WW1 and civ4

[mystikmind2005]

I have been watching a 3 disk documentory on WW1 and it has been fascinating!

The way WW1 was faught bears little resemblance to how civ4 works with the same era units, except perhaps for war weriness! lol

The things i learnt from watching that documentory was that the war was hardly even necissary. If everyone minded their own business and left Austria and Serbia alone, Austria would have failed to take Serbia and given up and gone home and that would have been the end of it.

And the other thing i noticed is that every time one side made a break through, they cannot supply their forces and had to run home again!!

Being able to supply an army seems to be the biggest and most consistant stuffup with every large scale advance into enemy territory in WW1, what a total fiasco the whole thing was! i mean it was beyond a joke!!

After seeing that fiasco, now i understand why i have heard various historical military figures commenting on the importance of logistics!

It makes me wonder how civ4 would play out if logistics was an issue in the game?

 

[Wenla]

If you like to play a good strategy game with logistical angle, try Patrician III, one of my all-time favorite.

Wenla

 

[Joe Harker]

There is actually a WW1 mod being worked on at the moment for BTS

Link

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=258879

 

[mystikmind2005]

Thanks for the replys

That game patrician sounds interesting, i will have to check it out, thanks.

I guess they will have allot of problems to overcome with that mod since civ4 is totally missing the two main things that define WW1 - Trench warefare, and artillery/naval bombardment to support infantry assaults.

yes, it is quite absurd that artillery charges up to the enemy for frontal assaults in civ4, when as far as i know, this has never actually happened in reality. I find it very amusing to imagine an artillery battery pushing forward into enemy lines "are we close enough to fire yet, there whaking us with their swords already". hahahaha

 

[Komunyst_Indian]

If you like to play a good strategy game with logistical angle, try Patrician III, one of my all-time favorite.

Wenla

I guess you cant realy call patrician 3 a strategy game... i find it more of a trading game... pirate battles are awesome .. but logistics? ( i usually get bored after a while so then i dont play the game out to becoming the hanse leader)

 

[Lord Ben]

When they had zones of control and you couldn't just walk past enemy units without the risk of being wounded I used to fortify my borders with forts on hills or mountains loaded with infantry and artillery. Then when I got attacked the NPC's would always try to move around them instead of attacking while I bombed the crap out of htem with artillery until they were weak. Once they were deep in my lines and reduced in strength I'd nail them hard. It was pretty close to trench warfare.

One good way of simulating logistics is to simply make a limit to how many units can be in the same tile. Similiar to airplanes.

Amatuers study tactics, professionals study logistics is the popular quote. Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, actually quite often exceeded his supply lines and lost a good amount of battles. Brilliant tactician, but not great with logistics.

 

[JujuLautre]

yes, it is quite absurd that artillery charges up to the enemy for frontal assaults in civ4, when as far as i know, this has never actually happened in reality. I find it very amusing to imagine an artillery battery pushing forward into enemy lines "are we close enough to fire yet, there whaking us with their swords already". hahahaha

You should not consider that a fight between two units and during sometimes 40 years can be simplified to a charge of one army of the first type against another of the other type.

 

[Joe Harker]

I guess they will have allot of problems to overcome with that mod since civ4 is totally missing the two main things that define WW1 - Trench warefare, and artillery/naval bombardment to support infantry assaults.

Well they have done half that (in other mods)

 

[Wenla]

I guess you cant realy call patrician 3 a strategy game... i find it more of a trading game... pirate battles are awesome .. but logistics? ( i usually get bored after a while so then i dont play the game out to becoming the hanse leader)

It is definitely (?) a strategy game (you have to plan advanced what to do, when, where and how (and specially WHY) etc etc). Trading is only part of the implementation and measure of your strategy (if you have one ) and good, well-planned and really working logistsics is one of most important angle for you succes.

But, of course, if you don't have a strategical view (= what is my goal = where and/or what kind I like to be in future = vision for me), it's only boring trading simulation (pirates are only a small, not interesting part of the game, at least for me, like war with Civ).

Hmm, comes to my mind, what kind of game Civ would be without strategical view, may be boring "build a city" or "hack them all with lot of soldiers" - game

Wenla

 

[Shackel]

Thanks for the replys

That game patrician sounds interesting, i will have to check it out, thanks.

I guess they will have allot of problems to overcome with that mod since civ4 is totally missing the two main things that define WW1 - Trench warefare, and artillery/naval bombardment to support infantry assaults.

yes, it is quite absurd that artillery charges up to the enemy for frontal assaults in civ4, when as far as i know, this has never actually happened in reality. I find it very amusing to imagine an artillery battery pushing forward into enemy lines "are we close enough to fire yet, there whaking us with their swords already". hahahaha

Okay, there may not be trenches, but whenever I play I always see a LOT of times where 2 stacks are completely frozen in place, because if one moves anywhere but the sides, they get owned, or their city gets owned.

The cover system is used for cities, at one point I was taking a coastal city by air striking the victims, smashing the city with artillery, and taking people down with artillery. Did I forget to mention that it was my first game?

You do realize that each tile is supposed to be 100x100 square miles, so the swordsmen probably flanked you. With Catapults and Tre... Thingys, that's very easy to take over, a hundred big, clunky, wooden catapults vs quick and nimble swordsmen.

 

[Jerrymander]

I think it's funny how a person on an online forum can talk smack about the armed forces of a hundred years ago.

Well, I can't believe those Romans! Why didn't they just use airplanes and drop bombs on the Celts?!

 

[mystikmind2005]

You should not consider that a fight between two units and during sometimes 40 years can be simplified to a charge of one army of the first type against another of the other type.

In reality, artillery is never damaged while attacking enemy units at a distance (except other artillery). Yet this is compulsory in civ4 and cannot be defended with any logical argument.

We are willing to slap reality in the face for the purpose of game ballance - and i will tip my hat that game balance is indeed a strong argument, and it works, i know, because i play the game and enjoy it. But just don't try any other logical argument to defend how artillery works in civ4 because quite frankly, pigs might fly while laying golden eggs before artillery in civ4 is realistic!

 

[mystikmind2005]

I think it's funny how a person on an online forum can talk smack about the armed forces of a hundred years ago.

Well you see, there is this thing called 'communication' whereby events, ideas and all kinds of stuff from the past can be recorded and then seen by people who were never there at the actual event.

You will often find such information can be 'communicated' through books, tv, video, internet and other digital media

It is realy amazing, through such 'communication' a person can learn all kinds of things and also can be capable to come and talk 'smack' on an online forum about the armed forces of a hundred years ago.

I hope this post has 'enlightened' you on the wonders of communication?

 

[Shackel]

In reality, artillery is never damaged while attacking enemy units at a distance (except other artillery). Yet this is compulsory in civ4 and cannot be defended with any logical argument.

We are willing to slap reality in the face for the purpose of game ballance - and i will tip my hat that game balance is indeed a strong argument, and it works, i know, because i play the game and enjoy it. But just don't try any other logical argument to defend how artillery works in civ4 because quite frankly, pigs might fly while laying golden eggs before artillery in civ4 is realistic!

Really? I know that if artillery is found, it's screwed. You see the artillery, and an army of swordsmen rush in, so you are shooting at swordsmen, more are rushing in. Soon their probably past the point where they would harm their own men, the fight is finished. The game isn't going to be super realistic unless you mod it, or it would be boring, and once you hit the Modern Age, all you can do is bomb people because super realism won't allow your troops to go anywhere.

The artillery may also be flanked on the open side. What did you say about the whole "can't be defended with logical arguements", then you say to not try any logical arguements. That's like asking people NOT to prove you wrong, yet you want to complain a lot about things that have already happened or is wrong, and you aren't going to mod it.

 

[Jerrymander]

Well you see, there is this thing called 'communication' whereby events, ideas and all kinds of stuff from the past can be recorded and then seen by people who were never there at the actual event.

You will often find such information can be 'communicated' through books, tv, video, internet and other digital media

It is realy amazing, through such 'communication' a person can learn all kinds of things and also can be capable to come and talk 'smack' on an online forum about the armed forces of a hundred years ago.

I hope this post has 'enlightened' you on the wonders of communication?[/QUOTE]

The fact remains that you are still being an ass. I think it's painfully aware that I know what communication is, but you seem to take your communication and then project it, without fully knowing the whole story, into a very strongly held opinion. While there is nothing wrong with that, and no law against it, when you start to vehemently voice your opinion, which few will care about, it just makes you look like a total fool.

You don't know for certain that if Ferdinand hadn't been murdered, that Europe would not have fallen into war. They would have found another reason to start the war. The necessary war, might I add. Someone had to put Germany in its place.

 

[civvver]

If I recall correctly, artillery in civ3 worked like bombers do performing air strikes in civ4- you'd attack and take away some portion of the enemies health but they couldn't counterstrike and kill you. And artillery couldn't defend, they'd get captured just like workers... I think that's how it worked for all civ3 siege weapons. Civ4 is an improvement imo.

 

[mystikmind2005]

Really? I know that if artillery is found, it's screwed. You see the artillery, and an army of swordsmen rush in, so you are shooting at swordsmen, more are rushing in. Soon their probably past the point where they would harm their own men, the fight is finished. The game isn't going to be super realistic unless you mod it, or it would be boring, and once you hit the Modern Age, all you can do is bomb people because super realism won't allow your troops to go anywhere.

The artillery may also be flanked on the open side. What did you say about the whole "can't be defended with logical arguements", then you say to not try any logical arguements. That's like asking people NOT to prove you wrong, yet you want to complain a lot about things that have already happened or is wrong, and you aren't going to mod it.

You seem to have overlooked the part where i mention that the artillery is attacking units at a distance. Obviously if the units are no longer at a distance then that is a different story.

 

[mystikmind2005]

Well you see, there is this thing called 'communication' whereby events, ideas and all kinds of stuff from the past can be recorded and then seen by people who were never there at the actual event.

You will often find such information can be 'communicated' through books, tv, video, internet and other digital media

It is realy amazing, through such 'communication' a person can learn all kinds of things and also can be capable to come and talk 'smack' on an online forum about the armed forces of a hundred years ago.

I hope this post has 'enlightened' you on the wonders of communication?

The fact remains that you are still being an ass. I think it's painfully aware that I know what communication is, but you seem to take your communication and then project it, without fully knowing the whole story, into a very strongly held opinion. While there is nothing wrong with that, and no law against it, when you start to vehemently voice your opinion, which few will care about, it just makes you look like a total fool.

You don't know for certain that if Ferdinand hadn't been murdered, that Europe would not have fallen into war. They would have found another reason to start the war. The necessary war, might I add. Someone had to put Germany in its place.[/QUOTE]

Assumptions path the way to foolishness and your post is full of assumptions.

 

[mystikmind2005]

If I recall correctly, artillery in civ3 worked like bombers do performing air strikes in civ4- you'd attack and take away some portion of the enemies health but they couldn't counterstrike and kill you. And artillery couldn't defend, they'd get captured just like workers... I think that's how it worked for all civ3 siege weapons. Civ4 is an improvement imo.

Artillery in civ3 was more realistic and worked just fine, but the AI was not very efficient at defending against it, so the choices are that you can spend the time to make the AI good at defending against it or simply nerf it.

Imagine how much more fun the game would be if the AI responded to your civ3 style artillery bombardment by hitting back with vast numbers of its own artillery!! holy crab that would be one hell of a melee!!

 

[Wolfshanze]

If everyone minded their own business and left Austria and Serbia alone, Austria would have failed to take Serbia and given up and gone home and that would have been the end of it.

Except the minor little point that Austria actually DID defeat Serbia in WWI, and without the distractions from the Russian and Italian fronts would have surely done so much quicker if it was just Austria vs Serbia alone.

But that's neither here nor there... I was just glad to add a bunch of WWI units to Civ4 in my Wolfshanze Mod.