posted June 17, 1999 06:15            

This discussion continues where ver 1.1 ended.

I'll create a summary for Firaxis as soon as possible, and publish that summary in here.
If you think I've forgotten your idea(s) or I've misunderstood them, notify me.

This Thread is about Combat ! Not about the units, but about the way combats happens. The interface, the impact etc . etc.

Have fun !

posted June 17, 1999 16:00            

Civ2 missiles were greatly affected by the AEGIS flag. However, in SMAC a missile is a guaranteed kill. Even a reactor level 1 missile attacking a reactor 4, DEF 12, AAA unit will automatically kill it. This needs to be fixed.

posted June 17, 1999 17:05            

1. Limit the size of stacks. Perhaps no more than 5 units together? Stacks must combine before any unit has moved, i.e., they must be in the same square at the beginning of a turn, and not in enemy ZOC unless in a city.

2. Units move together, but attack individually, though perhaps they do get a combat modifier if the stack combines, say, inf/armor/artillery; additional bonus if there's air support. All, some, or none of the stacked units may attack. No slipping past ZOC with a partisan or spy for stacks--that would be silly. I suppose you could still do this with the individual units, but they would not be able to re-combine as a stack while in enemy ZOC, or after they had moved, and so would lose the stack bonus.

3. No more than, say, two or three units in a stack can defend. And it won't necessarily be the strongest units. Say two units defend individually against attackers. if they are both defeated (one way or another-see point 4) the stack "breaks."

4. Non-defeat combat resolution should be implemented. Perhaps vets (being smarter)have a chance to retreat after taking >50% damage. Green (non-vet) units may simply be smashed. Retreat should be a player option--maybe you're yellow and the attacker is red, and you like your chances. Or maybe you really need to hold that pass. If you decide to retreat, you choose where to go, as long as your unit has the MP to go there. The MPs used will be deducted from next turn's movement capability. If a unit cannot retreat because of limited movement, or because there is no square not covered by enemy ZOC, the unit must stand and fight until it wins or loses. Units may retreat into square held by friendly units, even if they are in enemy ZOC. (Note that the situation might change--a unit takes 50% damage, but has nowhere to retreat. Defender then defeats attacker 1. Attacker 2 initiates combat, but because your unit is below 50%, you immediately get the option to retreat. The elimination of Attacker 1 has opened up a square free of enemy ZOC, so this time you can retreat, and do so.) Attackers should also have the ability to break off combat when they hit 50% or less--perhaps even at, say, 75% or less for mobile units and air units, which can make quick getaways.

5. "Broken" stacks: Once the units in the stack that can defend have been defeated, the rest of the stack MUST retreat. If they cannot do so, they are destroyed. Retreating onto a transport is an option ("Dunkirk") if you have one nearby. The transport's movement capacity next turn is reduced by the number of MPs expended in the rescue.

So what do you think about that? Preserves the "ease of play" rationale for stacks, gives them an offensive benefit but does not give them an overwhelming attack advantage, and provides a way to take out these armies by surrounding them. Implementing a "retreat" option helps the defenders, and makes the attacker think twice about running deep into enemy territory--a clever player can deploy units to surround a stack or stacks, attack selectively with the best units available, and destroy powerful armies.

6. Units in the same square but not "stacked": Attacker chooses which unit to attack. For each unit in the square which is defeated (destroyed or retreats), there's a chance the rest of the units will scatter in disarray (i.e., retreat). Maybe it's 25% after the first unit defeated, 50% after 2, 85% after 3, 100% after 4.

posted June 17, 1999 21:07            

The choice to retreat should be out of your hands. Let the stack retreat or fight to the death on its own. Civ is not a tactical combat game.

If you can put multiple stacks on one square, a size five might work (though it seems too small to me). If you can't, then five is too small. Nine, like CTP, seems reasonable.

posted June 18, 1999 17:46            

Stacked combat
stack size of ~6.
Each round of combat is one potential 'hit'. Who attacks who is randomized.
Ranged units are only ranged against their age and lower. All modern units are ranged against older units.

The other way to do it is give a bonus for having infantry / mobile / ranged units together.

For bombards and ranged combat. The number of rounds of bombard should be proportional to HP of the attacker, otherwise an artillery unit with 1 HP is just as effective as one with 20 HP, same goes for air units. Air units can only bombard.

posted June 18, 1999 18:45            

So up stack limit. However, the best thing to do might to be to have primary attacker + half #2 + 1/3 #3 + 1/4 #4 strengths added together... contining until you have run out of attackers. Then do something similar for the defenders... This would represent that while you can always draw support (for attacking or defending), sometimes that support is so ineffectual as to be non-existant (a pat on the back, a pack of smokes, whatever). And you can only focus your attack on a couple of defending elements, so it makes sense on both sides of the combat.

Collaterial damage (SMAC style) would then be limited proportionally to the amount of support that unit could provide to the defender.

Routing of defender or attacker could be interesting, but it would lengthen the game. you'd end up having those hunt and seek attacks that chased someone back to a city. No telling how much longer it could make a game though...

posted June 24, 1999 12:22            

I've suggested before-and this would work great with the SMAC workshop-the attack/defense values should be scrapped and replaced with the following: land/air/sea/space (or LASS for short). Both attack and defense would be based off of the appropriate terrain. FE, a phalanx would use it's air rating vs. a fighter (none or low) while the fighter would use it's land rating vs. the phalanx (low to middle for modern units, but still much higher than the phalanx. Also with more hp's and firepower). Reasons:

1) Combat in CIV/SMAC/CtP is on a strategic scale; although tactics are a part of the combat, you don't make those decisions (thankfully). Combat consists of charges, feints, counterattacks, etc., so the idea of attacker & defender on this grand scale is lessened unless the defender is in a fortification of some sort (which can be taken into account).

2)This is regarding SMAC unit construction mostly, but it appears it will be used in civ3. In SMAC combat is resolved by comparing the weapon strength(attacker) vs. the defender's armor. This is ridiculous; the defender's weaponry and the attacker's defenses aren't taken into account but I think anyone would agree that they should.

3)It would work very well with a modified workshop. The player could buy each attack level for each category when the appropriate technology is gained. FE,
Fighter(WWII era): land=low, air=high, sea=low, space=none
Dive bomber: land=medium, air=low/medium, sea=medium/high, space=none
Torpedo bomber: land=low, air=very low, sea=high, space=none
phalanx: land=low/medium, all others=none
musketeers: land=low/medium, all others=none
marines(20th cent): land=medium/high, air=low, sea=none, space=none
Each category would also be divided by their hit points, and the strengths of each would overlap. FE, Ancient units (1 hp) can have a a strength from 1-5 land(approximately). Gunpowder units (hp 2)would have STR's from about 4-7, modern(hp 3) 7-12, etc. The weapons, etc. for the graphics would change when the hp level is selected in the workshop (where the reactor is now).

posted June 24, 1999 10:00            

Ranged attack: The ability to hit units before they can hit back. Like archers and artillery. As seen in CTP. This encourages the use of combined arms. Done properly, range bonuses should disappear when facing more advanced units (for example, musketeers are a ranged weapon against pikemen but not riflemen).

posted June 25, 1999 07:26         

The computer opponents should understand this type of warfare where appropriate.
For example, I would enjoy seeing an enemy come set up base on a mountain next to one of my cities, or near it if connected by roads or rail. They could set up a fortified base and use it to mount a protracted campaign of attrition.

I know this has already been said, but military units should definitely not be able to take advantage of a spy's immunity to ZOC. This is time wasting and unrealistic.

posted June 25, 1999 07:35         

Air units, not just spies, should be able to pick and target city improvements, even before conquering a city.
This is the type of "smart" war waged by NATO in Yugoslavia. NATO air forces limited the vast majority of their attacks to infrastructure, or city improvements. This had devastatingly successful results.
Not only did it effect a diplomatic solution, but Yugoslavia's GDP has been reduced by 50% as a result of the loss in infrastructure!
Any game must be able to synthesise this type of warfare.

posted June 26, 1999 22:18            

1.Allied troops should be able to move into the same square as each other, as well as allied troops being able to enter allied cities. If the alliance is cancelled, they all go back their seperate ways, just like it is already. Awfully annoying that you can't help an ally defend one of its cities directly.

2.Addressing the "stack" ideas: The other units should add a defensive bonus to the stack. The best defender should add its full bonus, the second, half its defense, the third should add a fourth, etc. If this idea were used, you'd also need to be able to call a joint attack, using the same rules, and if this made stacks too powerful, you could reduce the second unit bonus to 1/4 or whatnot. Another way of handling this is only allowing a certain number of units of a type to participate in combat. For instance, using civ2 units, only 2 melee units could assist, and perhaps 3 missile units, and 1 or 2 air units. Otherwise, units should be killed one by one. It's a little ludicrous to say that just because the front line broke, all the units die.

posted June 27, 1999 10:51            

Im back from Officer Canidate Course. What a tough course! It's like Army Basic Training on super steroids. Thank god Im national gaurd and only go for two 2 week periods and weekends! Anyway I'm arround again and will need a day or so (probably the 28th of June - after I rest) to digest all the posts, and then I will get going again. Thank you cybershy for keeping it going!

------------------
Redleg

posted June 27, 1999 14:06            

Only the units engaged in the battle can be destroyed.

The 4 units would allow (for ortimum use) 1 infantry, 1 calvary type, and 1 ranged type. The 4th can be any, depending on the situation.

posted June 27, 1999 14:20            

In real combat defense and offense are very similiar ( terrain bonuses will still give and advantage to some defenders, so will fortifiying)

The defense mod is a % decrease in combat ability because of an enemy force having the initiative. Infantry would ahve a low Mod, ranged units would have a higher mod.

A phalanx might be 2 land 0 everything else,
artillery 2 land 6 sea 4 air 10 ranged.
an artillery that is attacked without some other defenders available would use it's land rating, witch is very low.

Ancient units cannot use ranged attacks agains more modern units.

posted June 27, 1999 15:19            

For your combat idea:
Why use ranged combat while in a stack? Is this something from CtP(haven't played)? Which units would used ranged combat & which regular? For bombarding against other domains the likelihood of 1 side killing the other should be small in all cases. There is a problem. Some attacks should almost never kill it's target (air/sea vs. land) while others should have a significant effect (air vs. sea; think Battle of Midway. Fleet not destroyed but carriers lost). One solution: Allow certain "special options" to be disabled when the unit is severely hurt, in the above case, the unit's ability to "carry air" would be lost.

Defense mod: Would it replace the % bonus given to units in certain terrain, or be in addition? Attacker initiative is definitely important to include (especially with my idea. Thanks!).

Ancient vs. more modern: What would older units attack/defend with? Their regular STR? How about using range grades, with a bonus to each RG the attacker/defender has? FE, arrows, muskets, [catapults], rifles, [cannons], machine guns, [artillery], heavy guns(tanks), missiles?

posted June 28, 1999 18:55            

Poise- will he or she give up on his troops when things dont look good or will he never give up.

Tactics- how he or she positions their troops on battlefield and how he sends them into battle.

speech- can he or she inspire their troops to great deeds which could affect morale maybe more.

loyalty- will he or she be ever loyal to u even in the bad times of your nation or when offered gold from your enemies.

These are just some basic ideas so more ideas are more than welcome. U could measure these by very bad, bad, average, good. very good. If u like my ideas on leaders or have opinons on governors possibly check out some more on the radical ideas 2.0 . Thanks

posted June 28, 1999 19:55         

Global rules of combat

Combat Techs

Then have period threads, looking special rules etc. A rough split could be:

Ancient combat (everything up to Roman Legion)

medieval combat (chivalry etc.)

Renaisance combat (Da Vinci period, English Civil War etc. early canon, musket and pike)

early modern combat (Napoleonic onwards)

modern combat (WWI onwards)

future combat (2050 onwards)

[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited June 28, 1999).]

posted June 28, 1999 19:58            

In that same UNITS thread there is a lot of talk about Command and Control (C2) I've added my thoughts on it, but if the argument gains momentum here I'll throw them into this thread too.

As something to combat though I know that for a strategy game Civ2 kind of ignores the various types of strategy considered the basic in military thought (atleast American).
Civ2 doesn't represent strategies of attrition, annihilation, or exhaustion to well. Not that I have really formulated any strong ideas on this but the fact that Civ basically becomes a fight for the cities (and the computer will overstack in cities instead of commiting strong forces to the field, not a good representation of Alexanders battles like Arbela) Conquest of cities doesn't really represent war in history. Granted cities and capitals have been the centers of gravity in many conflicts but in some capturing key terrain and resources or destroying an army in battle meant more to victory than taking a city. This maybe a factor of diplomacy. Maybe the way the AI's sue for peace (and the possible reparations with it) should be upgraded and used in conjuction with the outcomes of battles.

posted June 29, 1999 19:29            

Range would depend on the era of the unit.
More modern units could use their regular rating as a ranged attack against older units.
If a ranged unit fights a non-ranged unit (after age adjustments have been acounted for) the ranged unit gets several free shots at the other (archers might only get a couple at a phalanx, but a an armor unit will often kill it before it gets in range)
For stacked combat.
I chose 4 units in a fight to represent how many units can be engaged at a time and be able to support each other. More than one of these events can occure in a square each turn, but they are somewhat independant from each other.

Units start at a range that is farther than the longest range available.
Each round they can move MP steps closer to the other side.
If a unit can hit the enemy they will not advance.
If the enemy is being hit, and none of your units are, all units remain in position until this changes.
Units below a certain threashold strength will attempt to retreat ( if they move beyond max enemy range, they have retreated)
Range in steps (oviously needs to be play balaced)
1 ancient normal
2 renaisance normal
3 ancient ranged
4
5 early modern normal
6 renaisance ranged
7
8 late modern nomral
9 early modern ranged
10
11 late modern ranged
12
13
14 over tile edge bombard

When units engage they split their attacks between all units within their range (more injured units, less kills if fighting a large stack)

I feel that repairs should cost modey/resources, so injured units still has an economic impact.

posted July 01, 1999 14:32            

Free shots are somewhat limited. If the archer gets 4 free shots, that could be 4 damage out of 10, not enough to kill a unit. 2 shots is more likely, if they are undefended.

posted July 02, 1999 10:59            

Comabt would incorporate 2 extra features, Domain & Range

Domain already exists in the units stats, either 0,1 or 2 for sea, air or land.

This is used in combat to determine which units can attack or defend against other units. Units can only attack in their specified domain unless indicated otherwise as a special ability flag.
This is probably best explained by example:

Phalanx can't attack battleships, nor can they defend against battleship attacks. (the former is already true in Civ2).
This is because the battleship has the ability to attack units in the ground domain but phalanxes cannot attack/defend against a unit that is not in the ground domain.

Musketeers cannot attack stealth bombers, nor can they defend against
stelath bombers. Same reasoning as the phalanx above.

Extra-Domain attacks should be treated as artillery bombardments (as in SMAC), where if the attacker does not win then no damage is done to it, just no dmage is done to the defender. Turns of comabat to be endured by the defender would be FP *10 (of attacker).

Phew, that was a bit long and I hope everyone followed that. now for the second bit:

Range.

Every unit also has a range, defined as an integer from 1 up to about 5 or something. Maybe no upper limit would be best.

Range affects combat where the domains of the attacking and defending units are the same (ie archers vs knights or trireme vs ironclad).

The unit with the greater range gets that many turns of combat where the other unit cannot defend (treated as an artillery duel, as above).
This is also probably best explained by example:

An archer (range 2, because of the arrows) vs knights (range 1, because they only have swords) - doesn't matter who is attacking/defending.
The archers get 10 turns (calculated as difference in range *10) of combat where the knights cannot defend, treated as an artillery duel so if the archers lose they do not take damage.

After these turns, the knights are considered to be in close enough proximity to attack the archers and therefore do damage and combat is resolved as normal.

posted July 02, 1999 11:20            

I suggested a supply rule that was an extension of the border system. Units within a countries border would be supplied in the way they are supplied now. No change.

Units that are outside the border lose points like a Civ 2 chopper.

Units within an allied border are supplied as if they were within their own border.

posted July 03, 1999 10:27            

Units should ahve a combat rating agains each domain to reflect the different techniques needed to fight them.
(Modern infantry are good at ground combat, but weak at air combat and bad at antiship combat) Land/air/sea/ranged-land(range) values: 8/3/0/5(5) as an example.

posted July 03, 1999 17:35            

This weekend I will summarize the thread and post it NLT Mon Jul 5. Please look my summary over and critique it so I can make changes and turn it in NLT the end of the week.

------------------
Redleg

posted July 04, 1999 10:48            

Range should reflect the domain the unit operates in-land units have land range, sea units sea range, etc.

Differences in range are subtracted from each other. The remainder is the # of "free hits" the higher range unit may inflict on the lower. 'Free-hit'= The 'attacker' attempts to hit the 'defender'. If successful the defender takes the attacker's firepower in damage. Faster units subtract/add one range for each movement point difference between the two sides, depending on terrain.

I'm changing my LASS(land/air/sea/space) to LASOR (land/air/sea/orbital/range) so I can keep silly acronyms.

ember,
Some units should still have STR in a domain even if they cannot attack into that domain. A "special option" (which would increase the cost depending on the domain STR only) could enable the unit to attack into that domain. Some units would be able to attack into other domains naturally (air units).

posted July 05, 1999 18:23            

Why not have headquarters instead, that contribute to each and every units fighting capabillity in a certain radio? Like in the WW2 boardgames... That would make more sense than leaders really. The HQ coudl give a +25% attack and defence bonus or movement bonus (at least one).

Leaders could still be used, like there is a 1% chance every turn that a unique (very good) leader emerges, and he stays like 20-40 years /whatever that means in turns for the moment. He will double the effectivness of the HQ or grant other benefits.

Maybe one should limit the amount of leaders a civ could gain in a game to like 10 in total, so you donīt have to find that much names and stuff