Stop Trying to make Civ V into a war simulator

[mboettcher]

There is always a strong undercurrent on these forums and what everyone experiences sometimes when playing to want Civ to be more 'realistic'-especially when it comes to war. I think that when ever we want systems like supply lines, artillery support, army groups, CAS etc we're only missing the point of what makes Civ charming. A massive and intricate military simulator is not what the game series is about. There are plenty of intricate simulators out there and a few really good ones too (see HOI, Panzer General) but those games are not what Civ is about

I think the biggest problem would be if the game becomes too tactical. Anytime a human player can use tactics to make up too much ground on the computer is not good. The HOI series (which is about war so this isnt a bad thing for them) is a really easy game unless you turn the settings way up which gives the computer enormous advantages AND the Human disadvantages (more so than deity settings in Civ). How do you deal with this? by constantly attacking the computer and exposing your advantages of tactical supremacy. What does this mean for Civ? Well why wouldn't any human player simply attack a stronger Civ, bait them into overcommiting, encircle their armies and annihilate them. This makes up for dozens of turns of bad Civ play in a few turns of out maneuvering the AI. And with that goes what makes Civ fun difficult and intricate.

EDIT: This is similar to the City Raider tactic (or exploit depending on your opinion, of which I have none) blown way out of proportion. The one I am referring to is of course the strategy of letting a Civ take some minor border city with no terrain defenses, letting them plop their SOD in the city and then pounding them with CR units and artillery when that city has no cultural defenses and all their CR units are now useless.

 

[Akkon888]

Not to mention that there are other aspects of the game than war, especially now that I look at all these Civ5 previews. The problem is that some people will continue to desire a war simulator vehemently regardless of what others think. Gameplay > Realism, and if a person can't accept the fact that an archer bombards two tiles away or that it takes 40 years to move a tile, they should not play Civ.

 

[Thormodr]

I think the military aspect has been neglected and Sid Meir has said as much. It's always been a weak point of the series. The military has been an extremely important part of every civilization and therefore should
play a prominent role.

I think if they can improve that greatly and continue to refine and keep or improve other parts of the game, then we'll have the best version of Civ ever.

I do admit that I'd like to hear more about the other aspects of ciV though.

 

[Dbob]

Well I'm a warmonger in many games either for a specific resource or just in general and I'm sure others are too so why not try to improve that aspect of the game if it can be improved?

I say bring on the change, but I can see your point of view with the game getting too tactical if they take it too far....if you don't like that sort of thing.

 

[eleazzaar]

...A massive and intricate military simulator is not what the game series is about. There are plenty of intricate simulators out there and a few really good ones too (see HOI, Panzer General) but those games are not what Civ is about

I think the biggest problem would be if the game becomes too tactical. Anytime a human player can use tactics to make up too much ground on the computer is not good. The HOI series (which is about war so this isnt a bad thing for them) is a really easy game unless you turn the settings way up which gives the computer enormous advantages AND the Human disadvantages.

Time will tell, but i don't get the impression that they are trying to turn Civ into "a massive and intricate military simulator". They are definitely trying to improve the warfare side of the game, but that doesn't mean that warfare will become relatively more important than it used to be.

HOI was that companie's first game. It's quite possible that Civ V will have a comparatively better combat AI without resorting to giving the AI special advantages.

 

[Earthling]

The military aspect has NOT ever been neglected in civ, if anything it's been overly dominant and easy. Compare any base/vanilla civ game to mods which do so much more regarding economy, tech, etc... and you'll see how military lopsided the regular game is already. And yes, if anything it should be both simpler and better integrated into the game as a whole but it appears civ 5 is introducing more unnecessary military micromanagement at the cost of scaling down the rest of the game. The people who just want to play an RtS are having their way, in other words.

 

[Sherlock]

Less military, more 'Civilization building'.

I'm sick of fighting. It's so tedious. Diplomacy, research, exploration, building...now that's fun.

 

[Ahriman]

In general I agree with the OP, particularly on the AI front. The more complex you make any game aspect, normally the bigger is the advantage that a human player gets over the AI, and the harder the AI has to cheat in order to remain competitive.

Its also the non-fun "realism" demands like supply chains, attrition, suppression etc. mechanics that seem ott to me.

*edit*
Oh and now looking at the forum we can add: morale.

Bah!

 

[Disgustipated]

Good points, but as others have said, it would be nice to have combat be a little more involving. I do hope the game is more involved than just warfare. It looks like it will be.

I do hope they are telling the truth of more involved diplomacy. I'm looking forward to this. I generally don't even like diplomacy in civ games, but this could change my view. But I think the core of civ is empire building. Whether it be through peaceful means, or warfare. There must be a balancing act.

I do hope the economic side of civ isn't pushed behind the scenes with no way to manipulate it. It does worry me they are making the game like civ rev. I haven't actually played it, but I know about it.

I see what the OP is saying though. The game is strategy first and foremost. It requires you to think of the metagame. Especially the early game, you need to plan your strategy well. Mistakes in the early game can cost you. And it would be silly if that could easily be overcome in just a couple turns. But unlike the OP, I doubt it will be that easy to encircle enemy forces. Do they even have flanking in civ5? If not, it won't matter if you get behind them if the ai is able to rearrange their troops accordingly so their front line defenders stay in front.

 

[Draginol]

I like the Civ 5 design decision to closer tie a civilization's resource capability to what it is able to produce.

I think it opens up the game to a lot more diplomatic options.

 

[History_Buff]

I think what really needs to be looked at is what Civ should be. It's not really Civilization building, since there's no real population modeling involved, and its not really about combat (at least in Civ IV), since it's so simplistic.

 

[Draginol]

What do you suggest?

 

[kiwitt]

As a long-time wargamer, I can see that Civ is more than simply war. I enjoyed obtaining "cultural" victories, etc. I always saw Civ as a progression of a Civilisation through time.

However, I have not played "real" Civ for a many months as my current focus is my "Historical" re-write of RtW WWII Mod (Nearly complete), Due for release just before Civ 5 comes out.

 

[mboettcher]

Hey sry guys for not checking back in. I guess in the OP I wasn't being clear enough. I'm certainly not unhappy about the direction the game designers seem to be taking at this point, I was merely commenting on what seems to be an increasing trend of opinion. personally I have no problem with warfare playing a large role in the game. To be honest I play a warfare oriented style myself but I do try and use the other tools made available and like that they can be used means to their own end as well.

I'm for any improvement, I just hope that the balance is maintained between play styles. As a community I think we need to seek improvements in all aspects of the game and we seem to be currently preoccupied with the changes coming to the way war is handled.

@Draginol

As far as what do I suggest for balancing warfare with other styles of play but also giving the player more tactical options in combat? Well if ideas like supply line systems, theatres of control, air support and perhaps in future Civ's army groups instead of units then my wish list would include increasing the cost of war and perhaps as the game develops more dynamic economic controls and tools along with diplomacy. I have a list of features I think would be cool for a really detailed civ but they make the game more detailed than it should be. Perhaps they should introduce an economic victory and a more detailed and valuable trading systems where both sides can really profit (not like the previous civs where the value of trading was mostly supplemental). So perhaps as the combat system improves and becomes more of a lucrative option for the human player, so too should the more peaceful methods of amassing a fortune for one's people. Perhaps one civ could play like China and loan a large fortune to another civ and force them into a lifestyle debt they cant escape? Anyway if I continue this post will become too long

 

[Ablaz3d]

Well, I never really liked the stack of doom.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Look, I'm definitely *not* a warmonger in my games-I'm much more of a peaceful builder. That said, anything that makes war more than a "my stack is bigger than your stack" slug-fest will be welcomed by me-as long as its reasonably simple to understand & implement. CivIV made a fairly decent attempt with flanking attacks & collateral damage, but clearly it wasn't enough! Who knows, maybe I'll actually start to *enjoy* the military aspect of the game a bit more thanks to these improvements!

Aussie.

 

[Auncien]

Our people will no longer tolerate your aggressive cottage development near our borders... No more hit musicals for you!

 

[Thormodr]

I am not a warmonger usually in Civ. I am a peaceful builder about 90% of the time.
I agree with Aussie Lurker for the same reasons he gave. No more SODs will be a welcome change in my opinion. Zones of control and units not automatically dying along with other changes should make the game a lot more interesting and challenging. Perhaps I too will become more of a warmonger.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Disgustipated-personally, I'm really pleased with the leap that diplomacy made from the CivII model (everyone gangs up on you) to CivIII (all the AI's just act completely randomly towards you-& each other) to CivIV (where your actions *really* have an impact on the way a civ behaves towards you). I seriously hope that CivV features a similar leap forward in diplomacy! City States certainly sound like they'll help in this regard!

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[orinsul]

the only thing i want from the military side of the game is being able to automate your armies like in SMAC so i can be done with the whole war business.