On the realism of the battle system...

[Napo981]

Many people are complaining on the realism of the battle system.

I must agree on certain arguments and disagree on others.

The point I will bring it's how difficult it is for a game for civ to bring in a realistic battle system without affecting gameplay.

Many games have in fact good battle system (Rome : total war, panzer general )... but they are war-only game!!

Civ is a god-game, it's far more difficult. You must balance with a lot of factors in mind.

Too much MP would allow lightning-fast conquest. Bad!:thumbdown
Non-fatal combat would slow the wars considerably. Bad too.
Invincible artillery would put too much pressure on the defender.
Etc...

You must keep that in mind when complaining about the system.

Even if for myself, I do complain too....

 

[JG99_Korab]

I agree. We need to keep in mind that if we change one factor, It could have an effect on other factors. And it could imbalance the game

 

[rdclark]

IMO, anyone who expects realizm in Civ combat is playing the wrong game. This is not a simulation.

Chess, checkers, Risk, even Battleship... these are all strategy games that have stood the test of time and have battle systems to which nobody would ever apply the concept of "realism."

In all these games, including Civilization, combat is an abstraction. It's a way of resolving interplayer conflict according to a set of established rules; these conflicts are generated as a result of overall player strategy and the results depend largely on player ability, although there's an element of chance involved.

"Realism" isn't even on the table.

RichC

 

[Oggums]

IMO, anyone who expects realizm in Civ combat is playing the wrong game. This is not a simulation.

What he said.

 

[Jonathan]

IMO, anyone who expects realizm in Civ combat is playing the wrong game. This is not a simulation.

Sorry, you're not entitled to tell me I'm playing the wrong game: I make that decision. And I don't "expect" realism in Civ (having played every version since #1 for DOS); I just persistently desire it and would like to see more of it.

Civ is quite obviously a simulation game: when you look at it, you see an obvious attempt to represent reality. Cities, rivers, roads, hills, trees, technology, religion, finance, happy and unhappy people, and so on and so forth: these are all copied from reality and interact much as they do in reality.

The problem is that, when you look closer, it's a bad attempt to represent reality. That seems a pity to me -- especially as some realism improvements, carefully judged, would also make it a better game.

 

[Oggums]

Maybe you're playing the right game if you can mod in the realism you want, but otherwise, and I hate to break it to you, you are playing the wrong game.

This one shoots for a fun strategy game where the combat has it's role, but that role is not one of a realistic combat simulation. It's a combat system where a spearman can beat a tank, and that's ok.

 

[SomethingWitty]

You know, I really haven't seen anything in this game that was terribly unrealistic from a military perspective.

 

[rdclark]

Sorry, you're not entitled to tell me I'm playing the wrong game: I make that decision. And I don't "expect" realism in Civ (having played every version since #1 for DOS); I just persistently desire it and would like to see more of it.

In what part of it, exactly? Should there be more weather, droughts, natural disasters? Should the monolithic game concept of "culture" be broken out into more component parts? What about language barriers?

This game abstracts everything, and the designers' goal has to be for balance. Yes, people like combat so there is more detail in the militaristic aspects of the game (and not everyone thinks this is a good idea). But it's still about gaming.

Civ is quite obviously a simulation game: when you look at it, you see an obvious attempt to represent reality. Cities, rivers, roads, hills, trees, technology, religion, finance, happy and unhappy people, and so on and so forth: these are all copied from reality and interact much as they do in reality.

Far from it. Simulation games are designed to give the player an experience directly translatable to the reality. "Sim City" attempts to be a simulation. "The Sims" does not. "Falcon 4.0" does; "Jet Fighter" does not.

It's important not to confuse symbols with real things. CivIV allows the player to assume a role and manipulate game pieces according to a very complex and modifiable set of rules. It has a consistent and comprehensive theme (the rise of civilization) that provides the story elements that most people need and want in their gaming experiences. But in no way, shape, or form does it attempt to actually model the forces of history, of social and scientific development.

The problem is that, when you look closer, it's a bad attempt to represent reality. That seems a pity to me -- especially as some realism improvements, carefully judged, would also make it a better game.

Since I don't believe it's an attempt to represent anything but a complex chess game using the familiar names and motifs of history to make it more interesting and easier to understand, I disagree.

RichC

 

[Volstag]

Wanting a detailed tactical engine doesn't make it exist. Secondly, including bits of "reality" doesn't make a game a simulation. If it did, we could rightly call "Battleship" a naval combat simulator.

Adding a grittier tactical simulation to Civ would easily "monster" the mechanics into a whole new realm: lines of supply, morale, fatigue, command and control, ammo, fuel, a complete ballistics model, ambushes, fieldworks, suppressive fire, indirect artillery, relative spotting, target acquisition and dissemination (if one unit sees the enemy, do all units see the enemy?), cover and concealment, tactical maps capable of handling small scale melee up to the clash of multiple modern day armies, close air support, a whole new AI for the tactical engine capable of handling everything from swordsman vs. swordsman up to platforms engaging and killing from beyond the horizon, definite unit sizes, weather, time of day, optics, command delays, etc, etc. In addition, Firaxis now has to implement thousands of distinct unit types (engineers, airborne, rifle, tracked/untracked vehicles, aircraft & anti-aircraft, naval vessels, sappers, charioteers, wardogs, etc). Is it real-time (good luck managing aircraft), is it turn based? At what unit size do you order/move your troops? Squads, platoons, companies, regiments? Unit characteristics would have to undergo a massive rewrite, since a single "power" rating won't cut it anymore (rates of fire, armor thickness and slope, armor penetration, movement speeds, battle experience, and on and on and on). Firaxis now has to manage the time difference between a week long engagement existing in 2 year turn.

Seriously, when I want that level of detail I'll play Combat Mission or TacOps4, etc. And, in the end, you'd easily have individual engagements that last as long as the rest of the game. Can you imagine fighting modern day corp vs. corp from the tactical level? Moving several hundred thousand troops across a tactical map that encompasses 400 square miles?

 

[TheJediMaster]

Wanting a detailed tactical engine doesn't make it exist. Secondly, including bits of "reality" doesn't make a game a simulation. If it did, we could rightly call "Battleship" a naval combat simulator.

Adding a grittier tactical simulation to Civ would easily "monster" the mechanics into a whole new realm: lines of supply, morale, fatigue, command and control, ammo, fuel, a complete ballistics model, suppressive fire, indirect artillery, cover and concealment, tactical maps capable of handling small scale melee up to the clash of multiple modern day armies, close air support, a whole new AI for the tactical engine capable of handling everything from swordsman vs. swordsman up to platforms engaging and killing from beyond the horizon, definite unit sizes, weather, time of day, optics, command delays, etc, etc. In addition, Firaxis now has to implement thousands of distinct unit types (engineers, airborne, rifle, tracked/untracked vehicles, aircraft, naval vessels, sappers, charioteers, wardogs, etc). Is it real-time (good luck managing aircraft), is it turn based? At what unit size do you order/move your troops? Squads, platoons, companies, regiments?

Seriously, when I want that level of detail I'll play Combat Mission or TacOps4, etc. And, in the end, you'd easily have individual engagements that last as long as the rest of the game. Can you imagine fighting modern day corp vs. corp from the tactical level? Moving several hundred thousand troops across a tactical map that encompasses 400 square miles?

You just given an example of the far end of the spectrum though. I was much more happy when units had attack and defend bonuses in Civ3 because you could strategically place units for defense or attack.

Promotions to that type of attack/defense rating combat could have added to a great combat system.

I've played things like Americas Army, where the designers get very realistic for one person, playing one unit. I do understand your point in saying that a full war would be completely overwelming for the designers much less a player. But there should be more destinctions between types of units. The rifleman shouldn't have to wait to fire until the maceman is right infront of him. Ranged verses melee units should be taken into consideration. Flight units verses ground units, naval verses flight, etc. Combat should include factoring the two types of units, the age it represents, and what type of terrain (aka air, water, ground) it is engaging in.

While this isn't as easy as the current system, it isn't too hard to use as a full on war system.

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: Sorceresss warned for trolling. I deleted the posts.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[BirraImperial]

I just don't want my gunships being destroyed by knights!

 

[SomethingWitty]

I just don't want my gunships being destroyed by knights!

I haven't got a problem with that, really.

What's unrealistic is that knights would be trying to fight gunships in the first place.

If a country we're still stuck in the dark ages and trying to take on modern gunships, they'd get a hold of some rpgs.

Think of gunships vs. knights as black hawks vs. insurgents.

 

[Jonathan]

Adding a grittier tactical simulation to Civ would easily "monster" the mechanics into a whole new realm...

Good grief. Who wants that?

The only thing I've been complaining about in the battle system is the silly system of dividing a battle into a series of one-on-one combats. This is unrealistic; but, far more important, it's very tedious for players.

I want to be able to select all units around a city, tell them to attack the city, and have the game resolve it as a single battle. That would be more realistic and it would also remove unnecessary tedium from the game.

I'm certainly not interested in adding more tactical detail. This is a strategical game and should stay that way. I'd prefer less tactical detail in the game, not more.

 

[Jonathan]

Simulation games are designed to give the player an experience directly translatable to the reality. "Sim City" attempts to be a simulation. "The Sims" does not. "Falcon 4.0" does; "Jet Fighter" does not.

You and I are using different definitions of the term "simulation game". Arguing about definitions is rather pointless.

In Civ, Firaxis has chosen to imitate many characteristics of reality. Players may reasonably have their own preferences about whether it should have imitated reality more or less accurately.

 

[narmox]

I want to be able to select all units around a city, tell them to attack the city, and have the game resolve it as a single battle. That would be more realistic and it would also remove unnecessary tedium from the game.

options -> stack attack -> click the checkbox.

Stack units. Attack. There ya go.

 

[Jonathan]

options -> stack attack -> click the checkbox.

Stack units. Attack. There ya go.

Thanks -- a constructive suggestion. For some reason I haven't tried it yet, but you're right, I should do.

As I understand it, it doesn't resolve a battle as a single battle, it just speeds up the tedious process of conducting all those single combats. But even that may be better than nothing.

 

[narmox]

Thanks -- a constructive suggestion. For some reason I haven't tried it yet, but you're right, I should do.

As I understand it, it doesn't resolve a battle as a single battle, it just speeds up the tedious process of conducting all those single combats. But even that may be better than nothing.

that's right.. It doesn't make it a single battle (like, say CtP), but it does resolve it all at once, calculating automatically for you which unit is best for the best defenders showing up, and sending all your units to battle one after the other till you've none left or till your enemy has none left.