The Total War series has spoiled me

[Feyd]

Think of it this way... Depending on the map size one square could be hundreds of square miles. You're not going to have a ZoC for adjacent squares.

Even if the zone is one square mile until you get to artillery (and only artillery) would that "zone" be a viable option.

I go back to my core understanding of things, however, and that is that I see each "unit" as perhaps a division of actual troops which raises the scale upwards a tad.

Peace...

[LotharZ]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
question: in an always-war game... does war weariness exist?

That is a great question.

Originally posted by mutax2003
Maybe they can implement "ambush" feature in Civ IV, i.e. giving a hidden army (which would require stealth promotion) 25% bonus when attacking from wooded area due to element of surprise. However, if an opposing army also has a "stealth" unit in the stack, then the bonus would be cancelled out. This way, there would be more incentive to leave some forest in your territory, other than just for lumber mills and health.

That strikes me as a very good idea.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Feyd
Think of it this way... Depending on the map size one square could be hundreds of square miles. You're not going to have a ZoC for adjacent squares.

Scale in the Civ series has always been wacky. Distance, time, tile size, unit size, etc. None of them match. So don't think about it, you are just going to get a headache.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Feyd
Think of it this way... Depending on the map size one square could be hundreds of square miles. You're not going to have a ZoC for adjacent squares.

This of it this way... Depending on the era one turn could be several months. Your units are going to be able to send scouts and interdiction parties all over adjacent squares, to cut off enemy supplies, engage them in low-level hits-and-run, screwing with their bivouac sites, etc.

ZoC means more than just being able to fire on the enemy.

[DrSpike]

ZoC are great, and worked in Civ2. However, they would probably not actually be a good thing in Civ4, as attacking is already trickier than in previous games. If they added ZoC too so that you had to take on that axe/spear stack fortified on the forest before even getting to the city, well that would be too much.

[Saturnalia]

Re: Re: The Total War series has spoiled me

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War that the best way to win a war is through diplomacy.

I'm still figuring out the diplomacy aspect in Civ4, it has been awhile since Civ2 for me...

So I load a previous save around fifty years in the past and start sucking up to Saladin, I give him tribute, hugs and a cookie and he still declares war on me.
However I was also devoting all production to pikemen and musketmen this time around and I formed a nice defensive line to the south. Camels headed up
north, caused massive damage to my agricultural lands but were soundly slaughtered in the end. Then Louis IVX declared war on me.

So I loaded up the editor and nuked everyone.
I blame this mostly on having a different religion than my neighbors around the time Theocracy started popping up.

[Puupertti Ruma]

Re: The Total War series has spoiled me

Originally posted by Saturnalia
So I ready longbowmen on forested hills, Saladin marches his camel archers up, my archers open fire under the protection
of the forest, slaughter his camels and give me enough time to pump out riflemen and cannons to utterly destroy him.
This is when I am reminded that I am playing Civ4, not Medieval Total War.

Instead of the above scenario, the camels slaughter my fortified archers and run around causing all kinds of hell.
Anyone else run into a similar situation?

Actually, what would happen in Total War is that the camel archers might take a beating from the first volley of arrows. Afterwards, if the enemy player had any skill, rush to slaugther your poor unprotected longbowmen, despite the ambush. (Well in Rome Total War anyway, can't be 100% of MTW, but the same should apply. Of course, if the AI has no skill it wouldn't do that).

Why? Because the camels are quite a fast moving targets to hit with a bow, and bowmen shooting from a forest have a disadvantage as some of the arrows are deflected by the foliage, and of course a camelbacked rider makes short work of footslogging archers without a tight formation (note that these things are all modelled in the TW battle system).

I agree that in TW archers are great at ambush, especially against foottroops which can't get in touch with them too fast, but without friendly infantry to protect them from enemy riders, they are going to get butchered.

[Saturnalia]

Re: Re: The Total War series has spoiled me

Originally posted by Puupertti Ruma

Actually, what would happen in Total War is that the camel archers might take a beating from the first volley of arrows. Afterwards, if the enemy player had any skill, rush to slaugther your poor unprotected longbowmen, despite the ambush. (Well in Rome Total War anyway, can't be 100% of MTW, but the same should apply. Of course, if the AI has no skill it wouldn't do that).

Why? Because the camels are quite a fast moving targets to hit with a bow, and bowmen shooting from a forest have a disadvantage as some of the arrows are deflected by the foliage, and of course a camelbacked rider makes short work of footslogging archers without a tight formation (note that these things are all modelled in the TW battle system).

I agree that in TW archers are great at ambush, especially against foottroops which can't get in touch with them too fast, but without friendly infantry to protect them from enemy riders, they are going to get butchered.

Normally you would use spearmen in this case OR you keep the archers in play long enough to do some damage before withdrawing them. Simulating a hit and run in short.