hey all--
I remember reading, when the firaxis PR machine was spinning full tilt before Civ IV's release, that they were looking at a number of games for ideas on how to revamp the combat system. The one that I remember is Advanced Wars.
Now, anyone who recognizes me from the multiplayer lobby knows that I know how to wage war with the current combat system as well as most of the top players (I'm weaker at building and amassing in latter parts), but...
It occurs to me that one reason I think the combat system of civ is less strategy (and more of a testament of amassing a big army and ramming it down another civ's throat) is that since civ I, units have moved only one space per turn. I appreciate the multi-move strategies of Chess or AdvancedWars (and/or super daihatsu, fire emblem, nectaris, etc.), and I think the latter could prove as adding a more strategic layer onto how war is waged in Civ. History, it seems to me, has been filled with decisive battles where generals have won with maneuvers and strategies which have overcome sheer numbers, technology or luck. Julius Caesar beat Pompey with lesser numbers, and while one could argue that Firaxis addressed such events with promotions in Civ IV, I would argue that promotions are a function of production, still.
My point is after extensive multi-player gaming, I've seen too many games won or lost because horses or metal was found early, rushed into high numbers, win a early conquest, and then repeated the numeric advantage of land into military. Should not a better strategist be able to repel such attacks as a defender? There are such answers in combat in Civ (tech, barrage, unit countering), but I think a greater emphasis could be placed on not just choices of what and number of units built, but how they are used.
SUGGESTION:
Call me lazy for not putting my money where my mouth and not making a mod to try this, but I think the key to what I'm saying is increasing unit's mobility, in one or all of the following ways:
- The equivalent of commando promotion to all units. Roads have kind of annoyed me in all forms of civ. I've always been a little disappointed with the cobweb of spammed roads that inevitably happen in all of franchise's games. I've always thought there should be a disincentive to roads, and so therefore the map of civ would closer resemble real life, where there are plots of land with roads, and many plots without. Maybe farms cannot have roads. Maybe enemies can used roads as well. Maybe there needs to be two classes of roads (pre-railroad), where one links up trade etc., and one allows military units to move faster. But I've always thought that roads should have a strategic disadvantage, and certainly opening up a route that the enemy can also use is that. (perhaps this would make forts less useless too?)
- Perhaps all units mobility should be raised. I think the most useful units are the horses (and tanks), the Impi, and anything with a double terrain promo. Presuming a simultaneous turn game, in a given turn, those units force the other player into making difficult choices in real time, and anytime you do that, you dare them to make mistakes. But Civ isn't a real time strategy game, yes, and I would prefer it to stay more like Chess and less like C&C. In fact, I think the medieval-and-beyond sea battle system has shown us that increased move per turn does NOT necessarily make a better strategy system. IMO, what broken with that is the line of sight often exceeds the movement, so too often, galleons and frigates sail right by each other even if the intent is interception. Anyway, I suggest that even adding one move per unit on all units (and maybe moves have to be done at once), so that all units can fortify, move one space then fortify, or move agressively two spots at once.
- Fog of War? The above paragraph also implies a greater need for intelligence in tactics, and somehow this needs to addressed while allowing for the element of surprise. Perhaps this can be fixed with just allowing one less tile for fog of war. Perhaps borders and line of sight of borders needs to be modified. I've also thought that a) Spies come much too late, and historically, spies where crucial to warfare and politics much earlier. b) scouts and explorers could use an extra step, or have greater defensive power so they don't get killed so quickly when checking out the enemy's movements. On the latter note, I've also thought it would be interesting if, say, scouts had a defense of 4 or 3 ONLY when alone. This would prevent massive defenses of scouts in cities or stacks, while allowing them to explore enemy territory a little easier. Also, I think scouts should not be able to block enemy movement, or block city production.
- City Radius. The biggest game mechanic I can foresee upset by any of the above suggestion is how much more cities (and their resources) will be vulnerable. 20 tile city radius might have been the graphic limitation in Civ I, but perhaps cities radius' should be increased by one, our computers and brains can handle it! Furthermore, perhaps the above suggestions should be tempered with a one move buffer around the immediate tiles around cities. I know, that would put an end to chariots surprise attacking a new city and sacking it within a turn, but maybe that's more realistic. Maybe the city movement buffer is just a penalty of -1 movement. I dunno.
- One thing I'd like to see implemented in Advance War as well is surrounding bonuses, which is why I mentioned Nectaris (or Millitary Madness to you young-uns just discovering it on the Wii). In summation, it gives you bonuses for attacking while having other units on the other side of it. A little too overpowered in nectaris, but nonetheless interesting.
- Finally, what's up with the AI's combat? The AI seems to build well enough (average), and the resource penalty of higher difficulties has always seemed to me as a cop-out. What has always been lacking is the AI's simple ability to wage a competent war, usually only attacking with great numeric advantage, and usually not building the right units for an adequate counter. I think most of the above suggestions favor warfare and tactics, and without a decent upgrade of combat AI, that'll just make things easier for those SPers out there. Anyway, c'mon Firaxis! Chess programmers have now beat all the grandmasters out there, and even other games have much better AIs. You can do it with all the money we've spent on Civ over the years, yes?
Thanks to all for reading. I look forward to reading anyone's reply.
(oh, and P.S. please ditch Gamespy and find a decent lobby system with less connection issues. Some contemporary ranking / achievement system would be nice too.)
