Caesar IV with some taste of RTS would be great?!?!?!

[Brandmon]

Y doesnt the developers add some RTS into the game?
For example:
1. Caesar requests your help in the war against the Greeks!
Objective:Cupture the city of Cotinthin 36 months
2. After 19 months you send 4 Legions to capture the city ( dont forget the siege wepons)
3. U see the army march out of the city ( it would be cool)
4. 3 Months passed and a message arrives!
Do you want to control the army in the seige of the city or leave it to your generals?
5. U control the battle like in R:TW

Result: OIf it would be the first seige u did u would be very exited

A good idea for Caesar IV is it not

Oh and one more thing, will Caesar IV have Muliplayer gameplay?

[Cassiopeia]

I'm going to vent a little bit here.... (not about you, Brandmon, just in general).

It seems that everytime a new CITY BUILDING game is announced, along come all these people who say "Gee, wouldn't it be great if it had more RTS?" Then they go on about how it could be like Rome: Total War, or this or that or the other game du jour.

Here's where my rant comes.... If you want a war game, go buy a war game, and let those of us who want to, sit here peacefully, quietly, and without bloodshed, and build our little cities. We have few enough citybuilders, as it is. Please don't try to make them into something they're not.

[prof786]

hey no fighting. all are welcome. besides its a good idea which i don't know tm would take up. i would rather have more tactics and battle formations.

[Brandmon]

Well first of all its only a suggestion not make violence in the game (anyway R:TW does not have such big violence and bloodshed as it has no blood its +12 because it has some bad insults)
Second im not forcing TM to make the suggestion, here is the good place to say them!
And lastly third no one knows how the game will be!
So thet you were saying in the third paragraph may count to you, who says that TM will make Caesar IV a peaceful game or a war game?

[Karamboy]

I see no reason why that is a no no in a city builder. I love city builders, but sometimes i want to destroy things....if i could do both those things in the same game....that would be wicked!

However its just too hard for most developers to make a great city builder and war game at the same time because it takes a lot of work on both ends. While it is possible for them to do it, the game wouldnt come out for a much longer time, assuming they made the war portion a fully feartured type war game (like total war).

Some day developers will be able to make an awesome city builder AND an awesome war game in one...hopefully.

[wodinoneeye]

Originally Posted by Cassiopeia

I'm going to vent a little bit here.... (not about you, Brandmon, just in general).

It seems that everytime a new CITY BUILDING game is announced, along come all these people who say "Gee, wouldn't it be great if it had more RTS?" Then they go on about how it could be like Rome: Total War, or this or that or the other game du jour.

Here's where my rant comes.... If you want a war game, go buy a war game, and let those of us who want to, sit here peacefully, quietly, and without bloodshed, and build our little cities. We have few enough citybuilders, as it is. Please don't try to make them into something they're not.

So throw out Pharaoh and all the other city builder games that had a battlefield mode....

How many 'pure' city builders are left -- the total, minus the ones with battlefield mode ???

Can we throw out the world level too because that subtracts from the players concentration on 'city building' ???

[Amris]

There are tons of war games. Personally, I don't want to have to wait another year for the game to come out because they had to make two games in one.

If you're in the mood for destruction, play a war game. If you're in the mood for city building, play a builder.

I don't mind them adding some in there, but there are well away enough that focus on war (if you want war and city building both, try Stronghold) that my city builder doesn't need to be delayed in production to appease that already well-catered-to demographic.

Now, if they can do it without extending the time frame, and if they can make it so that I can play without it, GREAT, I'm all for it, in that case!

[NilsS]

For what it's worth, I agree with Cassiopeia and Amris. If you want to see a well done RTS war game, download the demo for Rome Total War-Barbarian Invasion. It has a 3d environment, good collision avoidance and people kill and are killed in a business like manner. It would be a great disappointment for Caesar IV to become a mediocre city building game combined with a mediocre war game ( like H.O.K. Settlers V ). It is a significant accomplishment to have a successful game in even just one category.

[Azeem]

If the combat is like Caesar II, then I'd be satisfied. But absolutely NONE of that AoE-like junk where you just crank out mindless drones and throw them at whatever is in their path.

[Cassiopeia]

Originally Posted by Phil Walker

First we must consider what a RTS is. Real-Time STRATEGY. So, what's wrong with implementing it in ANY game?! Now, I see some may be thinking other things here. Just because it's RTS DOES NOT mean it HAS to be a "War" game. All CB games DO have SOME elements of RTS within them contrary to what's being said. Ever have floods and/or fires and/or earthquakes?! THOSE are RTS occurances, so to leave those out makes a game boring indeed.

This I understand. But, from what I'm seeing, when most people say "Give me more RTS", they're not saying "Give me more earthquakes", they're saying "Give me more war." I don't have a problem with building the occasional military unit in order to defend my city. (Although there's a lot to be said for the time-honored tradition of bribery. ) And I don't mind having to invade someone else every now and then. I just don't want to have to be a war-gamer or a military micromanager in order to build a decent city.

I don't think it's too much to ask, in a CITY BUILDING game, that any military requirements should focus on the logistics and resource allocation elements of building an army, rather than being able to manipulate every single soldier in a legion during an off-map battle. Armies have to be fed and paid, after all, or they get grumpy.

[Thucydides]

Originally Posted by Cassiopeia

I don't think it's too much to ask, in a CITY BUILDING game, that any military requirements should focus on the logistics and resource allocation elements of building an army, rather than being able to manipulate every single soldier in a legion during an off-map battle. Armies have to be fed and paid, after all, or they get grumpy.

I think this is an excellent point, and something very abstracted in most games. It is probably fair to say that in most games the balance between military and non-military expenditure is out-of-kilter. During peace time most countries spend between 2-6% of their GDP (economic income if you like) on defence. During wartime this can climb to between 25-50% of GDP, but this is difficult to sustain beyond several years. If you take a game like AoE my sense is that military expenditure is about 60-70% of economic income. This is fair enough in a game emphasing combat as it does, afterall, need to be fun!

Importantly in most games the only military cost involved in the cost of purchasing or upgrading the unit. There are no ongoing costs of running the military. This is very unrealistic. Most defence forces devote only between 20-40% of their budget to "capital costs", that is new kit. The balance is normally consumed by personnel costs (wages, superannuation, etc - typically 30-60%), operational costs (fuel, food, etc - typically 20-40%), and building (camps, housing, training facilities - typically 5-10%).

It makes sense to me that in a game emphasising city building, such as caesar IV, that the cost of running a military should better reflect reality. The annual defence budget should be in realistic balance to non-military expenditure. Lets say 20-30% for the military. Within this military budget you have to house, feed, train, equip and pay for your troops. I expect the game result would be that the player becomes very attached to a smaller number of military units!

And if the military needs to be rapidly expanded in times of crisis then the player should be able to do what the Romans frequently did (especially in the later period of the Empire) and that is pay for mercenaries to assist in their defence.

[Azeem]

Soldiers in CotN took up quite a lot of resources. They needed social services, goods, food, and housing so maintaining a lot of them could be a real strain on the economy. I'd like to see this in Caesar IV as well so military units aren't just little wooden toy soldiers to throw at the enemy.

On a side note regarding military costs in the pre-industrial world, in the Song Dynasty period of imperial China, maintaining the military (to defend against the Jurchens and the Mongols) cost 2/3 of the empire's annual revenue.

Keeping a big and highly advanced military should NOT be cheap.

[Thucydides]

[quote=Azeem]
On a side note regarding military costs in the pre-industrial world, in the Song Dynasty period of imperial China, maintaining the military (to defend against the Jurchens and the Mongols) cost 2/3 of the empire's annual revenue.
[quote]

Interesting. I was quoting military budgets in the modern age. Spending 66% of your economy on military is ultimately ruinous and sustainable for months rather than years today. Either the relative economics of imperial China are vastly different to today or the 2/3 figure is wrong. Of course it could be 2/3 of Government income ("the Empire's annual revenue), which is a different matter.

[Cassiopeia]

Originally Posted by Azeem

Soldiers in CotN took up quite a lot of resources. They needed social services, goods, food, and housing so maintaining a lot of them could be a real strain on the economy. I'd like to see this in Caesar IV as well so military units aren't just little wooden toy soldiers to throw at the enemy.

I played around with this a little bit in CotN. In effect, you're creating an entire city just to support your military efforts.

It could make a very effective scenario... As governor you're tasked with establishing a military presence in the wilds of Germania. You have to build the entire infrastructure to make the fort self-sustaining, and all you've got to work with are raw materials, your troops, and a few natives. Your whole economy is based on keeping your military happy.

This is what has happened with any number of military bases here in the US. They were established in rural areas where a lot of land was readily available and cheap. They became the largest civilian employer in the area, and the entire economy revolves around providing the base and its personnel with goods and services. It's one of the reasons there's such an outcry when the Pentagon proposes base closures. Without the military, some of these towns would shrivel up and die.

[Azeem]

Originally Posted by Thucydides

Interesting. I was quoting military budgets in the modern age. Spending 66% of your economy on military is ultimately ruinous and sustainable for months rather than years today. Either the relative economics of imperial China are vastly different to today or the 2/3 figure is wrong. Of course it could be 2/3 of Government income ("the Empire's annual revenue), which is a different matter.

The economics of that time period is vastly different from today. Keep in mind that I specifically said pre-industrial . Revenue was not always monetary, but also took the form of grain taxes from the rural populace (which gets distributed to those employed in the government). Also, I just double checked my sources - it wasn't 2/3; It was 3/4 . The army consisted of 1.25 million soldiers.

[sitearm]

I think Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom offers the nicest balance of city-building style miltary control to date.

When invaded, you can control up to four types of troops, including positioning and aggressiveness of attack, to deal with the enemy. You can build walls and manned towers to create killing grounds where your troops attract the enemy.

To get the troops you have to invest financial, material, and workforce resources to build up and sustain the forts, including making or buying weapons. You can choose from options of infantry (shock), archers (range), cavalry (speed), and catapult (major shock and range).

Without going overboard into a Total War game or something, I have had several pitched battles where I've had to replay saved games several times to beat the invaders in a satisfactory manner, trying major changes in tactics and choice of where to fight vs. defend vs. attack. You fight on the same map where your city is.

I found this a satisfactory mix of city-building with military play, where economic impact of sustaining troops is included in the city budget and workforce economy, and there is some sophistication to the control of the battle.

More detailed examples at this thread: Military Play Comparison.

[MarkDuffy]

I would also like more RTS military in C4. But we must understand that we also have CBing as the most important part, with food & economics second.

Now we have the new & required TiltedVision in the mix along with the limits of computing power.

I loved the idea of prestige & educated workers in COTN. I hope this will be included in C4. Commanders for your military.

As far as which game did soldiers best, that would be Zeus (hands down), followed by COTN. Ships actually had crews & they came from your population.

Soliders had needs & desires. You had to keep them happy. You didn't just slap down a fort & then they would come outta thin air & be outside the reason for CBing in the first place. Hell, soldiers in forts didn't even eat!

I'm not even sure Egypt & Rome even used forts. They had fortified citys, yes. They had forts in the frontiers (kinda). Forts were an old-school gimmick in CBing that needs to totally disappear.

[Cassiopeia]

Originally Posted by MarkDuffy

As far as which game did soldiers best, that would be Zeus (hands down),

I agree. In all the others, except CotN, once the units were built, they didn't cost you anything unless you lost some in battle. With Zeus, you had to make an economic decision. Do you pull all your workers off their jobs and lose a year or more in production and income while still paying wages (usually at a higher rate), or do you dig into your treasury and pay the invaders to go away? And, yes, you could build enough elite housing to fill all your military slots, but at what cost in land and goods?

[sitearm]

In Emperor you choose to keep forts staffed with workers or not. If the forts are staffed, then new troops are trained to replace troops lost in battle.

Typically I would unstaff the forts unless invaded, or if I had temporary overpopulation of workers. Same with staffing and unstaffing the walls.

Originally Posted by Cassiopeia

I agree. In all the others, except CotN, once the units were built, they didn't cost you anything unless you lost some in battle. With Zeus, you had to make an economic decision. Do you pull all your workers off their jobs and lose a year or more in production and income while still paying wages (usually at a higher rate), or do you dig into your treasury and pay the invaders to go away? And, yes, you could build enough elite housing to fill all your military slots, but at what cost in land and goods?

[vic_4]

Originally Posted by Azeem

The economics of that time period is vastly different from today. Keep in mind that I specifically said pre-industrial . Revenue was not always monetary, but also took the form of grain taxes from the rural populace (which gets distributed to those employed in the government). Also, I just double checked my sources - it wasn't 2/3; It was 3/4 . The army consisted of 1.25 million soldiers.

In Caesar times in Rome, one of the biggest problems was paying troops: that was particularely true during civil war. Another peculiarity of roman army was that veterans were assigned pieces of lands on dismissal, usually in the farthest provinces. These militaries married local girls favouring diffusion of roman civilization.

P.s. in a CB game regarding Rome I surely would expect a much intenser military activity than in an Egyptian game.