Scale

[Danger Bird]

What will the time and distance scales be like in Civ V? (And a more worrying question, from what I've seen so far... Are the developers thinking about scale?)



If there are units that can use ranged attack across 2 hexes, how far is that? (probably 100~200 metres(?))
How far apart will cities be? (500 metres apart)
If a planet is represented by a map 200 tiles wide, how big is the planet? (20 km in circumference, about the surface area of a large metropolitan area, smaller than Luxembourg)

What about time?
(Let's assume, for the moment, that movement will be like it has been in Civ 4, 3, etc. and that turns in mid-game are 5 to 10 years long.)
How long would it take the archer to go fetch his arrows? (10 to 20 years)
If battles involve some initial ranged attacks, some melee fighting, then re-positioning and more ranged/melee attack the next turn, how long will battles be? (perhaps 20 to 30 years or more, and this is battles, not wars)

I know that Civ 4 also has problems with scale, and that we have to consider many of the units/events in the game as abstractions. But it is much easier to consider them as abstractions if the game doesn't attempt to represent too much detail.

The conflict here is between a grand strategy game and a close-up tactics game. Since Civ spans millennia and a whole planet, it makes sense that it stay in the realm of grand strategy. Instead, the developers seem to be trying to build on-the-field- tactics into it as well. I don't think this is feasible if you want to have a sense of plausibility to what is going on in your game.

Probably too late, but I wish Civ would keep a far-out strategic view. A tile is a patch of land 100s of kilometres across, a unit (or stack) on that tile represents regiment(s) stationed there for several years, and a stack-on-stack battle is a large battle of many stages - ranged weapons, melee fighting, cavalry flanking charges, etc. (but we don't see that, we just see the result). I'm fine with that.

On-the-field tactics games are great, too. But I don't think Civ was meant to be one of those, and I don't think you can have the two at once.

Of course, many may not be bothered by this mismatching of scales. But for players like me, we cannot avoid imagining what the game represents in an alternate world, and being conscious of things like, 'Hey, that group of axemen have been out there on the front line for 60 years! Must have called home to get their grandsons to join them.'

What do others think?

 

[22bebo]

I concur entirely with you, what is the scale? The time thing also bothers me, but not as much as just the land scale, probably because I want to know what it is! Then I'll move on to the time.

 

[Aaroc]

In context, really, I don't see it as being much different than your warriors/archers/chariots/whatever traveling hundreds of years to your closest neighbor in the BCs to attack his cities.

So now instead of traveling for hundreds of years to attack a distant city, they'll only travel for a couple dozen years to attack those guys across the field.

 

[ZachScape]

If only they could combine civilization with Total War... and Sim City. Maybe that's what Heaven is like.

Either Heaven or the NASA break room...

 

[Souron]

Time was always messed up in Civ, given the way historic turn duration decreased as the turns progressed. So it would take a warrior 250 years to travel between two adjacent cities in 4000 BC, but the same warrior would take only 5 years to travel the same un-roaded distance in 2000 AD. This has always bothered me.

 

[Tholish]

Danger Bird said it very well. Maybe it will be possible to mod a fix.

Further, think about this: if archers have a range of two tiles, what is the range of artillery? It would be better if all that stuff we see in the screen shots were in a battle screen. A stack enters the square of an enemy stack. OK, both civs stacks are in the same square and every turn this is so a battlefield is generated and the units are placed on it so they can do the exact same thing on the battle screen that we see them doing on the main map, but it feels better.
Whiel the battle is in progress, randomly generated battle terrain based on the tiles terrain and features is retained, next time a battle is fought there it will be different. (A different part of that province was chosen for the later battle). Exceptions being cities which are a stock city battle screen. Or maybe based on the city as it was built.

To prevent the stack of doom by humans you have territory capture: the last civ to move a combat unit through a tile owns that tile.
The stack of doom by the ai is becuase its written into the ai. So to get rid of it write it out.

But this isn't an idea thread. Whats done is done and cant be changed...

 

[Luckystrike77]

If only they could combine civilization with Total War... and Sim City. Maybe that's what Heaven is like.

Either Heaven or the NASA break room...

I think your ideas would ruin CIV, and it would be no more multiplayer fun with so much time used on battles and city building. The more you can do right on the map, the better.

An example: The Total War games lack alot on the strategical level compared to Civ and I don't find them fun to play anymore. Civ never bores me.

 

[Zomgmeister]

Thing that bothers me on this screenshot is that in reality bow is practically a short-range weapon. Killing distance in most cases is well inside 100 meter range.

Duh, this is how I see ranged shooting:

Archers — can perform non-retaliable ranged attack only when protected by walls or something. Maybe, just maybe, another side of the river works too. But they, of course, should gain attacks of opportunity on each and every unit which dares to approach their walled sanctuary.

Catapults and gunpowder units — can shoot in neighboring hex. Of course, if there is another gunpowder unit in there, retaliation happens.

Cannons may shoot in neighboring hex without retaliation from anyone. Because their range is higher, and they are, well, artillery units, it's their job to bring death and destruction without personal risk. Even another cannons can't answer with fire automatically, at least without some kind of promotion or command to do it instead of being able to attack as usual.

Modern artillery can shoot over one hex, they are similar to cannons in all other aspects.

 

[Souron]

Thing that bothers me on this screenshot is that in reality bow is practically a short-range weapon. Killing distance in most cases is well inside 100 meter range.

Duh, this is how I see ranged shooting:

Archers — can perform non-retaliable ranged attack only when protected by walls or something. Maybe, just maybe, another side of the river works too. But they, of course, should gain attacks of opportunity on each and every unit which dares to approach their walled sanctuary.

Agreed.

Catapults and gunpowder units — can shoot in neighboring hex. Of course, if there is another gunpowder unit in there, retaliation happens.

Cannons may shoot in neighboring hex without retaliation from anyone. Because their range is higher, and they are, well, artillery units, it's their job to bring death and destruction without personal risk. Even another cannons can't answer with fire automatically, at least without some kind of promotion or command to do it instead of being able to attack as usual.

I don't agree about guns. Early guns were certainly no better range than bows. Later guns were longer range than bows, but not so long range that there is no retaliation. Any sword wielding army shot by guns would try to rush them just like they would archers. Especially cavalry.

A better idea would be to make horse archers non-retaliatory against non cavalry.

Also, cannons do not fight cannons. They are too imprecise. Cannons were used to destroy fortifications, and to disrupt formations. So cannons firing back at cannons would not make sense. On the contrary, BtS (or is it warlords?) artillery immunity to bombardment makes sense because artillery make such small targets compared to formations of men.

Modern artillery can shoot over one hex, they are similar to cannons in all other aspects.

Agreed.

 

[Zomgmeister]

I don't agree about guns. Early guns were certainly no better range than bows. Later guns were longer range than bows, but not so long range that there is no retaliation. Any sword wielding army shot by guns would try to rush them just like they would archers. Especially cavalry.

Of course. To be honest, I didn't thought about anything I said in my post. It was kinda obvious ideas from the top of my head, which could (and should) be refined and detailed.

A better idea would be to make horse archers non-retaliatory against non cavalry.

Not bad idea. TMIT would be happy with his Keshik romps.

Also, cannons do not fight cannons. They are too imprecise. Cannons were used to destroy fortifications, and to disrupt formations. So cannons firing back at cannons would not make sense. On the contrary, BtS (or is it warlords?) artillery immunity to bombardment makes sense because artillery make such small targets compared to formations of men.

Agreed. Basically all Firaxis need to create great military side of the game is a bit of common sense combined with moderate knowledge of historical warfare mechanics. Especially of understanding "why" something was implemented, when and what for.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Wait, which civilization was realistic or made any sense as a simulator? I somehow missed that one while I was playing all of the highly abstract boardgame style ones.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Of course, many may not be bothered by this mismatching of scales. But for players like me, we cannot avoid imagining what the game represents in an alternate world, and being conscious of things like, 'Hey, that group of axemen have been out there on the front line for 60 years! Must have called home to get their grandsons to join them.'

What do others think?

Honestly, I think you need to learn to think in softer terms regarding civilization. For example, I always imagine that the stacks of axemen I am using represent a general tendency for my nation to use axe-wielding warriors during that particular era. Attempting to make *any* literal sense of it is a sure path to disappointment or even insanity

If you think about the general idea of scale in *any* civilization game it's pretty messed up. Or do you think that cities literally build settlers to found other cities in one massive, deliberate action?

Civilization is literally one of the *least* simulator like games I can think of. It's somewhere between pac-man and unreal tournament in terms of realism.

 

[Danger Bird]

Honestly, I think you need to learn to think in softer terms regarding civilization. For example, I always imagine that the stacks of axemen I am using represent a general tendency for my nation to use axe-wielding warriors during that particular era. Attempting to make *any* literal sense of it is a sure path to disappointment or even insanity

AlpsStranger, this is my point. I completely agree with you that all units/events in the game are best thought of as abstractions. A settler represents a trend towards immigration (that, maybe, has some support from the governors), a caravel finding the new world represents a concentrated effort at exploration, and a catapult represents the fact that you've added siege weapons to your army.

So, it doesn't make sense to make all of these units more concrete, and it doesn't make sense to build into the game mechanics their ranged attacks and flanking movements on the battlefield. Which is what it appears the developers are doing.

It would be better to leave it abstract, and not to try to represent small-scale battlefield tactics in a large-scale strategy game.

 

[Camikaze]

IMO, scale is going to be something that's best not to think about when playing the game. If the tiles are small enough for it to be realistic to have archers shooting across them, then it's nowhere even remotely close to realistic for a city size. And if a tile is big enough to comprise a city, then it's nowhere even remotely close to realistic for archers to shoot across them. So it'll probably be a case of just trying to ignore the obvious scale problems. I can't see how they can reconcile the two without having tiles within tiles for combat, or something, in which case the game will have moved away from strategy to tactics, which isn't a good thing.

 

[Skyre Noktis]

AlpsStranger, this is my point. I completely agree with you that all units/events in the game are best thought of as abstractions. A settler represents a trend towards immigration (that, maybe, has some support from the governors), a caravel finding the new world represents a concentrated effort at exploration, and a catapult represents the fact that you've added siege weapons to your army.

So, it doesn't make sense to make all of these units more concrete, and it doesn't make sense to build into the game mechanics their ranged attacks and flanking movements on the battlefield. Which is what it appears the developers are doing.

It would be better to leave it abstract, and not to try to represent small-scale battlefield tactics in a large-scale strategy game.

Except that the battle systems in previous Civ games have always been a major source of complaints from players. It makes sense that they're trying a different approach. I would say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but the majority seems to think it's broke.

As for realism, I'm pretty sure no single person has ever led a group of people for six thousand years. Civ isn't supposed to be like real life; it's a game. Fun trumps reality.

 

[Zomgmeister]

Of course Civilization never was truely "realistic". Realism is seemingly impossible to attain in game of this scale.

But it's not about realism, it's about credibility.

There are very different deviations from realism. Take, for instance, two cliches in first person shooters: lifebar and rocketjump. Both are non-realistic. But second is way more unreal than first.

It is possible to play some first person shooter with lifebar (or percents of health, no matter) and feel, well, some kind of “realistic” credibility in game. But it is impossible to play first person shooter with rocketjump feature implemented as acceptable method of movement and “feel” some kind of realism.

Thus: building settlers and knowing what to research next are credible things, not invoking sense of disbelief. And archers with 2 hex range in game where town is located in one hex are not. These archers don't differ much from flying sharks with lazer eyes, awesome special unit for some weird civilization. Both break mood of the game, both are too far from realism to be acceptable.

 

[Riot_Starter]

Thus: building settlers and knowing what to research next are credible things, not invoking sense of disbelief. And archers with 2 hex range in game where town is located in one hex are not. These archers don't differ much from flying sharks with lazer eyes, awesome special unit for some weird civilization. Both break mood of the game, both are too far from realism to be acceptable.

I'm not too worried about these kinds of things right now for one big reason: the game isn't released yet. These pictures could not even be actual representations of archer range. Archers may only be able to attack one hex away, while modern artillery has 2 or 3 range, but the screenshot shows 2 hex range to emphasize and make clear that range combat exists. Or not and they have 2 range and I still wouldn't care as long as the gameplay is good. Just throwing out reasonable ideas to keep people's internet nerd rage under control.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Of course Civilization never was truely "realistic". Realism is seemingly impossible to attain in game of this scale.

But it's not about realism, it's about credibility.

There are very different deviations from realism. Take, for instance, two cliches in first person shooters: lifebar and rocketjump. Both are non-realistic. But second is way more unreal than first.

It is possible to play some first person shooter with lifebar (or percents of health, no matter) and feel, well, some kind of “realistic” credibility in game. But it is impossible to play first person shooter with rocketjump feature implemented as acceptable method of movement and “feel” some kind of realism.

Thus: building settlers and knowing what to research next are credible things, not invoking sense of disbelief. And archers with 2 hex range in game where town is located in one hex are not. These archers don't differ much from flying sharks with lazer eyes, awesome special unit for some weird civilization. Both break mood of the game, both are too far from realism to be acceptable.

It is a better abstraction than simply giving archers first-strike. It moves the archer another step towards being something other than a swordsman. Is it less believable? Only if you were clinging to the already tenuous threads of verisimilitude in previous civilization games.

I won't answer for the laser shark since it is a crude strawman attack on my position.

 

[Danger Bird]

Except that the battle systems in previous Civ games have always been a major source of complaints from players. It makes sense that they're trying a different approach. I would say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but the majority seems to think it's broke.

As for realism, I'm pretty sure no single person has ever led a group of people for six thousand years. Civ isn't supposed to be like real life; it's a game. Fun trumps reality.

I understand that it is just a game. A game meant to give the feel of the history of civilisations.

Regarding the battle system, if indeed 'the majority seems to think it's broke,' Why do they think so? From the comments I've seen in favour of the one-unit-per-tile system and ranged attacks, it seems they want more tactical realism. I'm actually the one saying that you can't have that kind of realism in a strategy game, without it feeling very weird from the point of view of scale.

So we are all concerned with realism to some degree, as are the designers of the game. I guess we just prioritise different aspects.

 

[22bebo]

I think of it like this: When you watch a swordsman battle an axeman, you're not watching the real battle. The real battle would be much more complex, with thousands of men (and women) fighting upon the battlefield. But what you see is just a representation. The adding of long range fire by archers is the same thing. You can tell you're archers to get close and attack, risking their lives for some form of, as of now, unknown benefit, or tell them to stay back, where they'll be safer, but don't have the unknown benefit. Yes, it adds more battle tactics to the game, which can be good or bad, but that's how I view it. I think it will be neat to see, and to try, but I also think that, if taken to literally, can totally screw up your sense of scale in the game.