Tweet
Combat is not the only thing in this game. If everyone wants a complex combat system, then the people who avoid combat will get the short end of the stick. Firaxis should focus on making parts of the game that are used by everybody and have to be done to play the game correct, like Governments, Diplomacy and Wonders.
Don't get me wrong, i'm sure 99.9% of the Civ player community uses combat, but if you, 'KISS', then you can focus on the parts of the game that need a lot of micromanagement and re-vamping. Also you need to make keep it from becomign to complex, other wise turns will take hours apon hours while you engage in combat. People will dread it eventually and avoid combat all together!
I believe that the combat system could use a little switch-a-ru, but making it that complex, with special formulated combat stacks, and that rumor about Gettyburgish will increase game play difficulty. we're trying to reduce it. The reason we reduce it is because we want everyone to play, not just wargame masterminds who can remember war&peace size rule books.
Now, instead of ignorantly ranting, i'll give my opinion as to what could be a possable solution.
Each military unit is grouped. An example is, Ancient/Ground, Modern/Ranged, Industrial/Ground, etc in different time periods and what they do (like ground infantry, ground ranged, air, etc). Each group would have a counter. So a Ranged unit would be efective against Ground. Thus creating a need to make "Stacks". However actual combat would be handled much like in Civ2, unit vs unit. However the attacker attacks with a type of combat unit and if s/he has a certian unit that is efective against the defenders, they go first. But if the defender has an effective unit against the attacker, it goes back and forth, so the defender counter attacks... and it goes back and forth in a mini-stacked unit battle, but its still one vs one.
Don't get me wrong, i'm sure 99.9% of the Civ player community uses combat, but if you, 'KISS', then you can focus on the parts of the game that need a lot of micromanagement and re-vamping. Also you need to make keep it from becomign to complex, other wise turns will take hours apon hours while you engage in combat. People will dread it eventually and avoid combat all together!
I believe that the combat system could use a little switch-a-ru, but making it that complex, with special formulated combat stacks, and that rumor about Gettyburgish will increase game play difficulty. we're trying to reduce it. The reason we reduce it is because we want everyone to play, not just wargame masterminds who can remember war&peace size rule books.
Now, instead of ignorantly ranting, i'll give my opinion as to what could be a possable solution.
Each military unit is grouped. An example is, Ancient/Ground, Modern/Ranged, Industrial/Ground, etc in different time periods and what they do (like ground infantry, ground ranged, air, etc). Each group would have a counter. So a Ranged unit would be efective against Ground. Thus creating a need to make "Stacks". However actual combat would be handled much like in Civ2, unit vs unit. However the attacker attacks with a type of combat unit and if s/he has a certian unit that is efective against the defenders, they go first. But if the defender has an effective unit against the attacker, it goes back and forth, so the defender counter attacks... and it goes back and forth in a mini-stacked unit battle, but its still one vs one.
. Of course, CTP combat was flawed because there is no randomness, so you could simply do your sums beforehand, and you would already know the outcome. Civ2 had that part right, so a combination of the two would be ideal.
Comment