2 either (although probably more useful in that game). I don't remember as much about them were in Civ 3 at the moment. I think that they might have been of some use in that game though.

In Civ 2, I mainly built fortresses inside enemy territory to protect stacks of my own units moving into the area (the awful one unit dies and the whole stack is destroyed problem in Civ 2 was part of the reason along with the defensive bonus).

I was also thinking about how silly the units "Axemen" and "Swordsmen" are. How can swordsmen be better at attacking cities? Actually, it is all explained here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=267256&highlight=learned+warfare
I think these guys would be best placed under a general "infantry" unit. It doesn't make sense that axemen destroy swordsmen so easily and that swordsmen have 10% extra strength while attacking someone inside of a city. Also should be removed is the Maceman unit. Aweful. How popular were macemen in Medieval warfare?

I strongly disagree with the idea of reducing the unit total and cutting variety. I think that unit variety is very crucial and a great aspect of Civilization 4. In my opinion, Civilization 4 is far, far beyond Civilization 2 and Civilization 3 in terms of unit types and unit balance. Which specific unit types should be in the game is an important debate but I will not attempt to address that in this post. I think that Civ 5 should have a least as many types of units per era as Civ 4 (though if the amount is increased it does not need to be by much).

The strengths and weaknesses of each unit are extremely important to giving the game spice, aesthetic appeal, and strengthening the entertainment value. The depth in Civilization 4 gives it a great advantage over its predecessors. A side note: I like how Marines and Paratroopers are so much more useful in Civ 4 than in Civ 3. I also like how there is nuance and subtly in the unit technological progression. There are many degrees of technological difference in Civ 4, which is great....

 

[nokmirt]

Let's discuss. As you may have heard, Civ5 will be using hexagonal squares with a max of but one unit on each. So... how will this work? I heard it would add more to tactical thinking (that's for sure!). Say you had a few units of spearmen and archers. Could some horse archers run up, kill the archers, and run away without the archers being aided by spearmen?

This happened to the Romans at the Battle of Carrhae against the Parthians in 53BCE. The Parthians had a distinct advantage because of the mobility of their horses. Being mad about it does not help, it is a fact that the Romans were soundly beaten. I guess it comes down to the fact that you should no your enemy and fight equally to his advantage. If he has horses so should you. It's simple and it's fair. The game should represent this honestly.

 

[mboettcher]

As far as having general infantry units I think it is an idea that is the step in the right direction but Why not take it the whole way? have all your forces organized into armies. We can have supply lines and what not restricting their sizes and mobility. It could be quite similar to several other major war simulators, total war series for example. You have certain weapon techs available for the types of infantry and Calvary u deploy in the army. The armies composition and techs would determine all of its stats and limits. Move speed, supplies needed, defensive abilities (can they build field fortifications..etc). Also tactical doctrines should be a series of techs available (with unique ones too like the Napoleonic Grand batteries or German Clauswitzian Mobile Warfare- more commonly and incorrectly known as blitzkrieg) Anyway a LOT can be talked about for cahnges to the combat system to make it more realistic and more fun but one must remember that it is increasingly difficult to program an AI to be able to handle Grand Strategy with out giving the Human player a huge advantage. However, if systems such as supply lines and watnot make it very difficult to rush and maintain control over distant territories until later eras then multiplayer might become more of a long term strategy game and less of 'who rushes to get a SOD more advanced than the other guy' crap.

@nokmirt

You have a point but the battle you quoted is a bad example. Yes Hannibal used his Numidian Calvary well but at Carrhae the Romans were defeated because Hannibal baited them to thrust all their strength into the middle where Hannibal intentionally had his weakest troops so as to draw the Romans into an envelopment by a pincer formation where Hannibal had his best troops on the wings to trap the Romans. The cavalry was used simply to ride to the rear of the Romans and prevent a successful withdrawal. The battle was basically won by his heavy infantry and his horses only made the victory more complete.

Now as far as Horses and cavalry is concerned, it is stupid that the archer unit would not be with the rest of the infantry. But building on the point, There is also a big misnomer in civ. Mounted units are way too effective. The only times in history that cavalry was actually a viable offensive first strike force was for Alexander (and only because of his brilliance and not the technology of the day) and the heavy horse of the middle ages. Otherwise cavalry was only useful for harassment, raids, killing fleeing enemies, flanking and backdooring and basically supporting the main thrust which came from infantry. Yes on mobile plains like in the middle east and the steppes the mobility of the horse archer was effective but only on such terrain and even still it offered no sustainable strength. And don't give me the Mongols crap because a) the mongols did deploy infantry en masse at times and b) the true strength of the mongols was not their battlefield proficiency but their strategic mobility (they could travel a long way very quickly for an army) and their siege craft ability. They won the vast majority of their battles as sieges and while impressive as a siege force were not an impressive battlefield force. They isolated their enemies and attacked isolated towns and villages.

Anyhow in a circuitous way this brings me to a major point about civ. If it is to be more realistic (that is if we want it to be. it doesn't necessarily have to be) then there needs to be mechanisms that make siege warfare the most important aspect of warfare until the gunpowder age is in full swing and it should still hold a great deal of value until basically the early 20th century where scale obsoletes/changes it to a degree.

 

[nokmirt]

As far as having general infantry units I think it is an idea that is the step in the right direction but Why not take it the whole way? have all your forces organized into armies. We can have supply lines and what not restricting their sizes and mobility. It could be quite similar to several other major war simulators, total war series for example. You have certain weapon techs available for the types of infantry and Calvary u deploy in the army. The armies composition and techs would determine all of its stats and limits. Move speed, supplies needed, defensive abilities (can they build field fortifications..etc). Also tactical doctrines should be a series of techs available (with unique ones too like the Napoleonic Grand batteries or German Clauswitzian Mobile Warfare- more commonly and incorrectly known as blitzkrieg) Anyway a LOT can be talked about for cahnges to the combat system to make it more realistic and more fun but one must remember that it is increasingly difficult to program an AI to be able to handle Grand Strategy with out giving the Human player a huge advantage. However, if systems such as supply lines and watnot make it very difficult to rush and maintain control over distant territories until later eras then multiplayer might become more of a long term strategy game and less of 'who rushes to get a SOD more advanced than the other guy' crap.

@nokmirt

You have a point but the battle you quoted is a bad example. Yes Hannibal used his Numidian Calvary well but at Carrhae the Romans were defeated because Hannibal baited them to thrust all their strength into the middle where Hannibal intentionally had his weakest troops so as to draw the Romans into an envelopment by a pincer formation where Hannibal had his best troops on the wings to trap the Romans. The cavalry was used simply to ride to the rear of the Romans and prevent a successful withdrawal. The battle was basically won by his heavy infantry and his horses only made the victory more complete.

Now as far as Horses and cavalry is concerned, it is stupid that the archer unit would not be with the rest of the infantry. But building on the point, There is also a big misnomer in civ. Mounted units are way too effective. The only times in history that cavalry was actually a viable offensive first strike force was for Alexander (and only because of his brilliance and not the technology of the day) and the heavy horse of the middle ages. Otherwise cavalry was only useful for harassment, raids, killing fleeing enemies, flanking and backdooring and basically supporting the main thrust which came from infantry. Yes on mobile plains like in the middle east and the steppes the mobility of the horse archer was effective but only on such terrain and even still it offered no sustainable strength. And don't give me the Mongols crap because a) the mongols did deploy infantry en masse at times and b) the true strength of the mongols was not their battlefield proficiency but their strategic mobility (they could travel a long way very quickly for an army) and their siege craft ability. They won the vast majority of their battles as sieges and while impressive as a siege force were not an impressive battlefield force. They isolated their enemies and attacked isolated towns and villages.

Anyhow in a circuitous way this brings me to a major point about civ. If it is to be more realistic (that is if we want it to be. it doesn't necessarily have to be) then there needs to be mechanisms that make siege warfare the most important aspect of warfare until the gunpowder age is in full swing and it should still hold a great deal of value until basically the early 20th century where scale obsoletes/changes it to a degree.

Umm sir, you are thinking of the Battle of Cannae. The Battle of Carrhae against Parthia is what I was speaking of, Hannibal Barca is dust in the wind by then.

 

[mboettcher]

my bad your right. Don't know why I misread that. Still that battle offers very little proof that of the effectiveness of horse archers as an offensive weapon. Crassus was stupid enough to march across a semi arid terrain and didn't stick to a route that would allow effective supply (ie. ports) and did not bring a diverse auxiliary force. Very few Roman causaluties were from getting 'shot down' by mobile horse archers but instead of being pinned down under shield by a very poor tactical and strategic decisions and being unable to maneuver. If, however, Crassus had moved along a much better planned route and had struck at the Parthians' center of supply and taken them through siege there would have been very little that the Parthians would've been able to do not having the strength to directly battle Roman forces.

edit: there was also treachery involved. Crassus' source of information was being paid by the other side and guided him into what was essentially an ambush.

 

[nokmirt]

my bad your right. Don't know why I misread that. Still that battle offers very little proof that of the effectiveness of horse archers as an offensive weapon. Crassus was stupid enough to march across a semi arid terrain and didn't stick to a route that would allow effective supply (ie. ports) and did not bring a diverse auxiliary force. Very few Roman causaluties were from getting 'shot down' by mobile horse archers but instead of being pinned down under shield by a very poor tactical and strategic decisions and being unable to maneuver. If, however, Crassus had moved along a much better planned route and had struck at the Parthians' center of supply and taken them through siege there would have been very little that the Parthians would've been able to do not having the strength to directly battle Roman forces.

edit: there was also treachery involved. Crassus' source of information was being paid by the other side and guided him into what was essentially an ambush.

Actually, yes he was very stupid and he went against the plan his generals came up with which was to have cavalry form the wings of the army. And yes, the casualties mounted when the Romans were in testudo formation and the Parthians assaulted with their cataphracts, causing heavy loss, and the Romans had no choice but to break formation.. The horse archers then came back into play harassing and intimidating Crassus's men. Crassus thought he could hold out until the enemy arrows were exhausted, but the horse archers were resupplied by camels. Crassus then sent Publius, his son, with 1300 cavalry to chase off the horse archers. Publius chased the horse archers and after taking heavy losses to arrow fire he was confronted by Parthian cataphracts. Then the horse archers cut him off from withdrawing. Publius's force was annihilated. Crassus realizing Publius was in trouble, but not knowing his fate ordered a general advance. He was confronted by Publius's head on a spear. The Roman army was then surrounded by the horse archers and charged into by the cataphracts, and by nightfall Crassus retreated back toward the town of Carrhae.

Horse soldiers would be effective against a force that has light cavalry or no cavalry. The added mobility makes it so. That's all I am saying. It gives them an advantage, but not in all situations, it depends on the terrain. If the Parthians were fighting the Romans at Thermopylae, in a bottleneck, the Parthians mobility advantage would have been lost, right? Terrain position, supply, and a very important thing, diversity of unit types, like you mentioned are very important to victory. Indeed these are the tools of victory. If you do not have the right tool to do the job you cannot do the job effectively. In this case, the battle was lost due to strategic and tactical errors in decision, as well as deceit from within the Roman army. But most of all the Roman command's decision to limit the mobility of the army in unknown enemy territory. The other thing the Romans should have known their enemy better. Always,always,always know your enemy.

The horse archer is meant to harass the enemy. Their job is not to win battles by themselves, but if you had enough of them and the enemy was not able to escape, well then they could win battles. They are a unit with a certain purpose. For the part they are supposed to play, they are a terrific offensive weapon. Look at the Mongols they were an army of well trained, very well trained horse archers. Speed and mobility were their allies. Would you not call the Mongol army an effective offensive weapon? The Mongols would surround a large army and decimate it. The killing would last for days, weeks, even months. Keep that in mind.

 

[mboettcher]

No you are right about the value of mobility that horse archers offer is certainly a useful tool. I just don't think it is so much the tactical mobility of horse archers that makes them particular useful but the strategic mobility part that makes them (and the mongols) a particularly dangerous force. There are just as many instances where light archers produced similar sort of pin down effects to allow heavier forces to move in as there are horse archer incidents. The terrain situation has to be so contrived for horse archers to even be an effective fighting force that they really shouldn't even be in the game. The Roman-Parthian wars are an excellent example. Despite the numerous terrain obstacles facing an invading army in the middle east, the Romans were consistently very successful (Crassus aside) in invading, sieging and conquering Parthian territory. The Romans pushed them back almost at will at times. It was only when the Roman resources and armies' attention was required elsewhere that the Parthians were able to time and again make up the ground they had lost when the Romans were able to pay any attention to the area. Its not entirely different than the modern American issues in the middle east.

To get back to Civ, the horse archer unit and the game mechanics themselves completely trivialize the value of siege warfare and fortifications (the Mongols true strength mind you. The whole set piece, Mongols riding around in arrow shooting circles battles were far more rare and less relevant) when in fact siege warfare is the most significant form of combat until massive Grand Fronts start to get established with Napoleon really and the Clausewitzian era style of warfare begins. I don't think you should be allowed to just bypass a fortified position. A fort should have some area of control. Trade routes and supply lines should run through the region and you should get economic benefits from being able to militarily control a region for a period of time and keep it safe for trade. There should be growth and development bonus for it as well.

In turn I think that in addition to be being a sliver closer to 'realistic' what ever that may mean, it would make the game a lot more fun as the whole 'manage the economy so you can build an army to take a few enemy cities with good resource tiles' wouldn't be such a rinse wash and repeat affair. There would be more diverse options and more benefits to taking a different route.

edit: also who doesn't want a war with fronts, battle lines and more strategic planning than just a bunch of units milling about. Perhaps now the Panzer will be a useful unit. After all they are supposed to represent the 'idealized' form of modern western military thinking, leadership and flexibility.

 

[nokmirt]

edit: also who doesn't want a war with fronts, battle lines and more strategic planning than just a bunch of units milling about. Perhaps now the Panzer will be a useful unit. After all they are supposed to represent the 'idealized' form of modern western military thinking, leadership and flexibility.

I agreeI think the new changes will bring about reforms in strategy. Also, it may help the ai be more intelligent, and realistic. For instance, I was playing a game as Italy in the 1860 AD Giant earth map mod. I took over Morrocco, and then all of the sudden China declares war on me. I thought to myself fine, they are a half a world away what can they do. Well in about 5 turns here comes 3 huge Chinese armies trouncing through North Africa, on the way to attack me in Morrocco. Geez what kind of strategy is that, why not just take out Rome. The whole thing is stupid and far fetched. China would never get the ok to stomp huge armies through everyone elses territory, and the logistics would be impossible. I have been play civ games so long, its just the kind of thing that happens. However, I would love to have a game where military plans are created with realistic military and economic goals in mind. Not just mindless hordes conquering cities thousands of miles from a friendly city, over a land route from Asia to North Africa. I wonder what the Romans would have done if they were suddenly invaded by three giant Chinese armies, out of the blue, coming out of the desert towards Alexandria. Lol, I would have loved to seen that. Especially if Julius Caesar was present.

Anyway, I hope Civ 5 takes some of these things into account. The game would be much left stressful. I mean think about it, you conquer Morrocco, and your thinking you don't have to defend it with all that much. Think again son, you forgot about the Chinese armies with about 60-70 total units bearing down on you. Has anyone else had a bad experience like this one? I am sure its pretty common.

 

[globalempire]

yah something like that happened to me too.

playing rise and fall. playing as germany. conquered france. and vikings. and tehm russians was moving in, so i conquered up to moscow. oh yah spain too. i think you know what i dont really need to defend the italian penninsula. i mean my only threat right now is arabs, and turks/ottomans. russians are in no postion to fight me.

well you dont say japan declares war a few turns later they waltz into to the italian penninsula through ottoman controlled eastern europe. yah a whole s*** load of them.

i just came out of three wars, in no position to fight, they take rome and plop their asses down on the sity. their like we no talk to you you loser. that is all tehy did. i took it back but it would be impossible to really march an army from japan to italy.

 

[nokmirt]

yah something like that happened to me too.

playing rise and fall. playing as germany. conquered france. and vikings. and tehm russians was moving in, so i conquered up to moscow. oh yah spain too. i think you know what i dont really need to defend the italian penninsula. i mean my only threat right now is arabs, and turks/ottomans. russians are in no postion to fight me.

well you dont say japan declares war a few turns later they waltz into to the italian penninsula through ottoman controlled eastern europe. yah a whole s*** load of them.

i just came out of three wars, in no position to fight, they take rome and plop their asses down on the sity. their like we no talk to you you loser. that is all tehy did. i took it back but it would be impossible to really march an army from japan to italy.

Exactly, it's really unbelieveable. Right now I am getting prepared to playtest my 1500 AD mod, and we'll see how that goes. I want to make a few changes add a couple more units, and change a few techs. Then I wonder who will invade me this time from the far east, it could be Japan. I am going to play as France, and try to get to North America first, and tame those heathen savages there.

Anyway, to get back on subject, I was wondering does anyone know how naval and air warfare will be in civ 5? I figured that would be a very good question.

 

[mboettcher]

Anyway, to get back on subject, I was wondering does anyone know how naval and air warfare will be in civ 5? I figured that would be a very good question.

Very good question. especially naval warfare. I want massive trireme fleet battles and some more enlightenment frigate battles. The only time I found these even remotely useful in Civ4 was when I was escorting a land army invasion (which was 90% of the time not even feasible with those techs and the better 'on continent' options that didnt involve building massive fleets) to another local. Again trade routes and the maritime shipping of supplies and what not would make naval warfare in all eras all but essential in many more situations. Think about fighting a WWII on the earth map in Civ4 as Germany. Would you spend a lot of time trying to dominate the Atlantic? Prolly not. It would be way easier to focus on building ground and air units and control the coasts and the Russians. If there were supply lines there would be a lot more incentive to focus on the navy as it could actually do something meaningful for the war effort.

edit: more valuable trade routes and perhaps even boosting the impact of unique resources so there is enough incentive to look for off continent options

 

[nokmirt]

Think about fighting a WWII on the earth map in Civ4 as Germany. Would you spend a lot of time trying to dominate the Atlantic? Prolly not. It would be way easier to focus on building ground and air units and control the coasts and the Russians. If there were supply lines there would be a lot more incentive to focus on the navy as it could actually do something meaningful for the war effort.

edit: more valuable trade routes and perhaps even boosting the impact of unique resources so there is enough incentive to look for off continent options

I was thinking if they change the rules for supply through maritime trade, then as Germany I would prolly need to build some u-boots or wolfpacks, if it was around WWI or II. I hope they do, remember the game Call to Power II, I believe it was had sea trade routes you could pirate or attack with ships/and or subs. Or it might have just been subs it's been some years from playing it, but they did have the right idea.

I also would like them to have supplies on ships that you actually transport, maybe I am getting a little ahead of things, but it would be interesting. Say your a blockade runner for the South during the American Civil War, and you are transporting cotton to say London through the Union blockade, to exchange that for say muskets, cannon, or gunpowder, or gold. And on the way you are trying to dodge Union picket ships. Wow, that really would be crazy, you could have some Confederate scout or lookout ships watching for the enemy. It would make the game so much more fun. They could make it that although a enemy ship is adjacent to your ship, does not necessarily mean you are spotted. That could be based on the experience of the enemies crew, a watch, or lookout rating, like the percentages you see for units in civ 4.

The important thing is to not have an over complicated game, and I think, from what I read that's what they are trying to do. You take out the things that do not work well and integrate new ideas, expanding those so everything fits with what you are trying to simulate, or accomplish.

Anyway, I cannot wait for a demo, and I wonder if my computer will even run it.

 

[kurtkage]

I also would like them to have supplies on ships that you actually transport

cIV:Colonization

That would be cool to make a modern times mod for it.

 

[fortydayweekend]

I also would like them to have supplies on ships that you actually transport

I always thought the best way to limit stacks would be by having to supply them - small stacks could live off the land (depending on terrain) and larger ones would need supply routes. If the stack was short of food it would suffer casualties.

I was thinking more of a line drawn to the nearest city, than actual wagons/ships etc (I hate moving stuff around unnecessarily) You'd have to protect your supply line, and the longer it was and the bigger the stack, the more expensive it'd be.

That way you'd:
- allow large stacks but limit them by putting a cost on them
- make long-distance invasions riskier and expensive
- add supply lines as a factor in offense & defense
- make deserts/jungle effective buffer zones
- allow a large army to live independently off farms... as long as it keeps moving and winning battles.. or else it'd starve
- reward splitting a large stack into smaller armies, that could then rejoin for major battles

They're going with 1UPT though which on the one hand seems awesome from a tactical decision-making POV... but on the other it just feels unrealistic. Just in terms of scale, there's no reason why a million soldiers shouldn't fit into a tile 200km square - but you would have had to think ahead about feeding 'em.

 

[globalempire]

its not baout the scaale.