Tweet
[note: I haven't played the game yet (stupid Australian release dates). I'm making a statement based upon what I have garnered from being stuck reading _everything_ that gets said in these forums. - if I'm wrong about something, jump in and put me right.. ;-)]
I've been hearing alot about how the combat seems to have basically either hardly changed since Civ II or changed very little. This is very disappointing. I was hoping that they would take this opportunity to revamp the combat situation in general, and include some COMPLEXITY, including such things as;
1. Stacking units into armies/navies.
I'm aware you can have armies, but IMHO they should be able to be formed at any time. It's ridiculous that you can't stack units around, and that you can have multiple units attacked by a single unit and eliminated. It not only removes the micro-management of massive amounts of units, but its far more realistic than present. I always felt that it was totally stupid that I had to spread my naval and ground units out, for fear that my prescious battleships/carriers and transport force would be destroyed by ONE enemy naval unit. I'm sorry, but if five tanks are attacked by one enemy tank, the enemy tank should have absolutely NO chance of winning. Damage should be spread amongst those units within the stack. It gives more of a reason for stacking defensive units too, and more of a reason for having big armies with only a single attack. Obviously there are other issues here too. Combat between large stacked units should not always end in a result of one or the other being totally destroyed, for example. Some confrontations will, others should not. In fact, it should be an available option for your military, as to how aggressively you choose to pursue battles.
2. Unit orientation.
It seems like a small thing, but it made a BIG difference in war. At the moment, there seems to be no point to doing a move similar to what Hitler's Panzer's did in 1940, enveloping the French and British by going through Belgium. He would have just attacked head on! I would probably only use it for units that become fortified.
3. Air superiority.
Others have already talked about how stupid it is that bombers cant hit naval units and how fighters fail to intercept. What I'd like to see is the ability of bombers/fighters to attack individual elements of stacks of units. This would mean that yes, you could send bombers out to attack the enemy fleets carriers etc. Like what actually happened in the Pacific in WWII.
4. Attack/Defence differences between units.
I strongly believe that Civ III should have increased attack/defence ratings. By this I mean make it so that all units have an attack out of 1000. You might be wondering just why. Firstly, more subtle differences in units can be obtained (especially early), and secondly, so that differences in the SAME unit can be used. We know that tanks of today are NOTHING like the tanks that first started out, why can't the technology behind the tanks improve over time. So that you perhaps start out with a tank with an attack rating of 500, but after 20 or so years have a tank with an attack rating of perhaps 600. It doesn't have to be time that determines how advanced your tanks are, compare civilization advances or something. Just don't tell me that my tanks that I've had for 50 years are as good as the next guys, when he has only just discovered armoured warfare.
5. Different terrain bonuses depending on the unit.
I think it's easily understood. Armour should not have a high defense from within a city, archers and so forth should have an advantage within forests as opposed to horsemen etc.
6. Attack/defense bonuses between different types of units.
I'm not sure if this is in Civ III, but I'd like to take Civ II's ideas on this further. (re. Pikeman getting *2 defense vs mounted). Again, as stated above, make it terrain dependant too.
In summary, basically I'm not quite sure I like the lack of complexity regarding combat within Civ III. It seems like alot of the other aspects were looked at, culture and so forth but, apart from seeming to dumb the combat side down even more, they changed air combat, and then thought everything else was fine, when clearly it has major realism problems.
I'd like comments on this from other civ'ers. Maybe I've missed something, or others may think of other ideas behind combat. As most of us seem to be long term civ players I'd like to think that our views could be heard by Firaxis also, for future reference.
I've been hearing alot about how the combat seems to have basically either hardly changed since Civ II or changed very little. This is very disappointing. I was hoping that they would take this opportunity to revamp the combat situation in general, and include some COMPLEXITY, including such things as;
1. Stacking units into armies/navies.
I'm aware you can have armies, but IMHO they should be able to be formed at any time. It's ridiculous that you can't stack units around, and that you can have multiple units attacked by a single unit and eliminated. It not only removes the micro-management of massive amounts of units, but its far more realistic than present. I always felt that it was totally stupid that I had to spread my naval and ground units out, for fear that my prescious battleships/carriers and transport force would be destroyed by ONE enemy naval unit. I'm sorry, but if five tanks are attacked by one enemy tank, the enemy tank should have absolutely NO chance of winning. Damage should be spread amongst those units within the stack. It gives more of a reason for stacking defensive units too, and more of a reason for having big armies with only a single attack. Obviously there are other issues here too. Combat between large stacked units should not always end in a result of one or the other being totally destroyed, for example. Some confrontations will, others should not. In fact, it should be an available option for your military, as to how aggressively you choose to pursue battles.
2. Unit orientation.
It seems like a small thing, but it made a BIG difference in war. At the moment, there seems to be no point to doing a move similar to what Hitler's Panzer's did in 1940, enveloping the French and British by going through Belgium. He would have just attacked head on! I would probably only use it for units that become fortified.
3. Air superiority.
Others have already talked about how stupid it is that bombers cant hit naval units and how fighters fail to intercept. What I'd like to see is the ability of bombers/fighters to attack individual elements of stacks of units. This would mean that yes, you could send bombers out to attack the enemy fleets carriers etc. Like what actually happened in the Pacific in WWII.
4. Attack/Defence differences between units.
I strongly believe that Civ III should have increased attack/defence ratings. By this I mean make it so that all units have an attack out of 1000. You might be wondering just why. Firstly, more subtle differences in units can be obtained (especially early), and secondly, so that differences in the SAME unit can be used. We know that tanks of today are NOTHING like the tanks that first started out, why can't the technology behind the tanks improve over time. So that you perhaps start out with a tank with an attack rating of 500, but after 20 or so years have a tank with an attack rating of perhaps 600. It doesn't have to be time that determines how advanced your tanks are, compare civilization advances or something. Just don't tell me that my tanks that I've had for 50 years are as good as the next guys, when he has only just discovered armoured warfare.
5. Different terrain bonuses depending on the unit.
I think it's easily understood. Armour should not have a high defense from within a city, archers and so forth should have an advantage within forests as opposed to horsemen etc.
6. Attack/defense bonuses between different types of units.
I'm not sure if this is in Civ III, but I'd like to take Civ II's ideas on this further. (re. Pikeman getting *2 defense vs mounted). Again, as stated above, make it terrain dependant too.
In summary, basically I'm not quite sure I like the lack of complexity regarding combat within Civ III. It seems like alot of the other aspects were looked at, culture and so forth but, apart from seeming to dumb the combat side down even more, they changed air combat, and then thought everything else was fine, when clearly it has major realism problems.
I'd like comments on this from other civ'ers. Maybe I've missed something, or others may think of other ideas behind combat. As most of us seem to be long term civ players I'd like to think that our views could be heard by Firaxis also, for future reference.
I still think, however, that armies (and especially navies) should be far more prevalent. The idea that you can engage a stack of units and only actually be fighting one seems somehow wrong to me, especially in naval encounters.
Comment