Stacked vs Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

A few additional points. I think the Civ3 concept of defensive bombardment should apply to stacked combat, if it is incorporated in Civ4. This would encourage you to have a decent number of ranged units in your stacks, especially in the ancient and Middle Ages.
Secondly, when the combat screen comes up, you should be able to select each individual unit, on the screen, and give it very basic tactics and a priority target. So, for instance, you might want some of your units to retreat, others to make a tactical withdrawl, whilst others might harrass or charge the enemy. Different units would get different attack/defense bonuses (and penalties) for both the maneuver they use AND the unit they target! If you don't select anything, then all of the units would have a 'default target' and 'default tactic'!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, as an option to the tactical 'minigame' style of CtP 1 and 2, another possibility would be to have

i) A maximum stack size, which grows with each age.

ii) When a large stack attacks a much smaller stack, there should be a 'size ratio' combat bonus for the larger stack. In certain terrains, however, a large stack might give you a combat penalty due to fighting in a tight space.

iii) Each unit has a specific type such as defender (ranged and melee), 'brawler', ranged attacker, assault and flanking.

iv) A stack which comprises more than 50% of one unit 'type' would suffer a combat penalty. At the same time, certain combinations of unit types would give you a bonus to attack and/or defense for the entire stack.

v) Certain units AND unit types would grant stack bonuses when fighting in certain terrains, whilst other units and unit types might give stack penalties (like horses in forests or tanks in cities).

vi) You can give each stack a general tactical stance, from fortified, through defensive, all the way up to frontal assault. This might give each unit in your stack a specific bonus/penalty to its attack, defense and firepower. If you don't set this stance, then it will remain in a certain 'default'! You could even have specialist stacks, like artillery which, as has been suggested, might be set to a 'counterbattery' stance-thus this particular stance is 'specialised for elimination of enemy artillery stacks.
vii) Lastly, you can bring multiple stacks into combat, and indicate what unit(s) or stack(s) you want to attack!

In ALL other ways, though, the combat proceed in much the same way as it does in civ3-i.e., no mini-screen!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
OK, I think that a compromise between the Civ3 Armies and the CtP stack is the best way to go! The reason I say this is that I LOVE in civ3 how bombardment units can be used to whittle down defenders, but not to actually take a defended city (though I WISH the pre-C3C element of bombardment randomness was reintroduced!!), but I would also love to have the CtP system of flanking, and the like! So how about if we have stack limits, like Civ3 Armies, and make it impossible to put certain units into a stack, but utilize the CtP form of 'stack combat'!

Non lethal bombardment is *the* big improvement that Civ3 brought to bombardment options.

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
A few additional points. I think the Civ3 concept of defensive bombardment should apply to stacked combat, if it is incorporated in Civ4. This would encourage you to have a decent number of ranged units in your stacks, especially in the ancient and Middle Ages.
*SNIP*

Already exists in a CTP2 mod (the CTP2 equivalent of a patch or expansion pack )... Hex's Cradle for example.

It works just great with CTP2 stacks. No reason to avoid it, if you implement CTP2 stacked combat.

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
OK, as an option to the tactical 'minigame' style of CtP 1 and 2, another possibility would be to have

*SNIP*

ii) When a large stack attacks a much smaller stack, there should be a 'size ratio' combat bonus for the larger stack. In certain terrains, however, a large stack might give you a combat penalty due to fighting in a tight space.

iii) Each unit has a specific type such as defender (ranged and melee), 'brawler', ranged attacker, assault and flanking.

iv) A stack which comprises more than 50% of one unit 'type' would suffer a combat penalty. At the same time, certain combinations of unit types would give you a bonus to attack and/or defense for the entire stack.

*SNIP*

Firstly, there is no CTP minigame. Its a combined battle display, and has no effect on the battle outcome... except if you retreat. I disagree that you should avoid having this screen in the game. Its a welcome atmosphere addition. I've never wanted or needed to turn it off.

For (ii)-(iv), if you're talking about implementing CTP2 style stacked armies/combat for Civ3, these concepts already exist in CTP2.

The combined arms effect ensures that mixed armies are better than unmixed, and that bigger armies have advantages over smaller armies.

Units are already categorized.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
ii) When a large stack attacks a much smaller stack, there should be a 'size ratio' combat bonus for the larger stack. In certain terrains, however, a large stack might give you a combat penalty due to fighting in a tight space.

iii) Each unit has a specific type such as defender (ranged and melee), 'brawler', ranged attacker, assault and flanking.

Makes sense to me.

iv) A stack which comprises more than 50% of one unit 'type' would suffer a combat penalty. At the same time, certain combinations of unit types would give you a bonus to attack and/or defense for the entire stack.

That seems really artificial. A penalty for not using combined arms doesn't sit well with me. If the system is designed well - as it should be - then the player should be rewarded for using them.

Much as this would allow:

v) Certain units AND unit types would grant stack bonuses when fighting in certain terrains, whilst other units and unit types might give stack penalties (like horses in forests or tanks in cities).

That is incentive to use different unit combonations, without feeling artificial. People might argue that I'm just being picky here, but I hate when systems are designed to force you to do the strategic thing because you're "supposed to," rather than being designed to reward doing the intelligent thing. It feels artificial and forced, and dumbs down the strategy.



On the whole, Aussie, I like your approach. I agree with MrBaggins that the Miniscreen (NOT minigame) is nice, because it allows you to see, and therefore understand, the results of your army compositions. Turn it off if you like, but it's a valuable tool.

[Lord_Davinator]

stacked is fun... but hope it doesn't slow down the game too much

[Deathmerchant]

Originally posted by Fosse
*Snip

Good post

You shouldn't be penalized for not using combined arms, but I don't think that you should be rewarded for using them either. If the system works well, you shouldn't have to reward a player for using them, combat should just go better for them without rewarding them with a % bonus or whatever is in mind. Who wins when two pikemen units vs. one pikemen unit with an archer unit behind him, well, ideally the archer would be able to damage the enemy pikemen before anything happens, giving the team using diverse units an advantage. So ideally, you shouldn't have to be given a bonus to win.

[Master Zen]

:sigh:

the best of two worlds: stack damage.

You wanna stack? Go ahead, but you'll pay a price in some light damage to other units in the stack when bombarded or successfully attacked.

The more choices you give to the player the better. In Civ2 it was always better to spread, in Civ3, always better to stack. SMAC had the best of both worlds with stack damage and I see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented in CIV

[Fosse]

Stack damage is only marginally better than Civ 3. It still doesn't solve the fundamental problem of all combat being 1 on 1, even if one side has an entire army present.

Stack damage is a non-compromise between single unit or stacked combat. it's just a different flavor of single unit.

[Mars]

This is the way combat's got to be in civ4:

1) relatively simple
2) less tedium
3) allowing units to behave in a more strategical manner (combined arms)

With the above criterea the CTP style seems to be the ultimate solution; unfortunately we all know friaxis can never implement a CTP clone combat system. So the challenge is to come up with something that behaves like the CTP system but is fundemetely different at the same time.

So criterea 4 ) not a CTP clone

Tactical minigames are out by criterea number 1. They are simply to complicated for a grand strategy such as civ. Unit vs. Unit is out by number 2.

Now regalur stacked units is the most acceptable option but it still violates number 3, which I, and seemingly a large number of others, would like to be in place in civ 4.


Idea: 5 tier combat system of sorts. 1st tier being the main line, 2nd tier being the ranged line, 3rd being artiellery, 4th noncombatants, sort of 5th being flankers (though they'd actually be right next to the main line).
- Artiellery would be bombers, cannons, howitzers and the like
- Ranged would be archers, Jets, rifleman, infantry etc,
- main line would be hoplites, legionaries, marines, infantry, etc
- Flankers would be Cavalry, helicopters, mechanized infantry, tanks
- non combatants would be anyone who couldn't fight

What category each troop would go to would be selected by the computer. Instead of having units attack one by one they would attack in phases. First the artillery of each side would fire at the main line. Depending on the tech would determine how this worked. From catupults up to field artillery the unit attacked would be randomly picked for each piece of artiellry. for radar and howitzer and precision bombers all the artiellery would be able to fire on the strongest unit(s).

Next the ranged phase of combat would start. All the ranged combatants would be paired with a corresponding unit on the enemies main line and then they would all fire. Some calculation would occur to determine if they hit or not and then damage is done.

Now the main line also pairs with an enemy unit on the main line. If one side has a larger main line than two units are allow to gang up on one unit and have their offense scored added together and then multipled by .75 (so as not to make such a stupendous advantage). If the advantage is more than 2-1 then the enemy is forced move one of their ranged units to the front lines. If their still isn't enough then a flanker has to be moved to the front. If their still isn't enough then the artiellry is moved to the front where it is promptly sacked. Still not enough, then the rest of the main line just sits around. Each unit combat is done in effect simultenously.

Finally the flankers get their turn. This is the most complicated part for the computer that is. if both sides have flankers it operates the same as main line with each flanker being paired up with an oposing flanker. If the enemy has no flankers and its entire main line is occupied by enemy troops (that is the side with flankers main line is > the side's without main line) then the flankers attack the ranged line. and if the side with no flankers main line is larger the flankers attack the main line.

Phew, that's really complicated right. Well true if you're the computer but not to the player. See the player just gets to sit back and watch as all this war business is beautifully taken care of by his field general (the computer) Making this system relatively simple to the player. On the downside this is stil pretty much the CTP combat system the only difference being that combat happens all at the same time rather than unit by unit.

[Solver]

A very good post Mars. Definitely making its way on to the list of suggestions for combat systems when I compile that.

In fact, since Activision no longer deals with CtP series in any way, I am fairly sure that Firaxis could implement a similar system without legal trouble. What you describe is also very good, as it's similar to the CtP system (as close to perfect as we've had so far), while having its nice twist of difference.

[Joseph]

I want stacked units. In CTP 2 you can turn off the battles. I also want to be able to remove or add to a unit to a stack just like in CTP 2.

Also I would like to be able to stack all units as in Air, Sea, and Artillery.

[Deathmerchant]

Originally posted by Joseph
I want stacked units. In CTP 2 you can turn off the battles. I also want to be able to remove or add to a unit to a stack just like in CTP 2.

Exactly, I loved the CTP system, it simplified combat so much. It was just one army vs. the other, not my 150 tanks vs. your 150 tanks. And of course you must have a limit somewhere, just to avoid large game deciding battles, the limit in CTP was 12. That seemed to work for that game. It is just so much better then the CIV single unit battles, it easily makes a system able to handle different types of units, melee units, long range, artillery, flankers, etc.

To avoid some kind of stacked combat in Civ4 would be a bad decision.

[Enigma_Nova]

Good idea Mars, but with one problem.

Flankers should be able to hit the Back as well as the Front,
and Artillery should be able to hit behind the front line.

The unit classes make sense, though.
Meatshields (front line), Short-ranged, Long-ranged, Mobile and noncombattant.

Thing is, where would you put a guided missile in there? You could use it as artillery in a forward launch OR fly it around the battle and attack from the sides.

I propose an addition:
Front line, Ranged, Artillery, Ground Flankers, Aerial, noncombattants
With each section being set up to be able to strike at different possible section(s).

[Deathmerchant]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Thing is, where would you put a guided missile in there? You could use it as artillery in a forward launch OR fly it around the battle and attack from the sides.

I would think I guided missle wouldn't be in a battle as such, wouldn't you just select it to bombard before the battle? I supose it could happen if you were attacked off guard or something, but then shouldn't you just be outa luck? When nukes are attacked in Civ2 they don't explode, they just die as defenders.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
I propose an addition:
Front line, Ranged, Artillery, Ground Flankers, Aerial, noncombattants
With each section being set up to be able to strike at different possible section(s).

So are we favoring a mini-game where you can actually say for your artillery to attack their artillery? As soon as you get options for one unit to attack with more then one opposing unit to decide on you can never trust the A.I. to do it right. Maybe you wanted to destroy the spy in the back, rather then the troops in the front. So you would have to tell your flankers to attack it, rather then just letting the battle play out.

Because if you wanted different sections to have more then one option to attack, you have to be able to tell them what you want, and you've created a mini-game. And many people are not in favor of that. I, for one, would be in favor of that, but it might get to tedious for others.

[Enigma_Nova]

I was actually proposing to let the AI do it...

Different unit types could only hit certain areas,
and the AI will target so as to 'destroy the highest production of troops overall'.
There's only a certain number of units it can target, so it could simulate ahead and destroy the most - or destroy it all with minimal loss.