Strategic vs Tactical Warfare System

[polypheus]

Do people prefer a more strategic level combat model or a more tactical level combat model?

That is, do people want a model with combat involving more larger scale units like armies, fleets, etc with these large scale "units" fighting other "units" as a whole?

Or do people prefer controlling individual units and fighting them at a low level?

 

[scratchthepitch]

In my opinion, Civ warfare really moved in the wrong direction in Civ5. Instead of evolving towards more strategic-level warfare, they did the complete opposite in Civ5 and moved completely towards inappropriate tactical warfare which humans will always be better at!

You mean that rather than improve the AI so it would better handle unit combat decently, the developers should have dumbed down combat in Civ5 still further from from what it was dumbed down from Civ3 to Civ4?

I'm afraid I cant agree with that. A game should improve and become more varied and better laid out with more options, to match the increase in abilities computers are able to offer. It shouldn't be progressively made less.

 

[Jediron]

Frankly; i would love to see a Strategic and a tactical aprroach at the same time. Much like they do with Total War. That would be my ultimate CIV.

If i had to choose; i just want something like SOD back, but then much easier to handle multiple units (again: sort of a TW- general/army approach). Is that strategic or tactical ? Dunno.

A pure Strategic game would become boring, i think. Look at other pure Strategic games. They have little followers, i tried them and they are extremely boring.

 

[polypheus]

Frankly; i would love to see a Strategic and a tactical aprroach at the same time. Much like they do with Total War. That would be my ultimate CIV.

If i had to choose; i just want something like SOD back, but then much easier to handle multiple units (again: sort of a TW- general/army approach). Is that strategic or tactical ? Dunno.

A combat system that handles warfare mostly at the "army" or "fleet" level, I consider to be more at the strategic level. If you don't have to micromanage and handle each and every individual unit but can give broad orders and combat is between army-vs-army-vs-fleet then that is strategic level combat system.

 

[Louis XXIV]

In other words, this thread is just another way of asking if we prefer stacks or one unit per turn?

BTW, Total War's system is fun for that game because the game is built around it. If the game had as many diverse overall options as a Civilization game, one would never actually use the tactical battles (half the time, I don't use them in Total War games either).

 

[Jediron]

Oke. Then i choose none. Because i would love to fight kinda like TW-style battles, and that's tactical. Movement over the strategic map, "ala" CIV and fighting "ala" TW , with auto result button, for the people who want a quick result. That could look like a ordinairy CIV battle-animation.

[qoute]BTW, Total War's system is fun for that game because the game is built around it. If the game had as many diverse overall options as a Civilization game, one would never actually use the tactical battles (half the time, I don't use them in Total War games either). [/quote]
True, i don't fight every battle in TW also. Only the REAL challenging ones, ones you better do yourself; to claim victory. It'd surely adds something to the game.
You can really test your tactical skills, for one.

 

[polypheus]

In other words, this thread is just another way of asking if we prefer stacks or one unit per turn?

No because it has nothing to do with 1UPT per se. The old SoD was still tactical, unit-by-unit combat. OTOH, the CTP system based on stack-vs-stack combat was more "strategic" level. Also if Civ had further developed the Civ3 army stuff, again it would be moving towards the strategic side.

It has only tangentially to do with 1UPT.

 

[polypheus]

Oke. Then i choose none. Because i would love to fight kinda like TW-style battles, and that's tactical. Movement over the strategic map, "ala" CIV and fighting "ala" TW , with auto result button, for the people who want a quick result. That could look like a ordinairy CIV battle-animation.

It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. To somewhat oversimplify, it is more a question of, do you want to be fighting mostly with grouped units like armies and such or do you prefer to fight unit by unit whether it be in SoD or 1UPT. And also whether you want combat resolved at the unit fight with individual unit each turn model or more of a many-units fight many-units at the same time model.

 

[polypheus]

In my opinion, Civ warfare really moved in the wrong direction in Civ5. Instead of evolving towards more strategic-level warfare, they did the complete opposite in Civ5 and moved completely towards inappropriate tactical warfare which humans will always be better at! The only way that the AI can defeat you if with superior numbers but then what's the difference between this and SoD system in essence???

What they should have done is expand on the air-mission model to all combat and make it more a strategic-level decision. You'd setup "armies" or "fleets" just like you do air fleets, then told it where to go and gave it "missions" and rules on what to do upon contact and all action is resolved simultaneously at the end of all turns. Then warfare becomes a matter of strategic-level decision making. How large are my armies and fleets, what are their compositions, where are they going, and what are they trying to do when they get there?

With a strategic-level combat system like this, the AI can absolutely handle it because it is no longer trying to move individual units and fighting with them which it will NEVER do well compared to the human. Instead, it would make strategic choices based on its situation and these it can do well.

Here it would be more about strategic level combat. You would be making decisions like assembling your fleet for Pearl Harbor attack and go! Or assembling your invasion fleet for D-Day and go! Beyond that you would not be coordinating individual units to fight these battles and instead et them resolve themselves with army-vs-army-vs-fleet combat system! No more micromanaging tons of units either as SoD or carpets of doom!

With the scale of civilization, I have always believed that it should have slowly evolved more towards strategic-level warfare and away from individual unit, tactical warfare. To me the scale didn't quite fit and just as importantly any human would always have the edge because a human can always micromanage individual units much better than any AI that has to employ fixed, rigid algorithms to do so.

Of course, many people will disagree with me and want to maneuver units one-by-one and such. And these people of course are loving 1UPT PG style tactical combat. That is fine, it is a valid opinion. IMHO, I just don't think it belongs in a Civ game. More importantly, the AI will never be good at it except through force of numbers. So why not just make it more of a series of strategic-level decisons using units of "armies" and "fleets" with "missions" so that AI does not need to micromanage and can instead be competently programmed to make good strategic-level decisions.

Here the AI and humans decide on how large are my armies and fleets, what are their compositions, where are they going, and what are they trying to do when they get there? Then let the "great generals" take it from there to execute your chose mission!

Of course such a change will not happen for Civ5 and probably cannot be modded in. But this poll can show whether Civ5 direction is generally favored or if people feel as I do that it moved in the wrong direction towards too much tactical level warfare.

 

[Jediron]

Well, i like 1 UTP with PG. I don't like it with CIV. So you are right, it does not belong in CIV. Different types of armies, fleets and airfleets will do ;-)

For example: Take a Fighter (unit/fleet/army?) in CIV. You can do recon with it. But only ONCE a turn, in just ONE direction. Funny, while i think that fighter "represent" multiple fighters; maybe a squadron/wing or so. Which, are perfectly capable of doing recon in many directions, if not all. Not in CIV. Your planes can only go one way.
Very gamey and not realistic.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

IMHO TW-games are absolutelly horrific at "strategic" level ...

 

[dannythefool]

Every unit is supposed to be an entire army. Do you think they keep increasing the number of little men that are rendered for no reason? ;-)

 

[Camikaze]

Civilization is a turn based strategy game. Not a turn based tactical game. So for Civ, a strategic warfare system is the clear and obvious way to go.

You would prefer a tactical system, I hear you say? Well, here are two forums that might interest you.

BTW, this is probably my major pet peeve with ideas and suggestions.

 

[Jediron]

No, don't get me wrong. I want the strategic part from CIV , and when it's time to battle; the tactical part of TW (simply put).
Anyway, i only say this because they took SOD away from us. No need to become sarcastic, thank you.

IMHO TW-games are absolutelly horrific at "strategic" level ...

Yes, they are and no, that's not what i mean. See above.

Every unit is supposed to be an entire army. Do you think they keep increasing the number of little men that are rendered for no reason? ;-)

Doh, afcource not. But the game does, sort of. By only let you recon in one direction for example. It's stupid, that's i was trying to say.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

No, don't get me wrong. I want the strategic part from CIV , and when it's time to battle; the tactical part of TW (simply put).

Hmmm ... why to mix a TB-system with a RT one ?
OK - in TW-games this happen but the main issue is that there the battle is supposed to be the focus and the strategical part just a "nice addition".

Don't understand me wrong : it could be done but I belive that a mini-map, tactical battle which is TB will fit better in general Civ-games paradigm.

 

[Windsor]

I want a warfare system designed with the AI in mind and I want warfare to be balanced against other aspects of the game.

I want to win the game because I'm better at choosing what to tech, better handling diplomatic relationships, better at choosing social policies and better at developing cities and better at warfare. None of these aspects should dominate the others.

What I fear, and feel Civ5 confirms, is that a more fleshed out tactical warfare system makes humans to good at one part of the game. In Civ5 I feel that it doesn't matter that much if my chose of social policies isn't any good. My advantage on the battlefield becomes so great that the SPs doesn't matter.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

In my opinion, Civ warfare really moved in the wrong direction in Civ5. Instead of evolving towards more strategic-level warfare, they did the complete opposite in Civ5 and moved completely towards inappropriate tactical warfare which humans will always be better at! The only way that the AI can defeat you if with superior numbers but then what's the difference between this and SoD system in essence???

What they should have done is expand on the air-mission model to all combat and make it more a strategic-level decision. You'd setup "armies" or "fleets" just like you do air fleets, then told it where to go and gave it "missions" and rules on what to do upon contact and all action is resolved simultaneously at the end of all turns. Then warfare becomes a matter of strategic-level decision making. How large are my armies and fleets, what are their compositions, where are they going, and what are they trying to do when they get there?

With a strategic-level combat system like this, the AI can absolutely handle it because it is no longer trying to move individual units and fighting with them which it will NEVER do well compared to the human. Instead, it would make strategic choices based on its situation and these it can do well.

Here it would be more about strategic level combat. You would be making decisions like assembling your fleet for Pearl Harbor attack and go! Or assembling your invasion fleet for D-Day and go! Beyond that you would not be coordinating individual units to fight these battles and instead et them resolve themselves with army-vs-army-vs-fleet combat system! No more micromanaging tons of units either as SoD or carpets of doom!

With the scale of civilization, I have always believed that it should have slowly evolved more towards strategic-level warfare and away from individual unit, tactical warfare. To me the scale didn't quite fit and just as importantly any human would always have the edge because a human can always micromanage individual units much better than any AI that has to employ fixed, rigid algorithms to do so.

Of course, many people will disagree with me and want to maneuver units one-by-one and such. And these people of course are loving 1UPT PG style tactical combat. That is fine, it is a valid opinion. IMHO, I just don't think it belongs in a Civ game. More importantly, the AI will never be good at it except through force of numbers. So why not just make it more of a series of strategic-level decisons using units of "armies" and "fleets" with "missions" so that AI does not need to micromanage and can instead be competently programmed to make good strategic-level decisions.

Here the AI and humans decide on how large are my armies and fleets, what are their compositions, where are they going, and what are they trying to do when they get there? Then let the "great generals" take it from there to execute your chose mission!

Of course such a change will not happen for Civ5 and probably cannot be modded in. But this poll can show whether Civ5 direction is generally favored or if people feel as I do that it moved in the wrong direction towards too much tactical level warfare.

I agree completely with this, I'd rather play an emperor simulator than an empire simulator. The more they make Civ into a wargame the more I'm tempted to play a good wargame rather than Civ. Emperors rarely lead armies into battle, and when they do they only lead one. A richer and more complex political game would fit hand in glove with this approach. Do I trust my best general with a huge army? He has the best chance to win the battle, but his loyalty is suspect and I might find that army marching against me. These are the kind of questions that real emperors lost sleep over, and I think they would be just as compelling in a game.

As you point out such a system would be great from an AI perspective. Human tactical awesomeness is a big factor in all games that allow for it. Here it would be severely circumscribed and you would have to make up for that with greater strategic and political acumen. AI players would not need enormous bonuses to remain legitimate threats, as your generals and theirs would be on an equal footing. This is the direction they should be moving and I've been saying so since that interminable suggestions thread on Apolyton for Civ3.

 

[falconne]

Why is it that whenever the tactical battles topic is brought up everyone assumes it has to be TW style RTS battles?

No love for turn based tactical battles in the Civ fanbase?

 

[dannythefool]

Doh, afcource not. But the game does, sort of. By only let you recon in one direction for example. It's stupid, that's i was trying to say.

I don't understand, last I checked my scouting parties were able to see two tiles in all directions. I don't think their eyes are that good...

 

[Camikaze]

Why is it that whenever the tactical battles topic is brought up everyone assumes it has to be TW style RTS battles?

No love for turn based tactical battles in the Civ fanbase?

No. No love at all.

It's just the obvious example to use.