Larger Battles

[Harrier UK]

Originally posted by Dis
I just wonder why they got rid of armies. It seemed like a step backwards.

Armies did not work. The AI rarely built them, if they did build them it usually contained only one unit.

Also if you built one the AI never attacked it, even if it had enough units to defeat it.

So Armies were a win-win for the human player against the AI.


But isn't the stacking of units, similar to an Army - without the game imbalance.

[Blaupanzer]

CIV stacking is better than the silly armies implementation in III. Does anyone disagree with that?

Banana option is a way to show how many people either don't care, don't know, or regard the poll as irrelevant. As in this case, where we all know that the combat and units are very abstract, no matter how the game implements them. If your way is significantly better, then we will all do it, but the poll part is meaningless, unless those voting intend to help. Otherwise, bananas!

[Harrier UK]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
CIV stacking is better than the silly armies implementation in III. Does anyone disagree with that?

Banana option is a way to show how many people either don't care, don't know, or regard the poll as irrelevant. As in this case, where we all know that the combat and units are very abstract, no matter how the game implements them. If your way is significantly better, then we will all do it, but the poll part is meaningless, unless those voting intend to help. Otherwise, bananas!

Well, Dale is working on a combat stacking mod which will even improve on CIV. More than you can imagine.

[CiverDan]

I for one thing the current battles are large enough. Too large the game gets slowed down in MP. Besides nothing is really gained with regards to RNG when 80 cav attack 50 units vs 40 cav attacking 25.

[MadDjinn]

let's just make the uber-game that puts games within games...

civ is a strategic game where a large number of things are abstracted for good reason, it's called gameplay cohesion. having to controll all the wars, even if you're a warmongerer, would get massively tedious after awhile. not to mention requiring another graphics card update and losing track of what civ is actually about.

and there's plenty of other games that do what you suggest... but they don't do what civ does, so

[CarnalCanaan]

Bananas are a tasty as well as healthy treat.

[Generaldoktor]

I like bananas and they like me. Those of us with high blood pressure need our potassium and bananas are full of it. I'm surprised though that nobody weighs in on plantains?

To be more on topic ; CTP's system, which also involved unit specialization as "flankers," melee and "ranged" within battles, was super-cool with me. There may be residual copyright concerns dealing with why it can't be copied exactly, but also Firaxis' pride; they never wanted to admit CTP had anything they couldn't do better. (I personally liked some of the terrain, the unconventional combat units and FutureWorld.) I think combat could be less "simplified" without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and making this again a supremely micro-managed game.

I liked armies at the time in Civ3. I now see the argument that they were a hideous bias in favor of the human player, but at the time, I didn't much care. I often like to play on relatively low difficulty levels to get a minor challenge, but still a result of me totally smashing multiple enemies; its an ego thing. In truth, some national military systems just have a leg up on others and I, again at the time of Civ3, thought of it that way. Armies made a lot of sense in the "Ancient Med" variant, where I would take Rome and face off against multiple barbarian enemies, including, besides Gaul, "Germanic Tribes", Huns; also the generic "raging barbarians." In real life, Roman tactics and strategy did give them a leg-up fighting multiple hoards, so why not armies for the human player? Ditto for Alexander's phalanx and the Nazi German blitzkrieg. Masses folded for them virtually inexplicably and without warning.

But yeah, this time we need something new. C'mon Firaxis, remember that pride!

However, I voted in the poll for option 3, which seemed most like CTP combat.

And I did miss the banana option!

[Nugog]

For a game that puts much complexity into trade, commerce, city dynamics etc, the combat system does seem overly simplistic for the actions of epic civ's.

The hard part would be keeping the balance, not turning CIV into something it's not - a wargame.

[MortVader]

...The hard part would be keeping the balance, not turning CIV into something it's not - a wargame...

CIV is a lot of things, but saying that CIV is not a wargame.. makes no sense.. at least to me :P

[proviisori]

It's a civilization and history simulation game, not a wargame.
War is just a (large) part of human history.

[Jaybe]

I also voted banana, as I am in Dale's camp (Dale's Combat Mod).

Dale, are you going to have a lot of fun updating DCM for Warlords?

[LordShiva]

How did you vote banana without any banana option

[Jaybe]

If there is no banana option, you vote banana by not voting, of course. Though it does help to let them KNOW you voted banana by posting.

Do you eat lots of bananas, LordS?

[Dis]

sure armies did not work in civ3, but that's no reason to take them out. They took the lazy way out.

Make them work dammit!

[Dale]

Jaybe:

It might be interesting, have to wait and see.

Dale