Which combat system would you prefer for the next Civ?

[Supamarioana]

Um, I don't know what civ4 and total war you are playing

Well, as I said before, I never played any "Total War". That is why I referred to "birth of the federation" where battles are indeed resolved more quickly even without autoresolve.
But it's hard to explain to someone the advantages of a game which he has never played.

Also, I did read your post Supamarioana

Thanks. I appreciate it.

 

[MadRat]

I remember BoTF it was nice little game - but with a horrid memory leak that was never fixed. The tactical combat was bit of joke but it was fun. I would like to see something a la MOO II. Pure tactical battles can get silly and you need seperate AI just for stack composition and Tac battles and they can still suck monkey nuggets a la Elemental.

Rat

 

[Ddude97]

Well, as I said before, I never played any "Total War". That is why I referred to "birth of the federation" where battles are indeed resolved more quickly even without autoresolve.

Now re-reading it again I see you say Botf tactical battling is turn based, not real time? Or did I just confuse myself? This I think would be slower not faster... But again, this is for more serious wargaming, which civ 5 is not.

But it's hard to explain to someone the advantages of a game which he has never played.

I'll bet it is

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Sure no problem

@Rob76: the problem with limited stacking is that the stack becomes one unit, if you have 1 then you have an incomplete unit, 1upt simplifies this, 2upt I think would be a nightmare.

 

[Left Foot]

Voted other.

I want a combat system that serves the overall "big picture" aspect of the game on a strategic level. I certainly don't want a tactical warfare system, neither through a tactical warfare screen nor a Civ 5 combat system with tactics employed on a strategic map.

 

[Supamarioana]

Now re-reading it again I see you say Botf tactical battling is turn based, not real time?

Yes, that's right.

This I think would be slower not faster...

Well, it always depends on how you realise the system. In botf, if you fight a battle of let's say 10 against another 10 units, the battle will be decided in three rounds maximum, the winner depending on who uses the better tactics. Those are 5 minutes of pure epic fun. While in Civ4 a battle with the same number of units would be 10 minutes of boring (unless you activate "fast combat", which would be just boring).

But I admit: A one-on-one battle between equal opponents in botf might also take 5 minutes. But you only do those when you have few units. Otherwise, this would be ayou just press the "auto"-button.

But again, this is for more serious wargaming, which civ 5 is not.

Civ5 is not? I only played the demo a bit, but having to give orders to every unit of your invasion army in every round sounds like a big emphasis on troop management and warfare to me.
Which I think is bad.

I don't want to have battles that go on for hours. But having short battles doesn't mean that they cannot be fun.

 

[HorribleHarald]

Poll shows that Civ5 system is winning, that's surprising because many problem in civ5 depends of it and it also demands huge maps for working properly. Better solution would be tactical minimap if players need to fight tactical way and AI could handle it better.

 

[bryanw1995]

I voted other, but I probably enjoy ciV the most.

I don't think that large maps are a necessity, though they are a lot of fun in ciV. it can be lots of fun figuring out how to take out kyoto when it's surrounded by mountains/water and I don't have a navy up yet. even pre-patch I remember one game babylon and his 2nd city were 3 hexes apart with tons of mountains/water, I literally had one hex to attack babylon from. thankfully horses hadn't been nerfed yet, I might still be sieging that city otherwise...

edit: 1upt will improve as ai improvements continue. while it is admittedly a radical change, I expect that it will become very popular over the long haul.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

Voted CTP because I don't have any experience with a lot of the others people mention. But also I don't think Civ games need a really elaborate combat system, just a way of getting SODs under control and a bit more structured, which is just what CTP did. But a return to Civ4 (with hexes) I'd be OK with too, I find the Blanket of Doom far worse and more boring to play than SODs, plus I doubt the computational overhead on the AI is surmountable.

CTP > Civ4 > Civ5, basically.

 

[Dale]

Other.

I vote for something like combat in Conquest of the New World. It's deeply tactical and relies heavily on correct placement and combination of unit types, including flanking and cavalry charges. You can even artillery bombard support your combats too. The amount of actions you could perform depended on the abilities of the army's leader, which could be promoted over time.

An image of a battle in progress:

 

[Poke]

I'd like to see a compromise between CTP and Civ 5.

Stack of 6 or units moving to battle with units on another tile. Once they engage the view shifts to a battlefield, divided into grids (hex or quad,) with plains filling half the screen (if you were on a plains tile) and forest in the other (if they were). On this screen you can set up your formations and proceed to battle it out as you would in CiV's 1UPT system

As I'm writing this I'm looking at that pic Dale posted and I'm thinking that's essentially what I'm talking about :|

 

[Dale]

I'd like to see a compromise between CTP and Civ 5.

Stack of 6 or units moving to battle with units on another tile. Once they engage the view shifts to a battlefield, divided into grids (hex or quad,) with plains filling half the screen (if you were on a plains tile) and forest in the other (if they were). On this screen you can set up your formations and proceed to battle it out as you would in CiV's 1UPT system

As I'm writing this I'm looking at that pic Dale posted and I'm thinking that's essentially what I'm talking about :|

Actually, sounds like you're describing Imperialism 1/2 battles. An army with some units moves around the strategic map, then cuts to a hex-grid tactical map for combat where each unit deploys and operates individually.

 

[DaveGold]

The difficulty with battles on a small screen is the time taken to resolve. Multiplayer is not fun when you're waiting for other people's battles on a mini-map. It also gives another way for AI to suffer from human expertise, which doesn't sound bad until you realise that AI bonuses elsewhere will be increased to compensate.

Stacks still seem the most straightforward way forward for CIV games. Perhaps some command system which limited stack size or unit movement is required to stop the stacks of doom.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

The difficulty with battles on a small screen is the time taken to resolve. Multiplayer is not fun when you're waiting for other people's battles on a mini-map. It also gives another way for AI to suffer from human expertise, which doesn't sound bad until you realise that AI bonuses elsewhere will be increased to compensate.

Stacks still seem the most straightforward way forward for CIV games. Perhaps some command system which limited stack size or unit movement is required to stop the stacks of doom.

Yes. In principle, like in Dale's screenshot, small tactical battles seem fine - for a different sort of game, a wargame. But frankly - in a Civ context - I don't want to spend much time organising these little tactical sub-games. The CTP method was to play off two stacks (which could be more or less balanced between melee, ranged, flankers) in a smaller window. They were auto-arranged, the only intervention the player had was to retreat. Which is fine for keeping the pace of the main game - which is about empire-building - going. The combat system should be as stripped back and simple as it can be, except we now know that what appeared to be the most simplified - 1upt - isn't really simple and in Civ5 doesn't work.

 

[oldskald]

There is an essential problem with limiting the number of units on any one tile; there is always the possibility of enough units being produced that all movement becomes impossible. With higher tile limits this possibility is lessened, but still theoretically remains. Unless, of course, some other method can be found to restrict the number of units on the map at any one time. If 1UPT is the way forward for the series then this problem must be addressed somehow. Say what you want about cIV stacks but the one thing they can never do, even on a theoretical level, is paralyse all game movement.

Wargames, both virtual and table top, get around this problem by imposing limits on the total numbers of units in the game. Or by stacking.

And if 1UPT is to be the way forward there absolutely must be some method of multiple unit movement wherever possible, just to save all the click, click, click....

Stack of Doom v Carpet of Doom = please tell me there is another way!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Definitely Call to Power....

1. It makes the game less of a War game (no detailed orders to each unit)
2. It makes SoD preventable depending on the Combat Mechanics used. (a stack could be treated as a single unit with a rated strength... 5 Str2 stacks would be able to defeat 1 Str10 stack)


Also, worry about the SoD can be better addressed by eliminating the ease of combat expansion.

 

[krasny]

I think people are blaming SoD on unlimited stacking.

What made SoD was mainly the cheapness of units, both in terms of the time required to build them, and the cost to maintain them.

If more stringent limits was imposed on the quantity of units, by for example building a unit costs a point of population from the city it is built in, or having an exponential rise in the maintenance of units, then the Civ4 style of combat would be best.

You could also limit SoD by giving a penalty to units that are "cut off".

 

[Doctor Phibes]

You could also limit SoD by giving a penalty to units that are "cut off".

I definitely like the idea of supply lines. In land warfare it shouldn't be easy for some nutty AI to fire and forget huge SODs at you when they are on the other side of the world, it's really crazy on a huge map. They should have to maintain a clear connection home (which means keeping intervening powers intimidated or amicable), or start to lose hit points. Everyone keeps talking about tactics, but applying logistics would add true strategic depth.

I foresee one problem, though, and that is, just as in real history, for truly long-range imperial outreach the best idea is to take to the sea, and the AI never seems to be any good at that.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Poll shows that Civ5 system is winning, that's surprising because many problem in civ5 depends of it and it also demands huge maps for working properly. Better solution would be tactical minimap if players need to fight tactical way and AI could handle it better.

But if they include a tactical minimap, by necessity whoever creates the title will be spending a vast, vast majority of their resources on developing that map and that system. And tactical minimaps are not the reason I want to play civ. There are plenty of other games out there that will fill that particular need better than a civ title ever will.

I think that most people that voted for CivV realize that the system itself is just fine, as long as they clear up the AI and some other issues. It's not like there won't be any problems if they scrap all they've done and start something entirely new yet again.

 

[oldskald]

I think that most people that voted for CivV realize that the system itself is just fine, as long as they clear up the AI and some other issues. It's not like there won't be any problems if they scrap all they've done and start something entirely new yet again.

Or alternatively, as this poll is on a ciV forum, it gets the most votes. Would the result be the same if ciII, III, and IV players regularly visited this forum? "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics..."

(This is not to criticise this poll - it provides for an interesting discussion. We just need to be aware that the result can be skewed by its location. E.g. on the cIV forum, cIV may get a better result, and likewise with either cII or III)

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Or alternatively, as this poll is on a ciV forum, it gets the most votes. Would the result be the same if ciII, III, and IV players regularly visited this forum? "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics..."

(This is not to criticise this poll - it provides for an interesting discussion. We just need to be aware that the result can be skewed by its location. E.g. on the cIV forum, cIV may get a better result, and likewise with either cII or III)

Yeah, I agree with that. All in all though, at least I just don't think that 1UPT is one of the things wrong with 5. I remember the "battle board" on the old game Master of Magic (yeah I'm dating myself), and I like the wars on the main map better.

Interesting to talk about though.