Civ 4 - The List of BAD Ideas.

[hexagonian]

Responding to the following...

Originally posted by skywalker
Stacked combat. There are enormous problems with this, but I'd like to detail a few:
1. Limit to the number of units on a square
This is bad. Really really really bad. It is a HARDCODED limit, even, and can be incredibly annoying. If I want the best defense in a city, no units can enter it.

Not true, because you can rearrange your stacks easily, based on unit strength. Simply move out the units you want elsewhere and replace them with the units you want to defend.

The (potential) problem lies in the fact that since you are limited to a certain amount of units in a city, the attacker can bring in multiple attacks to wear down that stack. But that is what you already have to do with the civ3 model. (Generally, you have to bring in a lot more units than are in the city to take it). The key though is to allow the defender to build buildings that will greatly increase defensive bonuses and thus greatly increase the resistance strength of those units - something that CTP2 does have in place.

(And look at history and the difficulty of fighting within a city, and the use of buildings as defensive modifiers within a city is very plausible.)

Plus completely surrounding a city in CTP2 is very unit-intensive (as it should be), so you would have to really place an iron grip on the city to prevent reinforcements from punching through to relieve the defenders.

To be honest, CTP2 does not do this second factor half as well as it could, but my point is that I really believe that coding can be created to do so.

Originally posted by skywalker
Moreover, it limits the size of my ATTACK forces. It places huge limits on the game and even really hinders scenarios.

Again, not true because you still can bring in a vast amount of units to a target. A city is surrounded by 8 tiles - 12 units per tile - that makes for a potential force of 96 units. This is certainly not a huge limit, at least in my mind...

And if you want to take it a step further, add in the next ring of tiles around the city as possible tiles that can hold additional units.

Originally posted by skywalker
2. Air units + bombardment
Civ3's current air unit system (which IMO is a huge improvement over Civ2) would function poorly here.

Again not true because it would be easy to give those types of air units a coding designation that places them outside the normal unit restiction. Since they automatically fly out and return to their base on their turn, they would never be part of the stack.
CTP2 uses air units with a set number of turns in the air before they have to refuel. They have the capability to bombard a target, the same way that a land bombard can. I would agree that the civ3 model is better because it is more streamlined, but again, my proposal would work within the framework of stacked combat.

Originally posted by skywalker
Ditto for bombardment.

Again not a problem since your bombards are part of your land units. With the 96 unit limit around a target, some of those slots can be filled by land bombards. CTP2 already uses bombards effectively, since there is a counter-bombard flag that automatically allows a bombard unit to fire back automatically when it is bombarded.

Originally posted by skywalker
Plus, scenario issues - Civ3's system offers infinitely more possibilities.

Not without a scripting language - already in place in CTP2.

Originally posted by skywalker
3. Ugliness
Combat in CtP2 (the only version I bought) was just plain UGLY. I hated it, it was tedious in a way that Civ3 combat isn't (not that Civ3 combat can't get tedious, but it does so in its own way).

A matter of opinion based on a preference...so it is not worth the time to argue...(although I have yet to hear it explained to me just why CTP2 combat is tedious. I've certainly been trying to explain why the civ3 model is.)

My point all along is that despite its problems, the CTP2 setup is superior in just about every way over the current civ3 setup.

And I believe that it can be improved upon - I do not believe that retaining the current civ3 setup allows for much improvement, but that is just an opinion. It's just that I have yet to hear any compelling arguments to the contrary.

And based on the poll, there is a lot of others who feel the same way.

[Jon Miller]

still doesn't change the fact that I

and most others

did not find CTP combat fun

I am sorry that I have not been able to exaplin that to you

Jon Miller

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

and most others

The thread we've got going on the subject says another thing.

Asmodean

[Jon Miller]

youcan look at sales and other such means

just because most the people here like CTP does not mean that here is not an outlier

also, maybe most people like Civ3 style limited stacked combat (I like this)

Jon Miller

[Asmodean]

But Jon...sales doesn't say what people think about one particular feature. It says what franchise is well known and can back up their title with the name "Civilization".

I don't know what people you refer to, when you say most people. Most people here at Apolyton like stacked combat a la CtP2. And we are, after all, makinf an Apolyton list, aren't we??

Asmodean

[Maquiladora]

Theyre voting on the combat system, nothing else, and the voting is leaning heavily towards stacked combat.

Im sure if the voting had gone the other way youd have a different opinion on the value of the poll, Jon.

[Jon Miller]

I really enjoy your thoughts on my character

now, how well do you know me again?

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I'm not quite sure what would require it to be a hard-coded limit?

Display, and it'd probably be a lot easier to code. Both CtP and CtP2 had hardcoded limits IIRC (which could sort of be gotten around with scripting).

I do agree that stacked combat wouldn't quite work for bombardment of a city, however one could have such units operate as a supporting unit in ArmyvArmy combat and as a Civ3 bombard elsewhere.
Care to explain the scenario issues?

The "support unit" role in stacked combat makes artillery a lot like many other units. The ranged bombard in Civ3 gives a LOT of interesting scenario options for units while still allowing you to simulate normal-attacking artillery with high attack units like Civ2 did.

That's a problem with presentation and not the concept.

Yes, but the flaws in presentation are derived from the structure of the combat

Though I see your point.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Unfortunately, with the civ3 setup that does not place any limit on the size of stacks, you cannot prevent the use of huge stacks as the most viable strategy, irregardless of pricing.

irregardless?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by FinnishGuy
AI has to move every unit around pointlessly every time...

This is easy to fix - it's in an ini file.

[Kuciwalker]

My point all along is that despite its problems, the CTP2 setup is superior in just about every way over the current civ3 setup.

Wrong. The limit on the number of units on a tile is an ENORMOUS problem, especially for scenarios (CtP's scriping language is not a part of this argument), and does severely limit the forces you can bring to bear (and with which you can defend). You can't shuffle things around in the enemy's turn.

[Kuciwalker]

Another bad idea: SMAC unit workshop. It was OK for SMAC (though I found it incredibly annoying after a while), but NOT for a Civ game.

Also: the SMAC Government model. Again, great for a sci-fi game, bad for a civ game.

And more: the SMAC terrain model (including the 3D-ness) - see above reasons

Finally: nukes behaving the way Planet Busters did in SMAC.

[Fosse]

Agreed on exclusion of SMAC unit workshop and terrain model. I'd like to see nukes as a compromise of PBs and current nukes.

I'm all about a "social engineering" sort of thing, as I go on about ad naseum in other threads.


Regarding the scripted solutions not being part of the argument... Well... we're looking for an ideal solution. If someone else found a good one then I don't care if it was commercial, user made, or open source. A good system is a good system, and we should be holding out for one.

I'm not willing to say that stacks (IMO the better way) shoud be left out because of imperfect implementation before, any more than resources should because they've had imperfect implemenation before.
But I appreciate you bringing sound reasons to the table.. even though I disagree with you on this issue.


"Irregardless" is a word. Means exactly what "regardless" Think means.
Think flammable/inflammable.

[Kuciwalker]

Irregardless" is a word. Means exactly what "regardless" Think means.
Think flammable/inflammable.

from dictionary.com:

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

[Kuciwalker]

some more ideas that shouldn't be in:

Civ3 style ZOC - bring back what we had in Civ2!
Civ2 style unstacked combat - destroying a stack by destroying the top unit is ridiculous and aggravating
The AI phobia of trading cities, such that it will only trade them for peace in Civ3
The automatic declaration of war when you have an MPP - make it like civ2, where you could choose not to honor an alliance (in Civ3, the only way to cancel an MPP less than 20 turns after is to declare war).
Palace/City View/Wonder Movies - I never watch them and they take up development time

[Fosse]

My last OT post on this!

A word being nonstandard ain't the same as it not being a word. Hexagonion isn't wrong for using it, nor is anybody else in any setting outside of acadamia. And a message board full is hardly a bastion of good grammar, anyhow! You can find it in all but the most abridged dictionaries (and probably there, too), and it is recognized for its meaning across the English speaking world, irregardless of its dubious origins.

Oh, an extremely fun book to read if you're not a lexicographer but do enjoy our language is Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue

Anyhow, skywalker, I normally wouldn't be caught dead using it myself. Just had to argue, I guess.

On Topic: I don't want a cylindrical map! Look! I'm contributing to the conversation! I'm not helping threadjack! Weeeeee!!!!

[orange]

CTP combat was a novelty. I enjoyed it for about 5 days. And then I packed up the game and never played it again. Civ 3 combat is much more simple, and that is good.

[hexagonian]

Skywalker,

Nice...
when you cannot refute the arguments, simply attack the grammar useage.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker
Wrong. The limit on the number of units on a tile is an ENORMOUS problem, especially for scenarios (CtP's scriping language is not a part of this argument), and does severely limit the forces you can bring to bear (and with which you can defend). You can't shuffle things around in the enemy's turn.

OK, I'm game...

I explained how this doesn't have to be a problem, based on the fact that surrounding tiles allow for more than 12 units in the area that can be brought in for an attack. Some other solutions involve the use of buildings that can greatly add to the bonus of defending units - making a defending stack incredibly strong.

You can also create special unique garrison units within a scenario that have a lot of hitpoints - effectively doubling or tripling (or even more, based on how many hitpoints) the number of units in a tile if you use the parameter 'hp=manpower strength'. (all you have to do is title that unit a division, for example) In fact, if you want these units purchasable, you can assign a price to it in relation to the weaker unit. In a scenario, modders generally create their own unit types as part of the process, so this is not a stretch.

All of these solutions are viable and easy-to-impliment workarounds to the limitation of number of units that can occupy a tile - in fact I've already used these in my CTP2 'War of the Ring' scenario.

What stacking, stack unit limits, and stacked combat do is streamline gameplay, plus it simulates a more realistic format of battle. No general sends his units into battle one at a time.

Now please clarify your statements. You spend a lot of time explaining the 'what', but not a lot of time explaining the 'how' and 'why'.

A question...
What do you mean by shuffling things around in the enemy's turns? If you mean that the AI cannot bring in reinforcements, I've already explained how with a stack limit this is accomplished.

[FinnishGuy]

Originally posted by skywalker


This is easy to fix - it's in an ini file.

What? Civ4 has an .ini file already?

[Sikander]

What I don't want to see in Civ 4:

1) Tactical movement on the strategic map. This means stacked combat among many other things. Armies should be what are placed on the map, units should only exist as things that can be carried by armies or held by cities and fortresses. I hope I never see another catapult limp along for a few centuries in order to eventually launch an unsupported attack on an enemy city.

Movement should be simultaneous, with orders given to commanders of armies who try to carry them out and who are affected by the enemy's armies and their orders. This obviates the need for any player intervention in the tactical phase and keeps the focus on strategy, where any game that spans hundreds of lifetimes should have its focus.

Assuming that each turn will comprise a year or more of "real" time, there should be no limitation (or very little limitation) on how far a unit can move across the map. Instead distance from supply points will determine whether a unit can keep moving or must stop. This limit will increase over time due to improvements in transportation tech (like heavy horses with proper harnesses), infrastructure like roads and rails and of course the actual supply points themselves, cities and fortresses and perhaps supply depots.

Map functions would make this system a breeze to use. Hitting the key would show immediately the areas which are in supply for your armies. Exploration units would have increased range of course, and it would be possible to build a network of bases in order to give yourself global reach. In fact it would be necessary, though as ranges increase fewer bases would be necessary.

2) I don't need 3d, don't want 3d and would hate to see any effort wasted on making the game 3d. It simply wastes resources in what is essentially a 2 dimensional universe.

3) I like pretty graphics as much as the next guy, which is why the graphics in Civ 3 were such a disappointment. I don't want to have animated cabbage patch dolls as opponents. Nor do I wish to imagine my forces as composed of cartoon cavemen. Even SMAC's horrible caviars were better than Civ 3's units.

4) I'd like to see a rich and complex strategic game unlike Civ 3 which gutted the strategic aspects of the game in favor of an immense amount of tactical dancing about. I want the opposite. Clean up the map by removing those thousands of units and replacing them with armies, and then clean up the game by giving those armies over to your generals to use. Not only is this an immense improvement in realism, but I think it will be a lot more fun to concentrate on the bigger issues. Once the huge and dull tactical game is cleaned up it is time to breathe some life into the essentially linear strategic game that Civ 3 is. This means a complex tech tree and social engineering. It doesn't have to be SMAC style SE necessarily, I think EU2 did a fantastic job with their SE settings of paired opposites.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I really enjoy your thoughts on my character

now, how well do you know me again?

Jon Miller

For a start you didnt expect the voting to go that way, by asking "where do all you people come from?" meaning the ones voting for stacked combat, so i think that shows you were interested in the result, and participating in the "stacked - single unit combat" poll itself and being first to reply shows you give some credibility to the result, i dont need to know you personally, Jon.

[Jon Miller]

hmm

I asked where did all you people come from because I did not think so many people liked CTP (and I was hearing a lot of references to it), this does not mean that I viewed the results as pertinant

I am interested in stacked versus single combat, if you will check other posts made by me arround that time you will see that I was making a number of posts on that subject before the poll was created

so posting in a thread about stacked versus single combat somehow makes me think that the poll in the thread is credible?

or does it just mean that I am being involved in the discussion?

while I admit that I don't know you personally, you do seem to be trying real hard to be an ass

Jon Miller

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I asked where did all you people come from because I did not think so many people liked CTP

From the CtP sections?

so posting in a thread about stacked versus single combat somehow makes me think that the poll in the thread is credible?

So vote banana next time.

while I admit that I don't know you personally, you do seem to be trying real hard to be an ass

It comes naturally.

If you want to continue then PM me.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Sikander
What I don't want to see in Civ 4:

1) Tactical movement on the strategic map. This means stacked combat among many other things. Armies should be what are placed on the map, units should only exist as things that can be carried by armies or held by cities and fortresses. I hope I never see another catapult limp along for a few centuries in order to eventually launch an unsupported attack on an enemy city.

Movement should be simultaneous, with orders given to commanders of armies who try to carry them out and who are affected by the enemy's armies and their orders. This obviates the need for any player intervention in the tactical phase and keeps the focus on strategy, where any game that spans hundreds of lifetimes should have its focus.

Assuming that each turn will comprise a year or more of "real" time, there should be no limitation (or very little limitation) on how far a unit can move across the map. Instead distance from supply points will determine whether a unit can keep moving or must stop. This limit will increase over time due to improvements in transportation tech (like heavy horses with proper harnesses), infrastructure like roads and rails and of course the actual supply points themselves, cities and fortresses and perhaps supply depots.

Sounds pretty unwieldy to me. Why not simply assume that turns represent a year of real time, while turns represent only a month or a week of Military and Diplomacy time? I know the old argument about a tank not being able to drive 500 miles in a year... but it would basically be infinite movement withing a supply zone in what you explained... also known as railroads, which are well despised.

2) I don't need 3d, don't want 3d and would hate to see any effort wasted on making the game 3d. It simply wastes resources in what is essentially a 2 dimensional universe.

What about just enough 3d to make the map sphereical? If it is no longer a "2 dimensional universe" then the game is more accurate, realistic, and IMO fun.


And agreed to strategy in place of tactics!!

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
hmm
I asked where did all you people come from because I did not think so many people liked CTP (and I was hearing a lot of references to it), this does not mean that I viewed the results as pertinant

You make the assumption that since there is a vocal CTP2 element on this thread and since the polling is going strongly in favor of stacked combat, we CTPers have hijacked the results.

That assumption is wrong because it is based on the idea that civ3 is perfect and cannot be improved upon. Therefore, any concept that deviates from the basic concepts of Sid's series is considered heresy.

I actually think that civ3 has a lot of good features - in the same breath, I think that there are problems in CTP2. I would guess that for most fans, they feel the same way, but in different degrees for each game. Players play one or the other because of the way the developers present the whole game - but at the same time, there are always features within any game that a player wishes were better executed. After all, combat is just one element of the entire civ experience.

The fact that more people play civ3 does not necessarily mean that they would not want some things changed or improved. So when you mention combat, many players may feel that stacked combat is a step of progression.

[filix]

Originally posted by Solver
Hmm, you don't have control while the battle happens, but you don't have it in Civ 3 really, either. There are also similar tactics in CtP2, by forming stacks with different abilities and stuff.

The upside is, it will never take you 5 attackers to wipe a single defender.

Hello
im a ctp1 player and i hope that there will be the option to form stacks with different abilities and stuff.
I dont like to move every single unite without groups.

IMPORTANT
Futhermore i hope that the corruption problem of civ3 will be sloved, its no fun to play civ3 with a lot of citys which produce almost nothing because of distance to the kapital.
IMPORTANT
And i like the ctp1 city manager very much its very important for me that i have the option to let my worker work on plains,wood or montains, without that a big part of the civ gameplay is gone.
IMPORTANT
+ I like the idea of building caravans for trade. The ctp trade system is a little bit unlogic (with the monopolies) but i like it much more than the trade at civ3 with the simple road system.

greetings to all "ctp1like game" players

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker
The "support unit" role in stacked combat makes artillery a lot like many other units. The ranged bombard in Civ3 gives a LOT of interesting scenario options for units while still allowing you to simulate normal-attacking artillery with high attack units like Civ2 did.

Continuing to clarify wrong assumptions about CTP2...

The nature of artillery useage in CTP is not merly limited to a ranged support role in a stacked combat situation. It can actually be used in two ways

1. Either as part of a grouped stack, acting as a support ranged unit...
2. ...or as a separate bombard unit, as it is in civ3. Basically, you can siege a city over several turns with bombards to soften up the units inside before launching your combined stack assault.

A nice dilemma for the player to think about - either rush in with your stack to quickly take a city, and take a chance losing your units, or take a more patient approach and bombard it before the main assault - a dilemma lacking in the current civ setup.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by hexagonian
A nice dilemma for the player to think about - either rush in with your stack to quickly take a city, and take a chance losing your units, or take a more patient approach and bombard it before the main assault - a dilemma lacking in the current civ setup.

Incorrect. The player of C3 has exactly that same choice. The difference is that he or she has total control over which units to use in which order and exactly when to call off the attack if things are not shaping up well.

Perhaps the C3 player has too much control. For some that may seem tedious because you have to go through unit by unit until the enemy is dead or you stop. From reading this thread and others, it also seems there are some who think that such control by the player is inappropriate for a game of Civ's scope.

However, for many C3's combat is a wonderful part of the game. Tactics and strategy share the same map in a sort of disconnected yet coherent reality.

Whether someone prefers the stacks of CTP or the individual units of C3 is entirely one of personal taste. Neither is 'best' in any sort of metaphysical way.

I enjoyed CTP and CTP2 combat. I enjoy C3 combat. What I really hope is that the designers get it right, whichever they choose.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Skywalker,

Nice...
when you cannot refute the arguments, simply attack the grammar useage.

No, I was just kidding around