Real Time Strategy Battles for Civilization?

[rysmiel]

But TW battles can be very fun once you get into it, and what do you mean by "inconsequential"? Let's say that you're playing a scenario about Alexander's conquests. Are you to say that the details of all of those battles and actually getting to control Alexander's army as you fight against a massive Persian army are inconsequential? That's what Alexander is known for the most!

I am saying they are inconsequential on the scale of the game of Civ, and they should be.

Using the regular Civ combat engine, when you play a historic scenario, battles such as Waterloo, Constantinople, Thermopolye (or however you spell it), etc. never really amount to anything other than random RNG calculations.

Yes. This is not a bug. This is a feature. It means you don't have to mess around with all that battle-scale stuff and you can concentrate on running an empire.

Oh, and "logistics"? In the current Civilization engine logistics doesn't exist, as a half naked warrior can live in the North Pole without any extra clothing for thousands of years without any food or water, an invasion of a distant civilization is (unlike real life) perfectly plausible even when a desert seperates the two of you, etc.

This is not a critique of the game as game. It is a critique on realism grounds, which is entirely orthogonal to the purpose of the game being a good game.

 

[rysmiel]

But TW battles can be very fun once you get into it,

How many time do I have to say "I do not find this fun" before you will believe me ?

 

[hewhoknowsall]

I am saying they are inconsequential on the scale of the game of Civ, and they should be.



Yes. This is not a bug. This is a feature. It means you don't have to mess around with all that battle-scale stuff and you can concentrate on running an empire.



This is not a critique of the game as game. It is a critique on realism grounds, which is entirely orthogonal to the purpose of the game being a good game.

But what NEGATIVE aspects would come from at least having the OPTION?

If you are playing a scenario about Alexander's conquests or say the war in Africa in WW2, are you implying that battles don't matter in these scenarios that are about wars?

"entirely"? No actually, the fact that armies can survive without food or water in the north pole indefinitely greatly diminishes the strategic aspect of the game (as the logistical aspect, which you claimed was important), and also makes stacks of doom overpowered. Invasions should be much more difficult than what they are in Civ, which would make you more able to focus on running your Empire than worrying about some enemy bringing a huge stack from across a desert.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Another problem (other than what I've mentioned, which on its own should be enough to keep this out of the game) is that creating a complicated, or good, Total War type combat system would mean basically creating another whole game within Civ, which would invariably divert a massive amount resources away from the rest of the game. So the overall quality of the remainder of the game would be bound to be greatly diminished.

Expansion pack?

 

[Camikaze]

Expansion pack?

So there should be an entire expansion pack for one minute aspect of the game, which is the subject of too much focus in Civ anyway? Personally, I'd rather have expansion packs actually expand on the whole game, rather than just one tiny part of it.

 

[Traitorfish]

But TW battles can be very fun once you get into it, and what do you mean by "inconsequential"? Let's say that you're playing a scenario about Alexander's conquests. Are you to say that the details of all of those battles and actually getting to control Alexander's army as you fight against a massive Persian army are inconsequential? That's what Alexander is known for the most! Same thing with Napoloen: is the battle of Waterloo "inconsequential"? Using the regular Civ combat engine, when you play a historic scenario, battles such as Waterloo, Constantinople, Thermopolye (or however you spell it), etc. never really amount to anything other than random RNG calculations.

And why is that bad? Civ is an abstracted take on empire-building; by necessity, a lot of detail is glossed over for the sake of a coherent experience. I don't want to have to deal with the minutia of tactical warfare, anymore than I want to have to set complex industrial quotas simply because I've selected the "State Property" civic or attribute scientific funding to individual research institutions so that I can research Fission. Simply because tactical warfare is a more entertaining form of minutia doesn't mean that it would have any less dissonance with the core experience.
The only reason that it works with a game like Total War is because it is a major part of the core experience in itself; Total War has the unique property of being a "dual-core" game, if that makes sense, which Civ is not, nor do the majority of fans wish it to be.

 

[rysmiel]

But what NEGATIVE aspects would come from at least having the OPTION?

Developer time wasted on an option that needs a lot of effort to be made work that could alternatively be used on improving other parts of the game.

If you are playing a scenario about Alexander's conquests or say the war in Africa in WW2, are you implying that battles don't matter in these scenarios that are about wars?

I am not implying anything, i am saying straight out that individual battles should, on average, not matter.

Civ is not about simulating horseshoe nails.

No actually, the fact that armies can survive without food or water in the north pole indefinitely greatly diminishes the strategic aspect of the game (as the logistical aspect, which you claimed was important), and also makes stacks of doom overpowered.

This is adequately simulated by upkeep costs, or by shields-and-food costs from the home city, depending on which Civ you play; myself I would favour both.

 

[rysmiel]

I don't want to have to deal with the minutia of tactical warfare, anymore than I want to have to set complex industrial quotas simply because I've selected the "State Property" civic or attribute scientific funding to individual research institutions so that I can research Fission. Simply because tactical warfare is a more entertaining form of minutia doesn't mean that it would have any less dissonance with the core experience.

Not meaning to be inconsistent here, but complex industrial quotas or scientific funding decisions, unlike tactical battles, would be fun.

 

[hewhoknowsall]

Developer time wasted on an option that needs a lot of effort to be made work that could alternatively be used on improving other parts of the game.



I am not implying anything, i am saying straight out that individual battles should, on average, not matter.

Civ is not about simulating horseshoe nails.



This is adequately simulated by upkeep costs, or by shields-and-food costs from the home city, depending on which Civ you play; myself I would favour both.

Which is why I think that this idea wouldn't work because it would take too much time.

But it would be FUN (if they made it right, which they wouldn't and probably shouldn't even try), which is the entire point of the game.

And actually, battles have often played a huge role in world history. They have decided the fate of empires and often of all of civilization.

 

[rysmiel]

But it would be FUN (if they made it right, which they wouldn't and probably shouldn't even try), which is the entire point of the game.

Seriously, when you are talking to people for whom Total War is not fun, why do you think putting something like that in Civ would be fun for us ?

 

[hewhoknowsall]

Seriously, when you are talking to people for whom Total War is not fun, why do you think putting something like that in Civ would be fun for us ?

1. Have you played Total War/any other good RTS game?
2. What isn't fun about it?
3. If they have an auto resolve feature, couldn't you just use that?

 

[rysmiel]

1. Have you played Total War/any other good RTS game?

Yes. (Or at least, I am trusting people who say Rome:Total War is a good RTS; I did not enjoy it so much that telling whether it was good or bad at what it was doing is not a thing I am pronouncing on.)

2. What isn't fun about it?

The way it's real-time, and the fiddling about with tactical manoeuvring. Civ gives you as long to think as you like.

3. If they have an auto resolve feature, couldn't you just use that?

See the point repeatedly made above about the amount of development it would take to build a totally new game engine and install it in Civ, and what development could be actually making the game more fun for Civ players instead. (If it came with a first person shooter for spy missions, I could ignore that too, but I would oppose including that also). Also, shove that much extra stuff in and it will be bigger and slower and need a more expensive computer to run on.

 

[Traitorfish]

And actually, battles have often played a huge role in world history. They have decided the fate of empires and often of all of civilization.

Yes, and that strategic significance is fully represented in the game. That the tactical element is abstracted doesn't change that. Equally, how would adding a tactical element change that in any significant manner?

 

[Joecoolyo]

So there should be an entire expansion pack for one minute aspect of the game, which is the subject of too much focus in Civ anyway? Personally, I'd rather have expansion packs actually expand on the whole game, rather than just one tiny part of it.

I'm just throwing out ideas here. You said it would take away from actual development time if it was released in the vanilla version, so why not an expansion pack (they can have more than one expansion pack too, so developing this wouldn't really detract from adding anything else).

 

[Camikaze]

I'm just throwing out ideas here. You said it would take away from actual development time if it was released in the vanilla version, so why not an expansion pack (they can have more than one expansion pack too, so developing this wouldn't really detract from adding anything else).

Well it certainly would be better than them releasing it as part of the vanilla version, but it still would be introducing an element of tactics into a strategy that would seriously distort the outcomes of the game. And seeing as there are so many ideas and possible improvements to be made to Civ, any work spent on this system would detract from other possible improvements, and hence would detract from the game as a whole.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm just throwing out ideas here. You said it would take away from actual development time if it was released in the vanilla version, so why not an expansion pack (they can have more than one expansion pack too, so developing this wouldn't really detract from adding anything else).

Because they could be doing another, more worthwhile expansion pack or game during that time?

 

[Tholish]

Or just putting more effort into other aspects of the next game or expansion...I say no RTS, but have an option to play out battles on a turn based tactical screen.

 

[trickofthehand]

worst...suggestion....ever....

 

[eightiesboi]

I have to agree with many of the other posters here... one of the things I love so much about CIV, and indeed, sets it apart from so many other games, is that it remains a turn-based game. While I will *not* go so far as to say that all tactical-level enhancements should be discarded out of hand, I truly enjoy the fact that I do not have to micro-manage combat nor develop twitch-based reflexes. Perhaps I am in the minority here, but I *very rarely* attempt a conquest victory, and my wars tend to be either to secure a strategic advantage against an opponent or in self-defense (including the occasional 'pre-emptive' self-defense).

I do understand the argument, "well, just because *you* don't want it, doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't have it," but I do think in this case, less is more. Or in other words, trying to make Civilization have an RTS model is, IMO, about as desirable as making each city into a miniature SimCity(tm) and each airplane into Flight Simulator(tm).

 

[w2w2w]

would be kind of fun. how would you use nukes then?