Two Gripes - One big, one small - whaddaya think?

[NobleRoman]

Love CivIV, love the patches so far, very happy, etc., etc.

BUT....I have two gripes and I'd love to know what people think of them...

1. SLOW INVASIONS - not being able to use enemy roads is a bit silly, IMHO. An armored invasion of a (relatively) less advanced opponent should not take 30 years to complete. Roads are roads - they can be used by anyone. The German invasion of France in 1940 benefited tremendously from the decent road network. Even in Russia in 1941, with bad roads, the Germans got all the way to Moscow, (then) Leningrad, etc. in a few months. At the speeds allowed by this game, a WW2-type war, using equivalent units, would take forever. Seems that an invading army with tanks should sweep through a rifleman/grenadier/cavalry-equipped enemy pretty quickly. It's the benefit of being more advanced.

This advantage could be offset with partisans, or maybe stark disapproval from democratic nations, etc. No idea.
But I'd love to know what people think.

2. USELESS UNITS - Castles come too late in the game to be useful, and I agree with the consensus on this. What about Machine Guns? I never use them and often skip over that tech to get Infantry units first.

[proviisori]

1. game balance comes before realism

2. I agree with you on this one

[Thedrin]

2. While I don't use Machine Guns at all, expect them to become a very important unit when warlords is released. They are classified as an artillery unit so leaders with the new protective trait will find them to be quite powerful defenders.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I find 1. kind of illogical as well. I don't see why one couldn't use roads during an invasion - rails, perhaps, would be a different story (incompatible stock, disabled locomotives, etc).

What might be better? How about, instead of taking a movement penalty on roads, your units would take damage (wear and tear) from travelling through hostile territory. No more than 30% damage, say. This would go some way towards simulating the breakdowns that tanks experience after a couple hundred miles, or the limitations of extended supply lines.

[Blake]

1) is to prevent the blitz sneak attack, while this was used in the real world, it's not the same when moves are turn based as it gives a huge advantage to the first mover. You can still blitz an unprepared opponent - their defeat is on the basis of their unprepardedness rather than move order. This is one gameplay decision I firmly agree with.

2) Machine Gunners are really quite useful because of their tech requirements - or lack therof, they only require Railroads and that is one of the most essential techs in the game. You don't even need rifling for them. MGuns are most useful when you're behind in tech and dragging down a much higher teched opponent, the war starts as Grenades & Cannons vs Riflemen which can work with enough numeric superiority, but MGuns make it infinitely easier to defend against Riflemen and actually possible to defend against Infantry.
Stacks of MGuns+Grenades+Cannons can take down infantry. Without MGuns a steel-era invasion would tend to falter in the face of infantry. Cannons are better attackers than infantry anyway.
And how anyone could want to skip over Railroad is utterly beyond me.

[Son of David]

I reckon if find out that one of your gripes is bigger than the other you should consult your doctor as soon as possible.

[Azuarc]

And how anyone could want to skip over Railroad is utterly beyond me.

I apparently have much to learn about this game.

[Dominae]

Re: Two Gripes - One big, one small - whaddaya think?

Originally posted by NobleRoman SLOW INVASIONS - not being able to use enemy roads is a bit silly, IMHO. An armored invasion of a (relatively) less advanced opponent should not take 30 years to complete. Roads are roads - they can be used by anyone.

Not being able to use enemy Roads in their lands models the lack of logistical supply when in foreign territory, which does slow down any decently-sized armed force. "Roads" is thus shorthand for: "roads and food and shelter and repairs and communication, etc."

Mostly it's gameplay before realism though.

[Badtz Maru]

If enemy units could use your roads, you'd have a strong incentive to not build them near your borders, or anywhere that they were not absolutely necessary. Having a lot of infrastructure would be a serious handicap in warfare, which is not realistic. More players would be demanding the ability to pillage your own improvements, and when we got it one of the first things you'd do when war was imminent would be to destroy all your own roads. Coastal cities would be even more desirable, because they would not need roads to connect them to other cities for trade purposes.

And though enemies infrastructure has been used in warfare, there are some disadvantages to doing so that couldn't be modelled accurately in the game. Sending your troops marching down the enemies roads concentrates them in one place, and forces them to travel through all the various small towns along the way, where locals would be able to report their presence and offer resistance. In reality, there would be an advantage to avoiding the enemies roads - you could avoid contact with the locals and better mask your location. Since there's no way to hide in enemy territory in Civ4, you'd lose one of the advantages of NOT using the enemies roads. You could give units a defense penalty for using enemy roads, but players would then want an option to not use the roads in that square, and how would you model that?

[Solver]

I have eliminated civs, in modern warfare, in as little as nine turns. In fact, in one of my most memorable games, I destroyed Egypt in nine turns, and proceeded to destroy most of Arabia, leaving them 2 or 3 smaller cities, in seven turns.

[NFIH]

Originally posted by Solver
I have eliminated civs, in modern warfare, in as little as nine turns. In fact, in one of my most memorable games, I destroyed Egypt in nine turns, and proceeded to destroy most of Arabia, leaving them 2 or 3 smaller cities, in seven turns.

Care to share the details on how you did this (and don't forget to include what settings, number of cives, etc., you played with)?

Also were the enemy cities all within two squares of your invasion forces? Were the enemy civs very small to begin with?

[Solver]

The basic idea was that in modern warfare, I don't have to take the time to siege them. A massive group of air units reduces the city defenses. Tanks move towards the city. Probably on the second turn, tanks are near the city, defenses have been taken out, and units weakened by airstrikes. Tanks take the city, rinse and repeat. To achieve this speed, I did it all from two directions simultaneously, one such attack from the east and another from the west. Yes, it requires that you have a considerably larger army, particularly the air force, but it's doable.

I'm pretty sure it was on a Large map with whatever the default number of civs for that is.

[Dale]

That's the same tactic Germany used against most of Europe. Mass airforce with a pincer tank attack. Infantry do the mopping up of trapped units.

Blitzkrieg - Lightning War

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Two Gripes - One big, one small - whaddaya think?

Originally posted by NobleRoman
1. SLOW INVASIONS - not being able to use enemy roads is a bit silly, IMHO.

Roads in enemy's cultural border are under enemy's control, not neutal, let alone under your control. Cultural border is a bit more than just a pretty colour overlay. It represents a lot of things you don't see.

[rah]

We only have ourselves to blame for this rule.

EVERYONE said something must be done about the old artillary blitz in CIV II. Where you could destroy an entire civ using their railroad in a single turn.

SO they did something. NEXT.