Whats the biz with Armies, Generals, Campaigns?

Caesar · November 9, 2000, 10:18

Do we know anything about the intruiging possibilities of having Armies commanded by Generals who are conducting Campaigns?

This is something I really look forward too, especially if you are fighting a big war, or are fighting on more than one front... or if, in general, you want to be able to designate more and more stuff to the AI, as I do... I want to be able to do really micro detail work if necessary, however I really like micro automation... for example in SMAC I can send formers and colony pods to do their own thing and my bases and infrastructure just happens. I like that option, although often-times I need to make a specific call, and so thats good.

Basically I really like the prospects of having grouped units as Armies commanded by strong-AI Generals conducting Campaigns that are based on my orders, for example 'conquer these cities' and then the General and Army does it.

Furthermore I hope and expect we can name these Armies and Generals: for example General Smith of the 3rd Army (boring example I know)...

Caesar.

Tical_2000 · November 9, 2000, 22:50

I would especially like the idea of 'campaigns'. For instance, wouldn't it be cool if you gave an AI-controlled General a squadron of stealth bombers and tell them to wreak havoc on a certain portion of a nation. Even give them industrial or civilian targets?

Deathwalker · November 10, 2000, 05:01

Interesting idea, but we must remember it is not a war game but is about all of civilization. Though in scenarios like WW2 this would be a great idea.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

Sirotnikov · November 11, 2000, 09:16

I always thought there should be a queue of commands for units since it is often a drag to tell 50 units what to do each turn.

However, wouldn't having all of your units make your turns dull and boring?

I mean, you give all your units a campaign, and then all you do for 20 turns is press the [end turn] button...

Stuff2 · November 11, 2000, 11:49

I'm in favor of AI-generals as long has they don't have to be represented bye actual units.

Nikolai · November 11, 2000, 12:41

Aren't there a kind of general in CTP2(Alexander the Great)?

Oh, Activision have stolen the idea!!!!

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

VanHalen78 · November 11, 2000, 16:16

I would like to add on to this war idea i really do support the idea of Generals and campaigns i think that would be cool. Here's another thing i think the set year increments per turns should be nullified!!! i hate it!!! In one turn 50 years go by now say your fighting a war, well in increments like that a war can rage on for thousands of years!!!! thats absolutely ridiculous no war could possibly last that long its like in a matter of 20 to 50 years only get to move your military unit about 20 miles or so thats so ridiculous i remember when fighting a war it took 100 years or more just to mobilize and send my armies overseas, that is very unrealistic i say that the player of the game should have complete control over the year increment per turn especially during war time. and to accompany this change in years per turn would be a change in science rate, tax and trade revenues, and so on. Please i hope this mistake is not made again its really annoying.

Shogun Gunner · November 11, 2000, 18:40

Your military leader's name randomizes so every fifty turns or so, you get another great warrior from the civ's history file. That way you could recount your history and dominance -just like end game replay in Civ I- with the complete listing of your countries significant events.

Military battles could be included attached to great name of history. Remember it was Napeleon and Wellington at Waterloo! Two names before the geographic site name. (there should be those as well, so you could name rivers, large mountain ranges, deserts, etc -- I'm sure that's been discussed before - didn't check, thought just hit me.)

Dom Pedro II · November 11, 2000, 19:24

I dunno about that... Doesn't the AI seem pretty dumb to anyone else? I have a lot more faith in myself commanding the military than the computer. Besides, doesn't the AI have enough to think about. I'm in favor of these things for the AI in order to help it in warfare.

Isn't it more fun to do the conquering yourself rather than letting the computer do it? I mean, what would you actually like to be in charge of if not the army? If you don't want to do anything, rent a war movie.

UltraSonix · November 17, 2000, 09:06

No one here is really against this generals idea. So I guess I'll provide my view. I really don;'t like the idea of commanders/leaders/generals because:

*they seem to be out of place - a general of a groupd of leaders is only a few people max. A unit in a civ game usually has much more ppl in it.
*like has been mentioned above, I don't think that AI would be able to handle the concept properly AT ALL. It would give too much of an advantage to the human player.
*it doesn't seem to fit in the civ style. Civ2 has a grand feeling to it - everything is done on a high level. Commmanders, to me anyway, has a micro feel to it - rather than the macro feel of everything else.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

DarkCloud · November 17, 2000, 20:48

quote:

No one here is really against this generals idea.

Ha, well I agree with you Ultra that this is a bad idea, but I have posted this many times; as have you,

At worst, if you implement it then it should work like Fantastic World's random events.

UltraSonix · November 18, 2000, 08:58

Yep. It should at best provide units with a bonus for a turn or two and that's it. There should be no units manifested in the actual game.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

Dom Pedro II · November 18, 2000, 14:44

Ultra and DC, I was against it too. I did say that if it helped the AI civs fight, it would be ok for them, but if it doesnt then it shouldn't be. The only thing that might make the AI smarter is pre-planned campaigns.

But like I said, it would be pretty lousy for the human player. What's the point of playing if you won't do the conquering yourself?? It doesn't make sense. Not to mention the fact that AI generals will execute their campaigns about as well as AI civs do....

Moment to think about that...

Do we really want them in charge of our armies?

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

Dom Pedro II.... aka Hannibal3

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

Maccabee2 · November 21, 2000, 21:13

I must agree with the gentleman who said he likes the prospect of the ability to name armies. I would especially like this if we can stack units, at least 2, so that ranged units can cooperate with first-line sluggers.
So what if Activision used the idea first. Civ as a concept has been passed down from one game designer to the next, and Sid Meier did it best. Activomit stole ideas from Sid, so "all is fair in love and war."

Deathwalker · November 22, 2000, 05:29

I've always supported this idea and think it would be of great benifit to the game.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow