Resources

[rah]

Agreed, stuck and useless.

[Blaupanzer]

Dead in the water. So much for the big invasion.

[rah]

Obviously there should probably be some type of time lag involved since there would be gas in the supply line already, but I would like to see something like this.

[Blaupanzer]

Happened in the "Battle of the Bulge." Proof enough for civvers, by golly.

[Ming]

That's why "supply lines" are an important element in most "good" war games. I've always found it silly that the AI sends SOD's half way (or all the way) across the world to attack somebody instead of a neighbor. You always see it on the single land mass games. You see a big SOD coming at you, and then are pleasently surprised when it goes through your territory to attack somebody else

It would be interesting if units far away from their supply line HAD to pillage to stay at an effective status.

[Dinner]

I'd love to see a resource list for civ5.

[Wernazuma III]

That's why "supply lines" are an important element in most "good" war games. I've always found it silly that the AI sends SOD's half way (or all the way) across the world to attack somebody instead of a neighbor. You always see it on the single land mass games. You see a big SOD coming at you, and then are pleasently surprised when it goes through your territory to attack somebody else

It would be interesting if units far away from their supply line HAD to pillage to stay at an effective status.

Exactly my opinion. And not only because I hated it when playing ****ty Mali on the 18 civ world map, eventually establishing myself among my neighbours but getting all of a sudden crushed by Qin troops.

It seems so extremely unlogical, and I know how much superior war games with supply lines are compared to others.

[rah]

But there are those that think CIV is not a war game. While we spend a lot of time discussing combat, the game would just be another ordinary game without the empire building aspects. But having said that, there is still plenty of room for improvement in the war aspect of the game.

[Ming]

Yep... war has been a continuing problem with Civ over the years. (The kill one unit and kill the stack aspect of Civ II is a classic example). But even with it not being a war game, there is tons of room for improvement. Just like there is in so many other aspects of the game.

[Azuarc]

But there are those that think CIV is not a war game.

Wait, Civ is a war game? It's always been an empire-building game for me where my efforts are continually thwarted by some doofus declaring war to try to wreck my stuff.

Yes, I am unabashedly a builder. And not an elite player at all. But I feel like my empire is operating on low efficiency if I stop everything else to just crank out military units, which is what happens during a war and often beforehand to try to prevent one. I'd like to see a model where the game has some minimal portion of production automatically going toward infrastructure and some toward military rather than all-or-nothing. I hate having to choose between building yet another unit that might keep me high enough on the power meter and actually getting to build a courthouse.

[Ming]

We call it guns or butter

I like civ because you have to make those kind of decisions. Sometimes, you can just build infrastracture... but when you are sitting next to Toga, Shaka, or Monty, you have to think defense first.

[rah]

Yes, you have to make that decision. In civ V I would love to see civs change leaders as time moves on (based on turns not years), so you would have to pay attention to revolutions and leader changes in your neighbors lands. You closest friend my ask for help against an upstart. You refuse and your friend is replaced by a monty type. That type of thing would be much preferred over your +17 neighbor attacking you out of the blue.

[wodan11]

That sounds good. It's a reality and has happened many many times in history, that governments change, different factions take power, etc. In Britain, for example, they literally call it changing governments. In the U.S., we don't call it that, but to a great extent it amounts to the same thing. And this has happened all the way back to Roman times, and before.

IMO the government of a nation really has two main characteristics. The bureaucracy and the policies/leaders in power. To a great extent, CIV only implements the former. There's nothing that really depicts the wild swings of policy that routinely happen all the time.

I think it's human nature to have factionalism in any macro-social environment.

[rah]

Then at least the AI's ganging up to make it harder on the human would make more sense.
I understand that the unrealistic type things are programmed in to keep the human from always romping and stomping but changing leaders could accomplish that without it being so unrealistic. I might actually say yes to more of those tribute type demands if it was to keep my good friend in control of his government.

Or seeing a revolution (that could take a few turns) happening on my border and wondering If my guy would be the winner or what type of ******* the new leader would be.

[Ming]

Yeah... changing leaders would be real interesting. Have all the civs start with ancient leaders, and then move through the years with more modern leaders that have different traits. However, for some civs, they only have a single leader or two worthy of any historical note