Simple way to make CIV more "real"

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I think a simpler way to start is just to include the WEATHER.

Let's face it: many invasions of Russia throughout the ages have failed due to the "Russian winter". Numerous naval expeditions, and indeed invading fleets, have been dashed or crippled by unexpected violent waters and storms. Plagues and famines spring up because a change of a few degrees in the overall temprature (yes, even before global warming).

It's time to incorporate the weather into Civ! Maybe even the seasons!

[Master Zen]

1) Definitely air units should only move depending on their range (would this be too hard to code)

2) Maybe it would be nice to run the game based on yearly (or more) turns, but whenever war erupts, the game suddenly turns into bimonthly or seasonal turns in which weather does have an effect.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by raguil_79
2) Maybe it would be nice to run the game based on yearly (or more) turns, but whenever war erupts, the game suddenly turns into bimonthly or seasonal turns in which weather does have an effect.

Yes, that would be a cool idea. Of course, movement would have to be effected... no knights moving across entire continents in one year!

[Master Zen]

During peacetime, you could have movement based more on "deployment", i.e. you build a unit then choose where its going to stay. Once war erupts the unit would move based on its movement points.

This could also solve the naval movement problem since it's not realistic for naval units to take 10 turns (years) to steam across the world.

I read somewhere that units in Civ should be treated less as individual units and more like military presence. It takes years to move units because in real life it takes years to establish a presence in different places

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I was thinking about that a bit, and I think that's a good way to put it. For example, the mounted warriors of antiquity could probably cross Eurasia - say, Normandy to Siberia - in one year (a small, determined company of them). However, a whole legion of them could not, due to the need for supplies, etc.

I think the system in Civ is pretty accurate, but I think that more detail during wartime would be great.

[Master Zen]

of course, warfare would have to be modelled much more seriously.

For example, you couldn't have your nation get war declared by another nation so far away with no capabilities to hurt each other as often happens in Civ. This would be like Portugal declaring war on Ethiopia...

You could have, say, cut diplomatic ties or something, but warfare should be limited to instances where there can actually be major damage done between the conflicting countries. This would be mostly an AI thing since a peaceful player would not go to war and iterrupt its, say, biannual-turns development to suddenly go to war on a monthly-turn basis when most units will just sit it out.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I disagree. Distant countries declare war on each other all the time, and these are often symbolic wars. The crusades is a fine example of this, so is Vietnam.

[MrBaggins]

those examples aren't exactly glowing successes, though, eh?

[Master Zen]

Yes, but the difference is that those countries in the wars you mentioned had the means to inflict damage on each other.

Name me a war in which distant countries without the means to hurt each other have declared war (and WW2 doesn't count since those 40+ allied countries that weren't the big 3 fought alongside the big 3 if at all)

[Master Zen]

Most civ players do not declare war on a country which it has no means of attacking. It is just useless. But the AI does it frequently, sometimes you're presence just pisses them off. I call these "caravel wars" since at the most a few caravels fight sporadic engagements. Sometimes these wars last dozens of turns and all in all are quite idiotic.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I have to disagree utterly. Sure, those countries could inflict damage on each other, but so can a country far away from you that randomly declares war on you in Civ! I can count a number of games that I gave up on in frustration because some bastards came out of the blue (across some great continent) and took one, or more, of my border cities.

Once again I point to the crusades and Vietnam as examples. Sure, the people launching the war have a hard time winning, and often lose, but they still launch the war anyway! It's idiotic, but it's also lifelike.

Look at our little war in Iraq coming up. Why are we declaring war on them? Preventative war? Whether you feel it's justified or not, it's quite a bit like a powerful Civ attacking you from a long ways away because you are a threat, culturally perhaps, or because you are EASY to attack.

[Master Zen]

yes, but it is a POWERFUL civ attacking you, my original example was Portugal vs. Ethiopia, not USA vs. anyone else.

[TomCB]

Austin and others. Pardon this, but I am going to searching for each thing to respond to and may miss a few things as this thread to just going wild.

German armor lost to the Russians because the Russian armor was almost as good overall and in MUCH larger numbers.
The German armor was far better than the American and only lost because of the Americans VAST numbers.
The Americans own numbers say it took 13 shermans to kill any heavy German tank.
Just saw today that it took more than 300,000 man hours to build 1 tiger tank...ZOUNDS
I don't think you are really considering how pathetic American armor of the day was.
Please also remember that Abrams was instrumental in the designing of the Abrams tank that rule the battle fields today. He pushed for it because he was so sick of seeing so many Americans killed because of sh*tty equipment.

I would have to agree that had Hitler stayed out of the planning and execution, the Germans should have taken Moscow and I think that MAY have compelled Stalin to Sue for peace.
There is some evidence that he sent an envoy to talk peace with Hitler just before Stalingrad.
Hilter say this was weakness and decided to go for the whole thing instead of 3/4.
The border may have been the volga.
Ever play a board game called Third Reich by Avalon Hill?
It has most likley been around longer than most on here have been alive (yes, I am an old fart).
It covers this possibility and Avalon Hill got started making war games for the DOD.

As far as FDR goes, you may not know this but his administration was filled with communists that just loved Russia.
I don't think that they would have done anything but work to appease Russia and that they dominated the weakling Trumans' admin as well.
Lets not forget that Stalin knew that the A bomb was coming soon and that may have detered him as well.

The Russian made fun of the Romanian troops they were so poor. That is bad when 1942-3 Russian troops call you poor.

Logistics could be handled by having supply depots set up like radar towers are now, and they can supply units within so many squares depending on technology/roads/rail/airports/harbors.
How about "supply units" Each would consumed supplying so many units, it can only go from depot to depot and must end it's move on a depot.
Trash the other guys supply depot and watch him "die on the vine".

There were two other times that carpet bombing did more harm than good in the Normandy area too. Not worth thinking it could really help.

Arab armor suffered from two things.
1) It was inferior to the centurion and patterion tanks and the arabs were not well trained in their use.
2) Isreali (spelling) commanders stayed out side the tank so that they could see, arab commanders did not.

Lets not forget, like the W allies, Isreal enjoyed TOTAL air domaniance.
However, they were fighting in a desert, not the forests of Europe against a battle hardened and well trained foe like the American would have been.

I have provided a link to the lend lease, it wasn't all that much equipment, and most of it (80%) was after the war was over.

Civ turns are in years, so weather is not a real factor.
As far as gloable warming (or the lack thereof) lets not go there.....PLEASE.

As far as naval units goes, I increased the movement rate by some as much as a factor of 5. Makes them a units you had better have, if for no other reaon to block entire choke points so stop otehr CIVs from going through.
I also increased the shield cost about the same.
Gives a whole to meaning to the pain of losing that battleship.
This has increased the value of good coastal cities since you have to have ALL of them creating naval vessels all the time due to the time required to get them launched.

As far the game "slowing" down during a war for the warring parties, that would make multi player impossible and would have interesting effects since units are not being replaced at the same rate, but can be lost at the same rate.

As far as redeployment goes, look at modern warfare.
The American and British are moving whole armies half way across the world in 6 months. I don't see railroad or air redeployment being to powerful at all.
If anything, I see the CIV has being too slow.

I do think that the maintenence costs of units should go up a whole hell of allot during war and mobilization.

More later..........

PEACE

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Most civ players do not declare war on a country which it has no means of attacking. It is just useless. But the AI does it frequently, sometimes you're presence just pisses them off. I call these "caravel wars" since at the most a few caravels fight sporadic engagements. Sometimes these wars last dozens of turns and all in all are quite idiotic.

hi ,

there is a huge exception on this , .... when a civ builds a special great wonder , when declared war upon it it shall most of the time stop that great wonder and start to build military units for the duration of the war , .......

a great trick to build the wonder yourself , .....

have a nice day

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Master Zen
yes, but it is a POWERFUL civ attacking you, my original example was Portugal vs. Ethiopia, not USA vs. anyone else.

Well look. Plenty of powerless civs declare war on more powerful ones. Look at the crusades once again. I'd hardly say that the crusaders were more powerful than the Caliphates they attacked, and look again, for the most parts the crusades failed. Still, they were prosecuted, because of religious reasons. Similarly, when a civ attacks you just because you're "there", I always imagine them doing so for xenophobia reasons, a VERY strong human impulse and a driving factory in pre-nuclear history.

It would be cool if the game said, "Sire, the [CIV] have launched a crusade against us!" or "The petulant [CIV] do not understand our way of life and vow to punish us!"