The warfare interface

[Stuff2]

Unit's are not needed.
Work-shop model can have some functions but unit's on the screen is not necessary. (Unless u feel an urgent need to view the combats closer, this should be possible)

Handling military moves should be done more smoothly. U have a window where u can choose several thing's. Like :
- Mobilize men from city/region
- Train men (% of pop in city/region)
- Prepare for war (in city/region)

The orders u give during warfare are:
borders to patrol, trade routes to block, provinces to invade, city's to capture, City's and regions to defend, when to redraw
(during battle u may be given several oppertunities to redraw troops), U should also have option to destroy infrastructure and plunder civilians.

There should only be a few numbers of different army types like:
- Infantry
- Artillery
- Cavalry
- Sea
- Air
- Space
- Missile

whatever is needed. This is handled by the workshop. Where different unit's is engineered, how many people needed and what weapons, shields, e.t.c.

During a turn in peacetime u don't have to be bothered with stupid unit's wandering around.
During war. U get information from every battle: How many was killed, how many was wounded, how many was captured e.t.c.
If u want to u can have a closeview on every battle. And if youre not interested in closeviewing u just see the flags burning and some numbers in the info window. During the battle u can see how things are going and be able to redraw almost the whole time.

[The diplomat]

interesting!! I like anything that eliminates micro-management!

It seems to be a very innovative way to conduct war in a way that seriously reduces the micro-management of moving little units around. It is pain when you spend half a turn moving all your units. Also, your idea would allow the player to wage war more like a general does. Last, by avoiding moving little units, maybe the AI would wage war better. Your suggestion might be easier for the AI to master. Do you agree?

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[MidKnight Lament]

There's some places we want to reduce micro-management, and others we don't. I'd argue that this is one that I don't want to see taken out of our hands.

To be honest, if I can't wage my own war I think a lot of the fun of the game would be taken away from me. We can get away from the micromanagement of settlers, caravans, spies and diplomats, but if we get rid of military units, where's the fun? Where's the control? If anything, I'd lean toward more control over military units with a slightly more complex model.

Your suggestion would certainly be revolutionary for civ, but I'm not sure I'd want to be playing a game with your suggestion implemented.

- MKL

[Stuff2]

There should be possible to reduce micromanegement evereywhere! Including military units. There are those of us who really hates moving around units all the time
(and upgrade/disband units all the time aswell!. Once I get more than 50 cities in civ2 the units drives me nuts. Sure it's fun in early games when u don't have more than maybe 20 units to give order.

Ofcourse micromanagement should be possible, it's just isn't necessary all the time. Sometimes the micromanagement can be critical for winning a war but if you have a better army they will win the war for you anyway.

My suggestion doesn't totally eliminate the oppertunity to move around unit's. If u really want it u can gather some men into an 'unit'. U gather some men into an unit and select an icon and give the unit a name.

[MidKnight Lament]

I don't want to discount your idea out of hand. Perhaps you just haven't given enough detail yet for me to understand properly what you're suggesting. It just seems to me that if every call to reduce micro-management was heeded, we'd have no game left. It'd all be automated. I guess I'm just having trouble seeing how your idea would work and still be fun for me. Nothing personal.

- MKL

[fryman]

well I don't agree with stuff2 on one thing. He said that is how generals do the fighting. Generals actually spend hours thinkijng of the tactics they will use in a battle. They don't just let some AI do it for them. If you really wanted to do it a generals way you would spend a couple hours more a turn if you were at war with someone. And you are always at war with someone, at least I am.

Well besides from that point I brought out those are great ideas.

[Ubergeek]

I have to say that the changes listed above would dramatically lessen the enjoyment of the game for me personally. I've agreed with a lot of the suggestions here about reducing units -- especially the idea of a spy screen, which is inspired -- but here's one I have to disagree with. I'm not a conqueror, usually; I like to win without firing a shot if I can (it never seems to work out, but I like to try). But when I do go to war, the fate of my Civ hangs with every turn and I want all the control I can get and then some.

My basic conviction is that I can outfight any AI yet designed for a game as complex as Civ, and I don't expect that to change with CIVIII. As it stands now I can lead a force that's vastly inferior in numbers and win every single war I fight, simply by being smarter and controlling every move my military makes. Therefore this represents LESS of a drain on my Civ than I would experience if I gave control over to an AI. After all, if I can whip somebody ten times out of ten, why would I then want to turn my army over to that person (or program)? I understand Diplomat's point about the AI being abelt o handle an utterly abstracted combat better than one with concrete units, but it seems to me to be a real programming copout. Yes, I expect that I'll be able to figure out ways to lick the CIVIII AI, but that's all part of the fun of playing the game, isn't it? You get whipped a few times and then learn how to administer whippings of your own. Eliminating units as you suggest would make warfighting (an inevitable part of the game) a mere excercise in accountancy, and that doesn't sound like fun to me.

I have to say that one of the main reasons I prefer to win peacefully is that I don't like moving hoards of units, but there are a lot of ways to reduce the micromanagement that do not involve amputating the entire concept of military units. The pathfinding of SMAC helped a lot, but it could be improved by automatically assigning shipping to cross water, etc. The CTP concept of placing units in mothballs until you need them again was interesting, and something along those lines might be implemented to reduce micromanagement. However, the biggest tool to avoid moving all those units is already in the players hands: just don't move them. The AI is, almost by definition, predictable, so you know where the attack is coming from. Build your units, move them to appropriate defensive positions and tell them to stay there. You never have to think of them again if you don't want to, except to upgrade them as new tech becomes available. Eliminating military units altogether because you don't like moving them around is rather like chopping the baby into a fine paste and then throwing it out with the bathwater. Um, IMHO.

------------------
Better living through tyranny
[This message has been edited by Ubergeek (edited April 01, 2000).]

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I agree. I like the units. Perhaps make it a bit easier to move units. I don't like having to move 60 units over a long distance - if I could group them together and move a task force...

[Stuff2]

An more detailed explanation on my idea:

Instead of moving unit's u send soldiers on a specific task/mission. U can have tons of missions going on at the same time. This can be both macromanaged and micromanaged. Once on the field the army will ask for further instructions after completed missions.
During a battle u have always the oppertunity to redraw if thing's are going bad.

Example of macromanagement missions are:
- Invade city/region/country
- Block all traderutes from xxx
- Patrol borders
- Military readiness
- Surpress rebellions

Example of micromanegement missions are:
- Send defence troops to squares/region/city
- Redraw troops
- Cavalry attack
- Infantry invasion
- Air attack
- Missile attack
- Place minefield
- Pirate enemys support

This is just a few of the thing's u can do with this interface. There are some reasons why i want this interface.
- First of all moving units is boring and it takes unrealistic many years to even begin a war.
- It's easier to calculate how many was killed, injured, captured or unharmed
- If a very small and weak civ starts war with me and a very strong civ starts war with me at the same time I want to be able to concentrate on the "big war" and leave the 'small war' to my generals.
- Or if i'm really tired of warfare i can leave it to my generals who probably won't be as good as myself, but it's my headache if this makes me loose the war. Besides, maybe I wan't the challange of winning it back.
- It would be fun to always get feedback from your soldiers. How well their missions went...

Actually. I think my idea will make warfare more complicated and more interesting and absolutely more realistic. Ofcourse some kind of symbols have to show up on the map to tell u where your soldiers are. In this sense i'm not totally giving up units. I just want another way of interact with them.

Maybe u can give names to certian missions...like "The great invasion" or "The roman minefields" or "the six-day-battle" ....;-)

Very well. I hope that I have made my point more clear now.

[MidKnight Lament]

I'm still against this idea, but maybe I'm a stickler against change. Sounds to me like you'd end up with a huge list of options that would end up being more complicated than what we already have. Perhaps a limited number of those options could be included along with the old system.

Maybe I'm not thinking hard enough about the possibilities, but I think I still have to say, "no". Keep coming up with those ideas though. Maybe everyone else will love it.

- MKL

[Sirotnikov]

I agree with MidKnight Lament.
Incorporate automation and macromanagement options. but don't take away the little blinking fellows! and *whimper* save *sob* the camel!!! *cry* *whimper*.
seriously, units are fun. regulations should be made so they would stay fun, but they are fun.

[Stuff2]

There are some more possibilities with this:
- mission will cost u money and resources.
- winning armys will advance into enemy territory and loosing armys will have to retreat. During a retreat u can have a "destroy as much as possible" -option.
- Think of how my idea can make allies coordinate their moves! Beacouse with this
system the computer get to know exactly the same strategic possibilities that u have.
- No AI-units will wander around without purpose beacouse the purpose of every possible move is built-in.
- U still have units on the screen where the armys are. And u can still click on it with your mouse.

Why not have units implemented in this idea? Then u can do it both ways.

[tniem]

Stuff2,

I am not sure I exactly follow all of your ideas, but I think you are on the right track. The problem with Civilization is it so unrealistic in terms of moving armies. The crusades took place in decades, but that was a series of creating units, sending them to the land, and then fighting the battle. In civ it will take you at least 5 to 10 turns to build a large army, then another 10 turns to get to the place you want to wage war. In the end a crusade/war becomes a 200 year, sometimes as much as a 1000 year mission in the early game.

This is terribly unrealistic and a bore to me. In the same time it takes me to wipe out an enemy, the tribe of Israel would travel to Egypt, escape, take over the Promise Land, and then get taken into captivity. (I may be exagerating, but I think you can get the point). Civ needs a revamped military and movement situation so that it does not take longer than a year to travel across North America (Lewis & Clark, early settlers).