Additions Necessary to WAR Systems

[azhreii]

Longer version: Shorter version written in response sorry for the length of this one, bad habbit.


The first line of defense for America is not only the navy but the Airforce, however these two must be combined in a modern military. Civilization has done a decent yet inaccurate model of this in the simulations.

First off, Super Aircraft carriers with a support group of 100s of aircraft need to be designed into the game, or at least with maybe 50 to 100 aircraft capacity capability. Make navy much more advantagous like in reality the US has proven.

Second, navy travels in battle groups therefore task groups should be formed by navys so as to make movement easier and combined force defense (a new layer of strategy in combinations) against submarines etc. (similar to naval armies)

Third, larger ships should be developed by doing additions to the original ship; such as a Class 3 battleship or heavy class battleship has more defense and offense rating but slower speed etc. Same follows for destroys, AEGIS cruisers, Carriers, and submarines.

Fourth, keep the additions simple and not confused by classes of ships like a class 3 cruiser or a class 2 etc. ... though leave the option open later (too much addition too fast kills a idea, Sim City 4 mistake).

Fifth, personally bombing runs airplane by airplane kills me; historically bombing runs happen with 1000s of planes bombing a city or area, thus perhaps a model where planes can band in massive groups to destroy larger groups of squares (much preferred over the over kill method on one square) should be considered.

Sixth, aircraft can refuel in air with Refueling tankers; most of the Allies and major world powers have these. Consider using these in combination with airplanes to expand the flying range of the aircraft.

Seventh, since when does a bomber unit not have defensive aircraft for a screen? Aircraft should be grouped into battle groups same as armys and navys; thus making a effect of both defensive and offensive power ... groups to defend as well as groups for offensives.
Though a volatile addition, leave a option for the player to leave this out possibly? I dunno I'm not a programmer so its up to the fellows in that department; I'm just a player

Eighth, submarines need to have stealth modes to hide from all ships; even some submarines in the US military can go totally undetected by our own military ... just a idea from a movie "Hunt for the Red October".

Ninth, the military historically built many of the wonders of the world and even kept up the roads for a civilization. ENGINEERS are not exclusive to civilians, even in ancient times the military built naval yards and many fortifications (though with slaves aid at times).
Proposal is to have military units capable of building roads and more importantly fortifications such as bases, trenches and walls. Permanent structures NOT temporary.

Tenth, sight of vessels ... notably aircraft carriers is not limited to a few hundred miles ever. Consider the use of recon. planes on aircraft carriers and city bases with the ability to expand viewing distance ... adds a new level to both defense and offensive approaches to a enemy.
Naturally though recon. over a opposing country is illegal and a act of war w/o permission though.

Eleventh, where are the wolf packs of WWII, submarines have huge potential for havok in groups and rarely do subs work alone. You scratch your back and I'll scratch yours.

Twelfth, military intelligence friend, though its a oxymoron the use of such is invalueable. Bribery was a favorite of mine in the old game, however, now why can't a nation simply try to bribe a Coup in another nation? Maybe cause a civil war? ....

Evil I know but would make money much more a issue and loyalty a bother too. Just a thought, perhaps too deep of one though considering simplicity is the mother of invention.

Thirteenth, since when have armies been limited to only a certain range of spreading out. In WWI and WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc. armies spread over sometimes many hundreds of miles to attack a broad area or just to hold a line against a enemy. Defensive postures of long lines trying to fight is true war, and tactics (ex. battle of the bluge). Hence armies on groud should be able to stretch over broad areas in different types of formations. (specialties like tanks in Blitzkrieg or infantry in pillage mode etc.).

More than just armies, spread out navy picket lines against subs or in detection mode or just spreading out a fleet to protect the aircraft carriers and battleships.

Again formations would add a layer of strategy to both ground sea and air protection.

Fourteenth, missiles such as the ones used now prove the infinite uses of such on everything from battleships to subs to destroyers. Expansion of the ability to carrier missiles like artillery adds more necessity to defend, and even more interesting are Patriot missiles for defense from these.
Cruise missiles are limited when so few times can a person get them into the proper position. Broaden them by allowing tanks to travel with these and use them etc.

These are my Fourteen Points, for those of you who are history buffs I hope you like the irony, I try. In my own opinion the use of a few of these would likely enhance the military fighting experience, which is my personal favorite part of the game. Though I know many others like the city building or dipolomacy aspect; which is fine to expand as long as you give me a guided tour in writing.
To be expecting the additions is to be a moron, I just think these suggestions might help give the creative team working on the game some ideas, though no lack of those seem to be around.
Thanks for your time if you read this long thing, I know if you did then you probably spent more time reading than I did writing.
And congrats to the team at Infogrames, Firaxis and Sid Meier's on a well designed game, and I'm sure that job is hard so good luck with the work; don't go nuts too soon, good bless.
For the rest of us gamers, ROUND ONE FIGHT.
ten hours later, game over you lose.

[pedrojedi]

I could not read all that, so I'll just try a single answer, and see what comes from that: "yes".

Maybe some other time

[azhreii]

write things in points so that can just read parts .... I'm a lazy person too, like just reading the basic idea of stuff .... speed reading is king on internet

[pedrojedi]

I don't like you, double-post

[azhreii]

- supercarrier: hold 50 to 100+ aircraft

- task forces or armys: for fleets of ships

- army (groups of units on ground) stretch out over a distance to form lines of mutual defense

- submarine wolf packs (armys)

- multiple spaced army (groups of units spread over 2 by 2 area etc.)

- unit improvements, such as ship additions (extra cannons, ranged rifles, armor etc.) : similar to upgrades but requires production pts.

- grouping of aircraft for coordinated air strikes with many aircraft (immediate results on damage on screen like diplomacy screen)

- formations for grouped units (specialty options: pillage etc. so that move across field of battle, razing / destorying everything)

- diverse bombs: incindiary, chemical, explosive, demolition etc.

- military engineers: form trenches, bases, walls etc. (special forms of trenchs (ex. Maginot Line WWII))

- stealth modes for subs. : send out on plotted missions, then disappear on map until make contact with command

Thats about what stated, just long winded, and sorry about that too. Type too fast for own good sometimes.

Just my thoughts thats all. (try to avoid being politician much)

[Wazell]

Ninth, the military historically built many of the wonders of the world and even kept up the roads for a civilization. ENGINEERS are not exclusive to civilians, even in ancient times the military built naval yards and many fortifications (though with slaves aid at times).

- military engineers: form trenches, bases, walls etc. (special forms of trenchs (ex. Maginot Line WWII))

Well ok, that's correct, military has always been constructive this way. And destructive too. But in game-wise implementing this requires too much adjusting to actually work. In its current form, building fortresses takes multiple turns for worker. Now, if military could do that faster, there were no point in having workers ever. If slower, then why not leave it to workers? Or, you can make a new unit, military engineers, to do the job. But unless you get a bunch of new constructions to build, that's just unnecessary worker duplication.

Of course, you can test many of these option in the editor by yourself. There are some other good ideas in those posts, too, but you should think how these would best fit into a Civilization game.

[Dida]

Ok, your ideas are interesting.
But keep in mind that this game isn't all about war. So, those ideas are nothing more than interesting.

[Jaybe]

azhreii, Civ3 is a Strategic level game. Your suggestions apply to a game on the operational/tactical level.

[WarpStorm]

Who's to say that a carrier in the game isn't actually a carrier group with many more planes than the handful of planes you see.

Like Jaybe said, Civ is a strategic level game. Most of the stuff you are suggesting are really in the noise for the strategic level. Those are appropriate for a WAR game, which Civ is not.

[peterfharris]

Those ideas would, no doubt, be very good for a war game but I really would not like to see them implemented in Civ3. I like the grand strategy and city building aspects of Civ3 and I want war kept relatively simple and straightforward. In other words I should like the war kept much as it is now so I do not have to spend inordinate amounts of time on military micromanagement.

Anyway, as things stand, the units are intended to broadly represent things such as carrier battle groups, armies, fights of bombers etc etc.

[Tattila the Hun]

Yay for Sea Bees!

(CB=US Navy construction batallion)

[azhreii]

Military engineers are a use though, considering yes they should be able to make fortresses faster, and new constructions could be possible, perhaps naval bases on land outside of cities, airports, and different strengths of bases, such as reinforced bases that are stronger ......... very little compares to military bases like Norad etc.

On the military micromanagement, on the contrary, few bases for masses of troops so that NUKES can be nullified some; lots of troops in one place that are nuke proof adds to bombing strategy en mass not individually

That massing thus ends the so called "micromanagement" and the whole army concept of multiple spaced groupings of units to form fronts is opposite of micromanagement.

Tactically and strategically naval armies add to the game, a macromanagement of ships and airplanes in groupings.

Armified groupings of units ends the one by one mvt. of single units into more realistic massive armies.

Further to say that a single unit doesn't represent a whole armada of troops is dumb but our present day involves millions of troops at times; hundreds of thousands grouped. Verses maybe 10 000 to 100 000 in ancient times; is that accurate with the unit updates then? No population loss from war what?

The idea is threats vrs. bigger threats and what can your purse protect. VERY realistic, capitalism vrs. communism; which wins? You can't protect all your fronts from a all out invasion if its coordinated.

Armies are the ONLY way to end micromanagement of single units and to streamline invasions with sometimes 100s of units in the end game. But the option to have single units around for harassment etc. still exists.

Lastly that a game about history would be less war and more construction is sheer lunacy. Yes humans construct things but half the fun is the complexe destruction and plea bargains caused by massive military alignments.

Most would agree I think that man has used far more effort to protect what is his and to kill others than to construct a peaceful technologically kind society.

Not until the recent time period of ONE superpower has more effort be put into construction than destruction.

Efforts to streamline a massive coordinated military in the game is necessary if for no other reason than historical accuracy .... besides in the game there are no castles (that is a true abombination to history) and military bases are built by military engineers, besides I'd like a AREA 51 in the game AWAY from the city. MORE TO NUKE

The goal is macromanagement not micromanagement; sorry if I sound insulting but my idea is taken wrongly, larger groups in one attack run = less point and clicking and more thought in what units group into a attack run. COMBINED forces = superiority in equality.

Thus Realism is what I seek, its all in the details and we are only so far .... whats the fun without a few suicide bombers too, kamakazi airplanes and troops in SUVs.

Just suggesting, no offense meant to anyone.

Thanks for the rebuttals poor communication on my part, pardon me.

[Master Zen]

Panzer General warfare system.... Nuff said.

It's simple enough for anyone even those without experience in wargames and it would add a HUGE dimention to the combat system, IMO the weakest link in the Civ series.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by azhreii

Not until the recent time period of ONE superpower has more effort be put into construction than destruction.

so they're actually building Baghdad...hmm... I've been fooled all this time...

Please, how much does the US spend on defense?? the destructive nature of civilization is here to stay whether there's one or ten superpowers.

[azhreii]

if you want a debate on the Baghdad issue I'd be happy to take that up in another thread, and if you think Baghdad is destructive you have been poorly fooled into the US Propoganda department aka Homeland Security ... and that we won't rebuild them, then you just haven't kept up with history

[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.

[peterfharris]

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.

[peterfharris]

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