On-Topic Off-Topic Forum Thread: Rate'em! Civ's I-V

[Donegeal]

If Civ Rev is for iOS, is there a Civ for Android?

[regexcellent]

You said it would have been a chance to kill on the first attack, and a much better chance to kill on each successive attack, and only knock them back 1 tile. (This would of course just result in free XP for chosen units and easier kills if the AI tried to take advantage of this manner of "defense".)

The initial "problem" was that invasions were too slow and so enemy roads should be usable by invaders. This would cause a lot of problems of it's own as I noted. Now you're trying to fix those problems by essentially revoking the ability to use enemy roads for non-blitz units (in cases where it actually would apply). In at least some cases your suggestion would slow down invasions more than they already are, negating the entire point of allowing enemy roads to be used in the first place.

I'm dealing with three issues here: 1. the fact that it's retarded that you have to inch armies one tile at a time during an invasion. 2. The ships passing in the night problem of stacks of doom meeting in strange and irrelevant places or never meeting at all until they hit a city. 3. Related to #2, the lack of an identifiable front line.

Stacks of doom would not be a problem if attacks always proceeded along obvious invasion routes like roads. Moreover, initiating invasions wouldn't be so infuriating. That said, it would also remove a key advantage that defenders have. And as soon as you broke through the line on the road, you'd be able to advance right up to a city and take it. The wars should progress like a football game, with the ball (battle site) moving back and forth between the yard lines until someone scores a touchdown (captures a city).

If you take an enemy fort and push them back along the road, then they can regroup at the next fort with a medic unit or whatever, heal for a turn (or more), link up with reinforcements, and fight another battle. While the total strength of the defender is less than before, more than likely, the attacker doesn't heal as quickly in enemy territory.

This way, even if wars don't go any faster, or even go slower, there are actual battles being fought instead of units trudging around unopposed in empty land for turn after turn.

edit: actually I forgot to mention, the issue of road spaghetti is totally solved by having roads usable by the enemy.

Separate issue. Could be interesting if done right, but more likely would turn into a whack-a-mole or non-issue depending on how powerful it was tuned to be, and if the AI was designed to take advantage of it or not. (Similar suggestions came up a few times in Civ IV development.)

In context of this discussion ... I think it's safe to say that just about anyone who thought invasions in Civ IV were too slow already would likely hate having to deal with less abstract supply issues than are already present.

Yes, it's a separate issue entirely.

I think supply lines would be interesting because it would enforce a front line and it would allow for more interesting strategic uses of units besides rock-paper-scissors. Things like cavalry being weaker but being able to break supply lines, while artillery/siege is very slow but can hold down forts and hills really well. Instead of just use axe vs. sword and sword vs. city and archer to defend cities and so forth.

[Dinner]

we should organize some kind of MP game or something.

I'd play. Not team though just regular MP. Civ4 with all the expansions and patches no mods.

[Aeson]

I'm dealing with three issues here: 1. the fact that it's retarded that you have to inch armies one tile at a time during an invasion. 2. The ships passing in the night problem of stacks of doom meeting in strange and irrelevant places or never meeting at all until they hit a city. 3. Related to #2, the lack of an identifiable front line.

1. you don't have to
2. not a problem.
3. not a problem.

Stacks of doom would not be a problem if attacks always proceeded along obvious invasion routes like roads.

SOD are not a problem unless you want to play in a way that makes them a problem.

Also your changes would have the opposite effect you seem to want. You'd have forts on important roads, forcing SODs to go other routes because no one wants to kill the same units multiple times on their way to their target.

Moreover, initiating invasions wouldn't be so infuriating ... The wars should progress like a football game, with the ball (battle site) moving back and forth between the yard lines until someone scores a touchdown (captures a city).

It would be much, much more infuriating. You'd have to kill units several times to kill them. It's a force multiplier for the defender (much less so for attacker), which is exactly the opposite thing you should be doing if you think invasions/wars are too slow.

This would break the entire combat system, making invasions impossible against a competent player (and probably even against higher level AI). You'd have to change all units to have a much higher attack than defense value to compensate, and then you're just adding a twitch mechanic of who can attack first.

[regexcellent]

Taking a while to kill units doesn't matter if you can push them off of territory. If they try to hold tile by tile they'll be eliminated because they don't have the defensive advantages and will be in a weaker position than they were in the first turn. By the time you've pushed the same unit back to a city it'll be a shell of its former self and not pose a huge challenge. The football play aspect isn't a critical part of the changes I'd like to see but I think it would help reinforce the idea of a front line that moves back and forth. It makes wars about who controls what little piece of land, and it creates more strategic points than just cities and maybe important passes.

As for bypassing forts, you can't do that if you lose supply to your units.

Finally, I don't think invasions are too slow. I think there are too many turns where nothing interesting happens.

[self biased]

I think there are too many turns where nothing interesting happens.

as opposed to civ 5?

while i agree with some of what you're saying, sacrificing gameplay and/or game balance for realism is at best a terrible idea. in the first hundred turns i find civ 4 far, and away more engaging than civ 5.

[regexcellent]

as opposed to civ 5?

while i agree with some of what you're saying, sacrificing gameplay and/or game balance for realism is at best a terrible idea. in the first hundred turns i find civ 4 far, and away more engaging than civ 5.

No, I've hardly played Civ 5. And I'm not asking for more realism with the supply lines and enemy road use thing. I don't want a hearts of iron style battle system. What I want is a sort of front line and wars that consist of battles every turn, where your army is seeking out the enemy army instead of just making a beeline for the nearest city with a few fast units running around pillaging everything. Road junctions, rivers, bridges, forts, and defensible positions should be important.

The first hundred turns or so should play out roughly the same way. Issues of "road spaghetti" or whatever and stacks of doom aren't so big at the beginning. Forts don't exist until mathematics. I don't think supply lines should matter for units below a certain tech level.

[Aeson]

And I'm not asking for more realism with the supply lines and enemy road use thing. I don't want a hearts of iron style battle system. What I want is a sort of front line and wars that consist of battles every turn, where your army is seeking out the enemy army instead of just making a beeline for the nearest city with a few fast units running around pillaging everything. Road junctions, rivers, bridges, forts, and defensible positions should be important.

You're trying for a tactical war game in a 4x strategy game.

Civ has a rather high level of abstraction in most cases, and that is by design. The tiles represent thousands of square miles. Turns represent years or even decades. Units represent hundreds or thousands of people and/or equipment. The "tactical" side of warfare is hidden. You don't hunt down a platoon, or take a specific bridge or outpost, or rape a specific villager. These things are abstracted out to levels that make playing the game ... building empires and destroying them ... not actually take centuries.

Road junctions, rivers, bridges tend to be on a scale that isn't addressed by the Civ map (and shouldn't be). The roads you do get on the Civ map are simply artwork to depict a certain level of development in that region. Where they cross is also up to the artwork. Military strategy shouldn't be based on irrelevant artwork.

Forts control an area. Even though the fort takes up most of a tile ... it's not thousands of square miles that have been walled and garrisoned. By going to a different region that isn't controlled by that fort, you avoid having to deal with it. (ZOC does apply in some versions to extend the area of control of a fort, which is fine.) That is how it should be. This gives the defender the ability to make certain areas more difficult to take, but generally can't force invaders to go through defenders at specific points.

Abstract implementations of supply/attrition are already in the game (difficulty healing in enemy territory, unit supply costs, not being able to use enemy roads).

When your unit is on a tile, that is a front. It may be hundreds of miles of "front". When units come together, those are major battles even if only a couple units are involved.

Because these types of factors are kept abstract they don't become a whack-a-mole side-games or major PITAs for players to deal with. You don't have to make sure the cooks have enough beans to feed the troops, or where they're getting their toilet paper from, or any of that "work" that goes into invasions. You get to stick to the stragetic level of planning, where to invade, how many to send.

This is why it's a game, rather than work. Doing it this way is also rather simple to balance with the rest of gameplay.

Trying to force players into a funnel of the defender's choosing is just a really bad idea for gameplay. Not every war should be Napoleon invading Russia. If you want more spread out battles, play that way. I almost never ran with large stacks, but rather had several small groups (not always on the same tile even) working towards specific goals.

[Aeson]

Taking a while to kill units doesn't matter if you can push them off of territory.

Yes it does. A few extra turns to prepare, and a few extra units to throw at an invader would generally make a huge difference.

This difference would be based on dice rolls. Not good.

If they try to hold tile by tile they'll be eliminated because they don't have the defensive advantages and will be in a weaker position than they were in the first turn.

You initially said it would knock them back a tile, to which I replied then it's just XP for chosen units, making getting high level promotions easier and essentially not accomplishing anything.

To that you responded they'd be teleported back further to somewhere they could heal. This would cause it to be a force multiplier based on dice rolls. Very bad for gameplay.

Now you're back to saying they'd just be knocked back a tile and the mechanic you are proposing is useless?

As for bypassing forts, you can't do that if you lose supply to your units.

"Can't" is horrible for gameplay. Hannibal can't cross the Alps. The Germans have to go through the Maginot Line ... virtually everything that isn't some form of trench warfare is disallowed.

It just wouldn't be any fun to play that game.

Finally, I don't think invasions are too slow. I think there are too many turns where nothing interesting happens.

Given the pacing of the rest of the game I'm not sure why you'd pick military invasions to pin that on. The first worker takes 5-20 turns to build. Techs and wonders often take quite a lot longer than that. Warfare generally has a lot more happening, a lot quicker, when you're actively at war.

[regexcellent]

Aeson, I'm not saying I don't like the Civ warfare system because it doesn't make sense. I'm saying I think it would be more fun if there were an identifiable front line that corresponds with control of territory and if there were strategic locations beyond just cities.

[Aeson]

I'm saying I think it would be more fun if there were an identifiable front line that corresponds with control of territory and if there were strategic locations beyond just cities.

There is. Wherever you choose to put your units is the "front line". If you want the line more spread out for visual reasons or whatever, spread your units out. The AI is retarded when it comes to pathfinding and unit composition and generally will facilitate this sort of gameplay.

As for strategic locations beyond just cities, they already exist. Resources, tiles where you can threaten more than one city thus split enemy forces, areas where you can set up kill zones, or force invaders into low defense positions, or areas in the FOW where you can strike from without warning are also very important.

Civ is a blank canvas. The options are (ideally) pretty well balanced so you can choose how you want to proceed. The real problems arise when Civ tries to force players to do specific things due to them being overpowered or there not being any other options. A supply system how you described it would definitely be one of those things. Forcing players to go through forts, essentially given the defender the ability to tell invaders where to go. (It also would further encourage stacking, rather than allowing wider front lines to develop.)

[Jon Miller]

I know many people here are better than me at Civ (I think I managed beating deity in civ3. I don't think I managed it in civ4, I think I only ever got to emperor or something. In civ5 I don't think I got past prince or whatever).

What do people think of collateral damage as a way to fix stacks?

Basically, have the stack defend with the highest defensive unit, but then have all units take damage (say all units take 10% (20%?) damage when the defending unit is eliminated). Have it so that the same unit defends for the full turn if it survives (so if it can be attacked from multiple points it will end up dying.. likely).

JM

[Jon Miller]

This is also 'realistic' as if you get through a defending force you should be able to strike at the forces which were not set up to defend you.

Maybe augment the idea by saying the 'best defender' unit is defined for a single attacking hex/square and if another hex/square attacks than another 'best defender (the next best?)' is selected for that attacking hex/square.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Maybe better to allow it to recalculate the best defender every time (as this is a battle that takes months...)

But still apply a significant penalty (20% damage?) to all other units in that stack if the best defender is defeated.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Maybe make some bonus (from XP level up or that a unit starts with) that decreases this type of damage.

Also maybe make 'fast' units do more of this type of damage (10% for 'slow units', 20% for 'fast units'?).

JM