Jump to content



Photo

Winning battles with no units: a new way to work it


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Bucko

Bucko

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 07:24 AM

First of all I like the overall way the fighting works.  It is simple, quick, and doesn't require rolling dice.  There is still the element of chance - with different levels of units and a random pick of units for use in your battle hand.

I don't think it makes sense however that you can win a battle even though you lost the actual battle. How can a military academy miles away from a battle win the battle after your army has been decimated? I can understand the extra scoring when attacking a city (even if you conquer the army in the city the citizens of the city might still defend themselves - and it takes a certain amount of strength to overcome and subdue the city itself).

When two armies are fighting in the open field it seems to me that the only way to decide the victory is to see who is left standing.

Having a military leader and military academies should boost strength in battle not strength after battle. 

Here are some ideas for possible home rules (and changes the producer of the game can think about)

What if each military academy produced a certain type of veteran units - units that cannot be trumped according to the rules.  Each player has a maximum of three cities and can build only one academy per city - you can get three types of academies: Army, artillery, and cavalry.  When you build an academy you choose which units are made veterans.  Or you build the selected academy based on availability (only a certain number of each type of academy is available)

The military commander can make obsolete one of the veterans of the opposition in each battle (or allow you to choose which types of units are made veterans). 

This makes logical sense - because you have academies to teach a certain type of warfare, and generals who understand enough about fighting that they might use one technique in one battle - that either makes veterans obselete or improves the ability of your own units - and another technique in another battle.

Along with this, the philosophy technology should allow you to pick which great person you want - when you are studying philosophy, you would logically choose what type of philosophies you want to study - philosophy of war, philosophy of work, philosophy of trade... etc.  Without this addition the philosophy card is a waste of time - if your strategy is military or production and you randomly get the rich old king with culture it is a waste of a city space and technology.  Philosophy goes from a stupid investment to something that makes a lot of sense.

I'd love to hear about what others think of this proposed change to the fighting set-up.



#2 Bucko

Bucko

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 08:22 AM

Does anybody know how can I send my recommendation to the game maker (along with a few other ideas for saving them money and improving the board set-up)?

Thanks.



#3 axmeister

axmeister

    Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 11 November 2011 - 07:09 AM

I completly agree with your idea for military, I can't see how someone can win a battle if they have no units? I only see sense in having combat bonuses if there is a point where both sides are left with units. I also like your idea for acadamies leading to untrumpable units as this would make the numbers matter more in a battle than the "rock, paper scissors" style of fighting.

Though I disagree with your idea on the Philosophy tech, Great people can be traded and that's bonus enough, though I believe there should be a culture card where you can steal a great person of your choosing from another player (in real life cities with a high quality of culture attract famous people etc.).



#4 Bucko

Bucko

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 November 2011 - 11:51 AM

Re: philosophy... if you are going to spend one whole research advance on philosophy you still need to spend three resources to get a famous person.  A nuke doesn't cost that much.  The price is high and the benefit of the research is very little.  When the people are picked at random you are risking getting someone that has nothing to do with the strategy you are playing.

 

Another thing I don't like... democracy is weak and wimpy as a government.  Building an aqueduct has more benefit than changing the government (and you are not forced into a pacificist position.

 

Apart from these few irritants I love the game!

cheers!



#5 Bucko

Bucko

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 November 2011 - 01:52 AM

Here is a final thought on this question.  I think now that creating veteran units is too complicated.  Instead, the barracks and military academy can give +2 and +4 for military production only (increase hammers in cities).  And your great person - the general - doesn't sit on a city square but with your units.  He is taken into battle with you.  If your units are all lost he is captured.  If even one of your units survives he gets away with them.  He functions according to the standard rules for battles (as well as the cities and city walls).

I'd love to see how these rules play out in the game... any takers?



#6 Esperology

Esperology

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 09:55 PM

Okay, the currect rules are to make the game simpler. If you want more complex rules, create a mod... and I am interested in seeing this mod or hearing more ideas for it.

 

If we are going to start going so far as saying that when all units in a battle are lost, bonus matters not and the battle is lost... well, let's also up the realism and track which units are in which army.  Next, since units are now in specific armies, army figures are only lost to show the reduced number of units in the army. Thus, an army with only 3 units, would have 4 figures... but an army with 4 units would have 2 figures... unless a tech gives +1 the army size, then only 1 figure.

Well, if that army is defeated, but weren't all killed, then they are routed and retreat one square from the victorious army, in the direction aimed more towards the player's capital.
ie: Egpyt's city is 7 tiles by 3 tiles away and loses the battle, the surviving figures would move to 6 tiles by 3 tiles away.

 

As for Philosophy... I disagree. In real life, when you gain a philosopher, they choose what they philosophise about.
So, to make it more realistic, no philosophers (Great People) should be obtainable until Philosophy has been researched.

 

Here is how I cope with the current rules... because of the training from the great leaders and the military acadamy (and any other sources), my troops may have died, but they crippled the moral of the opposition, or injured their units enough that even though my units were lost, the enemy was routed and fled.
Thus, during the 'year' (think of the game this is based on), my troops are able to resupply the army at that location and prepare it to further the campaign for the next 'year'.

Perhaps someone will come up with a good set of mod rules for this game, bringing it closer to realism or the video game it is based on.
If not, maybe I'll try my hand at it and actually release the results this time.



#7 Bucko

Bucko

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 08:23 PM

Esperology, great idea about linking the units to army figures - it makes everything a lot more complicated though. 

If you work the army figures out in reality it might be something like the ability to organize the troops and deploy them (a general and their commanders).  It fits then that whenever you lose a battle all your army figures are lost.  Your soldiers flee home or to the nearest assembled army figures. 

To be honest I haven't played my own suggestion yet.  I'm still getting to know the game.  With work and family obligations I don't have time to try the new stuff.  A thought though: the more you play it the less able you will be to think of new ideas.  I am hoping to get my new ideas out now and then once I have a better handle on the game to modify it. 

Here is a place where I am working out ideas for a military expansion:  boardgamegeek.com/thread/725504/building-a-military-expansion-version-for-the-game

I don't think Civ -boardgame needs a military expansion.  I think it would be great for them to offer one though.  I have already contacted them and they are not accepting unsolicited game ideas.  I think they could learn a lot from the game Settlers of Catan.  They've got expansions coming out their ears - and each expansion makes money for them.

My comments about philosophy are based on cost.  It is too expensive to use.  Sure the philosophers choose their path in life... but if you have a military society, the philosophers will most likely be military minded - hence your ability to choose the great person you are wanting.  You'll need to limit the military commander to one - perhaps with the explanation that if you ever did get two military commanders in one army they'd kill each other.

 



#8 Bucko

Bucko

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 08:28 PM

Bucko said:

Here is a final thought on this question.  I think now that creating veteran units is too complicated.  Instead, the barracks and military academy can give +2 and +4 for military production only (increase hammers in cities).  And your great person - the general - doesn't sit on a city square but with your units.  He is taken into battle with you.  If your units are all lost he is captured.  If even one of your units survives he gets away with them.  He functions according to the standard rules for battles (as well as the cities and city walls).

I'd love to see how these rules play out in the game... any takers?

Any takers?






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS