i guess i wanted a different game, does it exist?

[GreenReaper]

Originally posted by hexagonian
CTP2 Ages of Man...link is in my sig.

i shall try this...looks interesting if a tad dated.

thanks

[hexagonian]

X-Post

There is a downloadable readme file there, which gives an overview of the game. It is worth the time to go there and take a look. If it is not what you want, then you have not lost anything but time by investigating it.

[Badtz Maru]

I'm one of the people who liked Civ3 more than Civ2 too. Civ2 had so many units and features that I never used and was very unbalanced. Combat was not random enough, and if you got tanks first you were pretty much guaranteed a win. The new features that Civ3 had were all useful and interesting - strategic resources, culture, unique units, etc. It had it's flaws but I found it a lot more fun to play than Civ2, and it was really easy to mod.

[Volstag]

i dont see why it would be so hard to smash civ into TW...or why it would have to be overly complex.

R:TW works because the tactical engine is designed for close range combats in a relatively small area with relatively few troops.

Imagine the tactical engine you'd need to simulate platforms engaging, and killing, from beyond the horizon. How does one manipulate jet fighters, helicopters, strategic bombers, submarines, cruise missile destroyers, etc, from the tactical engine? How do you propose handling an engagement of several hundred thousand troops, spread across a combat zone that's potentially dozens/scores of miles deep and/or wide? How are you moving these troops? At the platoon level, company, regiment? Is it real-time, or turn-based? Then there's the specter of modelling shell penetrations, command & control, morale, ammo, fuel, weather, etc. Additionally, Firaxis would need to write AI capable handling small scale melee up to the clash of multiple corp sized modern armies.

No harm in dreaming though.

[Bogdanovist]

In principle the idea of a strategy game melded with the tactical combat of a TW game would seem like the ultimate game for many (me included). However, think of what it would be like. A game of Civ4 on a reasonable map size takes me 10-20 hours. In an average game I would have mnay battles. Let's say for arguments sake ~100 battles. If each one took on average say 10 mins in tactical mode (which is optimistic, a TW large battle takes a fair bit longer) then your looking at another 17 hrs or so on top of the total game time. How much are you going to enjoy mowing down horde after horde of enemy longbowmen with your riflemen in full 3D tactical combat? Sure it'd be fun for a bit, but eventually it just becomes tedious.

Personally I play R:TW around 1/3 of my gaming time as I like the battles and Civ4 in the rest at the moment for all the other reasons. Each is good in it's own right but melding them does not neccasarily make the combined game as good as the sum of it's parts, let alone better. If there was a Civ:Total war game I'd certainly try it, but it's not clear to me that it would actually be better than playing two seperate contrasting games.

I remember a quote from Sid that went somthing along the lines of "if your making a strategy game, make a strategy game. I your making a tactical game, make a tactical game". Not that Sid is the final word on game design, but if you look at most successfull games they focus on being really good at one aspect, rather than trying to be the best of all worlds. Of course there are exeptions, but this generally seems to be the case.

btw I also think that even a 'complex' game can be well designed such that the gameplay is intuitive and easy to pick up without needing large amounts of documentation. Civ 4 has a crappy civilopedia and most of the manual is pish, yet it dosn't really matter because the design is solid so the gameplay in intuative and easy to pick up, despite being relatively 'complex'.

[Dr. Broom]

I can recommend Empire Earth, an RTS game where you start off in the prehistoric ages and can go all the way up to the nano age in the future or anywhere in between. I believe it has a total of 14 different ages. Don't get the expansion though, it only adds a little and half of what it adds completely unbalances the game.

Don't get the second one either it is just a rip off of Rise of Nations which sucks in my opinion.

[Enigma_Nova]

Ummm ... Empire Earth?

[GreenReaper]

there you go, overly complicating things. R:TW works because they simplify things, not because things were actually simple back then. in roman times, troops would sometimes number in the millions, sometimes with battles stretching for miles. RTW limits troops and area. i assuming you play RTW so your familiar with the gameplay. so to answer your main questions:

How does one manipulate jet fighters, helicopters, strategic bombers, submarines, cruise missile destroyers, etc, from the tactical engine?

simple. lets assume you're at a tactical battle screen. lets say we go with the RTW 3d tactical type battles. the helicopters are easy, they can be rendered just like any other unit, just have them hover. fixed wing air forces would also be a cinch. first of all, they could be operated the same as they are now in Civ, calling diffrerent missions on the campaign map. second, in the battle map you would have the option of calling airstrikes, so long as the battle took place in the planes range on the campaign map. (have it be sort of like the airstrikes in command and conquer) same deal with naval bombarding. i hope that makes sense to you...it makes perfect sense in my mind at least lol

How do you propose handling an engagement of several hundred thousand troops, spread across a combat zone that's potentially dozens/scores of miles deep and/or wide?

like i said before, this is over complication. battles in real roman times were far more epic than in RTW, but the simplification is needed to make the game playable. and also your next question actually serves to answer this one also:

How are you moving these troops? At the platoon level, company, regiment? Is it real-time, or turn-based?

like i said in my previous post, the actual campaign map would be pretty much exactly like it is now in Civ4, but you would use some sort of "army" unit, similar to how the campaign map in RTW works. you would then put units into these armies, and march them around that way. battles would take place much the same as RTW, when you ran your army into another army, the battle map would be drawn up taking into account what kind of terrain you're around. this way, you could actually simulate huge engagments with different armies at different places, you'd just have to fight them seperatly.

Then there's the specter of modelling shell penetrations, command & control, morale, ammo, fuel, weather, etc. Additionally, Firaxis would need to write AI capable handling small scale melee up to the clash of multiple corp sized modern armies.

again, with simplification these thing would not be a problem. and also, all the things i mentioned would also work in a turn based battle map. that would even be simpler. maybe something like the new Pirates! tactical battles, a bit more detailed of course. in fact, as i think about it a turn based system would probably be the way to go.

No harm in dreaming though.

i admit i dont know jack about computer programming, but the things im mentioning seem very realistic to me , given that they already exist in other games. what do you think?

[GreenReaper]

Originally posted by Bogdanovist
In principle the idea of a strategy game melded with the tactical combat of a TW game would seem like the ultimate game for many (me included). However, think of what it would be like. A game of Civ4 on a reasonable map size takes me 10-20 hours. In an average game I would have mnay battles. Let's say for arguments sake ~100 battles. If each one took on average say 10 mins in tactical mode (which is optimistic, a TW large battle takes a fair bit longer) then your looking at another 17 hrs or so on top of the total game time. How much are you going to enjoy mowing down horde after horde of enemy longbowmen with your riflemen in full 3D tactical combat? Sure it'd be fun for a bit, but eventually it just becomes tedious.

mowing down lesser troops is pretty much what i have in mind LOL...but i know what you mean about tedium. however, you are forgetting that tactical games such as the TW series have auto-battle features, to combat this.
auto calc the simple ones but take command of the big ones.

and as far as epic games, i love a civ game that stretches on for weeks or even months.

[Son of moose]

GreenReaper:

and as far as epic games, i love a civ game that stretches on for weeks or even months.

Then perhaps you would like to check this thread.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144668&goto=newpost

[Brendruis]

RTW is a really good game but I had one problem with it. It got old after awhile (after playing for like a week) because all it boils down to is attacking city fortifications... The city controls the 'region' on the map and then you own that region when you conquer the town. I conquered the entire map of the known world, but it seemed like all I was doing is slowly sending my soldiers up the towers, around the walls, into the city... and every battle seemed like it was the same... Bash down the gate, user towers or latters.. climb around.. manipulate the AI, kill the guards and capture the center... Over and over and over. It gets so routine that it becomes easy... Now the funnest part of this game was the wide open battles in the field... The sweeping cavalry charges and such were really great... this is where the tactics actually matter. It's really not hard to make decisions when you're between a wall and another wall and the enemy: march forward!

It's still a very good title and Creative Assembly are talented developers/designers.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: i guess i wanted a different game, does it exist?

Originally posted by GreenReaper
ive always been a big Civ fan. i thought civ 2 was probably the best game ever for PC. civ 3 seemed to refine the game a lot, but IMHO it seemed like it hit a wall. as in, they could get no better with the current model of game, so to improve it they needed to throw ina different aspect.

i guess thats what i was hoping for in civ 4. but if you strip all the fancy stuff away, this is just civ 3 with new rules (and most of the new rules i just HATE!)

its obviously my own fault for rushing out and buying it without even researching it at all, (allthough most game reviews give anything from sid a golden pass) but ANYWAY, the pont of all my rambling is this!:

i want a game that blends empire building and real warfare tactics (like medieval and rome total war) with the advancement thru the ages like classic civ.

if i were a movie producer i would hawk it as "total war meets civilization". does this game exist?

Civ is just chess with new rules.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
<- starts beating up people for calling them "real time" games.

It's not real time in any sense of the term. Real time is one second game time equals to one second our time.

You're pretty much alone in that definition.

[Orcrist]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


<- starts beating up people for calling them "real time" games.

It's not real time in any sense of the term. Real time is one second game time equals to one second our time.

That's funny, I agree with everyone else here regarding the real-time part, but I always want to beat people up who call them "strategy". I don't remember the exact quote, but someone once said, strategy is deciding whether, when, and whom to fight; tactics is deciding how to fight. All the real-time "strategy" games are, in my opinion, tactics, logistics, and clicking more quickly than your opponent. You always fight, so there's no 'whether' involved. Just my 2 cents...

-chris

[Cardozo]

[SIZE=1] Supply: Civ basically completely ignores cutting of supply to troops. Maintainence costs and healing rates are highly unrealistic and do not give you the ability to directly attack the supply convoy line (and hence no defense of such a thing). This precludes many historical scenerios where such tactics played a role. Supply is a HUGE issue. It, of course, adds complexity to the game.

Heh. You could imagine an action button for some units such that "Sentry" changes to "Lay Siege" or "Interdict" when next to an enemy city. The city in question would not be able to use the squares your unit controls (more than just the ones it's on), and if you lay a comprehensive siege the city would be cut off from the Empire's trade network (and hence, probably cut off from key resources.

I would imagine it would work like a radius around the unit, like a patrolling aircraft. A typical melee unit would have a radius of 1 that it controls when seiging, so you would need two axemen (one on each side) to effectively lay siege to a city. Knights and Tanks would have a radius of two thanks to their higher mobility, so you could lay siege to a city with just one of those (but you'd have to be right next to the city to do it; i.e., in range of their artillery). Any enemy unit that wanders into your area of control is automatically attacked (this could be good or bad).

If the city has any open squares, the siege is not complete, and goods can be assumed to flow in and out. If the city is coastal you would need ships to complete the siege. Once a city has an airport you would need Fighter Aircraft to complete the siege.

The effects of the siege on the city's population should be obvious. Denied the use of the land under the troop's 'Zone of Control' (hey, it's back! But only when Sieging/ in Sentry mode!) the city would begin to starve soon and loose population normally. There would be unrest. The troops in the city might also starve, or be harmed by rioters.

Also, we already have the rule that a city cannot build a unit unless it has access to the relevant strategic resources. Well, just add in that the untis won't even heal without access to that resource, and you effectively introduce the concept of strategic stockpile depletion. Perhaps the city gets a certain number of turns where units continue to heal normally (1/3rd population in turns), but then supplies run out.

To prevent sieges from being super-nasty though I would allow that a city denied the use of land but not completely sieged is assumed to be supplied with enough food so that the population is stagnant instead of starving. I know that Civ 4 does not allow for trade in food (other than as Health Bonuses), but I would make the exception in this case.