LumpenProle
Chieftain
If you want strategy that does not involve clicking the fastest (like RTS) and if you want better war strategy and AI that can kick your ass play chess. Civ is for the masses, chess is for masterminds like you.
No Room for Combat Strategy - With Civ You Meet Rock-Em Sock-Em Robots, High-Tech
- Thread starter acd
- Start date
Volstag
Chairman of the Bored
Chieftess said:
Aye, I don't necessarily want to see an increase in micro-management. I think a "supply system" could be easily incorporated. As long as your armies are within X distance of a supply source (e.g. friendly city) they operate as normal. However, as their distance from X increases, their overall combat ability will diminish correspondingly. If the distance increases enough, or their source of supply is removed, the army dissipates into nothingness.
I don't even know why I talk about it -- I'm sure the core mechanics of Civ IV are already well in place.
-V
Volstag
Chairman of the Bored
sir_schwick said:
Amen to that. The Combat Mission series is, arguably, the definitive treatment of WWII tactical combat (coincidentally, CM is a turn based wargame).
I don't necessarily want Civ to turn into a wargame. I do, however, want to see more realism attached to military campaigns, primarily because the military solution, in Civ III, is an almost guaranteed panacea almost all the time. In short: success through warfare is way too easy as currently implemented.
-V
And more... I don't know where any of you get the idea it isn't a wargame. Obviously it is. The latest module is called CONQUEST for petes sake - and THERE ARE BATTLES. Micromanagement is what is removed from wargames by AI. None of the the things discussed ZONES of CONTROL for SUPPLY etc. cause micromanagment.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
It's called conquests because it includes a bunch of scenarios that are various conquests.
The game will hopefully improve on more than just the war aspects. The war aspects are something that any game can pull off. Civ's strength is its diversity, and it should seek to improve and balance its flexible gameplay.
The game will hopefully improve on more than just the war aspects. The war aspects are something that any game can pull off. Civ's strength is its diversity, and it should seek to improve and balance its flexible gameplay.
Are you all trying to depress me? Lets split hairs just to ARGUE. Did I not say a wargame AND MORE? They need to get the warfare right and it will be fine in most of its dimensions short of improving the AI's personality and strategic planning capabilities. Again, a cmputer that makes 90,000 gajillion armor units - stacks them all in one spot - BLAT- in the middle of your country - blowing them em up - AND DOING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN - is not at all enjoyable (unless you ride a tricycle,that is).
I agree that the wargame element of Civ should be given more depth with strategic considerations such as logistics, morale, and combined arms.
I would also like to see more restricted production capacity in cities - i.e. cities need specialist facilities to produce units and these should be limited e.g. how many cities in the real world are capable of producing a stealth bomber or an aircraft carrier?
I would also like to see a greater role for naval combat (e.g. trade blockades) and sieges (should be able to starve and terrorise cities into submission) and terrain barriers should be given more strategic importance (Rhye's modpack does a good job at this - more of the same would be good).
Occupying cities should also be far more difficult - in the real world occupying a city with a hostile population is a serious problem.
However I would like to see increased complexity with NO MORE micromanagement in ALL areas of the game - the 2 are not contradictory, just let the AI do the bean counting and leave the strategy (both military and development) to the player.
Don't get too depressed because the developers are looking into improving these areas for the next one so hopefully it will be a significant improvement.
I would also like to see more restricted production capacity in cities - i.e. cities need specialist facilities to produce units and these should be limited e.g. how many cities in the real world are capable of producing a stealth bomber or an aircraft carrier?
I would also like to see a greater role for naval combat (e.g. trade blockades) and sieges (should be able to starve and terrorise cities into submission) and terrain barriers should be given more strategic importance (Rhye's modpack does a good job at this - more of the same would be good).
Occupying cities should also be far more difficult - in the real world occupying a city with a hostile population is a serious problem.
However I would like to see increased complexity with NO MORE micromanagement in ALL areas of the game - the 2 are not contradictory, just let the AI do the bean counting and leave the strategy (both military and development) to the player.
Don't get too depressed because the developers are looking into improving these areas for the next one so hopefully it will be a significant improvement.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
acd said:
Well, I have won quite a few games without really going to war. My favortie victory condition is cultural. I woould say that war is a part of the game and it should be de-emphasized in future installments. It was always the cheap way out to victory, IMNSHO.
I contend that if you have to worry about ZOCs, supply, logistics, and morale (even if the computer is doing the bookkeeping) your managment level will go up. There will be more things to keep track of.
There will be a certain number of people who will obsess on the perfect ZOC overlap pattern and supply chain (you know who you are) and publish strategies using this (again you know who you are) thereby increasing micromanagement immensely as you are forced to adopt these techniques to remain competitive.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I still maintain that for all the emphasis on diversifying Civ's game play, there are some "cheap" things you can do to improve combat.
Logistics and Zone of Control are probably just asking for a whole new layer of complexity.
Phased turns could improve it, though, if things are divided into a building phase, a movement phase and a combat phase. And without adding much in the way of complexity. Quite the contrary, when you can't move, build, and fight at the same time, your turns might actually become shorter AND more strategic.
Logistics and Zone of Control are probably just asking for a whole new layer of complexity.
Phased turns could improve it, though, if things are divided into a building phase, a movement phase and a combat phase. And without adding much in the way of complexity. Quite the contrary, when you can't move, build, and fight at the same time, your turns might actually become shorter AND more strategic.
Warpstorm, when you say de-emphasise war - do you mean make more simplistic or reduce it's effectiveness as a path to victory?
If you mean the latter I totally agree because building an empire should come with a cost in that you need to manage and control conquered areas that are going to be less co-operative and enthusiastic and they may try to break away from the empire. There are also a range of other challenges such as national identity and world opinion etc.
If you mean to simplify the warfare tactics I couldn't disagree more - it would be like lobotomising one of the core aspects of the game. The existing system needs to be built upon and developed (as it was from civ 2 to civ 3).
When I refer to such things as sieges, naval blockades, morale, logistics etc I don't want some horribly complicated system that requires constant observation and involvement but I do want nice, simple mechanisms that open up new strategies. I will briefly refer to some examples and easy methods of implementation that won't cause anyone any headaches but will add to the depth of the game:
Sieges:
Successfully, surround a city with units and ZOC for X turns then city surrenders and is captured - simple.
Strategic implications of land barriers:
I refer you to Rhye's first class mod pack for inspiration.
Logistics:
Units must stay within X tiles of city/ colony/ ship - this distance will increase with communications techs - again very straight forward.
Naval blockades:
If a hostile ship is in a city's water tiles - that city cannot work ANY water tiles and that city's harbour does not act as a trade link - again this does not require any great thought from the player.
Production Restrictions:
The more specialist units require require city imrovements in order to build them and these city improvements will have minimum population requirements before they can be built - this is more strategic and realistic as it restricts the best units and forces the civs to also use the weaker units - I'm not saying go overboard and apply this to all units, just the overly effective ones (you know which units I'm talking about).
Morale:
If a unit spends X turns in enemy territory it loses a hit point - the length of time without detriment increases with communications techs - again, this isn't complicated.
I hope that I have illustrated to you that added strategic considerations does not necessarily mean added micro-management headaches
If you mean the latter I totally agree because building an empire should come with a cost in that you need to manage and control conquered areas that are going to be less co-operative and enthusiastic and they may try to break away from the empire. There are also a range of other challenges such as national identity and world opinion etc.
If you mean to simplify the warfare tactics I couldn't disagree more - it would be like lobotomising one of the core aspects of the game. The existing system needs to be built upon and developed (as it was from civ 2 to civ 3).
When I refer to such things as sieges, naval blockades, morale, logistics etc I don't want some horribly complicated system that requires constant observation and involvement but I do want nice, simple mechanisms that open up new strategies. I will briefly refer to some examples and easy methods of implementation that won't cause anyone any headaches but will add to the depth of the game:
Sieges:
Successfully, surround a city with units and ZOC for X turns then city surrenders and is captured - simple.
Strategic implications of land barriers:
I refer you to Rhye's first class mod pack for inspiration.
Logistics:
Units must stay within X tiles of city/ colony/ ship - this distance will increase with communications techs - again very straight forward.
Naval blockades:
If a hostile ship is in a city's water tiles - that city cannot work ANY water tiles and that city's harbour does not act as a trade link - again this does not require any great thought from the player.
Production Restrictions:
The more specialist units require require city imrovements in order to build them and these city improvements will have minimum population requirements before they can be built - this is more strategic and realistic as it restricts the best units and forces the civs to also use the weaker units - I'm not saying go overboard and apply this to all units, just the overly effective ones (you know which units I'm talking about).
Morale:
If a unit spends X turns in enemy territory it loses a hit point - the length of time without detriment increases with communications techs - again, this isn't complicated.
I hope that I have illustrated to you that added strategic considerations does not necessarily mean added micro-management headaches
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Winston said:
I meant reduce it's effectiveness as a path to victory
DH - YES, zones of control for purposes of SUPPLY would be adding a whole new layer of complexity for THE COMPUTER PROGRAMMER. If you are cut off - SURROUNDED - you are out of supply and your strength and movement is cut in half (if you can move more than 1 as it pertains to movement). Pretty simple for the player, huh?
I agree with you Winston that cities surrounded and under seige for prolonged periods of time would collapse with regard to their INDUSTRY and their ability to provide an increase to the defense of its garrison, but there would have to be variants. The larger the city, the longer it survives. Also, take into consideration the scenario of Leningrad during WW2. There was air supply and sea supply, and although both very limited, the citizens managed to hold out for over a year.
STACKING. There has to be a cut-off point. Where I don't know, but there must be one SOMEWHERE. The STACK of DOOM concept, unchecked by reason, is - well, pedestrian.
TIME - Technology development controls the rate of time - Players acitivites modulate it.
Exception - the rare but few trumping exceptions to the rulership of Tech-time. 100-50-10-5 and 1 year turns unless there is war. Peace time movement/activity and production are always gauged at 1 year turn intervals wherever they are in history. The however rare, yet plausible situation, entailing no ground movement/activity combined with no production causes a switch to 5 year intervals. After 5 turns at 5 year intervals, the AI switches to 10 year intervals. After 5 x 10 year intervals, the AI switches to 50 years and so on maxed at 100.
Warfare - When a war starts great wonders unrelated to war cant be produced by the warring countries, turns are switched to 3 months for all players and the production time for anything UNRELATED to warfare, minus a few possible exceptions, is multiplied by 4, and remains so until peace is resumed.
Given the above, time would almost ALWAYS be moving very VERY slow initially until the the settlement activity is out of the way. Much of Tech would be out of sight, so that is where standardized city production and time management comes in. It would require a whole new interface for the player, but would work very simply. The time stream would always be reaching for the upper limit of 100 years whenever possible. But, the fundamental control to time is the development of technology. Technology is merged into the primary interface for management of ones nation, know as a master control screen - and is where the player spends most of his or her time - instead of gazing at a map - unless the player chooses to. On the main control screen is a minimap of all of land and inventory of the player cities. The player sets up all city production from there, unless he chooses to switch to micromanaged production through each individual city (as it is now). The player instructs his nation to build x amount of troops, tells it to place them ih whatever city or cities countryside/or border frontier - tells his cities to build whatever developments across the board - All within a Time Block gauged by Technology. Im Iron-age for example. I can only build certain things and all of those things will be built across the board wherever I generally or specifically want them built during the time it takes me to reach the next level of Technology.
At least thats how I would generally handle what I consider to be the second biggest problem with CIV next to its combat system - its **** up time system.
I agree with you Winston that cities surrounded and under seige for prolonged periods of time would collapse with regard to their INDUSTRY and their ability to provide an increase to the defense of its garrison, but there would have to be variants. The larger the city, the longer it survives. Also, take into consideration the scenario of Leningrad during WW2. There was air supply and sea supply, and although both very limited, the citizens managed to hold out for over a year.
STACKING. There has to be a cut-off point. Where I don't know, but there must be one SOMEWHERE. The STACK of DOOM concept, unchecked by reason, is - well, pedestrian.
TIME - Technology development controls the rate of time - Players acitivites modulate it.
Exception - the rare but few trumping exceptions to the rulership of Tech-time. 100-50-10-5 and 1 year turns unless there is war. Peace time movement/activity and production are always gauged at 1 year turn intervals wherever they are in history. The however rare, yet plausible situation, entailing no ground movement/activity combined with no production causes a switch to 5 year intervals. After 5 turns at 5 year intervals, the AI switches to 10 year intervals. After 5 x 10 year intervals, the AI switches to 50 years and so on maxed at 100.
Warfare - When a war starts great wonders unrelated to war cant be produced by the warring countries, turns are switched to 3 months for all players and the production time for anything UNRELATED to warfare, minus a few possible exceptions, is multiplied by 4, and remains so until peace is resumed.
Given the above, time would almost ALWAYS be moving very VERY slow initially until the the settlement activity is out of the way. Much of Tech would be out of sight, so that is where standardized city production and time management comes in. It would require a whole new interface for the player, but would work very simply. The time stream would always be reaching for the upper limit of 100 years whenever possible. But, the fundamental control to time is the development of technology. Technology is merged into the primary interface for management of ones nation, know as a master control screen - and is where the player spends most of his or her time - instead of gazing at a map - unless the player chooses to. On the main control screen is a minimap of all of land and inventory of the player cities. The player sets up all city production from there, unless he chooses to switch to micromanaged production through each individual city (as it is now). The player instructs his nation to build x amount of troops, tells it to place them ih whatever city or cities countryside/or border frontier - tells his cities to build whatever developments across the board - All within a Time Block gauged by Technology. Im Iron-age for example. I can only build certain things and all of those things will be built across the board wherever I generally or specifically want them built during the time it takes me to reach the next level of Technology.
At least thats how I would generally handle what I consider to be the second biggest problem with CIV next to its combat system - its **** up time system.
Note: The Zones of Control are the adjacent hex or square next to a unit. If supply cannot be traced (by the computer) without passing through enemy ZOC, back to a city and or cities, you are out of supply. The original Avalon Hill game company set the precedent and standard for this indisposable and necessary concept for realistic and multidimensional strategy development.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
acd said:
Ah, but the planning to avoid this situation in the first place is even more complex for the player. Look at a (modern computer) game that deals with this well, Battles in Normandy. Nearly every move that you make you have to think about the supply and logistics ramifications if you expect to do well.
BTW, about a quarter of the people I work with worked at Avalon Hill before its demise.
LordKestrel
King
I'm obviously in the minority here, but I like the game the way it is. I don't go to war often in my games, I enjoy the building side of things. Turning the next version of the game into a turn based war game would ruin the franchise. Many of the people I have talked to who enjoyed playing Civ3 liked the empire building and trading, while the war side of things was an afterthought for them.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
LumpenProle said:
CIV is the game that blew it's nose and behold! The RTS genre was on the hankerchief.
We all expect a good fight from the AI, and it should not come down
to a witless slugfest as in the current crop of RTS boredom games.
I hold high hopes for a cunning computer foe.
.
Similar threads
