Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Slow" Civ4 vs "Fast" Alpha Centauri

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Slow" Civ4 vs "Fast" Alpha Centauri

    So, since Alpha Centauri came out, it has basically been the only computer game I've played on a regular basis.

    With all that play, I got pretty good.

    I would occasionally try other 4X games, but did not like any as much as AC. For example, I tried Civ 3, but very quickly lost interest, as combat just seemed too difficult for the attacker.

    However, this past autumn, I had to buy a new computer, and they call come with Windows Vista now. And I soon discovered that "ancient" Alpha Centauri would not run with Windows Vista.

    So now I was forced to try other 4X games if I wanted to have the option of computer games. I tried Civ 4 (with expansions).

    Well, I like it a lot. Indeed, I actually experienced the "one more turn" syndrome in a big way for the first time in many many years.

    However, for me, it has a significant "flaw," at least as far as my own playing style is concerned. Combat is too difficult for the attacker.

    With Alpha Centauri, even with the largest map, I could conquer the entire world in a single playing session if I was lucky, even on the second highest difficulty session. This is because the combat system in Alpha Centauri, though there are exceptions, mostly favors the attacker. The tech progression and unit-building system favors high attack strengths more than high defense strengths. So for example, at a given time, a likely attack strength might be 8 while the common defense strength at that moment might be 3. Sometimes there would be periods in the game where defense would be predominant, but for most of the game play, the attack would be more important. And, of course, air support was very powerful, which helped.

    In Civ 4, however, throughout virtually the entire game progression, it seems, the defender has the advantage. Defenders a lot of different possible defense advantages, and ciies do too. Unless a computer opponent is very weak, or there is some other unusual advantage, it is very difficult to take a city "on the run" in one turn. One can contrast this wih Alpha Centauri, where the right combination of units (including creating mobile airdroppable units) can result in the same military force seizing several cities in one turn, not just one.

    Because of this, the typical "combat" in Civ 4 is a siege. Civ 4 is a game for Vauban or Falkenhayn, not Patton or Jeb Stuart. One has to wear down a city's defense with siege or air units before one can usually launch an attack. It might take several turns to capture a city even with a powerful attacking force.

    This really slows down the game. One has to build up a huge military force to even think of launching a war (can't do it on a shoestring), and wars tend to last long times. You can't quickly conquer an opponent. This makes games last longer too. I have yet to play a "one evening" game of Civ4 using the second highest map size and the second slowest "speed."

    I would like to see a "blitz" mod for Civ4 that would provide the opportunity for a Civ4 game that favors the attacker rather than the defender.

    Some ideas would include:

    -increasing the drop range for paratrooopers
    -disallowing siege units from collateral damage unless attacking cities or forts
    -providing all melee and infantry units with a natural +25% advantage for attacking cities
    -providing all units with a -20% defensive penalty
    -allowing units to use the road networks of enemy territories (this is REALLY needed)
    -allowing great generals to increase the movement rate of units they are stacked with
    -providing more attack bonuses for cavalry and armor type units against certain types of military units outside of cities
    -giving siege units a 25% attack bonus when attacking units on lower ground (i.e. attackers on hill, defenders not)
    -create an "Assault Engineer" unit that would be more effective in attacking cities
    -allow a small change for a unit to get an additional and completely random promotion after success in battle
    -allow rail movement between two friendly owned cities even if enemy territory intervenes, as long as there are no enemy units blocking the path

    I think a mod with these or similar changes could create a faster moving, more attacker friendly game that a lot of people might have fun playing.

    I'm curious in people's reactions.

  • #2
    Ancient era. Yes it is siege oriented (just like history) Slowly move up units, bombard defenses, then attack. Wise use of catapults and trebuches in fact give the ATTACKER the advantage.

    Gunpoweder era. Again slow units, but the bombard period is often a single turn (opposed to upto 5 in ancient era) cannons often win victories against gunpowder units, so you dont have to suicide them like catapults.

    Industrial to Modern era. It is in fact very blitz orientated. Tanks move at twice the speed, they can attack multiple times. Bombers do the job of artillery without having to move forward like artillery. I have beaten down and vassalized whole (powerful) countries in 2 turns!


    Its just a matter of learning how to use combined arms.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?...So with that said: if you can not read my post because of spelling, then who is really the stupid one?...

    Comment


    • #3
      I would say that before we introduce the notion of allowing the enemy to use your roads, we would need to introduce the notion of supply lines, and bring back ZOC in one form or another....this would lend weight to the idea of strategic placement of your troops (be mindful of your supply lines and guard them well, lest bad, bad things happen to your force at the head, deep inside enemy territory).

      One fairly straightforward way to do this would be in creating supply train units...give them a "cultural radius" of one tile (the one they're in), and allow your units to treat that tile as though it belonged to you. Make a string of them following a road, and voila! You have "your own" road, running thru enemy territory.

      Of course, doing this means now you'll be wanting to guard said supply trains, and that opens up a whole new vista....

      -=Vel=-
      The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.

      Comment


      • #4
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?...So with that said: if you can not read my post because of spelling, then who is really the stupid one?...

        Comment


        • #5
          The whole Idea of not allowing enemy movement on roads is based on the idea of such things like "zone of control" and partisan activity. Personally I love CIV combat as is....
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?...So with that said: if you can not read my post because of spelling, then who is really the stupid one?...

          Comment


          • #6
            I think the idea is to slow down attackers to give defenders a benefit of faster movement, to counter the attacker's benefit of choosing the place of attack.
            <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
            I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

            Comment


            • #7
              As I said, I prefer a game that favors the attacker, such as Alpha Centauri, and which allows fast paced military combat, not just multi-turned attrition-style siege warfare.

              Comment


              • #8
                The supply train would be tediuos, i think. And i wonder if it´s needed. Just once again i wanna point out Strategic Command II when it comes to supply. I admit tho, that game doesnt know roads and that might require some adjustment...

                FIW, i think the balance between attack and defence is pretty good in civ (tho i want supply lines and attrition - but the balance as is is good) - also the attacking speed: I would be pretty annoyed if someone ran over my empire, build in a couple of hundred turns, within 2 turns. Also, tho i´d like to pay credits to the OP for his appropriate referencing to generals, it should be noted, that v. Falkenhayn didnt deliberately chose to attack slow. It was just that at that stage of battlefield technologies ("hardware" & "software" - doctrines included), trying to "bleed the french army white" slowly was about all he could try. At some stages in histroy at least, the defense simply WAS stronger than the offense - a lot. And actually always a little bit at least. If the OP wants it different, in a mod, thats of course freedom of taste, but as a general critique on civ4 i wouldnt say its valid.

                Comment


                • #9
                  maybe a worker action instead of the supply train ?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    or a new unit, pioneers, that would be a military unit, with low strength, but could build forts and roads in enemy lands - or make existence ones usuable somehow - , has a weak bombard capability, and has the enemies defence bonus (all of them) halved when attacking. Could come in variuos forms across the tech tree.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I fail to see how a supply train could speed up the combat! That's working in the wrong direction.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As some have stated already, I think combat favours the Attacker already. Bring enough siege units and units with City Raider 3 promotions, combat is pretty much a blitz.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I remember the days of CIV II where with a stack of howitzers and engineers you could conquer an entire civ in a single turn using their railroads or those your engineers could build. It was silly, and I'm glad they changed it.
                          It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                          RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have to agree with Rah.

                            I guess the real question is - are we happy to make it easier for *our* empires to be conquered rapidly, or do we envisage only us using these new attacking powers.

                            We should only change CIV in ways that we are happy to be used against us!

                            I do agree though in a way with egavactip - in as much as a problem with CIV is the long slow end-game when you are clearly the dominant power, but it takes a long time to roll things up. I think that should really be solved by changes to the victory conditions and/or diplomacy.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by egavactip
                              As I said, I prefer a game that favors the attacker, such as Alpha Centauri, and which allows fast paced military combat, not just multi-turned attrition-style siege warfare.
                              Then I suggest looking elsewhere, frankly; CIV is not a military game by nature, it is a civilization building game, and will never (thank god!) favor the attacker more than is necessary to allow military conquest as one possibility. I'd say that the majority - if not far majority - of SP players are not significant warmongers (the fact that there's a word like that for 'attacking other people' should tell you something...) and would very much dislike anything that made attacking significantly easier.

                              I honestly believe Civ is quite well balanced as it is - with some minor modifications for siege still, but at this point they're minor. Attacking vs. defending is pretty well matched, in that you must attack with superior numbers in order to win an attack, and it is not a simple process to attack (like an RTS) but instead takes time and effort (as an empire building game should).
                              <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                              I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X