Additions Necessary to WAR Systems

[azhreii]

name a time when there already isn't a huge dimention of the person with the most units? the ability to shift units in groupings of large amounts matters much

however, as Isreal has taught others its combination and precise calculation that causes victory .... that and a very wealthy backer.

tactics matter .... if a player abandons the city's defenses for purely offense then a weakness is upheld, spys would point out that.

proposal isn't setting all units in one area but rather on a front. and then can shift the balance of the units and build actual trenches enforces with artillery adding more bonuses to the troops. Like WWI and WWII in isle hopping

make battle more cohesive and not so isolated ... railroads do some but the clicking unit by unit annoys the living hell out of me

plus rally points set for city units of types would be nice to alleviate that problem. say all armored units produced go here in this sector etc. etc. ..... or would that be too complexe too?

[pedrojedi]

Rally points exists in PTW.

Still, I think you are thinking too much in local, detailed war strategy. If civ would be just about that, then it would not be necessary to have a diplomatic, cultural, AC travel or rank victory. Conquer or domination would be the only victories, and then it would not be "Civilization". Civ is about much more than war.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Yes, civ is about more than war ... but all things can be approved, certainly also the war aspect.

More UU's for example (1 for each era?).

AJ

[pedrojedi]

Well, then you'll have a humongous game with too much to think about and not fun, if you have to think abou ALL detailed things about ALL aspects... If you say that war could be more detailed, I say that cities could be much more detailed. Why not just make each city an smaller version of Sim City? Why not just make a adventure about diplomatic "behind the curtains" affairs and plots? And why, for Christ's sake, not make a side game about detailed research & development, with detailed universities and empirical scientific research sim.

Yes, that all and much more could be possible, but it would render the game with a big "BORING" in front of its name.

I agree, however, that some aspects, general and inespecific ones could implement the game. I do not believe in 1 UU for each era, because, well, how would put a UU for America in ancient times? You could make the F-15, a Civil War Rifleman and that's it. Or the Egyptians, who never came as "the original" civ to the modern era? We should not forget that civ is about cultures and different people, not nations... The romans of yore are not the Italians of now, and the Iraq people are not the Babylonians of yore.

For unit customization, that's why you can mod the game... So you can make a gigantic 28-load carrier with 10 cruise missiles load and a cost of 5 shields.

[Panag]

hi ,

, stealth subs , .....


, they can be spotted , thanks to undeep waters , sonar buoys from heli's , a sonar barrier , etc , ......

agreed there should be a sub that has lets say 50 % chance to get away from an aegis , .....

have a nice day

[gecko716]

I dont see why engineers arent a possibility make them over 100 shields with a attack and defense rating and the ability to do workers jobs faster.

I think adding more units to the game would make it more tactical and simply by changing the stats of some untis it becomes more tactical. I also feal their should be an air defense rating.

Something like the SMAC combat system would make it more tactical.

Submarines already hunt in packs in the game 1unit doesnt represent 1 sub otherwise wars would be on a very small scale.

I think Submarines should have a real affect on the economy as well as other ships making blockades and a navy of actual importance.

[Wazell]

If simply adding more units and changing their stats is enough then you can already do it in editor. That's its main purpose after all. Unfortunately those more radical changes just have to wait till next big project.

[Egbert]

I am actually simplifying war in my mod. I am modding the units to get rid of bombards because I couldn't be bothered telling all those little units to shell a city before I attack it. I liked the the simplicity of Civ 2 combat, if you want to attack something then ram a unit into it. Less pushing about of units, less fuss, less management. For me , the war is uninteresting.

[pedrojedi]

Bombardment sometimes can be very annoying indeed...

For me , the war is uninteresting.

So, there's still a light!

edit: #*$(#&% keyboard.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by pedrojedi
Bombardment sometimes can be very annoying indeed...

So, there's still a light!

edit: #*$(#&% keyboard.

There seem to be two camps on this war thingy. Some of want it simple and others want the possibility of complex strategies. I wonder if it would be feasible to have an option to select whether you want simple combat (none of that bombard stuff and less unit types) or complex combat (the stuff suggested in this thread). Would the programming difficulties be not too much?

I think there is a delicate game design balancing act between focus on city building and satisfying those who would like more depth to the military aspects.

[pedrojedi]

And that's where the problem relies: you cannot focus too much on one or other aspect without turning the builder aspect into a SimCiv or the war into Civ Art of War. And then you have to buy two games.
Anyway, I think this could be too complex to manage right now, and even in a few years I don't see it coming. That's simply too much. But that's just me.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by peterfharris
I am actually simplifying war in my mod. I am modding the units to get rid of bombards ...

Ground bombardment units have always been a Player's advantage anyway, since the AI almost never uses offensive ground bombardment.

[Panag]

hi ,

, a click on the mouse button that opens a small window and selects all the units in that window , ...

a click and order "to follow"

a click and destroy that unit , even if it has to be followed a long way , ....

have a nice day

[Flanker]

If you wan´t to play a wargame, there´s lots of them to play. Civ is different, and I would actually like to have more emphasis on the more peaceful sides of the game. I don´t say your suggestions are bad, many of them are really interesting, but as many others, I also find them a little bit too complicated. I also think about how ancient and medieval wars should be made, almost all the suggestions are for modern warfare. Anyway, I agree that warfare, both modern and ancient, should be a little bit more "diversed". In CivII, you could actually use both paratroops, marines and other lighter troops with sucess. In CivIII, I only use them because it looks pretty cool with amphibious and airborn assaults, but if I really want the war to be sucessful, I just go in with a bunch of modern armour.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Flanker
If you wan´t to play a wargame, there´s lots of them to play. Civ is different, and I would actually like to have more emphasis on the more peaceful sides of the game. I don´t say your suggestions are bad, many of them are really interesting, but as many others, I also find them a little bit too complicated. I also think about how ancient and medieval wars should be made, almost all the suggestions are for modern warfare. Anyway, I agree that warfare, both modern and ancient, should be a little bit more "diversed". In CivII, you could actually use both paratroops, marines and other lighter troops with sucess. In CivIII, I only use them because it looks pretty cool with amphibious and airborn assaults, but if I really want the war to be sucessful, I just go in with a bunch of modern armour.

hi ,

well this could be overcome by including the simple option ; "turn detailed combat off or on" , .....

have a nice day