note: This is The Column, a part of Apolyton where anyone can write about whatever they want :) If you feel like writing, submit your article via the article submission page

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

#56 GAMERS JUST WANNA HAVE FUN Like an empire, Frank Johnson strikes back on behalf of the gaming public. #57 A BUBBA'S EYE VIEW: INTRODUCTION Roger Oepkes introduces a series of articles for the Column COLUMN ARCHIVE

The hovertanks rolled into Yang Mine. The two turn war had worked perfectly. My erstwhile allies the Hive were destroyed, and Chiron unified under a single throne. Another Transcendi 700 point military victory. The total time I had spend at war amounted to exactly 30 turns. I had brutally suppressed and conquered my foes. Yet victory had come cheaply, considering that I had conquered in excess of 50 bases. I considered the ease of my victory when I powered up Civilization 2 the same night.

Is war really this easy?

I somehow don't think so. I can understand knocking down cities, on chieftain or citizen. But on the hardest difficulty? In real life war is an expensive, difficult and ponderous affair. That is why bombings or missile attacks are often preferred. War is a logistical nightmare. That is often not taken into account for games. CTP has levels of alertness which is a step in the right direction. Civilisation wide support costs are levied.
However shouldn't these support costs be porportional to distances? I mean it cost Hitler quite a bit more to support his units near Moscow than it did to support his units near Berlin. The cost of supplying oil to units across 1000 miles of plain was astronomical. This taken into account in a game would effectively eliminate a tank rush and give weight to disrupting supply lines, or performing a scorched earth policy. How about devastating wars, in which manpower grows short? Shouldn't there be a limited pool of able men so that wars cannot last forever?

If civilization games are to become more like simulators, war is going to have to be more than moving units across a few terrain squares. Combat screens from CTP are the closest to a real strategy situation from the Big Three. The best idea I have seen was from Destiny generally a crap game, but it has an excellent 3D combat system, divisions of tanks and infantry are deployed and moved with proper LOS , so that cunning attacks on cities can be facilitated by the intelligent General. There does not have to be a frontal assault. This did wonders for my ego. Not only am I a great Leader, but an efficient General!

How about winter effects? I know a season and weather system would have to be introduced, but they would profoundly affect the timing of an attack. Should I wait until I have my full quota of tanks? Or should I attack before the monsoon season? I often ask the question, America has the best armed forces in the western world. Why doesn't it invade its neighbours? The reason is partially to do with the morality of the nations leaders, and its people.

Baby Killer costs are well represented in Civilization and Alpha Centauri. However I think that Democratic forms of Government should not be allowed to declare war at all. In Civ2 they were allowed to declare war 50% of the time. This feature was removed later games. The inability to declare war should be counterbalanced by Democracy being the best form of Government. Morality must also affect the actions of a Democratic civilisation. There should be three states of hostility. Sanctions, reprisals and total war. If an enemy faction performs enough atrocities, a Democracy must move through these three states. This would be a more realistic simulation modern day war.

I think that none of these ideas would over-complicate a game. But it would make it more realistic and much more satisfying.

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.