Air Units

[Modo44]

Don't confuse realism (which is not necessary for chess to be a great game) with complexity (which is the bread and butter of strategy games). So far the previews indicate that Civ is getting simpler with this iteration.

Stacks of Doom historicaly context?

How would you describe what Alexander and Napoleon did in their campaigns?

[Elok]

I believe that verisimilitude should be followed as much as possible, ie the complexity required for the game should as much as possible follow the complexity of the real world which, after all, it is attempting to simulate. The ideal response to "stacks of doom" is not to outlaw stacks entirely but to create some kind of supply system. I believe that can be done without creating micromanagement hell--I've thought up one system for doing it--but it's easier to just remove stacking, I guess.

Also, hexes are obnoxious.

[MxM]

Don't confuse realism (which is not necessary for chess to be a great game) with complexity (which is the bread and butter of strategy games). So far the previews indicate that Civ is getting simpler with this iteration.

But also do not confuse complexity of the game mechanics or the size of rule set with the strategic depth. As far as the rule set volume goes, chess is a very simple game, with great strategic depth. Even more drastic example is the game of Go, were the rule set is really small, yet the game is very complex.

With respect of troop transport, I think it is a good simplification, which actually stresses the importance of navy to protect you from now relatively easy invasions. Gone are the times when you do not play on the sea.

I think this particular simplification a) reduces unneeded micromanagement, b) makes game more deep strategically, and if c) makes AI coding easier is true (which is not necessarily so, because of higher importance of the navy in general) then it is additional plus, because the Firaxes can spend time to code something else instead.

[SpencerH]

Seaborne invasions should not be made simpler. I already hate the endless patrolling by naval units and/or garrisoning of all coastlines in order to prevent something that is a rare (chancy) occurance in war.

[Nikolai]

I think I see another good use for City States/minor civs, except the previously stated points in the previews: Instead of doing a cross-sea invasion, take out a city state that is not under anyone's protection, build up your forces, and attack when you have amassed a large enough force.

[iamakka]

But are sea based invasions that uncommon in war, or only uncommon in Civilization?

Off the top of my head, in antiquity both Athens and Rome launched numerous such wars, the Arab invasion of Iberia, the Danes and the Normans in the medieval period, and in later times Sweden, Spain, Britain, Japan, the USA all fought major campaigns crossing seas and oceans.

It has generally not been a lack of shipping to put soldiers into that has prevented aquatic invasions, but the risk of losses in such an operation that has stopped such endeavours throughout history. And of course the elements themselves (Spanish Armada, Mongul invasion of Japan, etc).

I'll agree that land based invasions are and should be more common then sea based ones, but to say the in-game mechanism for launching a sea based invasion should be fiddly to put people (or AI's) off the idea seems bad game design to me.

These changes make it easier to transport troops by sea, but make troops in transit far more vulnerable then they were in previous Civs. From what I have heard, I believe it will be a good change.

[Mr Justice]

Re Complexity - im with MxM, he hit the nail on the head.

Re Stacks of doom - im no military history expert, but where i see Stacks of doom (particularly from players rather than AI) they easily make up to 90% of the Civs military potential. so in a standard map with 8 Civs and everyone has same size army (so thats everyones army size is 12.5% of the total world military force), your asking me to accept that their have been historical occasions where as much as 10% of the worlds military (not just in a European context either) in one spot.
i could argure the point further but i'm streched for tiume, i hope you see my meaning.

[MxM]

Also, hexes are obnoxious.

I thought I am the only one who dislikes hexes.

[SpencerH]

Tactical seaborne attacks are common enough but succesful strategic seaborne invasions are not. At the least, the number of useful landing sites on a coastline are very limited. It isnt as if the Normandy invasions could have occurred anywhere along the French coast. I've argued for years that some coast squares should allow seaborne invasion while most do not.

From another perspective, the Germans in 1941, with an overwhelming advantage in their ground and air forces and equality in naval forces, didnt even attempt a seaborne invasion across the English channel.

[Jaybe]

From another perspective, the Germans in 1941, with an overwhelming advantage in their ground and air forces and equality in naval forces, didnt even attempt a seaborne invasion across the English channel.

Equality in naval forces?! NOT!
You can't count submarines for this, and their attempt to marshall the sea lift for an invasion was problematic -- assembly of the shipping was quite vulnerable (they WERE strongly considering it for awhile). Then there would have been the issue of KEEPING the troops supplied. Armor & horses (horses for towing the vast majority of their artillery & supplies) are prodigious consumers of POL (oil-based products) & hay, in addition to all the other stuff.

Then there was a slight diversion to the eastern front. Perhaps they should have stuck with the Britain invasion after all.

[SpencerH]

You're just making my point for me.

[DRoseDARs]

Probably thought they had time what with their subs keeping things uncomfortable for the Allies in the North Atlantic.

[Hauldren Collider]

So, history arguments aside, making the AI play better as opposed to making it cheat more than the player is a good thing. And frankly Civ is supposed to be fun, not be exactly like the real world, and when it comes to amphibious invasions, in IV you would often spend half the game building for it and the next half actually effecting your invasion.

[Jaybe]

So, history arguments aside, making the AI play better as opposed to making it cheat more than the player is a good thing. And frankly Civ is supposed to be fun, not be exactly like the real world, and when it comes to amphibious invasions, in IV you would often spend half the game building for it and the next half actually effecting your invasion.

I mod (xml files only) Civ4 to increase my immersion in the game. I do that by maximizing reality, not to maximize 'gamey' elements. For instance, machine gun units not only have advantage over gunpowder units, but also cavalry (anyone remember their WW1 history?).

That's one of the reasons I play the mod mentioned in my sig (and then modify it even more).

I've played RoN, which had the "units xform into transports" thingy. If there isn't some delay or extra cost involved (e.g., due to diversion of merchant shipping!) in overseas travel, I'll be upset. I'll definitely buy the game, though.

--
I do wish some teasers re air units would be released: then we could get back on topic.
75 days and counting!

[wodan11]

you're asking me to accept that their have been historical occasions where as much as 10% of the worlds military (not just in a European context either) in one spot.

Everything else aside, that actually is not hard to believe at all. Historically, the actual number of military, meaning professional men at arms, has been quite small. Most cultures actually had few if any at all. The cultures which did have a standing military were among the successful empires, of which there was usually only one or two at any given point in time.