Which combat system would you prefer for the next Civ?

[Shoes]

Designating defender kinda sucks =S Makes the deffenders ability to always have the upper hand, which is almost always there historicaly, fade away.

 

[deanej]

Eh, quite a few people had been lobbying for hexes.

There were a few, but far from the majority.

 

[Robo-Star]

There were a few, but far from the majority.

Probably. Its level of support was in a different league than 1upt, is all.

 

[revengeofmakno]

I voted BOTF as closer to an ideal type although it would make games even longer and computer resource hungry. (and I like marathon now)

The Civ5 system might be the worst I would imagine although they did bring in the concept of limiting numbers of units based on resources. That, in itself, is a good idea. Likewise, further points made above regarding the logistics of large stacks and marching through tough terrain such as deserts are well made. Some kind of attrition vis-a-vis terrain equation could be brought in with units declining in tough marches and needing to heal afterwards. Healing itself should not be so costless. Essentially, anything that leads to ridiculous abilities or situations needs to be addressed.

The Civ4BTS system with logistical and resource limitations, less emphasis on siege and artillery and some other modifications could be a good compromise. Once there were more limits on the massive stacks and unit production, another experiment could be a morale rule in combat by which a losing defender is not necessarily destroyed every time. Rather, it could break-and-run, possibly losing XPs if it does.

 

[theskibum]

... another experiment could be a morale rule in combat by which a losing defender is not necessarily destroyed every time. Rather, it could break-and-run, possibly losing XPs if it does.

I like that

 

[LeHam]

There were a few, but far from the majority.

I thought the Hex system was genius and vastly superior to the square system. 1UPT though . . . that just seemed stupid.

 

[Skallagrimson]

I selected total war, though i believe that it would make civ into a monster game for any pc configuration. I like the RTS aproach of battle in total war, but it would take months to finish a Civ game though. I wouldnt mind on the other hand many people would.

EDIT: Is The 1st option something like Heroes of Might and Magic?

I'm another vote for TW but it seems we're in the minority.

The thing about the 2 level military model is that it allows for the detail and complexity of military units at a tactical level where you need it, and eliminates it at a campaign level where you don't. And just because a tactical level exists for battle micromanagement doesn't mean you *HAVE* to always micromanage a battle. In MTW (the original, the first, the BEST of the TW series) I only MM the battle if it's a "close call" and I don't want to leave it up to the game to decide. I can usually find some defensible terrain and use tactical tricks to pull out a victory when I'm a numerical underdog if I have the right unit match-ups (spears > cav, etc.) But in a big conquest campaign in MTW where I have giant stacks, it's auto-resolve, auto-resolve, auto-resolve, for most battles. Up there at the strategic level when I know the generals on the field have everything they need, I trust their judgment for how to kill the enemy.

 

[Skallagrimson]

I thought the Hex system was genius and vastly superior to the square system. 1UPT though . . . that just seemed stupid.

At a *tactical* level, it's reality.

At a *strategic* level, it's stupid only because it's trying to tacticalize a strategic map.

 

[Shoes]

Well I have to say I myself like hexes because with squares it's like saying that a diagonal of a square is the same lenght as it's sides...