Tweet
Being an avid wargamer in days of yore I feel it is a must to make some comments regarding what I would like in the new military engine of Civ4. Frankly I have never been truly satisfied by this aspect of Civ and I think it can be greatly improved without being overly-complex (I doubt Civ4 would hit the mainstream if it had the complexity of TOAW for example).
My main inspiration is that old lovable fun-yet-simple mother of all wargames: Panzer General (the original). PG was fun because it included practically all basic elements of wargames yet made it incredibly simple and fun. Sure it wasn't very historically accurate but it more than made up for it in its strategic challange which did not over-burden the player with those details that us grognards love but most grand strategy gamers would probably detest.
Anyway, here is the list:
- HEXES
Not even worth explaining. Hex-based grids are far better at representing distance and for good reason have been employed in every decent wargame since the dawn of time.
- HIT POINTS & DAMAGE.
The Civ3 hit point system is terrible. Makes combat too unrealistic yet there is no way around it since adding more HP would only make it impossible for some units to win out against others. The main problem I see is the limitation that one unit must necessarily die in each combat. My first suggestion is that each individual act of combat not necessarily kill off units but damage them. Thus it would take more than one attack to actually destroy them. Most real wargames are based on this premise. This also makes for some interesting tactical decisions: which units will attack this turn and which others will hold their ground? The more you make the player think, the more fun it will be. Note that this would also erase the line between normal combat and bombardment. Normal combat would simply be bombardment with a range of 1, attacking the next tile (hex)
Optional effects would be things like morale which after damage cause the unit to retreat or even to surrender if it is cornered (this was called suppression in PG).
- STACKING
The main problem in Civ2 combat was that an entire stack could be wiped out thus making it more usefull to spread out units. In Civ3 the reverse occured, with stacks being the ONLY practical way of amassing units. Civ4 should pursue a middle ground: give the player the tactical decision whether to stack or not. This can be done by including stack damage, in other words, when your stack is attacked either by direct combat or bombardment, the possibility that other units may be damaged is ever present. This will present the player with a choice with each situation necessitating a decision whether to stack or not.
- UNIT TAGS
Units should have more tags, say "mounted", "armored", "motorized", "submarine", "artillery", etc. Other tags should specify special rules between these units or with improvements. The idea is to make certain units more effective than others under different situations. Tanks, for example, should be slaughtered if they take on fortified infantry in a city, but infantry, even if perhaps nominally weaker in attack values should be far more effective. This would also allow for specialized units like Anti-Tank guns, Pikemen more useful against Cavalry, etc. Combat should be like one big chess game where you coordinate your different unit types against your objective, and not just use brute force to obtain it.
- NAVAL COMBAT
With the new unit tags, naval combat would be much improved. Aircraft with special naval attack rates could be far more usefull to wreck havoc on ships. Ships might also have "critical kill" probabilites which would mean, for example, a lucky hit on the other's magazines (kind of like the Bismark's hit on the Hood). Subarines would be particulary adept at this simulating a crippling torpedo hit. Since there is no distinction between normal combat and bombardment now, ships could also have a "counter-bombardment" range which would allow, for example, Battleships to return fire on defense even if attacked at ranges greater than 1.
- SUPPLY
This one is simple. Units not directly in any transport route which leads into your terriotrry or controlled territority should suffer some form of supply penalty, perhaps making it require $$ to resupply. Supply should also be an expendable factor which means that units may not engage in combat or movements if supply runs out. This will require your armies to always be with some supply route open making deep penetrating thrusts very risky as well as cutting supply routes valuable defense strategies.
- AIR COMBAT
Air combat is the only aspect of war I would not like to see turned PG-like. I like it as it is, based on unit orders and launched from cities or airbases. The only change would be to use the unit tags to make some units like true airborne artilleries (like Stukas were in PG). Modern units might also be equipped with some type of stand-off missile capability.
I'm probably missing a couple of stuff which I'll post once I remember.
My main inspiration is that old lovable fun-yet-simple mother of all wargames: Panzer General (the original). PG was fun because it included practically all basic elements of wargames yet made it incredibly simple and fun. Sure it wasn't very historically accurate but it more than made up for it in its strategic challange which did not over-burden the player with those details that us grognards love but most grand strategy gamers would probably detest.
Anyway, here is the list:
- HEXES
Not even worth explaining. Hex-based grids are far better at representing distance and for good reason have been employed in every decent wargame since the dawn of time.
- HIT POINTS & DAMAGE.
The Civ3 hit point system is terrible. Makes combat too unrealistic yet there is no way around it since adding more HP would only make it impossible for some units to win out against others. The main problem I see is the limitation that one unit must necessarily die in each combat. My first suggestion is that each individual act of combat not necessarily kill off units but damage them. Thus it would take more than one attack to actually destroy them. Most real wargames are based on this premise. This also makes for some interesting tactical decisions: which units will attack this turn and which others will hold their ground? The more you make the player think, the more fun it will be. Note that this would also erase the line between normal combat and bombardment. Normal combat would simply be bombardment with a range of 1, attacking the next tile (hex)
Optional effects would be things like morale which after damage cause the unit to retreat or even to surrender if it is cornered (this was called suppression in PG).
- STACKING
The main problem in Civ2 combat was that an entire stack could be wiped out thus making it more usefull to spread out units. In Civ3 the reverse occured, with stacks being the ONLY practical way of amassing units. Civ4 should pursue a middle ground: give the player the tactical decision whether to stack or not. This can be done by including stack damage, in other words, when your stack is attacked either by direct combat or bombardment, the possibility that other units may be damaged is ever present. This will present the player with a choice with each situation necessitating a decision whether to stack or not.
- UNIT TAGS
Units should have more tags, say "mounted", "armored", "motorized", "submarine", "artillery", etc. Other tags should specify special rules between these units or with improvements. The idea is to make certain units more effective than others under different situations. Tanks, for example, should be slaughtered if they take on fortified infantry in a city, but infantry, even if perhaps nominally weaker in attack values should be far more effective. This would also allow for specialized units like Anti-Tank guns, Pikemen more useful against Cavalry, etc. Combat should be like one big chess game where you coordinate your different unit types against your objective, and not just use brute force to obtain it.
- NAVAL COMBAT
With the new unit tags, naval combat would be much improved. Aircraft with special naval attack rates could be far more usefull to wreck havoc on ships. Ships might also have "critical kill" probabilites which would mean, for example, a lucky hit on the other's magazines (kind of like the Bismark's hit on the Hood). Subarines would be particulary adept at this simulating a crippling torpedo hit. Since there is no distinction between normal combat and bombardment now, ships could also have a "counter-bombardment" range which would allow, for example, Battleships to return fire on defense even if attacked at ranges greater than 1.
- SUPPLY
This one is simple. Units not directly in any transport route which leads into your terriotrry or controlled territority should suffer some form of supply penalty, perhaps making it require $$ to resupply. Supply should also be an expendable factor which means that units may not engage in combat or movements if supply runs out. This will require your armies to always be with some supply route open making deep penetrating thrusts very risky as well as cutting supply routes valuable defense strategies.
- AIR COMBAT
Air combat is the only aspect of war I would not like to see turned PG-like. I like it as it is, based on unit orders and launched from cities or airbases. The only change would be to use the unit tags to make some units like true airborne artilleries (like Stukas were in PG). Modern units might also be equipped with some type of stand-off missile capability.
I'm probably missing a couple of stuff which I'll post once I remember.
Comment