3 ms·

The changes sound to me like Civilization is evolving into a completely different game. A big part of the appeal of the original Civ was the simplified combat.

• andrewvc 17y ago
  I've been a huge fan of Civ, I started playing it with Civ I, but have never liked any of the combat models. The notion of an artillery unit attacking a city all by itself makes no sense, even with the notion of withdrawing. Units need to be grouped, and combat should be executed in multiple phases ( ranged weapons, then melee ). Additionally, if a single marine attacks a tile with 20 marines on it, the 20 marines should take it out with no losses 99.9% of the time. The one on one model makes no sense.
  • byrneseyeview 17y ago
    Stacked units should fight one at a time, so Thermopylae can still happen. It adds a lot of depth to the game--particularly at higher levels--when a single unit can can drastically slow down a large group of units, just by staying on defensible terrain in an isthmus.
• mynameishere 17y ago
  The biggest problem with Civ I and II was the combat system. (Not really because it was simple, but because it was broken in every way.) Modern armored units attacking Greek Phalanxes and losing? Modern riflemen being defeated by chariots? Routinely.
  • byrneseyeview 17y ago
    Civ II basically fixed that. But I'm not even sure it's possible to have a balanced game and a historically accurate game, unless you have some kind of "Zeitgeist" function that keeps one player from getting a big technology lead over another. If the game mechanics let you discover gunpowder in 0 AD, they turn the entire thing into a race to get good technology. Alternatively, they could make technologically advanced units prohibitively expensive if you're the only player with the technology, and very cheap when everyone has it.
    • argv_empty 17y ago
      In Civ4, at least, later units are significantly more expensive, regardless of who else has the same technology. If your production is high enough to field an army of riflemen (cost 110) and cannons (cost 100) against opponents using axemen (cost 35) and archers (cost 25), you'd still steamroll him even if you spent that production on swords, axes, and catapults.
      • byrneseyeview 17y ago
        Sure. The idea is that the first rifleman you build costs nearly as much as a wonder, if your opponents are using archers. That way, you can have a unit that pretty much demolishes anything, but you still have to use it strategically. As you field more of them, and your opponents develop similar technology, the cost goes down. So people with technology will field smaller, more effective armies; as the technology spreads, the armies get bigger but the individual units are comparatively less effective. This would make the game more balanced.
  • prodigal_erik 17y ago
    Or as Murphy's Rules pointed out, "an untrained peasant militia unit has a 1 in 33 chance of sinking a veteran battleship unit." http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/kovalic/Murphys/M19/M19.GIF http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/kovalic/Murphys/M19/M19.GI...