RTS battles

[Dr. Broom]

I am strongly opposed to introducing an RTS element into the civ series. You represent a king, president, despot, chairman, etc. not some crazy general who leads every battle your civilization is in. The grand leaders attend to matters of state while the generals and soldiers fight the wars.

 

[warpstorm]

Thank you, Dr. Broom. At least we agree on one thing.

 

[Colonel]

this is a big no no i like RTS games but i cant play civ with RTS game in it one i would win in a sec with a warrior against tanks (multiple tanks) anyways NONO for RTS hybrid game

 

[judgement]

Turn off the city governor and you'll find out there's enough to tweak in your city.

I've never used a governor. Yes, there's lots to tweak, but its all abstractions of reality, not specific details... all strategic, not tactical.

Furthermore, warfare is an important part of the history of civilization.

True, and its already a major part of the game. But it isn't all of history, and if tactical combat was put into civ, then a player would wind up spending 98% of their time in each turn managing battles if they had that feature turned on. That's not a sim of human civilization - that's a wargame, and there's plenty of those on the market already.

If you don't like it, don't use it and you'll never be forced to fight tactical and it doesn't slow the game down.

I don't like it, and wouldn't use it, so I'd rather the developers not waste time an resources on it, when they could instead be improving parts of the game that I do use.

I can handle games that lasts over 60 hours, I have enough patience.

It's not a matter of patience, its a matter of amount of free time, and how I'd like to use it. If I did have a free 60 hourse to spend on a civ game, I'd rather have it focused on the strategic management of my empire and the strategic aspects of conquering other empires, not the tactical nitty-gritty of any specific battles.

And I don't know if it's an advantage for human players.

It would either be an advantage, or it would be a disadvantage (in which case why use it)... there's not way it could be so perfectly balanced that human players would have exactly the same chances of victory with or without managing the battle.

 

[Padma]

If they add RTS, or even "Tactical Battles" to Civ, they will lose me as a customer....

 

[lonestar007]

Did anyone ever play the old Civil War 2 game. Turn based warfare with one-on-one battles, but a huge tactical game. This to me os the essence of what Civ 4 could be.

The maps should be bigger so each unit could occupy its own square. Units attack each other but it is not a to-the-death type battle, but one based on losses. My 200 person unit of cavelry attacks your 400 person unit of spearmen. My attack is better, so you lose 175 men, I lose 50. Next units tur to attack. Your defence is lowered for the next battle due to your losses, and my attack as well.

 

[Commander Bello]

Problems with RTS combats:

- Would give the human an even larger tactical advantage than we already have...most tactical combat games I've played, you can get 50:1 kill ratios or better, even when seriously outnumbered. Give the human equal numbers and we might never lose a unit. Too unbalancing.
- Play Time. Some of us are perfectionists and would control even "boring" cavalry attacking red-lined longbow battles, just to be certain we didn't even lose the equivalent of a single hp. A game would go from a few weeks to several months. Ugh.
- Development Time. Civ is already a quite large game, with diplomacy, terrain improvements, espionage, etc. Adding what amounts to almost an entire new game (tactical combat) on top would make the game take even longer to develop...or, more likely, would mean something else would get too little attention. Neither is a pleasant alternative for me.

Like many things in Civ, combat is abstracted. That's what gives Civ its breadth, which is seen by many of us as a net positive. City controls are abstracted, terrain and improvements are abstracted, production power (shields???) is abstracted, combat is abstracted, etc. etc. etc. I, personally, like the abstraction, so I don't get too bogged down in details and can actually finish (and ENJOY) a game.

I just quote Arathorn's statement, since he expressed very well, what on the one hand really frightenes me about the conservatism of some players, and on the other hand give a good reason why *NOT* to implement a RTS/TBS/whatever system - though I'd still like the CTP-type of combined arms.

1) People complain about the human would get too much advantage.
This to a certain degree may be right, but is covered by the higher levels of Civ3 already. Not, that the AI would be better but it has more bonusses (spelling?)
Why not give the human player a chance to equalize this by his superior tactical skills? It has been reported that some players even beat SID. Does that mean that Civ3 is less fun for the average player? Or less frustrating?

2) Play time
As it has been proposed, the tactical combat would be an option. An option means, you just don't have to do it by yourself. You may let the RNG manage the outcome, nobody forces you to take the tactical command.
With the argument of play time as Arathorn has put it, we will face only tiny maps in Civ4. Does this really make sense? I doubt it.

3) Development time (and needed development experience, as I may add)
To this one I have to agree completely, and that is the reason why I would prefer more concentration on the overall game as well.
It is very likely, that trying to put too much into a single game will have negative consequences for the overall outcome. So, Firaxis should stick with what they should be good in.
After all, we don't expect to have a flight simulator in it as well, do we? Or a "Silent Service" sequence... And some "Sim City"... And "Ports of call" for our trading ships.... and..
You get the picture.

Nevertheless, I would kindly ask not to be uber-conservative.
There is quite some space for the game to be enhanced, and if certain enhancements were made optional, it would be up to the player to decide whether to make use of it or not.
For instance, I partially make use of the city governor, partially not. This is an option, and it is good that it is. Nobody forces me to do all the micro-management, nobody forces me to leave everything to the (not very good) governor.

And last, I still would like the adoption of the CTP combat system