Multi-Unit battles

[Barker]

It would be great for battles to be more strategic than just bombrading with artillery and then attacking with elites etc. It would be great to have a battle sequence instead.

A player would select from available units to attack a destination (city or land tile), and then the enemy would have a chance to allocate defending units to the battle. Once all units have been decided, the battle screen opens with a 3-D layout of terrain and army positions. If anyone played Romance of the 3 Kingdoms games, the battle sequence could be similar to this, with better graphics of course!!!

The surviving attacking units could not be used to defend in the enemies turn, nor can the enemy surviving defending units attack during the enemy turn. Fast units will have the option to retreat, and attackers have the option to chase and destroy fleeing units.

Although this would add additional strategy elements to the game, I think it would be a whole lot of fun. Imagine recreating famous historical battles.... sending your cavalry to flank the enemy positions and take out their archers. Instead of multiple 1-on-1 battles, you would have many-vs-many battles. Great leaders, instead of having additional units for more hp could have abilities that increase attack strength... or improve bombard accuracy... the options are limitless.

 

[maddman75]

Maybe, though you risk getting too specialized. Civ is about the macro, running your empire through the ages, not the details of each battle. I mean honestly if I'm in the mood for that I've got my Warcraft III shortcut right next to Civ .

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Well, this kind of thing has been used brilliantly in the Total War series, and it would be interesting, still I'm not sure it's a good idea.

 

[Barker]

I agree that it adds alot of detail... but you could always have an automate battle button and let the AI do it for you

 

[c-mattio]

But surely one function of macromanagement is formation of large armies (with infantry, cavalry and artillery detachments) and being able to send them where you want. I think a more army based, than unit based military would be better as that is more realistic.

 

[sampedestal]

HECK YES. my support to barker's idea. though i posted a similar one some weeks ago, this pretty much trumps it. this kind of combat should be optional, as warrior vs. barbarian archer fights get old even with the old combat system, and the AI should be very, very good, so that it isn't advantagous to play out the fight than let it play itself out. strategy should be favored over tactical combat, but u've pretty much covered that.

 

[Dease]

I had thought of this idea a looooooong time ago whern I was new to civ3, I wanted to show that spearman that he is nothing compared to my MODERN ARMOUR!!! I wanted to reenact historical battles, and have fantasy battles. That said, I now am against this idea, system req would be too high, games would take a year to complete, and it just wouldn't be CIV!!!

 

[Barker]

I don't think I would want to buy Civ 4 if it was the same as Civ 1-3 with a few minor tweaks and better graphics.. maybe adding a new concept as Civ3 did with culture.

I want the Civilization concept (turn-based.. I hate RTS) with some really unique ideas. I want a nice 3-D world with less cities. I want to see farms appear on my land between my cities as time goes on. I want to be able to discover an iron deposit in the hills and create a mining complex there that may one day grow into a city. And when that mine runs dry, the town that sprang up may become a ghost town.

I want epic battles against my enemies where I can use real strategy and tactics to win. I want to set ambushes for my foes, send a fire boat against the enemy fleet. I actually want quite a bit, really... I want to be impressed.

I have bought all the Civ games and expansions. I consider myself a true fanatic. But I really want to be impressed with the next iteration... if it is Civ3 with a twist, I wont bother to buy it... there are alot of other good games that I could be playing.

 

[IBARRUTI]

too specialized, but battle sistem needs some better choice

 

[Mgoering]

Battles is without a doubt the one thing that HAS to be improved !!!

Like Barker said, I also wouldn't buy Civ4 without an improvement in this direction. There are certainly a lot of different ways to imagine battles. The most important thing is to reconsider the concept of a city. I really don't think, even in ancient times, that an army would stay in the center of the city. There are and were surveillance in the surounding of the city. So, il an army (or unit) attacks on a tale which is in the city's area, your units should be defending. In this order, Barker's concept and idea is very good, if not excellent.

 

[sampedestal]

I want the Civilization concept (turn-based.. I hate RTS)

well, now u've confused me. what kind of a battle system do u want? a turn-based epic battle? that would mean a wargame, and wargames r very, very long. not to mention that they can't and don't portray the confusion of ancient/medieval battles.
if the new 3D perspective and whatnot is implented, i would be very very impressed indeed. to those who r worried about system requirements: when the game comes out several years from now, we'll be ready.