Whats the fighting like?

[Hamboner]

just curious, havent played a civ game before and was checking this one out, im use to games like age of empries and star wars, how is this games fighting? i havent been able to find any info about how fights are

[vee4473]

check out the demo

[Kc7mxo]

groups of troops are reprsented by a single unit, representing say, a legion of swordsmen. This unit has a few strength values which are used to determine a victor when it engages another unit.

Every time a unit achieves a certain number of victories its offered a promotion which gives it increased strength in certain situations.

due to gameplay considerations, strength values are balanced so that even primitive units have some chance against modern units. Personally this annoys the hell out of me because it weakens the value of the high cost modern units relative to the cheaper primitive units. but it increases the challenge and allows weaker civs a fighting chance.

[Aro]

I used to play Age of Empires, too. Nice game.

You probably are aware of this, but unlike Age of Empires, a real turn game, Civ is a turn-based game. Like chess. You play, end your turn, then every one plays, etc. Other than this ( ), both games have some similarities. Tech trees, upgrades, specific buildings…

[Simon Appleton]

Sedate is how I would describe Civ's combat - at least to an Age of Empires player. Age of Empires AFAIK is an RTS, where the premium is often on gathering the mostest and getting them there the fastest. They are often frenetic and chaotic (not really my cup of tea as I'm by heart a turn-based historical wargamer).

I also used to find Civ combat deeply unsatisfying. At least until you get modern tech, when you get some real mobility. Before then you used to move single units (often scores of them) one square a time, doing peacemeal attacks on other single units. Wars sometimes resembled WW1 mixed in with the 100 years of war, with massive fronts of units, crawling forward over the decades. Unrealistic and unsatisfying.

However, I find the Civ4 combat more fun. Partly, you get very nice animations and unit graphics which are distracting. Partly you get unit promotions (and upgrades) which make you care about your men. Partly, there is some interesting rock-scissor-paper interactions so you actually have some tactics to think about (e.g. it was great fun without oil trying to develop AT infantry which could cope with enemy armour). Some of the old features still persist - pre-modern wars often crawl and some of the mechanics are wierdly unrealistic (e.g. they rely on suicidal artiller?!?) - but I've found them very enjoyable.

The fighting is still nothing like as satisfying as in the Total War games, for example. Civ really is not so much for warmongers, more for builders and people who love the historical flavour (you either get a kick out of getting Leonardo Da Vinci pop up as one of your "great persons" or you don't).

One other caveat - the AI in Civ is pretty competitive, especially compared to other games (e.g. my benchmark of the Total War games). This is one reason why the fighting is fun despite limitations of the mechanics. (Just as how Chess against a computer can be fun as Chess AI is very competitive). I remember being victim of an early war and beating off simultaneous land and sea strikes. When the dust had settled, I realised the two strikes had destroyed my two copper mines. Like the hunter eaten by raptors in Jurassic Park, I had to admire the AI and mutter "clever girl" as it sunk its jaws into me.

[Stuie]

THE Simon Appleton!? I still have the card you sent with payment for some game you bought from me - bored looking students. It's on my bulletin board at work.

unless you're not THAT Simon Appleton

As to the topic, definitely check out the demo before you buy Civ 4. The combat model does not sit well with some people. See this thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142775

[Hamboner]

thanks, i went and baught the game and am loving it