10-12-2003 07:03									#61
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

it is if it is to take one square

it is not if it is along a whole front as part of a war

I am visualizing a game where it does not take 60-70 units to take a square

whether in stacked combat (as in CTP) or in Civ2 style one after another

Jon miller

	10-12-2003 07:11									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Actually, if you are attacking a whole front, then the micromanagement process takes even longer to set up and execute.

End result - even more tedium...

	10-12-2003 07:11									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Fosse That would mean having two sub optimal AIs

Why do we need an AI? Any human player is 1000 times better than an AI. What we need is an efficient way to promote and play human v human games.

	10-12-2003 07:14									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian Actually, if you are attacking a whole front, then the micromanagement process takes even longer to set up and execute. End result - even more tedium...

no

because that is fun

having a stack attack another is only 1 choice by me, to do only one meaningful thing

attacking along an entire front has a number of meaningful things done by me

as well as a number of meaningful results

so it is better in many ways

the problem with tactitcal miny games, or watching your stack fiught

is that a lot more time (and effort) gets taken for only one meaningful result

Jon Miller

	10-12-2003 07:14									#65
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO PLAY SINGLE PLAYER AND SOME PEOPLE DONT HAVE THE TIME TO PLAY MULTIPLAYER!

and some people don't have DSL!

You can't just maek games for online people!

More people play sp than mp!

	10-12-2003 07:16									#66
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

a lto of that has to do with the fact that civ has never been made really mp freindly

I would play more civ3 if it was more mp freindly

Jon Miller

	10-12-2003 07:22									#67
	Tired of ads?

I don't disagree that Civ should have a mp component, just that the focus should be as it always has, sp... sp has made it a million-seller, sp will continue to make it a million-seller.

	10-12-2003 07:23									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I use to play a lot of SP

I now only rarely play SP

and I have a lot of games that call for me when I do

Jon miller

	10-12-2003 07:48									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Why do we need an AI? Any human player is 1000 times better than an AI. What we need is an efficient way to promote and play human v human games.

You're going to be on your own fighting for THIS standpoint.


The others are right... Civ began and will continue to be a single player game. Multiplayer is fun for those who can manage... but those people number even fewer than those who spend time on Apolyton forums I'd bet.


Besides... don't you want viable AI civs in your MP games?

	10-12-2003 08:15									#70
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Fosse Because you can't have your cake and eat it too. I'd rather see one system (coughstackedcough) done well, than two done in such a matter as to accomadate each other. Theoretically, it's possible But realistically we're talking about a software company with limitd funds. That would mean having two sub optimal AIs, two rule sets that are both crippled to be compatible with each other, and an overwhelming sense that too much time was spent on the non-feature of a choice between the two. If Firaxis had all the money in the world, then I'd agree with you 100% Shogun... but they don't, so I don't

I don't quite agree with this.

Civ3 has a workable combat system. I am suggesting a subroutine be developed for optional usage that will be some form of stacked combat. My point is that you could easily program (it's just decision tree stuff) which combat system utilized to resolve combat. The Civ3 one is already in place, so time, money and brainpower would be needed to develop the stacked combat model.

If you are against the expenditure of funds for this aim - that's your opinion and that's fine. It's actually very achievable. Not two rule sets, one set -- two pathways with one already done.

	10-12-2003 08:23									#71
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller it is if it is to take one square it is not if it is along a whole front as part of a war I am visualizing a game where it does not take 60-70 units to take a square whether in stacked combat (as in CTP) or in Civ2 style one after another Jon miller

I do agree with your point about "overstacking" -- regardless of the combat system used. There should be some limit to the number of troops occupying, or passing through, a particular square.

In all the Avalon Hill, SPI and S&T war games, there was always a stacking limit. (Please no one tell me that Civ is not a wargame -- we are talking about military units, it's the same concept)

NATO continually studied Soviet military strategy and watched their military exercises very carefully in the 70's and 80's. The Soviet doctrine at the time called for an advance of 60 kilometers PER DAY, once hostilities started, through West Germany and into France. NATO and the US military concluded that it wasn't possible due to space restrictions for transporting so many vehicles on too few roads. Additionally, the supply was major limiting factor as well. It would have been one major traffic jam in the Fulda Gap.

So yes, there needs to be some restrictions on stacking.

	10-12-2003 08:41									#72
	Put an end to popups!

I love Avalon Hill board games, SPI is also ok

Jon Miller

	10-12-2003 08:55									#73
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller I love Avalon Hill board games, SPI is also ok Jon Miller

The computer really doomed those lines didn't they? There was something about spreading out the map, moving around the units, etc.

I used to setup massive Squad Leader games...I don't have that kind of time anymore...

	10-12-2003 08:57									#74
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I am still buying Advanced Squad Leader

only have about half the modules

don't really have anyone here to play with, there is a club in the area though I should go to and two tourneys nearby (I will go to the one in december)

Jon Miller
(have all of the Squad Leader Core Modules though)

	10-12-2003 08:58									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I still maintain that there is nothing better than Advanced Civ, or Settlers, or Diplomacy, or Republic of Rome for multiplayer (I am trying to get Third Reich to work as well)
\
KJpm

	11-12-2003 00:45									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller attacking along an entire front has a number of meaningful things done by me as well as a number of meaningful results so it is better in many ways Jon Miller

Related to long fronts...
One of the biggest mistakes in civ3 was when they hamstrung the ZOC rules. It would not have been so bad, except the AI will not hold to no trespassing agreements, and if you had a long front, it was irritating to the point of wanting to punch the screen, to get them to stop. Every turn was a request to the AIs to stop trespassing, just to watch them reenter your lands on the next turn.

I do think that Firaxis got rid of ZOC for the bulk of the game, (as well as the restriction on moving on enemy roads/rails) to help the AI. It was a cheap programming ploy.

	11-12-2003 02:48									#77
	Remove this text

Well civ2 style i dont think would suit, neither would CtP style.. maby something from Civ2, Civ3 and CtP together.. in CtP stacks have too much advantage, there should be some minor advantages ofc. to make it realistic but i would like to see some smaller stacks being useful, that would add some options to military manouvers.
Neither the civ2 style where all units in the defending square are destroyed if one defender dies (except in fortress or city).

So something similar to Civ3 but maby with a 'mass attack' ability and more unit weaknes and strenghts.. pikes vs knights.. knights vs bowmen & infantry.. etc,

And some kind of supply would be nice, if it is possible to do without ruining much of the gameplay.. maby if you have more than say like 8 units in a square you need a supply unit in the square or they'll starve...

	11-12-2003 02:52									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I personally would like an enchanced Civ3 with negatives for over stacking

like it would be bad to have more than one unit in a square (and one army would count as one unit)

and also having armies enhanced, particularly for the late game

Jon Miller

	11-12-2003 05:05									#79
	Support Apolyton

quote: Actually, if you are attacking a whole front, then the micromanagement process takes even longer to set up and execute. End result - even more tedium...

However, in this situation the amount of work involved is equal for stacked and unstacked combat.

I'm surprised at how many people are saying that stacked combat was one of the few good things about CtP(2) - it was the thing that turned me off most.

	11-12-2003 05:06									#80
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud I agree Jon Miller, a "tactical minigame" addition would be tantamount ot civ-suicide. CTP's tactical minigames were annoying little resource-dump wastes taht took away from the general game experience. CIV IS NOT A GAME FOCUSED UPON INDIVIDUAL HEROES OR TROOP COLUMNS... civ is a game focused upon the marshalling of large amounts of troops (like a wargame... a classic wargame) and the management of large amounts of resources. Civ Is macro while Heroes of Might and Magic focuses upon the war units... If civ were to focus on war mini-games then the game would lose its focus and its flavor... war would become the focus instead of management. - Tactical units should instead gain powers relative to their basic composition... I would suggest three levels of consideration to this debate: A: No stackable Units (HARDLINE STANCE) B: Only stack units of the same type ("Fortification Stance" After CivII's fortification tile-type) C: Stack Combined Forces (The 'REALISM' STANCE... whereby modern wars are fought with many levels of units) -- Basically, I would definitely support B... but C would be somewhat troublesome (I would still support it, but only if it could be implemented correctly.) As a possible method of implementation, I would like to suggest the following scenario: Combined forces have, as all civ Units do: Firepower Health Defense Attack However, certain units, when augmented with each other, such as Infantry and Armor, gain bonuses relative to their basic composition in the force since they historically work well combined.... Forces that do not historically go together *IE cavalry and tanks- will suffer penalties from the difficulties issuing forth from combined forces tactical difficulties.

I would support option B, but only if you can turn it off (for scenarios especially, and if you want ships to stay individual) and as long as it didn't lead to different results than if you did it individually.

	11-12-2003 07:11									#81
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by skywalker However, in this situation the amount of work involved is equal for stacked and unstacked combat.

Unfortunately, the group movement command in civ3 was an all-or-nothing affair. You could only group the same type of unit, and you could not subdivide those units without a great deal of work.

In CTP2, grouping was not limited by type, and it was not an all-or-nothing command. The end result was...

...you guessed it, LESS TEDIUM

	11-12-2003 11:16									#82
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Civ2 style =

	11-12-2003 13:29									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian Unfortunately, the group movement command in civ3 was an all-or-nothing affair. You could only group the same type of unit, and you could not subdivide those units without a great deal of work. In CTP2, grouping was not limited by type, and it was not an all-or-nothing command. The end result was... ...you guessed it, LESS TEDIUM

and less fun

Jon Miller

	11-12-2003 13:58									#84
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller and less fun Jon Miller

How can it be less fun when it's easier to move your units. Why is it that just because a feature was in CtP2, you automatically don't like it, even though a mouse could see that it beats what Civ3 had in it's place.

Can't you distinguish between not liking a game, and not liking certain features??

Asmodean

	11-12-2003 14:47									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

no

that feature in particular was one of the things I didn't like in CTP

why can't you beleive me?

I like full front wars

stacked combat, in general (and in CTP specifically), does not allow this

Civ3 is also all about stacks, I don't like that either (overall it is a better game though)

I disliked the combat in CTP, combat in Civ3 is one of it's weaknesses

Jon Miller

	11-12-2003 14:49									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

two things make more fun

less tedium
and interesting choices

the least tedius game would be one where you made 5 choices and the game was over in 5 minutes

but I think that we can all agree that that is not fun

while stacked combat is good if you have stacks (like in Civ3)

what I am saying would be better, is to not have any stacks at or small numbers of them

Jon Miller

	11-12-2003 16:41									#87
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Jon: I understand that you do not like stacked combat. I don't agree with you, but I understand your position.

What I don't understand is why you are also against stacked movement. Why be against a feature that makes playing easier, and, IMO less tedious.

Wouldn't it be great to have a system where you could move units in and out of stacks, and move the stacks with a single click?

Asmodean

	11-12-2003 16:55									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Civ3 is also all about stacks, I don't like that either

quote: while stacked combat is good if you have stacks (like in Civ3)

You sure?

One thing Jon is right about is wars along a large line, this is more possible in civ2/3 because of the bias towards defenders, sit some on a mountain and theyll fight off alot of attackers. In CtP2 stacks, defenders "attack" and "defend" each round, so they need a complementry unit such as a flanker or ranged to attack for them because defenders obviously have a low attack rating on their own.

quote: the least tedius game would be one where you made 5 choices and the game was over in 5 minutes

How is that?

	11-12-2003 20:39									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller no that feature in particular was one of the things I didn't like in CTP why can't you beleive me? I like full front wars stacked combat, in general (and in CTP specifically), does not allow this Civ3 is also all about stacks, I don't like that either (overall it is a better game though) I disliked the combat in CTP, combat in Civ3 is one of it's weaknesses Jon Miller

That´s rubbish.

You can choose 3 units from a stack to attack one tile, 2 units from the same stack to attack another one - and then you still have 4 units to attack on a third place or to defend your starting position. Units with different abilities for attack/defend that is Or to choose to attack the same spot 2-3-4 even 9 times with the 9 units in a stack if you like that.

And you are allowed to have more than one stack attacking the same spot.

And even the AI would have several stacks side by side if you played the MedMod from WesW.

Ohhh man........... I:

	11-12-2003 20:47									#90
	Increase Your PM Length

All those who think stacked is the solution should take a look at the Panzer General Series (and especially the first one) which had excellent tactics and yet no stacks.

Nevertheless I say the combat system in civ series needs something refreshingly new.