Stop Trying to make Civ V into a war simulator

[Ahriman]

I think no battle animations are the way to go

The problem is though, there are a lot of casual players who *loved* watching the individual unit battles in Civ4.
We're used to them now, but this was a big draw-card to the game for many when the game came out, and had a significant "wow" factor.

Yeah, its tedious to watch in a big game or late-game, but I think they're highly unlikely to be removing combat animations from the game, though of course there will be an option to turn them off.

 

[weltraeumer]

you do not own the land you cannot defend.
in the end military is everything. friendship is nothing more than a temporary win win situation.

war has to be the focus. everything around (economy/diplomacy) must not be neglected but serves its progression. A game won without having a decent military sounds strange to me.

 

[phungus420]

Now I am unsure what feature I defended exactly, I was pointing out that there are options to make combat faster. If you think combat takes too long, it may be a good idea to use the options that make it faster. I do not care about animations and I certainly would not care if they left them in or out in the next installment, as long as they provide the option to turn them off.

The simplest solution is to get rid of the cause of the tedium, ie the Stacks of Doom. Not eliminating the animations.

 

[Shurdus]

The simplest solution is to get rid of the cause of the tedium, ie the Stacks of Doom. Not eliminating the animations.

Fine by me. Although after playiong through the game once I want the game to hurry up once I start to get bored with the animations. There must be an option to turn off the animations for me to keep my sanity for those later games.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

in the end military is everything. friendship is nothing more than a temporary win win situation.

war has to be the focus. everything around (economy/diplomacy) must not be neglected but serves its progression. A game won without having a decent military sounds strange to me.

I very much disagree.

Friendship between Players is a temporary win wn situation

However "friendship" between actual historical populations is not, because "populations" are not trying to win the game, they are trying to take care of their own needs, and in that case, economic/cultural are the primary things, war is secondary. The military is there to further the economic/cultural goals of the population using it.

That needs to be properly modeled in the way civ works... it is hard, because it is not a simulation but a game.

You need to have ways to 'overcome' an enemy in non military ways (culture, economics, diplomacy)

 

[weltraeumer]

I very much disagree.

ok

Friendship between Players is a temporary win wn situation

yes.

However "friendship" between actual historical populations is not, because "populations" are not trying to win the game, they are trying to take care of their own needs, and in that case, economic/cultural are the primary things, war is secondary. The military is there to further the economic/cultural goals of the population using it.

I think friendship is always egoistic, as you said "they are trying to take care of THEIR own needs". There is no intention of winning the game, cause there is no finish, but leading the score is cool.
War or let´s say competition has translocated after ww2. Physical (world)war with its modern tool has been realized as something that should never ever happen. (edit: actually not out of humanity, but the fact of fighting a war and loosing a lot of troops or even cities is pretty disturbing. doesn´t fit with the clean war thing. war without losses (on your side))
So military is secondary to countries who achieved a state of discouring any attemp of invading thoughts. Like Europes military size and purpose is mainly to prevent a possible war, but too weak to perform major offensive aggression itself.
Military is primary for states whos military power has no discouraging effects yet and even more if this countries plans cross the ideas of the major powers.

That needs to be properly modeled in the way civ works... it is hard, because it is not a simulation but a game.

You need to have ways to 'overcome' an enemy in non military ways (culture, economics, diplomacy)

Of course there should be a way to overcome an enemy without using military, but if he feels threatend don´t be surprized if you´re beeing on top of his military "to do" list. That´s what I meant with, in the end it´s about military. You cannot sing their army away. Maybe you can make their people love you, but the game is about dictators and revolution was pretty much neglected ever since. (I don´t know if it would be a good game, where you got to fight the other state and your own people. One would have to define a moral standard, which actually has changed pretty much through time...)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I don´t know if it would be a good game, where you got to fight the other state and your own people. One would have to define a moral standard, which actually has changed pretty much through time...)

That is what is needed, you need to have to fight both other peoples and Portions of your own.

This provides a major advantage in preventing "runaway" civs...big civs may be less stable, more vulnerable, than ones that stayed small and focused on certain other aspects of development.

As for a "moral standard" civ already has one, people like luxury goods, entertainment (including religion) and peace. They like being ruled by the same culture. They don't like being worked to death or drafted. (it is the happiness system)

Remove the "overcrowding" and you have the perfect system (you just have to have the right way for the people to enforce their happiness... There it should be military ie Rebels/Partisans

 

[MrBanana]

If you a "peaceful builder", and if avoid war jst as much in Civ5 as in CIv4 then the new system won't effect you very much. Diplomacy more complicated KILL THE IINFEDALSSSSS will let your avoid war entirely except for warmongers.

 

[Tygari]

???mew???

I am not very sure what the argument is about.

Opinion on Civ 5 military changes:

I personally like the idea of only one unit per tile.
With the SoD it always felt a bit pointless to build a fort and put units on it as the SoD would just walk around it. Forcing me to place all my units on my city for defense or attack them preemptively negating defense advantages. or letting them plunder my tiles and to keep my defenses.

With a single unit per tile and the option for surround tactics those fort tiles on the edges suddenly become a greater hindrance and potential danger to incoming armies.
They now have to be sure if they wish to take it out first or avoid it going for the goal and risk possibly being attacked from behind.

-------------------------------------------

But if the whole point of all this bickering is about the SoD in CIiv 4 then that brings to questions one of the points I always felt was a bit broken in Civ series.

Why do military units have a money upkeep cost but not a food and supply upkeep cost?
If all you wish to do is get rid of SoD then wouldn't it just be a simple matter of modifying the money upkeep cost to also take into account a Food and Supply upkeep cost?

Currently all military units gold upkeep cost is paid for out of the national treasury.
That makes sense.
But if Food and Supply were to be added this process wouldn't be usable as each city keeps individual track of food and hammer productions.

The only way I can think to possibly make this work would be to add to cities a means of food and hammer taxation. An adjustable slide of each per city would be best.
Once food and supplies have to be taken into account with armies SoD would naturally disappear.

People would begin asking themselves should I use this extra food to grow my city larger or feed a bigger army?

Course this would require a bit of thinking on the programmers side and balancing and choices would have to be made.
Melee Units who use the same weapons over and over but do alot of moving might have a higher food cost but a lower supply cost.
Ranged Units which have little movement requirements but use up ammo might require less food but more supplies.
Siege units which require alot of labor to move load and fire might require alot of food and supply requirements.

Possible example might be.
1 Maceman unit might require a food cost of .2 and a hammer cost of .1 to operate.
1 Longbow unit might require a food cost of .1 and a hammer cost of .2 to operate.
1 Catapult unit might require a food cost of .2 and a hammer cost of .2 to operate.

Through out history even to this day. Economy in food, money, and production have been requirements to maintain any army. Countless examples exist through history of governments that starved and worked their populations to death to maintain armies in the fields in hopes of winning some war.
If such a system were to be added it would tied heavily into war weariness as well as Legends of Revolutions Revolutions system.

New Leader Traits and Military Promotions could be designed to assist in these new mechanics.

The only downside I see to this is if such a system were to be added then the gold cost on unit maintenance might become over costly and unbalanced.
Some balancing might need to be done on gold productions and expenditure systems.

-------------------------------------------

Course I am not very bright.
So all this could just be nonsensical stupidity on my part.
If so then just ignore my delirious ramblings.
Tehe
->^.^<-

 

[`KEi]

It doesn't matter!
If you don't like it then... MOD IT!

 

[The_J]

Why do military units have a money upkeep cost but not a food and supply upkeep cost?

Because the implementation of this is just horrible.
Look at Civ2 + 3.

 

[nokmirt]

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!

If their using hexes they should like any tactical wargame, have realistic options, such as morale supply, and attrition. But the player should be the boss and turn options on or off as he see fit. And no steam garbage. I don't need it and do not play online anyhow, not now not ever.

 

[mboettcher]

ok im returning for a long over due post.

Now Im all for improving the warfare aspects of the game but I dont want to see the warfare aspects start to outstrip the other facets of the game. In other words I want to see even improvements in the viability of all play styles. Perhaps there should be more tools to economically manipulate your empire and a broader spectrum of econimc options.

I've actually been an advocate of having government types affect warfare far more significantly and the longer your nation is under a type of system the more 'set in their ways' the people become. There could also be a lot more need for approval by your people under one system than another. In addition a LOT more money needs to be made from trade and other civs need to be a lot more willing to trade. That way, yeah, war may be profitable but do you really want to destroy a highly profitable trade economy (which should in turn even further anger your people) to fight a war where u literally lose control of your nation? Thats what I mean by not turning the game into a war simulator.

For example a Capitalistic Free market Democracy could excel in maximizing trade routes, manufactured goods, etc but would generate a lot of distaste for war, be very difficult to get a war declaration from your people (perhaps a little home espionage would be cool to 'force the hand' of your own people... cause ruling is not only knowing what to do but getting your people to do it), and the same said free market democracies would also field very poor armies man for man (negative bonus' or something) as such nations have traditionally fielded poor armies relative to their wealth and overall expenditure (there's a long list of reasons why).

So basically the trade offs for being warmonger and missing out on other types of benefits could balance the far more sophisticated war engine you can deploy in a new Civ game.

 

[Depravo]

Some kind of portrayal of supply, however simplistic, would be very welcome here. No more panzer invasions across 20 tiles of desert, and having the whole of your home continent explored by 3000 BC.

 

[Ahriman]

If their using hexes they should like any tactical wargame, have realistic options, such as morale supply, and attrition.

That is the craziest logical leap I have ever seen. How is whether they use squares or hexes in any way related to whether or not details like morale, supply and attrition should be included?

 

[Earthling]

Some people want to play a tactical wargame with one unit per tile and many different potential factors like those listed taken into account, instead of a game with a grand scope and war a bit more abstracted as only one feature in the development of a civilization over thousands of years.

 

[Ahriman]

Some people want to play a tactical wargame with one unit per tile and many different potential factors like those listed taken into account, instead of a game with a grand scope and war a bit more abstracted as only one feature in the development of a civilization over thousands of years.

Some of us see no conflict between using a 1upt combat system with a bit of tactical, but while keeping the general scope broad and abstracted and not getting bogged down with wargame mechanics like attrition and morale.

Its not one or the other.

 

[nokmirt]

That is the craziest logical leap I have ever seen. How is whether they use squares or hexes in any way related to whether or not details like morale, supply and attrition should be included?

Have you ever played a tactical wargame? Did you ever see them use squares? If you did please tell me which game. I do see your point though, just because they are squares does not mean you cannot use morale, attrition, and supply, but in civ they have not done this. Most hex games like War and Peace for instance used all three in their rules. Morale, attrition, and supply were important rules in any Napoleonic tactical wargame, or pretty much any tactical wargame period, and I have been playing them most of my life. Since there are hexes in Civ 5, I am under the impression that they will implement rules that are traditional for a game that uses hexes. Although it does not mean they have to.

Some of us see no conflict between using a 1upt combat system with a bit of tactical, but while keeping the general scope broad and abstracted and not getting bogged down with wargame mechanics like attrition and morale.

Its not one or the other.

However, keep in mind that these more complicated options if present should be able to be turned off and on at the whim of the player. Some people may want to try a more complicated game, some may not.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Speaking to Civ IV: the problem is that it is already a "war simulator". The military component of the game is the only one with a direct feedback, immediate response mechanism. You have little direct, immediate control over your economy (except through the slider); Diplomacy provides no reliable, immediate reaction to your efforts (unless they are antagonistic); on the map itself - once the world is explored/settled - there is almost nothing that provides immediate returns that is not related to war or defense.

In any given turn, there is very little the player can do to improve his economy or his diplomatic standing.

Also, as discussed here and elsewhere, war provides the quickest path to victory.

Sid said that he changed the game from an RTS to turn-based because the RTS format made the player seem like a spectator: but in all aspects of the game except war, the player is largely passive.

I love the transition to both hexes and 1UPT - I think they will make the military aspect of the game more interesting and more reliant on long term decisions (other than "build more units"). That said, I hope in Civ 5, the player has a more active role in the economic and diplomatic aspects of the game. I hope they make the game more of an "economic/diplomatic" simulator.

 

[Ahriman]

Have you ever played a tactical wargame? Did you ever see them use squares? If you did please tell me which game.

Tactical combat screen of Master of Magic.
Age of Wonders tactical component.
Some castle siege games... Stronghold, I think?
Tactical screen for Master of Orion.
Total war games are effectively built on a giant set of squares.
Chess.

But the premise "all tactical wargames use hexes" does NOT imply "anything that uses hexes must be a tactical wargame". That's about the most basic logical failure that there is.

Civ is not a tactical wargame. Changing the shape of the tiles does not make it one.

However, keep in mind that these more complicated options if present should be able to be turned off and on at the whim of the player. Some people may want to try a more complicated game, some may not.

You shouldnt' design a game by throwing in every feature you can think of, and then say its ok because the player can turn them off if they don't like them.
You design the main game engine around the way the game is intended to be played, at the level of complexity that the game is intended to be played. And you design the AI to play that game.

If you try to design an AI that is going to play a game with all kinds of extra features stuffed into it, it won't do nearly as good a job as it would if you designed the AI to play the simpler version.