Civ4 Units

[Jon Miller]

How should units work in Civ4?

Should there be armies, stacked combat?

What units should be in Civ4?

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

links to other relevant threads

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103349

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103218

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...6&pagenumber=2

Jon Millwe

[Jon Miller]

this is probably related to trade

but I was thinking about letting a certain class of unit form trade routes

it would be along the same idea as an exploration unit and would be capable of combat

but would be weaker than the straight combat troops

you could move it towards a city of a nation you were not at war with, and than it would give you the option to make a trade route with that city (and your unit would disappear)

similiar ideas to caravans, just also able to fight barbarrians and the like some

I actually don't love this idea, just thought of it

(I would prefer two types of trading in this idea, one civ2 like and one civ3 like)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

this is also trade related and I will post it in the trade thread when that comes about (maybe I will make one soon??)

but when trade routes are made (however they are made (by units or diplomacy)) and whatever they transfer (only civ3 style resources or also civ2 style benefits)

have uncotrollable units exist to show that trade route (similiar idea as is found in CTP actually)

(actually I would suggest having the civ 2 benefits increase if a city has more trade routes going into it)

these uncontrolable units cuold be raided (in time of war or by things like privateers or bandits)

so basically I am suggesting a new unit category called commerce raiders

these would be

privateers
bandits

maybe others?

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

while I have started to get use to civ3 UU

I am still not the biggest fan of them

and would prefer none

or getting them as benefits (like if you build a certain world wonder you get to build immortals instead of swordsmen or if you learn a certain tech first you get to build the UU that is associted with it(like if you are the first to learn flight, later you wil be able to build F-15s instead of the normal fighters), or if you are the first to go arround the world you get to build Men of War)

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

My dream Civ IV combat system hinges on two things: simultaneous moves and stacked combat.

Simultaneous Moves

This is important to me for several reasons, but mostly for increased realism. In real life, armies act at the same time. The Union Army didn't attack for six months out of the year, and then fortify so that the Confederates could attack for the rest of the year.

I would like my turn to be as follows:
I set my build priorities, tinker with my economy, and debate several multilateral trade treaties with my eight way alliance, which represents about 40% of the total remaining Civs.

But I'm fighting a war, so I look at the front, select my armies, and issue broad orders that are refined with conditional tactics.

For example, my 32nd Assault Division is near a critical enemy stronghold, so I order it to move to that position, and it doesn't move yet, instead simply gets an outline to show me it has orders.
Then I decide that I want to take the city very quicly, and I think that I outnumber the enemy. So I tell them Move at Full Speed - which makes them more vulnerable to enemy attack, Do Not Retreat, Accept Enemy Surrender, etc.


Now, I end my turn, everyone else issues their orders, and the Resolution phase begins. I see my units move, I see enemy units I can detect move, and I get battle reports. During the resolution I cannot interefere, and when it's over I adjust strategy appropriatly.


Advantages of this approach: AI can plan its strategy during player turn, surprises can happen, less downtime in Multiplayer mode, more realistic, and cooler.



Stacked Combat
I know, it's being debated in the links Jon Miller provided. Organizing units into armies makes the above system feasible because I can now command many units with fewer - and more signifigant - clicks.


Really... what I want unit and combat wise is exactly what they have over in Clash of Civilizations. Check out their forums here at Apolyton.

[Jon Miller]

while it can be found in the links

I am oik with civ3 style armies

but don't want ctp style stacks

or infiinte stacks

I would also like to see less units being the norm to move arround, like usually 30-40 and no more than 60

I want less stacks overall, make it a bad thing to stack troops

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

some sort of simultaneous move thing could be cool

the phase idea is there of course, but has less immediate results

how it is done in Civ3 and Smac has the problem of being dependent on who moves their unit first

this has the plus of showing who has initiative, but feels a little bit clunky and like there is a better way to do things

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
some sort of simultaneous move thing could be cool

the phase idea is there of course, but has less immediate results

how it is done in Civ3 and Smac has the problem of being dependent on who moves their unit first

this has the plus of showing who has initiative, but feels a little bit clunky and like there is a better way to do things

Agreed, that's why I lvoe this approach. But what do you mean about the "phase thing" with less immediate results, I'm unclear on what you're saying there.

[Jon Miller]

you have two phases in your idea

orders phase, and movement phase

in a way it is turnbased, it is just that each turn has different phases

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

Gotcha. I didn't realize you were talking directly about my post!
Right... when I say "Simultaneous Moves" I don't mean "Turnless" like in PtW. I mean that everyone takes turns and issues orders, then the results happen at the same time. Don't mean to cause any confusion, especially since I love one idea and loathe the other.

[Brent]

I want armies, and I think I want bigger ones.

I want every civ to have a landbased combat unique unit as well as one of any other kind, could be a warship, transport, aircraft, missile, some sort of explorer, or a second land combat unit. I want each civ's two unique units to become available in different eras. I want each culture group to have a unit uniquely shared between the civs in that group.

I want caravans.

Be able to build units with any combination of abilities, let there be a combined settler/ combat unit. Units consist or components like some number of human beings, animals, vehicles, weapons, equipment. Rightclick menus would allow you to divide units.

[Asmodean]

Please try to keep ideas in the single idea thread for now. It will make my job a lot easier when I start to distribute the ideas to the category managers.

In the coming weekend I start doing just that, and then next week, threads are opened by the category managers for each and every category.

If you wish to be category manager, then please sign up in the sign-up thread

Asmodean

[Jon Miller]

why can't the category manager just take over this thread?

why should we be forced to post in a thread which will be ignored after next week?

why the delay?

why should we listen to you?

and please don't threadjack

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Brent
I want armies, and I think I want bigger ones.

I want every civ to have a landbased combat unique unit as well as one of any other kind, could be a warship, transport, aircraft, missile, some sort of explorer, or a second land combat unit. I want each civ's two unique units to become available in different eras. I want each culture group to have a unit uniquely shared between the civs in that group.

I want caravans.

Be able to build units with any combination of abilities, let there be a combined settler/ combat unit. Units consist or components like some number of human beings, animals, vehicles, weapons, equipment. Rightclick menus would allow you to divide units.

despite my vocalism against the stack, I am ok with the idea of combined arms as the game progresses

sort of like your idea, make up your force with whatever parts you want to (limited I would say to certain factors related to tech and other such things)

however I don't like the idea of including numbers of humans, and equipment, and ect

that just seems to spreadsheatish and micromanagementy

I mean, EU sort of does this

but they can get away with it because they only have like 3 types of units

Jon Miller

[Asmodean]

why can't the category manager just take over this thread?

It seems better if the thread summary is in the first post of each thread, instead of halfway down. Something we can achieve only if the category managers open their own threads

why should we be forced to post in a thread which will be ignored after next week?

To make my task of collecting the ideas this coming weekend easier

Why the delay?

It seems the better idea to wait with individual threads, until we have most categories assigned to a threadmaster

why should we listen to you?

Noone is forcing you to listen to me, but so far I am the person willing to devote my time to this, and you really would make that easier for me, if you posted your ideas in the same thread as everybody else

And please don't threadjack

No threadjack. Only trying to organize a project for the benefit of all posters



Asmodean

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
this is probably related to trade

but I was thinking about letting a certain class of unit form trade routes

it would be along the same idea as an exploration unit and would be capable of combat

but would be weaker than the straight combat troops

you could move it towards a city of a nation you were not at war with, and than it would give you the option to make a trade route with that city (and your unit would disappear)

similiar ideas to caravans, just also able to fight barbarrians and the like some

I actually don't love this idea, just thought of it

(I would prefer two types of trading in this idea, one civ2 like and one civ3 like)

Jon Miller

fighting camels - I LOVE IT!

[Elias]

My changes to units.

When each unit is built you can tell it to be in one of 3 groups Army,Navy or air force.

when you tell a unit like oh say a tank to be in the air force it becomes lighter with less attk and def ability but it is able to be paradroped into enemy terrirotry. Or if infintary goes into the navy it will get an advantage when attacking from the sea each unit will get diffrent bonuses and special abilities acording to which place its in. however you cant put specific things like battleships or jet fighter into the army.

Each unit needs somthing else its good at fightging aginst like maby anti-tank units get a bounus aginst tanks or tanks get a bonus aginst infintary. For artilary some units will be better at attacking units and taking more hit points down aginst a specific unit.

Id like to see you be able to counter attack the enemey on you turn its stupid when a tank rolls through a small crack in you heavly defended boarder and attacks you city you should be able to get an option saying would you like to intercept? maby have patroal units that can attack units that move within 2 spaces of you territory

I like the caravan Idea because then you can pirate trade routs with subs and privaters in civ3 subs and privaters were very underpowered. But its annoying building all thoes little caravans and then having some barbarian attack them.

Only 6 units can fit on one space at a time and all you can see all the units individually so you dont have to look at a list and go through each individual unit. If there is lists still present though in civ 4 then they can at least put the units in alphabitical order!!

You need to be able to be able to make specific targets with bombardment This will give more reason to cruis missles and stealth aircraft.

Satalights would make it much easier to look at enemey territory or spy planes that can go around the world and explore several spaces per turn.

Bombers cant fit on air craft carriers!!
Cruis missles can fit into subs
more powerfull nukes


do more with invisible units maby seals or spec ops terrorists.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Elias
Id like to see you be able to counter attack the enemey on you turn its stupid when a tank rolls through a small crack in you heavly defended boarder and attacks you city you should be able to get an option saying would you like to intercept? maby have patroal units that can attack units that move within 2 spaces of you territory

Just call me Broken Record.

Simultaneous unit movement (after the turn, when unit orders are issued) would allow what you want regarding this to be very gracefully done, in my opinion.

[Jon Miller]

in order to make the game more fun, combat more interesting, ect

how about these ideas

when a unit is attacked, check the squares arround it and for every square that has a unit in it freindly to the attacker, add some to the attack

here an example

a unit with 4 offense attacks a unit with 3 defense, but surrounding the unit being attacked are two other units with offense 4

so intitially it is 4 versus 3

but than .2*4 is added from the second unit and .3*4 from the third unit for a total of 2

so the final odds are 6 versus 3

this will make for more interesting combat, because you will have more interesting choices and spreading out your units will be good

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
when a unit is attacked, check the squares arround it and for every square that has a unit in it freindly to the attacker, add some to the attack

I like this idea, a bunch, actually. But.......

It would be fine if it implemented IN A STACKED SYSTEM. Why?

Well, in a unit by unit system you now have a single attacker trying to fight multiple defenders. That is a little unbalancing, in my opinion.

If, however, units grouped as large armies are the way we do it, then perhaps a dozen units attacking an enemy army of a dozen units, and both sides get support from other armies in the area.... well that's good gaming.

[Jon Miller]

the attacker actually is what gets support, you could probably give the defender support as well, but it wouldn't be as fun

I don't see how having armies adds anytihng, peopel will spend there production to build a single huge stack like in civ and that will be that

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I think that in further discussions of this

that we be clearer

let the Civ3 word, Army, be used for units who fight as a group and move as a group (this is how CTP is and Civ3 has parts of this)

and stacks, which are just a bunch of units who move togther (Civ3 has this)

and units will just refer to the fundamental elements of combat

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

That set of words works fine with me.
Really, I don't think anybody has a problem with "stacks" as you define them... which is simply a tool to move a bunch of units to the same place. The discussion is about the merits of "armies."

To be clear:

I support Armies in Civ Four. You get an army by assigning a group of units to move and fight as a group, with each unit bringing its unique strenghts and weaknesses to the table, creating something that is greater than the sum of its parts.

I am against pushing around units by themselves. And I am against units having to fight all by themselves (though if you want to do that, you can... just as you can have one unit "armies" in CtP).

edit: Civ four instead of Civ three.

[Elias]

I liked the system in ctp where you could fit so many units in a square and just have one big battle. I dont rember how the math of it worked but id like to see it put back in with the change miller metions so maby you could just have an overwhelming number of warriors so you get enough bonusus to defeat a single infintary unit

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elias
Id like to see you be able to counter attack the enemey on you turn its stupid when a tank rolls through a small crack in you heavly defended boarder and attacks you city you should be able to get an option saying would you like to intercept? maby have patroal units that can attack units that move within 2 spaces of you territory.

You don't think this is a good thing? This is the absolute POINT of fast-movers (ESPECIALLY Cavalry, Tanks, and Modern Armor), both historically and in Civ - to utilize their mobility to exploit a breakthrough and get a force behind defensive lines. If they can "intercept" you, the mobility is worthless.

[Kuciwalker]

I like Civ3's implementation of Armies.

[Jon Miller]

hmm

I am guessing that this is more combat than units, but I will post it here

this is an enhancement to my flanking idea, and is based upon the idea of having the standard square tiles

I will also put up poor ascii graphics

this will add a decent ammount of complexity to the combat, but it will be good complexity, not poor complexity

first flanking bonuses, every unit has flanking bonuses for other types of units depending on the type of unit they are

types of units (land, I am not dealing with sea or air yet) - X Factors
infantry - .2
armor/mechanized - .8
calvary/motorized - .4
artillery - .4

AX is Flanker unit's X factor
DX is defenders X facter

if one-two other units (attacker) surround the defending square, than surrounding units throw in (AX - DX) * (their attack)

A attacking unit, a attackers units, D defending unit, p plains

aaA
pDp
ppp

if 3-4 other units (Attacker) surround the defending unit, than surrounding units throw in ((AX)^2 - DX) * (their attack)

aaA
aDa
ppp

if 5-7 are held by attacking player, than ((AX)^3 - DX) * (their attack) is added into the attack

aaA
aDa
aap

also there would be additional special rules, as in

cities invalidate mechanized/armor and calvaries flanking factors

so infantry would be key to taking cities

also you could make some things terrain dependent

like have mountains add .2 to DX, and jungle .4 to DX

besides the terrain would need to be passible for the unit to attack it

yuo coudl also add to the defending units defense, freindly defensive modifiers multiplied by (dX^i)

where dX is the flanking factor of the defender, and i is 1 for 1-2 freindly defenders, 2 for 3-4 freindly defenders, and 3 for 5-6 freindly defenders

here is an example with 2 freindly defenders (where d is freindly defenders)

ppA
pDd
ppd

this, along with ZOC will do a lot to add to the fun of combat

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

unlimited armies I am against

limited armies could be ok

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

Jon:
Unlimited units in armies sound bad to you?
Or an unlimited number of armies in a civ sound bad to you?
What kind of limits could be okay?


skywalker:
I don't like Civ3's armies in function for two reasons. First, they are too random. Armies should be an organizational thing, not a random roll of the dice, I think. Two, it is still essentially unit vs. unit combat. One guy attacks, and if he can't finish the job the next guy in the army attacks.

what is it about Civ 3 armies that you like? Maybe we can find some common ground here.