Civ 6 Combat: What If It Used a Real-Time System Like in Total War?

The grand strategy of Sid Meier’s Civilization 6 is a meticulous dance of diplomacy, culture, and scientific advancement. Warfare, while a crucial component, is a high-level abstraction—a strategic game of chess played across continents. But what if it wasn’t? What if, when armies clashed on the hexagonal grid, the camera zoomed in, the turn-based abstraction dissolved, and players were thrust into the heart of a real-time battlefield, commanding thousands of troops in a visceral, tactical struggle for supremacy, much like in the Total War series? This question has been a recurring topic of discussion among strategy enthusiasts for years. Analysis on forums shows that such a change would be more than a mere mechanical tweak; it would fundamentally reshape the very soul of Civilization 6, for better and for worse.

This in-depth guide will explore the cascading effects of integrating a real-time, Total War-style combat system into Civilization 6. We will dissect the potential impacts on the strategic layer, the newfound tactical depth, the radical shift in game pacing, and the complete reimagining of unit and city interactions. This is not just a simple comparison; it is a deep dive into a hypothetical scenario that many players have dreamed of, analyzing both the tantalizing possibilities and the significant challenges such a monumental change would present.

The Strategic Layer vs. The Tactical Battlefield

The core appeal of Civilization 6 lies in its grand strategic layer. Players are the immortal leaders of a civilization, guiding their people from the Stone Age to the Information Era. Every decision, from founding a city to choosing a civic, has far-reaching consequences. The current combat system, with its “one unit per tile” rule and deterministic combat previews, is a direct extension of this strategic focus. It’s a system of calculated risks and long-term planning.

A shift to real-time combat would introduce a second, equally demanding layer to the game: the tactical battlefield. When two armies meet on the strategic map, the game would transition to a detailed, 3D environment where players would command their units in real-time. This would be a dramatic departure from the current system, where combat is resolved in a single, instantaneous click.

The Good:

Increased Tactical Depth: The most obvious benefit would be a massive increase in tactical depth. Instead of simply right-clicking on an enemy unit, players would be responsible for formations, flanking maneuvers, cavalry charges, and the use of terrain. A well-executed “hammer and anvil” tactic, where a line of infantry holds the enemy in place while cavalry smashes into their rear, could rout a technologically superior foe. This would be a welcome change for players who find the current combat system too simplistic.
More Engaging Warfare: Many professional gamers suggest that real-time battles would be far more engaging and immersive. The thrill of watching your legionaries clash with barbarian hordes, or your tanks roll across a modern battlefield, would be a powerful experience. Every battle would become a memorable event, a story in its own right, rather than just another transaction on the strategic map.
Greater Player Agency: In the current system, the outcome of a battle is largely predetermined by unit stats and positioning. While tactics play a role, there’s a sense that the dice are rolled before the first spear is thrown. Real-time combat would put far more control in the hands of the player. A skilled commander could overcome a numerical disadvantage through superior tactics, making victory feel more earned and rewarding.

The Bad:

Dilution of the Strategic Focus: The primary concern, according to the player community, is that a focus on real-time battles would dilute the grand strategic layer that is the hallmark of the Civilization series. Players would have to divide their attention between managing their empire and fighting individual battles. This could lead to a situation where the game feels like two separate experiences—a mediocre 4X game and a mediocre real-time strategy game—rather than a cohesive whole.
Pacing Issues: Civilization 6 is a game that can be played over days, weeks, or even months. A single turn can represent years or even decades of in-game time. Real-time battles, which can last for 10-20 minutes or more, would dramatically slow down the pace of the game. A war that might take a few turns in the current system could take hours to resolve in a real-time system. This would be a major turn-off for many players who enjoy the deliberate, methodical pace of the game.
The “Two Games in One” Problem: A common point of analysis on forums is the “two games in one” problem. To do justice to both the strategic and tactical layers, the development team would need to create two deep, complex, and engaging systems. This is an incredibly difficult task, and there’s a real risk that both layers would end up feeling underdeveloped.

Unit Control and Formations

In Civilization 6, a “unit” is an abstraction. A single warrior on the map represents a small band of fighters, while a tank represents a platoon or company. A real-time combat system would require a complete reimagining of what a unit is and how it is controlled.

The New Reality of Unit Management:

From Single Units to Armies: Instead of moving individual units around the map, players would likely command armies, which would be composed of multiple units. A popular strategy is to combine different unit types to create a balanced force. For example, an early-game army might consist of a few units of spearmen, a unit of archers, and a unit of scouts.
Formations and Frontlines: On the battlefield, players would be able to arrange their units in formations. A solid line of infantry could form a defensive frontline, while archers could be positioned behind them to rain down arrows on the enemy. The concept of a “frontline” would become a crucial tactical element, and the ability to maintain a cohesive battle line would be a key skill.
Morale and Fatigue: To add another layer of realism, units would have morale and fatigue. A unit that takes heavy casualties or is flanked by the enemy might “break” and flee the battlefield. Units that have been fighting for a long time would become fatigued, reducing their combat effectiveness. These mechanics would force players to think more carefully about how they use their troops and would make battles more dynamic and unpredictable.

The Pacing of Warfare

The introduction of real-time combat would have a profound impact on the pacing of warfare in Civilization 6. The current system, with its turn-based structure, allows for a deliberate and strategic approach to war. A real-time system would be far more frantic and demanding.

A Faster, More Furious Form of War:

The End of “One More Turn”: The “one more turn” addictiveness of Civilization is legendary. A real-time combat system would change this dynamic. Instead of clicking through turns, players would be engaged in intense, real-time battles. This could make the game more exciting for some, but it could also make it more stressful and less relaxing for others.
The Importance of APM: In a real-time system, “actions per minute” (APM) would become a factor. The ability to quickly and efficiently issue orders to your units would be a significant advantage. This would be a major departure from the current system, where the game is purely about strategic thinking and planning.
The “Auto-Resolve” Dilemma: To mitigate the pacing issues, an “auto-resolve” feature would be essential. This would allow players to automatically resolve minor battles without having to fight them in real-time. However, the implementation of this feature would be crucial. If the auto-resolve is too generous, players might be tempted to skip all but the most important battles, which would defeat the purpose of having a real-time combat system in the first place. If it’s too punishing, players will feel forced to fight every single battle, which would lead to the pacing issues mentioned above.

Sieges and City Combat

City combat is a major part of warfare in Civilization 6, and a real-time system would completely transform it. The current system, where units attack a city’s health bar, is often criticized for being a “slog,” especially in the late game.

A More Dynamic and Destructive Form of Siege Warfare:

From Health Bars to Street-to-Street Fighting: Instead of attacking a health bar, a real-time siege would involve your army physically assaulting the city’s defenses. You would see your soldiers scaling walls, breaking down gates, and fighting in the streets. This would be a far more visceral and immersive experience than the current system.
The Importance of Siege Equipment: Siege equipment, such as battering rams, siege towers, and catapults, would become essential tools for taking a city. These units would have specific roles on the battlefield, and their effective use would be crucial for a successful siege.
Destructible Environments: To add to the realism, city defenses and buildings could be destructible. A well-placed catapult shot could create a breach in a wall, creating a new entry point for your troops. This would make sieges more dynamic and would give players more tactical options.

Conclusion: A Dream Worth Dreaming?

The idea of a Civilization 6 with Total War-style combat is a tantalizing one. It’s a dream of a game that combines the deep, strategic gameplay of a 4X with the visceral, tactical combat of a real-time strategy game. The potential for a more engaging, immersive, and skill-based warfare system is undeniable. However, the challenges are significant. The risk of diluting the strategic layer, the potential for pacing issues, and the sheer difficulty of developing two deep and complex systems in one game are all major hurdles that would need to be overcome.

Ultimately, whether or not this would be a “better” game is a matter of personal preference. For those who crave more tactical depth and a more immersive warfare experience, a real-time combat system would be a dream come true. For those who enjoy the deliberate, strategic pace of the current game, it could be a nightmare. But one thing is certain: it’s a fascinating “what if” scenario to consider, and it speaks to the enduring appeal of both of these titans of the strategy genre. The community’s continued discussion on this topic shows a deep desire for innovation in a beloved franchise, and while a full-blown real-time combat system may never come to pass, it’s a conversation that pushes the boundaries of what we imagine a strategy game can be.