• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

War seems very montonous!

MarkShot

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
7
I have played all three generations of Civilization.

There are many things which I like about the game. However, one of few thing I dislike is how late in the game it can get very tedious managing your civilization.

I think CIV3 has made great strides in this regard with automation of workers, the city production queue, the research queue, the city governors, and other UI interface improvements. Recently, I just concluded my first game where I won a histograph victory. (I made war on the two civilazitions that were ahead of me. Thus, I knocked them out of their superior positions.)

However, I must say that the game was very tedious. Despite all the automation and UI improvements, the process of conducting a protracted war in CIV3 is no easier than it was in CIV1 and CIV2. If greater automation had been offered in this area, then wars would have become much more pleasurable to prosecute.

For example, if one had the ability to establish rally points for your forces being produced. Then, you could allocate a certain percentage of the forces being generated to each rally point.

If one could establish a queue, of cities to attack and/or the percentage of allocation of forces per target city.

If one could establish various goals on the attack such as destroy terrain improvements, destroy enemy units, capture city, and/or raze city.

If one could establish governance strategies for captured cities ...

Etc ...

As a war game/battle field simulation, CIV3 cannot compare to games such as Combat Mission. The ability to Macro-manage wars would make the game much more enjoyable. So, perhaps besides the concept of "governors", CIV also needs the concept of "generals". After my last protracted series of wars, I concluded that I will try to avoid military victories, since they are keystroke intensive with little real reward.

Thoughts?
 
I find wars are even more monotonous in civ3, as you can afford to support more units, and all you need to do to win is build lots of the fast unit of the period, eg cavalry. At least in civ2 diplomats etc. could be useful, but there is not even this distraction in civ3. In the late game I just find myself moving 30-50 cavalry around taking city after city, not my idea of fun.
 
I agree, and the AI is either too stubborn, too proud or just too stupid to make peace despite the fact that they are obviously losing. I set my oppenents to build lots of air and naval units, which can be more fun.
 
Originally posted by History_Buff
I agree, and the AI is either too stubborn, too proud or just too stupid to make peace despite the fact that they are obviously losing. I set my oppenents to build lots of air and naval units, which can be more fun.

Exactly correct!!

I hope Firaxis reads all the many posts complaining about their stupid AI.

And, yes, I was disappointed that Civ III made no provision for moving units as a group. If I have an invasion forces of fourteen units on a tile I have to click on every unit individually to move them. We should be able to highlight a group of units and move them as one. Better yet, we should have the AI equivalent of a "governor" for certain military functions.
 
Agreed!

It's great to make the AI build more naval units, air and artillery units using the editor. Also making them, build defensive land units as opposed to offensive ones. Gives a more balanced gameplay imho, rather than just tons of offensive land troops which seems to be the option that is flagged for most of them.... :)

Still, it's a shame ya can't make the AI use the artillery offensively.
 
Macro managing is not the answer with speeding up the war process. Each unit and it's placement can change the entire outcome of a battle, we all know this. I say leave it as it is but allow the grouping of units.

THis alone would save time and allow you to get down to business.
 
I disagree. I think macro-management is necessary. Like everything else, good micro-management by a human will exceed automated macro-management. However, not every war requires this level of hands on involvement.

I have had numerous CIV wars which where the outcome was inevitable, but the fighting was drudgery. In fact, in my opinion, in CIV3, I am much more likely to sue for peace due to player war weariness than population war weariness. :)

Originally posted by maddskillz
Macro managing is not the answer with speeding up the war process. Each unit and it's placement can change the entire outcome of a battle, we all know this. I say leave it as it is but allow the grouping of units.

THis alone would save time and allow you to get down to business.
 
Originally posted by MarkShot
. . .I have had numerous CIV wars which where the outcome was inevitable, but the fighting was drudgery. In fact, in my opinion, in CIV3, I am much more likely to sue for peace due to player war weariness than population war weariness. :)

True.

One reason for PLAYER war wearness is the incredibly stupid and stubborn Diplomatic AI. Ever notice you have to almost wipe out some civs before they will make peace? :mad:
 
Originally posted by MarkShot
I disagree. I think macro-management is necessary. Like everything else, good micro-management by a human will exceed automated macro-management. However, not every war requires this level of hands on involvement.

Hi MarkShot:

IMO your idea won't work really well until the AI becomes better. Even in a small mopping-up war that you will win with minor casualties, the AI can sustaing Heavy losses through boneheaded actions. So while I agree that macromanagement is needed, the bedrock on which it needs to be built is AI. An AI that is clueless about modern warfare will never be able to meet your goals. If it can get to the point where micromanaging things you only take 2/3 the losses of the macromanagement approach, I think many players will gladly accept it. But if micromanagement gives you 5% of the losses of letting the AI do it, then there won't be many takers unless its only a few units at stake...
 
Originally posted by Troyens


True.

One reason for PLAYER war wearness is the incredibly stupid and stubborn Diplomatic AI. Ever notice you have to almost wipe out some civs before they will make peace? :mad:


Why is this a problem or inaccurate?

It's like the old saying, better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
 
The PHRASE is actually:

"...better to live on your feet than die on your knees." Catch-22

It makes much more sense...
 
Here's another reason for monotony. . .

I am playing the Marla World Map downloaded from this site. Six civs besides mine.

It is only 1000 AD - and it already takes 3 1/2 minutes between turns!! I can just imagine how long it will take when we get to 1900.

No thanks.
 
Top Bottom