Which combat system would you prefer for the next Civ?

[mitsho]

Call to Power, where the weakness would be that artillery is not vulnerable and - civ5 units strength calculated - a perfect combination of artillery/"melee" unit would exist, thus reverting the system back to 1Upt...

or a TW like "armies" and garrissons system, which of course would downplay the military aspect of civ a lot. But combined with hexes this could be interesting. The problem here lies then in colonization (you don't send armies, but "expedition corps") and in the modern era (air units operate how? combat seems more spread out). This actually then is also true for "artillery" in all ages. How do you compose those armies, in "men" etc. and how does this fare for a "6000-year spanning game". But I guess these are all details...

 

[Kerosene31]

I love combat in Civ V. Combat was boring in Civ 4 to me, it was just something you had to do. The fun part of 4 was everything else you did to efficiently build a bigger stack.

In Civ V I have to think about combat and actually plan my attack.

 

[Supamarioana]

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

This is indeed an interesting question. And that's why I reopened the poll in the forum of Civ4 and Civ3.
Sorry that I couldn't hide my secret identity as "natural born spammer" for a longer time.
I just ask people who already voted here to refrain from voting a second time.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Although it may seem "Unrelated" to the 1upT imbroglio or any other combat systems ever designed (including those used for this poll!)...
Strategy is a tactical opportunity in every games; Chess, Stratego, Panzer General, Civs, everything!

If there is *ONE* single master of the stuff -- IMO -- it has to be X-Com for more reasons that can be tied with Civ5 or anything else.
Deep immersion, low-level terrain_map interaction, coordinated plans (both defensive & offensive), multiple weapons, limited pool of Units (specialized & diversified) on the battlefield... which leads me to Stack(s).
The deploy principle remains the same except that the probability of participation by numerous Units nearby (as in, within a range of 37-61 contiguous hexes centered on the targeted tile) is now available similarly to the Archers/Catapults standing behind to support Melee frontlines. An extra layer or some "map zooming capacity" to the areas could become necessary though.

Indirectly X-Com used such interactivity to provide solid Combat flow while allowing extensive control over outcomes & key_decisions.

Moreover... Supply Lines, 12 (instead of Six only) Directions for movements pathing, sharply enhanced tactical edges (if only by X_Co-m-ntext), etc.

That's what Civ5 Combat mechanics (as it is) might certainly benefit from.

 

[Venger]

Total War is designed to appeal to tactical combat - without it, I doubt many would play it.

Civ is not. Don't like the idea of a TW combat engine - just something else to get bogged down in. An evolution of the Civ4 engine would be good - CTP had a nice system, but a hybridization that addresses SoD (blech) and 1UPT (blech) would be welcome. Why they had to go from one extreme to the other is a mind-boggling query...

 

[Zyxpsilon]

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

Radical & extreme Pet-Peeve of mine - indeed.
If Stacks are re-introduced (in any shape or form) what we'll certainly be forced to see is this;
Carpets of Stacks of Doom.

 

[HorribleHarald]

In fact I don't matter is there tactical combat or not if the game is multifaceted. So Civ 5 was quite big disappointment for me when there was not deepness at all, just razing and settling and diplomacy was lousy although main point was improving that thing.

 

[CivFanaticMan]

OK PEOPLE. Strategic combat is for WAR GAMES! Civ isn't about combat. If the combat is what makes you happy with Civ5, then obviously the game is incredibly broken. Combat is not part of an argument to decide which Civ game is better. I prefer Strategic War in a civ game, not strategic combat.

 

[MadRat]

OK PEOPLE. Strategic combat is for WAR GAMES! Civ isn't about combat. If the combat is what makes you happy with Civ5, then obviously the game is incredibly broken.

I think you have misread the community 180 degrees. I think the biggest gripe is how in CiV 5 combat and conquest dominate all other modes of play. Civ 5 all about combat. Every game in CiV seems to degenerate into a domination game. My read of the community is that a lot of people would actually prefer less war in CiV.

Rat

 

[Supamarioana]

Okay guys,

The polls have been going for a while now, so I thought about wrapping it up and making a summary by posting the results of the other forums.

Civ4 Forum:

"Birth of the federation" 16.67%
"Call to Power" 2.78%
"Civ 5" 16.67%
"Civ 4" 47.22%
"Total War" 8.33%
other 8.33%

with a total of 36 votes. So oldskalds assumption was correct and Civ4 was the winner in that poll.

We see a similar result in the Civ3 Forum:

"Birth of the federation" 12.50%
"Call to Power" 0%
"Civ 5" 18.75%
"Civ 3/4" 50.00%
"Total War" 12.50%
other 6.25%

although you have to take into consideration that there were only 16 voters.

I don't think there is any meaningful way to sum these polls up to a "what all civ-players think"-poll, so I don't try. There are to many variables like for example Civ5 being the newest game which recieves the most attention at the moment.

Neverless it's very interesting to compare the results. Not only for the winners of each poll, but also the other postions:

"Call to power" gets 2nd place in this thread but the last in the other two.
Curiously it's almost the other way round with "Birth of the federation".

I wonder what you think are the reasons for these results?
Do you need to play Civ5 to appreciate the 1UPT system? Or is Civ5 simply overrepresented due to being the newest incarnation?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Okay guys,


I wonder what you think are the reasons for these results?
Do you need to play Civ5 to appreciate the 1UPT system? Or is Civ5 simply overrepresented due to being the newest incarnation?

I think the reasons are self-selection, people that prefer Stacks of Units that fight one at a time are more likely to visit the Civ3/Civ 4 Forum, because that is what they prefer.

As for the Call to Power.

I think it allows a lot of the Simplicity of 1UPT (The entire contents of 1 Tile can attack the entire contents of another tile in 1 turn).
appealing to the Civ5 forumers

But it also reduces unit "specialness" (I regard that as a good point in a strategy game, but many don't like it)