civ V Warfare

[vulture]

WHAT!? Unit logjams are a MAJOR factor in warfare. Troop movement & deployment; a whole army collapsing because of front-line troops routing to the rear.

For the player not to have to deal with it is okay as long as it is abstracted, but it SHOULD be represented.

--
Realism is not opposed to good game play. It just takes better game design to make a game that plays well also be more realistic.

A whole lot of things are major factors in warfare. But civ isn't a war game, and Sid has always been at pains to point that out. Warfare is part of the game, to be sure (and has always tended to be the most dominantly successful strategy) but the war system has to be quick and easy to avoid it becoming simply a war game. I'd think that having to play traffic cop in shuffling your units about would be too much of an annoyance for many players, particularly the builder types who don't want to have to spend half an hour organising every move during war time.

Lets face it, every facet of civ; war, research, economy, expansion, exploration, diplomacy, all game mechanics in fact, are brutally over-simplified to make the game playable (and fun). You can't introduce too much detail without breaking the game completely. And as a general rule, you don't want to simulate too deeply below the level the user sees. A racing game works pretty well with some general ad-hoc rules about how the power of a car varies with speed, without having to model and simulate the engine's individual components in detail.

[Jaybe]

vulture, I am also in favor of some sort of abstraction for route congestion. For one thing, if the player had a hard time of it, just think how bad the AI would be! Wouldn't want to hurt 'just one more turn' syndrome, either.

[vulture]

vulture, I am also in favor of some sort of abstraction for route congestion. For one thing, if the player had a hard time of it, just think how bad the AI would be! Wouldn't want to hurt 'just one more turn' syndrome, either.

I've just remembered that PG does have on mechanism that kind of 'simulates' congestion. Units start with 10 health, but very rarely lose more than 6 or so in a battle. But a unit that takes high casualties will be driven off to a hex further away from the attacker. If however there is no free hex to retreat to (the 3 hexes behind the unit are occupied by friendly or enemy forces) then the unit surrenders and is completely eliminated. So a front line unit that can't retreat through its own forces is more vulnerable. You could kind of regard that as am effect of congestion; they try to flee but the roads are too snarled up and they are killed or captured.



Ah how we idly speculate to fill the weeks before the next titbit of news appears.

[Jaybe]

As a former wargamer (since 1964), I very much would like a "Defender Retreat" combat result.

[Ming]

With the switch to hexes, Zoc's, and limiting what you can put in a single square, we are basically getting more of a "war game" than they have provided in the past. I just hope they keep a good balance between the civ part and the war part. Part of the continued joy of Civ is the creation part... and while war is always going to be an important element, I hope they don't go overboard. If I want to play a war game, I can... but what I want is Civ

[Adm.Naismith]

With the switch to hexes, Zoc's, and limiting what you can put in a single square, we are basically getting more of a "war game" than they have provided in the past. I just hope they keep a good balance between the civ part and the war part. Part of the continued joy of Civ is the creation part... and while war is always going to be an important element, I hope they don't go overboard. If I want to play a war game, I can... but what I want is Civ

Ming, I agree with you: I'm afraid that a "console" approach, inherited by Civ Rev experience, could be a main danger for Civ builders.

To be fair, my player level was not so good to win a game with a "builder only" approach. Now, after a year of of casual Civ Rev games, I'm sure I'll be more out of practice for Civ V "new and improved" AI.

[giblets]

I don't understand how improving the warfare aspect of civ could detract from the development aspect. To me it seems like giving warfare more strategic or tactical depth is always good as long as as the rules remain simple.

[Ming]

I don't understand how improving the warfare aspect of civ could detract from the development aspect. To me it seems like giving warfare more strategic or tactical depth is always good as long as as the rules remain simple.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm a big fan of improved warfare... especially since I'm more of a war monger. What I want is a balance between the two, and I think you hit on the head when you say you want it to be simple. If I want to play a pure wargame, I have many options. I don't want Civ to be simply a war game. The reason why I love it so much is that it's more a total game, than just a pure war game.

[ColdPhoenix]

I like the one unit per tile change. It looks like fewer, more powerful units will be used. I reckon they can be added to/reinforced. When they meet on the field it looks like they'll enter a more detailed, tactical battle (like in HOMM)?

Is that the way others see it happening?

[rah]

I'd be a bit worried if they do enter a more detailed type method. While this would be fine for SP, I could see a problem with MP. When playing MP it can be annoying waiting for other players when they're fighting but with a turn timer and stack attacks it's manageable, but if warfare starts to take too long, I see a negative impact.

[ColdPhoenix]

I'd imagine it would be an option that could be switched off as would be necessary for MP. It was the chat of the tactical level AI and smaller forces beating larger forces that made me think of it.

All speculation of course!

[rah]

Yes speculation of course. But while some things are nice to turn off for mp, like movies and other non essential features, I don't think warfare should fall in that category.

[Dinner]

Do we know if units will have Zone of Control rules like in previous versions of Civ (thinking CTP here)? Nothing was more satisfying then using three outdated units to trap someone's mega stack.

[Ming]

You won't be getting much satisfaction since mega stacks are out

[Dinner]

I'm hoping, maybe with an expansion pack, that new technologies will enable unit stacking. It would be realistic and militarily useful.