Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Armies would need a supply route mechanic to balance, otherwise it'll lead to "who build the first big army wins"

Civ games will never have supply lines because the games are made for filthy casuals

[Puzzlemaker]

Supply lines in a Civ game I feel would add a really cool addition to the combat, which can sometime be lacking in terms of strategy.

[Ultimuh]

Armies would need a supply route mechanic to balance, otherwise it'll lead to "who build the first big army wins"

Civ games will never have supply lines because the games are made for filthy casuals

You should be careful of throwing the word "casual" around like that.
Some people's mothers occasionally play games, they could be classified as "casual gamers".
And calling some people's mothers "filthy", is often considered a great offense.

[MarcAFK]

Filthy casual you say?
I've been playing the same game of Civilization II for almost 10 years. This is the result.

[Niveras]

Armies would need a supply route mechanic to balance, otherwise it'll lead to "who build the first big army wins"

That's not really true, it wasn't even true back with Civ4's SOD; or, if it is true, it's always been true (outnumber your opponent). There are always opportunities to play tactically, and exploiting tactics can still allow a smaller army to defeat a larger one. It's not like I gung-ho and throw units at the enemy without considering whether they'll even win. I don't know about you, but of course I'm going to prefer attacking only with a very high chance of victory - and generally, I only use units on the following turn or when I undeestimated how much ranged strength the AI will focus on what unit.

You hardly need to simulate supply chains to curtail the strength of armies.

Supply lines in a Civ game I feel would add a really cool addition to the combat, which can sometime be lacking in terms of strategy.

If any game tries, it would have to take care not to make it a micromanagement hellhole, since that is one of the biggest beefs again 1UPT to begin with: pushing units around hexes just to get them in the right position. I guess a trade-caravan type unit could be used: you create an army, create a supply unit, and through a trade route interface set the caravan to supply the army which, though it supplies every turn, can be raided via cavalry attacks or units on the route (though I would argue you're adding a non-obvious additional cost to armies beyond their unit composition).

Anyway, it's possible, but it would have to be examined and implemented properly. In most 4X the supply train is simply abstracted out into a currency-per-turn cost.

[Loud Whispers]

You should be careful of throwing the word "casual" around like that.
Some people's mothers occasionally play games, they could be classified as "casual gamers".
And calling some people's mothers "filthy", is often considered a great offense.

Filthy casual mothers with their filthy casual games for filthy casual facebucks. Everyone casual, everyone filthy - everyone into the trash we go.

[Puzzlemaker]

Armies would need a supply route mechanic to balance, otherwise it'll lead to "who build the first big army wins"

That's not really true, it wasn't even true back with Civ4's SOD; or, if it is true, it's always been true (outnumber your opponent). There are always opportunities to play tactically, and exploiting tactics can still allow a smaller army to defeat a larger one. It's not like I gung-ho and throw units at the enemy without considering whether they'll even win. I don't know about you, but of course I'm going to prefer attacking only with a very high chance of victory - and generally, I only use units on the following turn or when I undeestimated how much ranged strength the AI will focus on what unit.

You hardly need to simulate supply chains to curtail the strength of armies.

Supply lines in a Civ game I feel would add a really cool addition to the combat, which can sometime be lacking in terms of strategy.

If any game tries, it would have to take care not to make it a micromanagement hellhole, since that is one of the biggest beefs again 1UPT to begin with: pushing units around hexes just to get them in the right position. I guess a trade-caravan type unit could be used: you create an army, create a supply unit, and through a trade route interface set the caravan to supply the army which, though it supplies every turn, can be raided via cavalry attacks or units on the route (though I would argue you're adding a non-obvious additional cost to armies beyond their unit composition).

Anyway, it's possible, but it would have to be examined and implemented properly. In most 4X the supply train is simply abstracted out into a currency-per-turn cost.

Yeah, it would have to be a simplified version of it.  I was thinking a unit that heals everyone on the same tile/tiles next to it as long as it has a workable path back to a friendly city without traveling through or next to an enemy unit.  Something like that would be cool.

[Greenbane]

You should be careful of throwing the word "casual" around like that.
Some people's mothers occasionally play games, they could be classified as "casual gamers".
And calling some people's mothers "filthy", is often considered a great offense.

Filthy casual mothers with their filthy casual games for filthy casual facebucks. Everyone casual, everyone filthy - everyone into the trash we go.

If you ham-fistedly throw Civilization into the casual bag, you might as well throw everything short of Paradox games, flight simulators and hardcore wargames. And in fact you'd be inadvertently working for the agents of casualness in their relentless invasion of the gaming market. So I'd be more careful if I were you.

[TripJack]

Civ games will never have supply lines because the games are made for filthy casuals

hah, even being the filthy elitist that i am i have to disagree with this

the filthy casuals are too busy with mobile and console games to care about any PC turn-based strategy game, and while yes there are certainly many TBS games with greater depth than Civilization there are also many with less...

[Loud Whispers]

And in fact you'd be inadvertently working for the agents of casualness in their relentless invasion of the gaming market. So I'd be more casual if I were you.

Ftfy

[Delta Foxtrot]

I believe the term is to Troll.

Keep on trucking LW

[Fikes]

I think it is odd how much people dislike the one unit per tile mechanic. Personally I think it is one of the better features of Civ 5. It leads to much more difficult tactical decisions than the previous games where it was mostly, "I am going to move every unit onto this one hill."

The way artillery and archers are handled in 5 is so much more interesting than the previous games.

[Greenbane]

I think it is odd how much people dislike the one unit per tile mechanic. Personally I think it is one of the better features of Civ 5. It leads to much more difficult tactical decisions than the previous games where it was mostly, "I am going to move every unit onto this one hill."

The way artillery and archers are handled in 5 is so much more interesting than the previous games.

I agree, and hope that, as I said earlier, CivBE brings enough improvements to the AI's handling of it.

As for unit stacking, the Call to Power games handled it best, imposing a unit limit per tile, and having them move and fight as armies, with a certain (modest) degree of synergy between the components. Arguably better unit management than any of the 'true' Civs. Doomstacking was a simple, brutish compromise devised for the AI's sake: I'm sure 1UPT (and other limits) was considered in the past, but nobody wanted to brave the challenge of adjusting the AI for it.

[Neonivek]

The issue with the way Civ 5 did it, is that in the end it just made battles one huge slog to deal with... Favoring long drawn out battles

[Rakonas]

On the one hand, it's pretty silly that a gigantic hex of the world can only have one type of military unit on it. On the other hand it's nice that putting a city in a mountain pass actually makes it really defensible until the later game. Ultimately they both work fine.