Total War-style battles.

[Akka]

Civ games always had a highly-conceptual kind of battles. It was often said that more detailed battles would be detracting of the game, or would be impossible to correctly implement.

Well, RTW came on shelves not too long ago. In it, we could see that you could perfectly have a very good, civ-like strategic map (and downright gorgeous morevoer), and absolutely stunning tactical battles.

I think that if Civ4 could take the best of the two worlds, and use a Total War type of battle, it would be incredibly better.
Additionnally, the range and armor of modern weapons over hand-to-hand fight of older ones, would get rid of the "phalanx against tank" syndrome.


I can't do anything but cry and drool when thinking to a game that would combine the ideas of EU2, the scope and civil and strategic sides of Civ, and the graphics and battle engine of TW...

[Modo44]

Cool. But there's a tiny little problem with this wish. Developing each of those aspects costs money. So Civ has the best strategy part, while Total War has the beautiful battles and EU has a nice historical background. If you'd want all three of those, go ahead and sponsor a game. If you can't, this wishful thinking will only result in a CIV that is mediocre in all three fields. Personally, I'd like it to remain the best strategy, even if without flashy graphics.

[edit - typos]

[The diplomat]

I don't think civ4 needs tactical battles like RTW. However, civ4 should have a main map like RTW's campaign map.

[Nikolai]

Yeah, I agree. Real time battles in Civ: But although I haven't played R:TW yet, I've seen screenshots, and that map looks awesome.

[Vince278]

Strategy first in CIV. Any battle I'm winning is already beautiful. Lets keep the eye candy down so I can run a colossal map/32 (or higher!) player campaign.

[Panzeh]

'Total war' style battles are good up to the Napoleonic wars, and then you'll have to find something else.

WW1+ warfare was not fought in battle lines.

Something most people also don't get is that doing this would make multiplayer unplayable. People keep asking for multiplayer campaigns in the total war series, and the answer is that it simply wouldn't be playable, or it wouldn't be playable with tactical battles.

[Modo44]

Well, flashy graphics and real-time battles were there in Mechcommander 2 and it worked just fine. So it's just the Total War system that doesn't allow this, the general idea is doable. Still, it's nothing for CIV, as Mechcommander 2 was a game developed almost exclusively around tactics, not strategy.

[Akka]

To the ones saying that you prefer strategy first : well, there is an "autoresolve" option in the TW serie, that would just do the trick. It would be like the automated calculation we see in Civ, except that we could AT LAST have several units fighting together.

Originally posted by Panzeh
'Total war' style battles are good up to the Napoleonic wars, and then you'll have to find something else.

WW1+ warfare was not fought in battle lines.

Well, so what ?
You just have to change formations. Make the units in WWI have the "spread unit" by default, and a "crouch" as capacity. Don't see the problem.

Something most people also don't get is that doing this would make multiplayer unplayable. People keep asking for multiplayer campaigns in the total war series, and the answer is that it simply wouldn't be playable, or it wouldn't be playable with tactical battles.

That is probably much more of a problem.
The only doable thing I can imagine, is to make "autoresolve battles" the default in multiplayer.
It's not really possible in TW, as battles represent more than half of the game, but in Civ, where the main part is the management of the empire, it would be acceptable.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Akka
To the ones saying that you prefer strategy first : well, there is an "autoresolve" option in the TW serie, that would just do the trick.

The trick of killing the very part that is actually interesting in Total War? Great idea.

[Panzeh]

Well, so what ?
You just have to change formations. Make the units in WWI have the "spread unit" by default, and a "crouch" as capacity. Don't see the problem.

Representing the realities of warfare in the industrial era is not simple done with the changing of formation. Just as everything else industrialized, so did warfare. No more were there set-piece battles, more like a series of related engagements.

It is impossible to do that with a 'total war' style tactical battle module.

[GePap]

I think Civ needs to move to an "army" mode, in which instead of individual units, fights are based on commands fighting commands - how well a command does will be based on the make up of the army, its morale, and its mission.

Also, unless something goes catastrophically bad for one side or the other, commands would live on to fight another day.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Modo44

The trick of killing the very part that is actually interesting in Total War? Great idea.

Well, it would be a waste, I agree.
But there is quite a lot of people that actually do NOT like the battles. So, they have the option to autoresolve them, while others (like me ) can fight them. What's the problem with that ?

Representing the realities of warfare in the industrial era is not simple done with the changing of formation. Just as everything else industrialized, so did warfare. No more were there set-piece battles, more like a series of related engagements.

It is impossible to do that with a 'total war' style tactical battle module.

True, but honestly, I don't see what's the problem. There would be battle with modern weapons, that would simulate the series of related engagement. A bit like the units in Civ already fight the same way from the warriors to the modern armour.


Anyway, even if doing 3D full battles is beyond the possibilities of the game, one thing that is REALLY necessary, is to be done with the unit-by-unit management, and allows the formation of ARMIES, and the simultaneous fights of several units.

[Panzeh]

I suppose it would be better to make the general combat more CTP2-like than Total War-like.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Akka
But there is quite a lot of people that actually do NOT like the battles. So, they have the option to autoresolve them, while others (like me ) can fight them. What's the problem with that ?

You are right, but only in general.

However, when Total War is considered, I think the strategy part is worth crap, so turning off the battles would make the whole game crap. I don't know what changed in Rome:Total war, I just saw the demo and the impressive improvement of the graphics engine. But somehow, people don't talk details about the strategy part of this "great strategy". We wouldn't want that to happen to CIV, would we?


The most I would ever expect from CIV would be some better animations, perhaps Battle-Isle style. Simple and short views of the battle that show some nice flashes and tell you who won, based on the numbers crunched by the game. But make sure there's an option to turn them off.

[Nikolai]

I only have M:TW, but I can say without doubt that the real time battles are not for me, I hate them. Can't see the fun, can't manage them right, can't see the reason to have them. But that's only me. I understand people who like real-time direct control games will see it differently. But real-time TW alike battles are not Civ.