Variable TIME SCALE

[rhialto]

Wars did last long before conscription became common. With the average skill of the mercenaries you could drag 10.000 to a battlefield to fight 1000 peasents and still loose (check Flanders history).

Mercenaries are such a bad example. As Machiavelli pointed out, an expert mercenary isn't skilled at killing; he is skilled at not dying. When both sides hired mercenaries, the merc captains often came to informal agreements to not do serious harm to each other, dragging out the war and getting them more money and less deaths.

Contrast that with a peasant army defending its homeland. Maybe not a veteran of many wars (whatever that means for a mercenary), but motivated to fight like no mercenary that ever lived.

Give me peasants over mercenaries any day if I'm asked to defend a homeland.

 

[Hyronymus]

Mercenaries are such a bad example. [...]

Nonetheless, wars did last long in the past time

But the problem is, that before you raise an army large enough to wage blizkrieg, you and your opponent discover tech which makes your army obsolete.
Some people, as I understand, are trying to convince us, armies should be raised quicker and move faster. Or technologies should be researched slower. Anything that would make you sometimes feel more like a field commander than a Pentagon clerk.

I hardly ever find myself in the problem of attacking with too weak units because my technology has paved a way to better units. And if that's the case you would surely upgrade them, won't you?

I think the used strategy for waging war has a bigger influence then people realize. Even with a small army you can wage war effectively. I once crushed the Glorious Germans with 15 cavalry and 17 Swiss Mercenaries (the Germans had 17 cities). My tactic was one city at a time and make sure you don't leave vulnerable units unattended. In popular words: size doesn't matter, it's the way you move. I reckon you all agree that thinking about the proper strategy is as much commander-like as you can go.

 

[dh_epic]

Learning to strike while you have the technological advantage is one of the only military strategies that Civilization has. Making the window of opportunity bigger for those with a technological lead would make the game even more predictable.

 

[Kosez]

Learning to strike while you have the technological advantage is one of the only military strategies that Civilization has.

That is my point. When you plan a war you think about your technological and numerical superiority and where and when you are going to strike. Taking all this in consideration can be a hard nut to crack an can be quite enough work to do sometimes. But sometimes you wish there was something more in CivIV.

Making the window of opportunity bigger for those with a technological lead would make the game even more predictable.

Yes, that is true. But I don`t think better movement points would lead to that. Or it would?

 

[dh_epic]

The only thing that more movement points would do is make troop positions even more irrelevent. Before the onset of roads, being able to figure out which city needs the most protection, and how you can position your troops to cut off enemies before they reach your cities is full of intelligent decisions. In the age of rails, though, you could literally defend each of your cities with a few units, and then stack 90 of your units anywhere, moving them around as needed.

 

[Suki]

yeah, military manouvers happen at a much higher rate than game turns, something needs to be done but I'm not sure how to make it work, switching time rates would be good except for all the civs who aren't involved in the war...

 

[sir_schwick]

Learning to strike while you have the technological advantage is one of the only military strategies that Civilization has.

A good example of a system that encourages diversity in strategy is TW. IT brings most ot mind the adage that you may win the battle but lose the war. With small armies you can casue serious attrition and strategic blocks without investing the resources the enemy must. Brilliant commanders can take bad armies and defeat or at least set back enemies at huge odds. You can raid instead of trying to occupy territory that it is useless to keep(razing is somewhat like this).

 

[dh_epic]

Sorry, what's TW, and could you tell me more about its military system? You're doing an excellent job of selling it.

 

[Commander Bello]

There is a problem with the scalability of time:
Even if this concept would be realised only for the SP, this would mean
a) in principle 2 different concepts - SP and MP
b) it would cause major problems for the AI
- at turn x, AI player 1 has allocated a certain city's production to an improvement
- at turn x+1, the human player start a war with AI(1)
- at turn x+1(1), the human player has some wins, so the AI has to readjust it's plans and reallocates the production of that city to military units
- at turn x+1(7), the AI has defeated the poorly prepared human attack, but has already produced 1 unit in that town
- at turn x+1(8), it reallocates the town's production to the originally planned improvement
- at turn x+1(11), the AI and the human make peace
- at turn x+2, the AI has 1 additional unit AND a portion of that improvement.

How would you deal with this? As wars then could be used for some kind of "time-machine", this would immediately lead to major exploits. Although I don't like the expression "exploit" for in-built game features, I feel that here it is justified to be used.

 

[sir_schwick]

Of course a big part of the utility of the TW system is the fact you general your own troops. However the other portions(strategic) could be applied. Its hard to described Total War without actually playing it. Shogun or the MTW Battle Collection should not cost much now. Maybe $30(US, probalby more in Canada) at BestBuy(you have those in Canada?).

 

[Kosez]

You can raid instead of trying to occupy territory that it is useless to keep(razing is somewhat like this).

Indeed. But raiding in Civ isn`t as efficient as you spend 1 or 2 turns per tile.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

yeah, military manouvers happen at a much higher rate than game turns, something needs to be done but I'm not sure how to make it work, switching time rates would be good except for all the civs who aren't involved in the war...

I think the best idea for that is a Zone of Combat, where a military unit can confront and do battle with units (or tiles for pillaging) in a wide area.. That would involve automating some of the combat, so that all the player did during their turn was set the strategic placement and direction of units.

 

[Portuguese]

I don't want variable time scales when you go to war.

The important point is that you don't need a precise reflection of reality. What you need is something that gives the feel of reality. This is why the idea that turns are 20 years (or however long) doesn't really matter. Once immersed in the game, people think in turns, not years.

Right.
But my main point is: You pass 80% (at least I do...) of the time in War, conquering the other Civs.

Can we do SOMETHING to make peace the normal status in the game, and not a continuous status of war from at least Knights? IF not variable time scales, what else?

 

[Portuguese]

I echo rhialto, sealman, and Darwin420. People obsessed with timeline realism have their priorities out of wack. Sometimes I wish they'd get rid of the year counter just so people would learn not to obsess with "why does it take a Roman Legion 100 years to cross Rome?!" or "Why is my Warrior still alive after 3000 years?! They should naturally reproduce, and have baby warriors, which grow up, and thus lose the experience advantage of the original warrior!"

Asking the game to freeze for 90% of the players so two other players can experience timeline realism is ... well... a little too much???

Hmmm... Not to say that I somewhat agree with you: some people do call for too much realism. BUT (there is always a but...), I think that the game pushes you to a continuous state of war.
When I plan for a cultural victory, I just can't help the urge to kill the enemy Civ that has more cult.points, similar happening on space or diplo victories...
As I like to play Huge maps, I end having 300+ turns continuous wars!!!
As I was a builder in CIV1, I feel something is wrong. Besides, I feel that a CIV should not be always at war, don't you agree?

 

[sir_schwick]

The real problem is the fact that wars only take 1% of the time to accomplish in RL what they do in Civ. This is assuming that production and military time are put on a relative scale against each other, not against the turn/year comparison. Conflicts are often punctuated and quick compared to the times of peace in between. That punctuation is missing from Civ conflicts.

 

[Portuguese]

Justy,
1. Ships must move faster. > MUST HAVE. A ship takes so much to go around the world while a horse is insta-teleported via RR

2. When horseback riding is discovered all units should gain a speed bonus. > MUST HAVE. Duh...

3. Units in a stack should gain the ability to form a column. This is not the same as an army. A column would gain an additional speed bonus. This bonus would be because of the existence of logistical units such as wagon trains, jeeps, dueceandahalfs, humvees, etc. If these units are wiped out in the ensuing battle then the column would revert to an ordinary stack of units. > Interesting. Should require a "horses/wagon/humvees" unit per 10 units.

3. You should also be able use an enemies roads and railroads. > Hmmm... Don't agree in RR! Ok on roads.

4. River transit should be available up and down stream when tech allows. > with a insta-RR transportation, who cares?

5. Since it would unfair for the defenders to have attacking units speed in without a chance to respond I would grant defenders a chance to auto-intercept attackers. These defenders if in this mode would have a 2 or 3 square surveying radius. If an attacker were detected the unit would move immediately adjacent to the attackers and respond. The result of this combat would be a normal attack vs. defence encounter. I would also give the defender a percentage to ambush the attackers in which their defence is doubled. Fortified units would lose this ability. > Just in some units...

Wars should be quick and decisive . To put a buffer against this increased speed actually inflating wars I would suggest increasing the monetary and social cost of war. Wars contrary to belief are not good for an economy. The more units involved the greater the drain on the economy. I would also allow defecit spending. You could prolong the war and press on but you would put yourself further into red ink. The farther you sink the worse your economy gets. > Thought of that, but I disagree. Fascism is already toooo powerfull and would gain even more advantadges. Besides, that is not true in some war economies, like the US for example (where a "good" war always boost the economy)

I think these proposals would speed up wars and make them more realistic. It would also make planning for war more important. Also without wars taking up so much time in gameplay it would allow other interactions between civs to become more important. I understand that those who see Civ solely as a wargame will disagree, but I would like to see other avenues explored. I do enjoy the war aspect of Civ and I could always play Civ 3 or Civ 2 or Civ 1. Civ 4 should offer a little more. > Right, but I think these would not be enough. I don't see evidence here that my feudalist/fascist civ would be in peace for many, if any, turn...

 

[Portuguese]

The real problem is the fact that wars only take 1% of the time to accomplish in RL what they do in Civ. This is assuming that production and military time are put on a relative scale against each other, not against the turn/year comparison. Conflicts are often punctuated and quick compared to the times of peace in between. That punctuation is missing from Civ conflicts.

Yeah, that is the problem. To make an effect of a WW it would take how many turns. Not to say the war of the 6 days...

Any other ideas to make a war take fewer turns (and thus highering the % of peace turns) are welcome.

 

[dh_epic]

Portuguese, now you're speaking my language! (Wait, it sounds a little silly that I'm telling someone named "Portuguese" that they're speaking my language. But that's the humor of metaphors.)

The problem is a big one. Part of it comes from the fact that conquest makes all strategies possible. More land helps you build the space ship faster. It helps you build culture faster. And, of course, more land gets you domination victory.

In real life, there are more pursuits than world domination. Many countries celebrate other successes, and pursue other goals.

 

[Portuguese]

Israel would be a punny Civ in a civ game and it isn't.

Great Civs in real world: US, UK, Fran, Germ, Isr, It, Vaticn (lol)

Great Civs aplying Civ's criteria: China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, US

PS: yes, I am speaking your language. Ou então não perceberias nada do que eu estava para aqui a dizer, nera?

(or else you wouldn't understand what I were here saying, gotcha? )

 

[Colonel]

In theory this would be a good idea but it would A be to much work and two completely impracticable.