New way to do war

[PanMatej]

I beleive we should rebuild the war system all over, make it more realistic relatively to the era.
For instance, in the early ages, make it less brutal and slower. Make siege possible and also the easiest way to capture a city, even if much more slower than simply attacking it.
Latter in the game, the pace gets much faster and brutal. The units are much more stronger and they simply capture cities, no more need for siege. Make it easy to invade a country and defeat it, but hard to maintain it under ur control (ie: ussr in afganistan and usa in iraq).

I have already started this topic before in the strategy section. Hope u guys like this idea.

 

[t3h_m013]

i also think some form of fighting unlike sod should be created. sod just dont exist in the modern era

 

[socralynnek]

Hey, sounds good, not because of the history, but it gives the game a little more strategical depth, at least siege should be implemented.

 

[Bibor]

Since units have no need for logistics in civ 3 (they can even "heal" in neutral, after Battlefield medicine, evein in foreign terrain) i cant see any good for a siege, except if the city would surrender itself totally after X turns.

As for sieges, they were "popular" even in modern times (Stalingrad, Berlin, Leningrad... you name it) with the main reason cutting off enemy supply lines to those in siege.

Why wars in acient eras were fought either on open terrain and not in cities? First of all, cities didn't have 10 million inhabitants (except maybe Rome at peak of its power) and cities could rarely afford city walls that could resist siege for long. But then again, not many attacking forces could afford siege engines to haul zillion miles from home.

 

[socralynnek]

I think in a siege, there would be a x% chance each turn of the defender surrendering, depending on unit strength, food supply etc. which gives the attacked Civ the chance to send reinforcements that attack the attacker.
And yes, this would only really work with supply lines and such. But I think it's a nice idea!

 

[Colonel]

i have to point this out the first poster said less brutal early on and more brutul later, have u ever read a history book wars back in ancient days would take years killing thousands and hundreds of thousands a battle would last a day or a month and then they would run at each other and hack eachother to pieces and the last one standing, however look at todays war a battle at its longest maybe 3 hours tops most of the time one side surrenders fairly quickly and if not one side is extemely over powered so the others arent a match, but other than i like the rest of the idea just not that phase

 

[PeteAtoms]

I think that when two units or stacks engage in combat on screen that they should do a zoom effect onto the tile where the battle takes place (like Lords of the Realm, or Lords of Magic, or Age of WOnders II, etc...) then you would be able to control your troops with specific orders and using the siege weapons: how could you do that on the overland map (maybe just give a bonus when attacking fortifications/cities?) but this way theirs more strategy involved with the war, or u could choose to AutoCalc the battles...like i usually do

 

[Elgalad]

Hey, I LOVE tactical combat! Great suggestion, Pete!

I know the diehards will hate it of course, but make it optional in the game settings when you're creating your world.

-E

 

[BlueNine]

I think a good way to recreate seige would be that every square an enemy unit is on cannot be used by the city to simulate the cutting off of supply etc so the city would starve out

 

[WoodenTaco]

Why not bring back zones of control for all units? it made combat much more tactical, as you would try to trap the enemy. Alternatively, you could provide bonuses from attacking from a flank or the rear.

 

[bob rulz]

I think that when two units or stacks engage in combat on screen that they should do a zoom effect onto the tile where the battle takes place (like Lords of the Realm, or Lords of Magic, or Age of WOnders II, etc...) then you would be able to control your troops with specific orders and using the siege weapons: how could you do that on the overland map (maybe just give a bonus when attacking fortifications/cities?) but this way theirs more strategy involved with the war, or u could choose to AutoCalc the battles...like i usually do

It could be implemented properly, but this isn't an RTS, so it will never happen.

 

[croxis]

If I wanted a RTS in Civ, I would play Rise OF Nations. Part of the reason why I love civ is that it gives me time to think about what I want to do, play around with micromanagement when I want to, plot out my tech path, with out having to worry about being over run. Its better to have one great game than two good games iside that box you buy.

 

[MeatWad]

You can already lay seige to a city. Just surround it, or destroy it's infrastructure by pillaging improvements. What doesn't happen is surrender. THAT is a good idea. Some variable for number of occupied squares vs. strength/number of defending units, or maybe rapidity of starvation affecting surrender probablility.

 

[Midnight Piper]

As for sieges, they were "popular" even in modern times (Stalingrad, Berlin, Leningrad... you name it) with the main reason cutting off enemy supply lines to those in siege.

Seems to me that the best way to handle a siege woould be to cap the number of 'rounds' (enemy uses move to attack me starting the first round, my units defends - lose 1 hp, he attacks (rnd 2), I defend, et al) a unit can go depending on supply lines - open lines allows a unit to attack or return fire as often as it can move or stand. A siege could cut that back, make a unit stand there and take hits without any chance of responding after 5,3, or 1 'round' of combat - depending on thew length of the siege.

I think that when two units or stacks engage in combat on screen that they should do a zoom effect onto the tile where the battle takes place

While I despise the idea of Civ going rts (suggested elsewhere), I wouldn't mind a realtime tactical screen option, where I could control a battle. Thought for a while that a fun game would be Civ Strategy with Total War Tactical screens

 

[The Last Conformist]

No RTS, no tactical combat. I've repeated the arguments ad nauseam, so I won't do it again here.

Implementing sieges sensibly would require a big change in the combat system, which I much doubt we're gonna see; it would be throwing out too much civ legacy. And given the time-scale of the game, why not imagine than an "immediate" attack includes a siege? Early on, each turn represents decades.

If you've got any specific ideas of how to implement sieges, I'd love to hear.

 

[Mewtarthio]

Maybe a penalty to the defender if the city is not connected to the trade network and/or is completely surrounded. And of course enemy units should block off citizens working tiles! What are they doing right now, working that mine REEEAAALLLLY quietly under cover of darkness?

 

[EddyG17]

Isn't seige the easiet way to capture a city even today?
Easy it is but, it takes time.

anyways, there is no need to expand the zoom feature to simulate units attacking a flank or the rear, all there is to do is just add abonus to it. there is one problem, when you load a saved game all your units face SE.

 

[croxis]

like someone said, you can already seige cities. And the nice thing about the current model is that you can do it in a variety of ways!

 

[MeatWad]

Maybe a penalty to the defender if the city is not connected to the trade network and/or is completely surrounded. And of course enemy units should block off citizens working tiles! What are they doing right now, working that mine REEEAAALLLLY quietly under cover of darkness?

Enemy units DO prevent your citizens from working city squares. Sounds like seige to me. And if all roads/rail connecting a beseiged city to it's empire are destroyed, your military production is drastically affected. So long Swordman, hello Spearman. The penalty comes from not kicking the crap out of any invaders before they can put you to the screws like that. HOMELAND SECURITY!!!

 

[sealman]

Hey, I LOVE tactical combat! Great suggestion, Pete!

I know the diehards will hate it of course, but make it optional in the game settings when you're creating your world.

-E

We are not die hards but purists. Anything that alters the fundamental foundation of the CIV series is bad... including real time game play. That system rewards the quick over the "reflex challenged".

There are a number of games already on the market had does similar stuff and CIV should be focused on what CIV does best, not wasting resources tapping into the RTS field.

However, I do like the idea of cities surrendering when faced with overwhelming force.