02-08-2001 13:10									#1
	Conducting war not that easy in Civ-3 Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

There was one fundamental problem in older Civ-versions, when it came how effectively the AI-civs could conduct war against the human player, alternatively how they could respond to massive military build-ups prior to fullscale HP-conducted invasions:

The problem consisted in that the AI was restricted to only conduct war by sending military units against you.

Since the human player, traditionally in civ-games, always had the tactical advantage in moving around combat-units, and also an strategical advantage when it came to raw production-capacity, he often could respond to AI war-declarations with a yawn, alternatively quietly build enormous end-game armies, while the AI-civs often where partly too dumb, but just as often; simply too backward in terms of city-developments & production-capacity, to ever be able to respond against in a effective manner.

According to the released info about the Civ-3 development, several pivotal changes have however already been implemented (and more to follow, I hope) that together definitely makes HP war-conducting, much more of a risk-calculating challenge.

The ultimate prize would be if Firaxis manages to make wars in Civ-3 much more about "a means to an end" (= risk-estimated time-limited shortcuts to achieve better civil advantages; both economical, political & in terms of increased production-strength) rather then just a self-feeding and increasingly more risk-free self-perpetuating military goal in itself.

Anyway, below is the under-the-hood confirmed changes listed that I am refeering too:

• In Civ-2 you produced & supported combat-units by harvesting shields, which always where self-sufficiently available within your own city-areas. In Civ-3 you must support your combat-units by spending money, which only partially can be "harvested" within your borders. An increasingly bigger share must however also be obtained by establishing multiple trade-agreements with the foreign AI-civs. This means that you figuratively speaking, must place at least one of your balls in the hands of the AI-civs, in order to optain enough money to support your military might - especially in end-games. If you want to make the game even harder and more challenging, you can easily choose to downtweak all the terrain-improvement trade-outputs in the Rules.txt files, making army support-costs even more dependent on peaceful trade-relations with at least 1-2 AI-civs.
  
  
• In Civ-2 replacing trade-routes (= embargoing) was far too strenuous to even consider for the HP, and if the AI eventually did it; it only meant that your wealth perhaps didnt grow that much anymore. Big deal.
  In Civ-3 it seems that disrupting trade-agreements, both is much easier and have more immediate consequences - especially if the AI-civs start to establish trade embargo-pacts against you. Effective trade-embargos means that massive HP military support-costs now can be thwarted more easily.
  
  This can be counteracted by converting to nationalism and choosing war-economy, and/or establish & nuture ally-treatys in advance. But, perhaps only for so long. Your "trusty" ally starts to recognize his pivotal role here; perhaps he wants to "sweeten the deal" in order to continue the treaty. Conquered new city-areas, of course, give you access to new trade-tiles (which finances a continued war), but that alone only gives you some stop-gap money, considering all the over new design-tweaks thats now seems to effect "art of war". I also dont think the AI will idle on huge dust-collecting city-fortunes anymore, as it did in Civ-2. Not if they tweak the AI in Civ-3 a little better in this respect. I hope they do - at least on the harder game-levels.
  
  (As you can see: Above tweaks alone makes the journey on the warpath, a somewhat more delicate process then it ever was in Civ-2. Especially for multiplayers. And theres more to come...)
  
  
• In Civ-2, all units depended on one and the same generic resource only: the shields - it was uniformly available more or less anywhere and everywhere on the map.
  In Civ-3, every unit has its resource prerequisites. Each unit is tied to one or more special resources, so you're available forces will be dictated by your own resource supply.
  
  In short; the human player is now much more dependent on good relations with (at least some) of the AI-civs, which make investments in peace- and alliance-treatys much more needed and essential priority. In the older civ-versions you could more or less choose to play in "splendid isolation" and, if you where strong enough, just arrogantly ignore the fact that if most AI-civs hated you. Not so in Civ-3, it seems.

Last edited by Ralf on 02-08-2001 at 13:20

	02-08-2001 14:32									#2
	Tired of ads?

Well, all of those are good points about the enanchments they've made to war in civ3. My only qualms -
- Will the computer know how to take advantage of these things?
- Will the computer actually know how to launch a full scale war against you?
- Why no stacked combat ala ctp1/2? They have pseudo stacking in civ3, where units move together, but don't actually fight together - which is, really, a bit stupid

	02-08-2001 15:37									#3
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin - Will the computer know how to take advantage of these things? - Will the computer actually know how to launch a full scale war against you?

It all comes down to the quality of the AI, something I believe is vital to Civ 3:s success.

	03-08-2001 00:06									#4
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin - Why no stacked combat ala ctp1/2? They have pseudo stacking in civ3, where units move together, but don't actually fight together - which is, really, a bit stupid

Individual units within an army doesnt attack and defend "to the death". Instead each attack-, or defence-unit step down then their damage-bar goes red, and his undamaged shoulder-buddy steps up in order to continue the attack/defence-duties.
Also, dedicated defence-units doesnt carry out attacks as long as there are more appropriate attack-units still available. Likewise; attack-units doesnt join-in to defend, as long as there are more dedicated defend-units still available. Most probably this process can be executed fast and automatically without player-interference.

So, in a sequential matter, an Civ-3 army really fight as a whole.

	03-08-2001 00:19									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

what seems "sucky" to me is if u dont have any bronze or iron in the early game.

is this possible?

and i think the resource system is an awesome thing, as it modifys war so well.

if the chinese are getting snippy, stop selling them oil.

NO TANKS FOR YOU.

	03-08-2001 00:33									#6
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ralf,

hey welcome back!

quote: An increasingly bigger share must however also be obtained by establishing multiple trade-agreements with the foreign AI-civs. This means that you figuratively speaking, must place at least one of your balls in the hands of the AI-civs, in order to optain enough money to support your military might - especially in end-games. If you want to make the game even harder and more challenging, you can easily choose to downtweak all the terrain-improvement trade-outputs in the Rules.txt files, making army support-costs even more dependent on peaceful trade-relations with at least 1-2 AI-civs.

right now this is unconfirmed...most of the information tells of linking trade grids together, but commerce income from trade routes hasn't been discussed yet, why i do agree with you that trade routes most likely will generate commerce income firaxis hasn't confirmed this and the amount of commerce income each trade route generates hasn't been confirmed

quote: In Civ-3 it seems that disrupting trade-agreements, both is much easier and have more immediate consequences - especially if the AI-civs start to establish trade embargo-pacts against you. Effective trade-embargos means that massive HP military support-costs now can be thwarted more easily.

agreed, but i do think that this can (will?) be a double edged sword...where the hp will cut off an AIs trade by forming embargos against an ai and if it still contains the "build as many units as possible" routine then the ai will wreck it's already weak economy

quote: In Civ-3, every unit has its resource prerequisites. Each unit is tied to one or more special resources, so you're available forces will be dictated by your own resource supply.

again this is true, except it seems that obtaining the resources needed to fuel a war machine will be fairly easy...so that in general a civ won't be isolated from a vital resource completely...however interdiction of transport systems could isolate big part of a civ from the resources they need to contribute to the war effort...bombers destroying links between cities could prove to be quite valauable

there are also two things you left out

*the effects of nationality on conquest
*the rumored effects that war has on culture

the effects of war on culture was in the gamespy preview i think...but from what they said (jeff briggs i think) a war would lower culture for all civs on that continant

so it sounds like war will have harsher effects in civ3 than it did in civ2, it also sounds like it will take better planning to build and maintain a war machine...but this could end up making it easier for the hp instead of making it harder, if the ai can't cope with the changes

	03-08-2001 00:38									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I've never played Ctp/CtpII but I do understand how their stacking army system works. I happen to think the Civ3 system is much better. The Civ3 system won't enable you to stack a bunch of weak units in order to beat a well advanced, modern unit. That just isn't realistic. I don't care how many phalanxes there are, they shouldn't be able to beat an armor.

I do have a question, though, about the Civ3 system. Lets say you have two tanks (3 move) and two marines (1 move) stacked together. What would be the movement rate of the army?

I'm going to go with what Willie stated. It all falls down on the shoulders of the AI for us to have this kind of challenge in war from your (AI) opponents. I do believe, though, that the AI will be competent enough to put up a fairly good fight.

	03-08-2001 01:28									#8
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by TechWins I do have a question, though, about the Civ3 system. Lets say you have two tanks (3 move) and two marines (1 move) stacked together. What would be the movement rate of the army?

I'm assuming the slowest one. However to compensate for this, hopefully, Firaxis will include a truck unit or combat transport to compensate for this and truly allow for Blitzkrieg tactics

	03-08-2001 05:25									#9
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV I'm assuming the slowest one. However to compensate for this, hopefully, Firaxis will include a truck unit or combat transport to compensate for this and truly allow for Blitzkrieg tactics

Wouldn't that be a Mech Infantry unit?

The German "blitzkrieg" tactics deployed in early WWII required that a whole combat division be mobile - a German panzer division relied as much upon trucks (to carry the infantry and haul the artillery) and radios (to keep fast-moving units coordinated) as it did on tanks.

The howitzer/armor/mech infantry stack would seem to be the optimal combination of attack, defense and movement (albeit with a movement allowance of 2) in an "army-stack" environment.

	03-08-2001 07:19									#10
	Suffering from ads?

Yes stacking will change the game. And yes, enough bare handed men have been known to beat a tank. No more defending cities with a couple of units. As long as the ai is agressive, stacks of twelve will be able to easily take out any two units. And once it's a stack, even the AI can handle attack.

As to the point that war will be harder.


So what if they change it to gold instead of shield. (actually that should make it easier)
There will still be trade to build an economy on. Look at what markus and others have done with civ II with just trade. Heck I generate tons of money without foreign trade. It's not hard. If it's too hard to generate money, no game balance. Experts will have no problem. (just like now)

Resources. Yes you may be limited in one resource or other, but a massive strike of slightly weaker units will allow you to easily take it from the AI. They can't make it so restrictive that you can't build any military or there will be no game balance at all.

MP will be a totally different in these respects.

So I'm don't think we've seen the end of the WAR strat.
Just like any game. If you need it, go take it. While I still hold out hope that the ai will be better, I doubt it will ever be superior.




RAH

	03-08-2001 07:59									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

rah

quote: Yes stacking will change the game. And yes, enough bare handed men have been known to beat a tank. No more defending cities with a couple of units. As long as the ai is agressive, stacks of twelve will be able to easily take out any two units. And once it's a stack, even the AI can handle attack.

you are right here...the only thing is unless the ai is in nationalism it will still be limited by the 1 stack per 4 cities rule...hopefully the ai will attack with its stack instead of leave in back at the capital

stacked combat will make things simpler in a way, almost more like civ1 because you in one battle ten you could kill ten units

but as for the good aspects of stacked combat...in smac there are many times when i used a very small force to stop a very large force, i would set up a kill zone, (a square that took 2 movement points to move into it) build a road that lead up to it then i'd use maybe three rovers to kill fourty units over five turns...the ai would pull up with big stacks of units then my rovers would attack, weakening the stack (i usually had a technological advantage) till the collateral damage would destroy the entire stack...even with my tech advantage (and usually a morale advantage too) the AIs superior numbers should have allowed it an advantage but because there wasn't stacked combat and putting a large group on the same square (what the ai always did) was bad, a player could always defeat a much larger force

with stacked combat the ai would have been able to breakthrough my defenses...so i think that this might actually put the ai's production advantages to work...so stacked combat will be a plus for the ai

units supported by gold will probably be bad for the ai...as will resources

so the ai which has been great at building and maintaing huge armies will have problems doing that to previous games, while at the same time focusing its production advantages on the battlefield will actually be something it might be able to do now unlike previous games

	03-08-2001 18:01									#12
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Agreed except for

"units supported by gold will probably be bad for the ai...as will resources"

You're probably right with resources, but you never know. An AI civ has always been good trading techs with other AI civs. Heck later in the game, one civ gets a tech and they all have it in a turn or two. So I assume they'll do the same with resources. And while the AI has never been adept at city placement, once there are enough AI cities on the board, there will be a high probability that every type of resource will be available to one of them. (unless the human player spends all his time cherry picking those resources) I expect resources to be only a problem for the AI early in the game.

But supported by gold shouldn't hamper the AI. The AI in civII never had problems generating large treasuries. Which was good since it was easy to make them give it to you.

And I'm sure at the hardest levels, the AI will not be as constrained as the human players regarding stacks. (If CivII is any example, i.e planes that never need to be refueled or land etc.)

RAH

	03-08-2001 18:04									#13
	Support Apolyton

I always had the feeling AI tends to cheat with techs. It's easy to make an AI beat humans, if you let it cheat. But I want a strong AI without cheating, a fair game for all.

	03-08-2001 18:32									#14
	Support Apolyton

I'd also like that, BUT there's no way the AI will be that strong.

The reduced build/food boxes for the AI never bothered me (I consider those appropriate handicaps) . But the suspension of other rules did. We'll see. I sure they'll have some cheats.

RAH

	03-08-2001 18:37									#15
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If you made an AI as smart as a human, it would be no problem . I didn't like the AI growth cheats in CtP, where his cities were twice larger than yours, easily.

	03-08-2001 19:18									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

That didn't bother me either, but since there was that crappy city limit stuff, I'd take their cities and disband mine.
Theirs were always much better, excluding my first two cities.
I they ever do that in the CIV series, I'll stop playing.

RAH

	03-08-2001 19:22									#17
	Increase the size of your Attachments

No, we know you won't stop playing Civ. All in all, you're Ming .

	03-08-2001 19:58									#18
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by TechWins I've never played Ctp/CtpII but I do understand how their stacking army system works. I happen to think the Civ3 system is much better. The Civ3 system won't enable you to stack a bunch of weak units in order to beat a well advanced, modern unit. That just isn't realistic. I don't care how many phalanxes there are, they shouldn't be able to beat an armor.

A gang of skinny dudes decide to mug Arnie for his Rolex. Do they:

a) tackle him one at a time as a tag team, figuring they'll wear him down and the fifteenth will get the final punch in?

or

b) Jump him all at once from all sides and smear him into the pavement?

Since the dawn of history armies have been outflanking, countermarching, surrounding and enveloping their enemies. But I guess we're all English gentlemen in Civ 3 and will continue to queue up for our 'turn'.

	03-08-2001 22:29									#19
	Put an end to popups!

Rah

i have found that although the ai usually has a fair amount of money in its treasury that it is not very good at managing its economy...i fear that the extra strain of having to pay for units will hurt the ai...also i think trade from commerce will be less per trade route compared to some of the trade routes people set up in civ2

i really hope the ai doesn't have to cheat as much as it did in civ2...on king i hope it doesn't cheat at all, i think the best place to tweak the ai is when it has to play by the same rules as humans, and if like mentioned in another thread they give indepth ai scripts then maybe somebody will be able to make a fairly challenging AI

so does anyone here have an opinion on great leaders and how they will effect the game?

as far as i know

*great leaders have a chance of appearing everytime your unit wins in combat
*great leaders can form stacks
*great leaders give your stack a combat bonus

do they do anything else?

what is the impact of this?

(btw will firaxis keep the multiple levels of morale like in SMAC?)

Last edited by korn469 on 03-08-2001 at 22:44

	03-08-2001 23:23									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by korn469 Rah i have found that although the ai usually has a fair amount of money in its treasury that it is not very good at managing its economy...i fear that the extra strain of having to pay for units will hurt the ai...also i think trade from commerce will be less per trade route compared to some of the trade routes people set up in civ2

You answered your own question. If the AI has a fair amount of money in it's treasury and paying for units is automatically deducted, the AI will just have a little less money to manage poorly. So I don't see it having any effect on the size of their armies.

Even if the trade from commerce is only 33% of what it is in CIV II, anyone with half a brain (excluding the AI) shouldn't have any problem maintaining a large military force. AND imperialism usually generates more money than it costs in games like this. Big Fat AI's are just a treasure chest waiting to be opened.


RAH

	08-08-2001 22:11									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well I think the changes are good, as war making in advanced societies is not productive- so it shouldn't be in Civ. I'm sure you will still be able to bloodlust, (which of course is fun) but the restrictions sound realistic.

Those who point out that this is no advantage to the AI are correct. The only advantage to the AI will be if they make it smarter.

On second thought, if they can stop you from moving and attacking with 200 separate units, and capturing and bribiing 20 cities in one uninterupted turn, while the AI does nothing but watch its own ruin, that would be HUGE.

	08-08-2001 22:54									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Korn-

There will be multiple levels of units. There are at least three levels (regular, veteran and elite). It is only possible for an elite unit who wins a battle to become a great leader. As far as the specifics of stacking go, I am not sure that we have that much information.

War may also be more difficult depending on the restrictions they impose on different gov't types. I hope that there's a little more flexibility with democracy, or that you can at least have units within your own borders without penalties.

I think borders will play a large role in waging war since you won't be able to just appear next to a civ's city, you'll have to cross thier territory and perhaps others' to get there.

Everyone is for improved AI that doesn't cheat. Cheating (by anyone) is annoying.

	09-08-2001 07:08									#23
	Put an end to popups!

i think grumbold has a point