New Combat

I personally think that adding combat realism to the game would indeed be awesome, but I think honestly I wouldn't use it after a while, and would automate the battles as I have done with the Total War series. I do like to take control of crucial battles, or when I am out numbered, but I think this would unbalance the game to the players advantage.

I like that Combat Mod idea, although I am sure it has its weaknesses, and if people were to criticize it, there would be new complaints on how it should work. For me -- I would like the multi player to be enhanced somehow. It would be nice to have the turn-base turn into a timer for example.
 
I'll abandon my 'AI will be lame at Zoom-In Mode Battles' (since they could make it work...I was just venting my frustration at the current AI ineptitude) and go with a new line. This sort of thing doesn't belong in civ! Age of Empires, the Total War series, etc. - they've been all about the tactical decisions on the battlefield. Civilization, however, has always focused on grand strategy - with warfare only being a facet, not the focus, of the game. I'll talk about the grand tradition we inherited from Civ I and II as I wave my cane and rant on about the good old days when the concept of borders didn't exist :old: .
 
^
Hear, hear!
_____

Dale's mod is actually has a great concept. It doesn't give you control over the units, but it makes combat a lot more tactical (thus realistic), if you catch my drift.

The only problem is that it doesn't work with Warlords v2.08. :cry:
 
Zoom in: No.
Take tactical control: No.

Modify battles somehow: Yes perhaps.

I've played every civ since the beginning, and battles HAVE improved without taking away what is Civ. Still, fighting IS a weak point for the series. It might be nice to modify battles somehow. But as some has already stated, in order to make it work, it can't be a drastic change. Battles ought to be quick and easy. If they were Total War-ish, then the game wouldn't be the same, apart from taking forever to play. Still there might be improvements, especially in combining units, using terrain, coordinated attacks and so on.
 
eh....
civ is ALL about warfare. How many military units are in the game? How many non-military? In single player or MP what is the most common type of victory? (It aint cultural) There are other facets to the game, but seriously, the battles need to be improved. Point... click. Point... click. Rinse and repeat over and over again. Which would be alright except for the times you are under attack from Alex, Monty and Isabella. For the third time. This game.

If it really is only supposed to be a small part of the game, then can Sid et al not make it less dull? If you are NOT supposed to be a military leader then why do you have personal command over the troops? Why dont your generals come up to you and say 'Yeah, we know you declared war on India there, but we're not moving any of our troops all the way across the planet to invade. Screw you, Mr President, but we are the military, not you.' Because YOU are the military command, according to the game. So to say that you should not have any control of the army's tactics, is a wee bit silly. This is what so many people find frustrating (IMHO).

Civ is still evolving. To all those who say 'thats not civ', well, you are not under any obligation to keep purchasing the series, or any of the xpacs. Keep playing Civiv Warlords, and you have the perfect game FOR YOU. The rest of us will keep waiting for the game which has everything, and I think Civ is nearly there. I imagine the people at Firaxis know this, and I would think that the battles in Civ V will be a huge improvement on Civiv. (Its probably a bit much to hope that Sword will improve things a lot)

Pawna.
 
^
The point-and-click thing worked for many games of all genres, and it will work with Civ! Honestly, can you play Half-Life 2 without pointing and clicking? Starcraft? Nay!
 
Back
Top Bottom