50 years to build a warrior and other timescale issues

[The diplomat]

As we all know from playing civ games, there are several weird timescale problems. Warriors taking 50 years to build, a ship taking 40 years to cross the atlantic but a tank crossing america by rail instantaneously etc...

1) Are these serious issues that should be corrected in any future civ4?

2) If they do represent serious issues, how should they be fixed?

To answer the first question, I don't think that they are fundamental flaws but I do think that fixing them would bring the game that much closer to perfection.

To answer the second question, I think there are some obvious solutions:
-eliminate infinite movement with railroads.
-have units always be built in 1 turn, using gold instead of shields.
-allow cities to build more than one unit in a single turn.
-have build cost dependant on timescale so that in the early game when 1 turn = 20 years, more units can be built in a single turn than in the later game when 1 turn = 1 year.

These last 3 points would not just solve the timescale problems but IMO, would also improve gameplay. The player will spend less time waiting for units to be built or for units just to reach the enemy. If in the time it took previously just to get a group of units to the enemy, the player could now actually have fought several battles, then I think these changes would significantly improve gameplay.

I think this last point is the best argument in favor of such changes.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by The diplomat
As we all know from playing civ games, there are several weird timescale problems. Warriors taking 50 years to build, a ship taking 40 years to cross the atlantic but a tank crossing america by rail instantaneously etc...

1) Are these serious issues that should be corrected in any future civ4?

2) If they do represent serious issues, how should they be fixed?

1) No, it's a game.
2) They shouldn't, it's a game.

Ultimately all civ is an abstraction........if you makes you feel better think of the warrior as representing many warriors. But you can't make it perfectly consistent with reality, because it isn't reality, it's a game, an abstract implementation of the true decisions facing a burgeoning civ.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Ultimately all civ is an abstraction........if you makes you feel better think of the warrior as representing many warriors. But you can't make it perfectly consistent with reality, because it isn't reality, it's a game, an abstract implementation of the true decisions facing a burgeoning civ.

I realize that it is just a game. But don't you think that reducing to the time it takes to build units, will improve gameplay by reducing the waiting time between building a unit and actually fighting a battle with the unit?

[DrSpike]

Well the turn structure (and years per turn) is calibrated so that the average player is around the expected level of development as the game progresses. If you reduce the building costs of units you can make the early game quicker.......this is essentially what playing MP with 2x production does. I have no real problem with speeding things up, but the progression as it stands is a neat one IMO. You start off slowly building, and as you have more and more productive power (and things get more interesting) you get more turns for each fixed year period.

Tbh it doesn't matter........SMAC has turn 1, turn 2 etc. But Civ players usually like the progress in their game in some sense to follow the progress of civilization itself, regardless of the abstractions that are necessary to the game.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well the turn structure (and years per turn) is calibrated so that the average player is around the expected level of development as the game progresses. If you reduce the building costs of units you can make the early game quicker.......this is essentially what playing MP with 2x production does. I have no real problem with speeding things up, but the progression as it stands is a neat one IMO. You start off slowly building, and as you have more and more productive power (and things get more interesting) you get more turns for each fixed year period.

First, it seems to me that the level of development is a matter of tech rate more than production speed. Making units build in 1 turn will not affect the sense of progress, it will simply give the player more time to use the unit before it becomes obsolete. The tech rate should stay the same, so that the player gets that level of development that makes sense.

I mentionned that a city should be able to build more than 1 unit at the same time. At the beginning of the game, say a city builds 1 unit per turn, then later as the city's development increases, it is able to build 3 units per turn, I think that sense of productive power will still be present.

[DrSpike]

Hehe, you can't increase productive power without speeding up tech. More production, more settlers, more cities, faster tech.

[Dauphin]

Timescale 'reality' issues really aren't worth worrying about compared to gameplay issues.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by The diplomat


First, it seems to me that the level of development is a matter of tech rate more than production speed. Making units build in 1 turn will not affect the sense of progress, it will simply give the player more time to use the unit before it becomes obsolete. The tech rate should stay the same, so that the player gets that level of development that makes sense.

That argument doesn't sit with me.

There is a lag between discovering a tech that allows you to build a unit, building it and then using it, sure. But that lag is not really an issue as, although a unit may be technologically obsolete when you discover a new technology, it is not actively obsolete until new units come off the production line.

All that rushing production does is shift both ends of the same lag effect. The total number of turns that a unit is not obsolete does not change.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Hehe, you can't increase productive power without speeding up tech. More production, more settlers, more cities, faster tech.

I am only talking about speeding up production of military units! I don't see how that would speed up tech discovery. Settlers and city improvements wouls still be built the regular way.

[DrSpike]

Well I don't think you can speed up production of certain things. Don't you think it would be better to argue for a reduction in shield cost for military units?

That would at least be an argument, albeit not a good one IMO. The unit costs are chosen to balance expansion, improvement and the military. Unless you have a very specific gripe I'd say it would be a bad idea to play with a delicate balance for the sake of timescale (or even the argument about obselete units) worries.

[Trifna]

Galactic Civilizations really says 1turn=1month
GalCiv always being particularly coherent in its rules and inner working, I think we should look at their model... I didn't really see incoherencies.

Spike: It's not because it's a game that if we can make it more coherent, without causing problems to gameplay, that it shouldn't be fixed!

[DrSpike]

Trifna we always have this argument. I am all for the addition of stuff that improves gameplay, but more often than not stuff that is included because of it's realism screws up the game. Just because something is 'realistic' does not mean there is *necessarily* a good way to implement it into the game. There *may* be, but the fact that the feature is realistic does not (as you so often say) guarantee a feature with good gameplay even if it is implemented in a good way.

And as I said above, it is far easier in Galciv/SMAC terms, because with civ everything has to be calibrated to in some sense model actual civilisation. Noone is going to complain that they researched advanced nanotechnic surgery 4 in 2145 instead of 2245.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by DrSpike
And as I said above, it is far easier in Galciv/SMAC terms, because with civ everything has to be calibrated to in some sense model actual civilisation. Noone is going to complain that they researched advanced nanotechnic surgery 4 in 2145 instead of 2245.

Well even in civ, you still get players who discover industrialization in 1200 AD!

[DrSpike]

Well in my recent early landing game I'm going to launch about then (no huts or start techs either).

So yeah, sometimes it screws up, but the calibration can only be done for the average player.

[Trifna]

Then some solutions have to be found that are compatible with the whole thing. Maybe intermediary techs for exemple. Like one tech composed of 2 minor and the real thing after, each one with advantages. It's easier to balance and not having huge differences between two players just cuz of one tech then.

If we succeed into making it more realist (not more detailed, i said more REALIST) without crashing the gameplay, then it's gonna be better since immersion is a great part of Civ for many many players.

[Urban Ranger]

Of course, the more fundamental issue is there was no warrior unit. Just a group of people with weapons. The closest you get to a standardised unit are the Roman legions.

[DrSpike]

Well then the warrior represents those people with weapons...........it is only there to give you an explorer and a unit with an attack value. In Civ2 at least a settler has more defence, so the 'warrior' is not stronger than normal people.

But either way it really doesn't matter........it is desirable for gameplay that it be so, so it is.

[Dauphin]

Ever played a game where your first warrior unit searches your entire landmass, and then gets cut off by an expanding civ. All that is left to do is fortify or disband. I've had a fortified warrior perched at the top of a large polar mountain range from ~2000BC to ~2000AD. Now that is not realistic, but who cares?

[Maquiladora]

The 1 turn=50 years etc thing needs to be changed first if movement and production is going to be realistic. The whole game would need to be more detailed. Like taking pop from cities when you "drag" out an army of warriors on the same turn, then youd need more detailed city pops with moral maybe and arms supply etc etc.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well then the warrior represents those people with weapons...........it is only there to give you an explorer and a unit with an attack value.

Which was pretty much my point. A "unit" is just a mob with some weapons for the longest time. Without some sort of standards, saying that taking 50 years is too long is rather groundless.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
The 1 turn=50 years etc thing needs to be changed first if movement and production is going to be realistic. The whole game would need to be more detailed. Like taking pop from cities when you "drag" out an army of warriors on the same turn, then youd need more detailed city pops with moral maybe and arms supply etc etc.

I think this is correct. Brandon Von Every (Sp?) addressed this a couple of years back on Usenet. If you have realistic building and movement, you will have most wars over in one turn with current turns year equivalents. Even in modern times, with 1 turn = 1 year, ww1 is over in 4 turns, and ww2 in 5 turns. but to make the turns short enough to have both detailed wars, and realistic movement, you have to have so many turns that the game ceases to effectively be playable. (suppose we have i turn = 5 years in BC, and 1 turn - 1 year in AD, and one turn - one quarter of year in 20thc.

so to get from 4000BC to 2000AD we have 800+1900+400 turns, a total of 3100 turns. if each turn averages 10 minutes (!) thats 500 hours. someone playing 50 hours a week (!) would take ten weeks (!) to finish a game.

The only options are
1. Abandon detailed modeling of wars and unit movement, make war abstract, and focus on city and tech development - simciv, instead of civ.
2. Model a much shorter period - forget the 6000 year time span.
3. Go to something other than traditional TB - so you can fly through development ages and slow down when war breaks out - either speed variable RT, or some RT-TB combo (looks like this is RON solution)
4. Just accept that this aspect of the game is profoundly unrealistic.

[Panag]

hi ,

would a certain time frame like from 1939 - 1945 a turn a week , the rest a turn is one month fix this

have a nice day

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

would a certain time frame like from 1939 - 1945 a turn a week , the rest a turn is one month fix this

have a nice day

a turn a month for what period? a turn a month from 1800 to 2000 is 2400 turns. asume 10 minutes per turn thats 400 hours. Assume you play 40 hours per week (!!) thats 10 weeks to play one game. if you play a more reasonable 10 houre per week thats 40 weeks to play one game. So no, it doesnt fix it. And obviously not if you're still trying a 6000 year civ game.

[Panag]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


a turn a month for what period? a turn a month from 1800 to 2000 is 2400 turns. asume 10 minutes per turn thats 400 hours. Assume you play 40 hours per week (!!) thats 10 weeks to play one game. if you play a more reasonable 10 houre per week thats 40 weeks to play one game. So no, it doesnt fix it. And obviously not if you're still trying a 6000 year civ game.

hi ,

well in civ II there where scenario's like that , they started at time y and ended at turn x , .....

some scenarios even had a turn = year from y to x and somewhere in between or near the end a turn is a month from z to a , .....

should we be able to that also , ....

or should the shields ( production ) take in account the number of turns , .....

have a nice day

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

well in civ II there where scenario's like that , they started at time y and ended at turn x , .....

some scenarios even had a turn = year from y to x and somewhere in between or near the end a turn is a month from z to a , .....

should we be able to that also , ....

or should the shields ( production ) take in account the number of turns , .....

have a nice day

one - id say even most relatively short civ 2 scenarios had unrealistically slow movement,
Two - thats not "civ" anymore if you shorten the time frame radically.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The only options are
1. Abandon detailed modeling of wars and unit movement, make war abstract, and focus on city and tech development - simciv, instead of civ.
2. Model a much shorter period - forget the 6000 year time span.
3. Go to something other than traditional TB - so you can fly through development ages and slow down when war breaks out - either speed variable RT, or some RT-TB combo (looks like this is RON solution)
4. Just accept that this aspect of the game is profoundly unrealistic.

Well, #3 is unacceptable for me. #2 could be done but it might remove the soul of the game. After all, civ has been about building an empire that stands the test of time. If the game only lasts from say 3000BC to 0 AD, then you would lose some of the epic feel of the game. Of course, you would also be able to concentrate on a particular age like the Ancient Age and make it more alive.

If the game switched to a province based map instead of a tile based map, some of the timescale problems could be resolved. This solution has the benefit that it would avoid the problems from options 1, 2, 3 and 4.

A province map would mean that it would no longer take tens of turns just to reach an enemy city. Wars would be fought on a much shorter timescale, since you could conquer 1 province representing an entire region in 1 or 2 turns.

A province map would also mean more realistic times for unit movements. If an infantry has 1 movement, it would move 1 province a turn instead of 1 tile a turn. Ships could cross oceans in a few turns instead of tens of turns.

So, provinces would fix some of the issues.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Well, #3 is unacceptable for me. #2 could be done but it might remove the soul of the game. After all, civ has been about building an empire that stands the test of time. If the game only lasts from say 3000BC to 0 AD, then you would lose some of the epic feel of the game. Of course, you would also be able to concentrate on a particular age like the Ancient Age and make it more alive.

If the game switched to a province based map instead of a tile based map, some of the timescale problems could be resolved. This solution has the benefit that it would avoid the problems from options 1, 2, 3 and 4.

A province map would mean that it would no longer take tens of turns just to reach an enemy city. Wars would be fought on a much shorter timescale, since you could conquer 1 province representing an entire region in 1 or 2 turns.

A province map would also mean more realistic times for unit movements. If an infantry has 1 movement, it would move 1 province a turn instead of 1 tile a turn. Ships could cross oceans in a few turns instead of tens of turns.

So, provinces would fix some of the issues.

I dont see how this helps - its the equivalent of simply giving units more movement points.

Lets take an example - a roman legion on foot, on road could march at something like 20 miles a day (?) so they could get from Rome to any frontier in less than a year for sure. So if you have one year turns your realistic legion must have enough movement points to get to any frontier in a turn - whether thats 50 hexes, or 3 provinces really doesnt matter. but if my legion can zoom to any frontier in one turn - then i dont get any speed benefit from cavalry, i dont have to keep units on the frontier since i can move reserves in in one turn, I can easily march around any obstacle, etc. All the details of military strategy are lost. And if we are staying sequential turn based we have in greater problems - whovever moves first in war can concentrate all their forces and destroy any units of mine they want in the first turn. basically for a war to make any sense the standard time for a militatry campaign to make any sense must be considerably longer than one turn. In ancient Rome that means a turn must be apprecially shorter than one year. Say 1 month. But that means the period from 300 BC to 400 AD takes 8400 turns. At 5 minutes a turn (!) thats 700 hours - at 35 hours a week it takes 20 weeks to play a complete game - and we're just doing the Roman era NOT the full 6000 year sweep of civ.

[lord of the mark]

so if 3 is unnacceptable, and 2 removes the soul of the game - you're left with 1 and 4.

1. Go to a more abstract system - but this does not mean simply replaced hexs with Imp or EU size provinces - it means eliminating the modeling of combat altogether - war becomes completely abstract - i declare war, we each decide how much resources to devote, and we role the dice. No more moving of units.
4. Accept the innaccuracy

I would be interested in 1, but i doubt it would be a big seller, or would be considered the successor of Civ.

4 is what Firaxis did with Civ 3 - that is most likely what all successor "civs" will do. IMHO this is becoming increasingly played out - but i could be wrong.

I think the future lies with 2 and 3 Games like RON that do number 3 (IIUC) or games like EU or Shogun that do both 2 and 3 (limit the historical scope AND give up on pure TB)

[lord of the mark]

to sum up - you cannot have detailed warfare (not even at the province level) realistic movement, and a 6000 year time frame in turn based framework and have a small enough number of turns to be playable. Not remotely.

The only way to solve this problem is to have time fly by when youre at peace, and slow down on those occasions you are at war. Since when wars occur is unpredictable, this cannot be resolved simply by having turns equal shorter periods later in the game. There are only two solutions - make your own turns - IE RT with variable speed and full pausability. The EU solution. Or seperate the Warfare component from the development component. The Shogun TW solution. I suppose you could make the warfare component TB instead of RT, if you really hate RT. The development component would remain TB in either case.

The other solution is a shorter time period. But as I think our discussion should make clear, this is not a matter of going to 3000 years in place of 6000 years. We still have the same problems at a 700 year scale (roman empire) or a 400 year scale (EU) or even a 200 year scale.

I think you want turns that are at most 1 month equivalents. and you want a game that is more than 50 hours of play time. at 6 minutes a turn thats 500 turns. at one month per turn thats less than 50 years, So i dont think that you could model any period longer than 50 years. And at one month turns thats still reasonablly abstract combat. and 50 hours is a lot of time to play through one game.

[Panag]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



one - id say even most relatively short civ 2 scenarios had unrealistically slow movement,
Two - thats not "civ" anymore if you shorten the time frame radically.

hi ,

nope , there are some good scenarios that prove otherwise on one , .....

what you mean with drastically , lets say you have a gulfwar scen , ..... it should not last 100 turns or so , .....

have a nice day