Stop Trying to make Civ V into a war simulator

[seasnake]

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.

It seems to me that any game that was about building an empire should require you to be involved in the military operations. Armies can be essential for building an empire, or at the very least defending it.

 

[Camikaze]

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 completely agree that Civ is probably too war oriented, and should focus much more on other aspects of empire management. But I don't think that making the war system more realistic is a bad thing, and can be done at the same time as reducing the importance of war to the game. I mean, implementing supply lines, for instance, does not necessarily mean that war is going to be more a part of the game. It just means that when you do use war, it is going to be more realistic.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

War and conflict have been two of the major engines that have driven the development and course of humanity and civilization ever since Cro-Magnon man drove the Neanderthals out of Europe and to extinction.

Therefore, a game as epic and far-reaching as Civilization should give due time and complexity to the mechanisms in the game that represent war, something that the developers have really never done.

 

[Sion]

The diversity of opinion is great... while I am concerned that Civ becomes "Panzer General throughout the ages", I would hope that the spirit of the game is retained... also, as a SMAC veteran, I do miss the Economic victory option (becoming that all encompassing World Bank, all New World Order style... ;-)

Still, if I want a "realistic" war experience, I whip out Total War... Civ has always been "strategic" level and never at the "operational" or "tactical" level... having said that, I have never really encountered the Stack of Doom issue that everyone keeps mentioning... I'm more of a "Blitzkrieg" player (Napoleon shocked the socks off traditional Europeans that way!), so it's about rapid incursions with several groups, which seems to prevent the opponent from pooling their units, as they instead disperse to respond to the threat... so, I have never perceived the need for a SoD fix, naturally...

On some level, I am vexed by the whole idea that, in a hex that takes forty years to traverse, I have only one "unit" (ten axemen? fifty? ten thousand?) so if they are going that way, then why not just make units "armies" with mixed forces, and the AI can calculate the effect of your technology on the army's performance? Just a thought...

 

[Hypernova]

On some level, I am vexed by the whole idea that, in a hex that takes forty years to traverse, I have only one "unit" (ten axemen? fifty? ten thousand?)

Well have you ever been vexed by the whole idea that, in a hex that takes forty years to traverse, you can have only one "improvement" (how big can a workshop be?)

edit: oh and welcome to CFC

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I would like if they did get away from the "unit" model of combat, instead have units act more like cities, they have a location and a range of operations they can conduct from it. Essentially they control an Area rather than a single tile (similar to Air units)

 

[Danielos]

I´m an extremely peaceful player. I almost never starts any war of my own. But even I can rarely play a game without being attacked by aggressive AI civs. So, when war eventually do break out, I want a reasonably realistic and entertaining model to simulate war.

 

[Rexflex]

Well have you ever been vexed by the whole idea that, in a hex that takes forty years to traverse, you can have only one "improvement" (how big can a workshop be?)

Matters of scale (both in size and time) in the Civ series are way off in just about every part of the game. So why people get worked up about any one of scale issues in particular is beyond me. The game is not designed to simulate real life - it would be way too slow, way too complicated and way too boring to do so.

 

[Hypernova]

Matters of scale (both in size and time) in the Civ series are way off in just about every part of the game. So why people get worked up about any one of scale issues in particular is beyond me. The game is not designed to simulate real life - it would be way too slow, way too complicated and way too boring to do so.

Exactly, which is why it's annoying to see again and again the scale argument against 1UPT, if its proponents were consistent they would argue for the stacking of improvements. Yet nobody seems to have noticed that improvements have always worked along a one per tile model, with exactly the same scale ramifications as the new combat system.

 

[Bowsling]

Yes, I agree, the game is much to focused on war.

While improvements on the tactical sector of the game would certainly still be welcome improvements, Firaxis needs to work more on the diplomatic/empire building parts of the game.
I am always pretty much just a warmonger. I have never really played a peaceful game of Civ III (unless you count scenarios), which is what I play more often, and I remember one time in Civ IV when I tried for a cultural victory, as Pericles of France, which was constantly interrupted by my benevolent neighbors Ramesses of Rome and Tokugawa of Ethiopia launching petty little invasions where they'd siege Paris, and whenever a unit dared to attack, one of the six crossbowmen defending the city would most likely rip it to pieces. It was nowhere near as much fun as my domination or conquest games.

I probably always will prefer warmongering to empire building, but Firaxis should at least work on making empire building more fun.

 

[Shurdus]

From the very begining of the series I could not really get into the game because of the tediousness of combat. Civ IV is the first civ that had me hooked because of the streamlined combat. Yet even this game had me disappointed because the combat was way too simple.

It seems that Civ5 now has a system that makes war more enjoyable. Civ has always been a game for me that is all about a lot of simple systems that lock together in interesting ways. Combat has been the very one system that was not interesting or fun imo, it was just all about jumping your opponent with a technological advantage and then bashing your way through the cities the AI has... There was nothing interesting about it and it felt like a chore to me.

Now we have a more advanced combat system that hopefully makes the game overall more rewarding. Here is to hoping!

 

[eireksten]

The way I see it, we could easily get a game where it is more possible to defend yourself now (after all there will be limits to unit counts). Thus, if you do a decent job here, the game will in fact be MORE about civilization building and diplomacy. I've gotten my hopes up that it'll be more viable to keep up as a peaceful civ (though I hope we won't see such easy victory conditions as culture or religion in Civ4).

 

[Dbob]

I probably always will prefer warmongering to empire building, but Firaxis should at least work on making empire building more fun.

Throughout history what is "empire building", in most cases, if not a little bit of warmongering?

 

[Mael Sechlainn]

I don't often engage in war in Civ, prefer to take the peaceful route(unless the need arising for another tactic) so that's why I am looking forward to 5.
Hopefully the better diplomacy does offer more rewards this time around for a peacefully way,
just hope the revamp isn't going to be all "Let us skip happily over to the border and ANNIHILATE THE ENEMY!"

 

[Healz]

With diplomacy, again, I think that there needs to be a little bit smarter tag influence on the leader's style. Ie. these leaders should have the ability to be exploited based on their traits. Sometimes, one gets the feeling that traits aren't really influencing the game as they should...

 

[Shaihulud]

Panzer General is a fun series, so I trust that its form of "war" will be quite fun, intuitive and lot less likely to abuse the ai

 

[Draginol]

I would suspect that the UI for moving units is somewhat different in Civ V. I would imagine that now "armies" and formations and such use multiple tiles and you move that group together. So it might not be cumbersome to deal with 1 unit per tile.

 

[Ahriman]

I would imagine that now "armies" and formations and such use multiple tiles and you move that group together.

Absolutely, it was pretty clear IMO from the outset that there would likely be some kind of "formation move" UI. Maybe you can band-box select a group and set that to be a formation.

However, shuffling them through a choke-point could still have some pathing issues and encourage micromanagement, but I think that's unavoidable.
It won't be perfect, but hopefully the pathfinding will recognize that the "formation" is trying to go through the choke, and so units will wait their turn to pass through when the choke is blocked, rather than diverting to try to go the "long way" around.

 

[mjs0]

I would be nervous about the AI making the right choices on unit formation movement through a choke point. Especially since the 'right order' would depend on such things as whether the enemy is ahead of you or behind you.

 

[KingYosef]

I love to play the cultural route. War is coming anyway, so trying to win by other ways makes it all more exiting.