The List - Combat

[Fosse]

While I agree that a point comes at which further discussion becomes moot...

as this is the "official" list thread on the issue it is only natural that such discussions will come into this thread, and the thread you mention has scrolled off of the boards.

A lot of decisions about the combat system will rest on the decision of whether it is in armies or not, so I don't think that the issue will be successfully avoided here (at least for long).

Besides, the poll on this issue is over 70% in favor of stacks with 67 voters... that makes me think that most of the people in this thread will be thinking of combat in terms of stacks, which means that we'll have to either assume it is a given (in the threads) or continue to discuss its pros and cons.

[Sore Loser]

Reconnaisance and camouflage values. Large stacks should be possible to detect several squares away, whereas small bands of raiders could get right next to you and do hit'n'run tactics.

This should be coupled with non-decisive combat, ie. each combat lasts a number of rounds, after which each side has suffered so much damage. I really hate the notion of always having one side destroyed.

[Fosse]

Sore Loser, I like those, especially the recon idea.

[Sore Loser]

I think it's important that there are drawbacks to huge armies and uses for small bands. This is the most obvious one, I think, inspired by Emperor of the Fading Suns (which had many good ideas but pretty much failed to put it all together).

[wrylachlan]

A new way to figure attack counter attack. Right now it is attack value versus defense value and one looses a hp. Instead it goes in rounds of attack and counter attack with the attacker getting the initiative. On the counterattack the defenders defense rating becomes his attack rating and there are as many rounds as there are combined hp in the two units battling. It sounds complicated but it works out like this:

Unit G(aGressor)- A/D/Hp=4/2/4
Unit F(deFender) - A/D/Hp=2/3/3

That means that there are 7 rounds in which Unit G has to kill off F after which the turn is over in a draw.
Attack = G(4)vsF(3)
CounterAttack = F(3)vsG(2) note defenders attack value is actually its defense value on counter-attack.

Why would I want such a complicated change?

Ranged and Melee flags for units.

Ranged have drastically worse defense values but when you attack with a stack that has melee units in it, the melee unit defends against the counter-attack. It breaks down like this.

Unit Gr(aGressor Ranged) - 4/2/4
Unit Gm(aGressor Melee) - 2/4/4
Unit Fm(deFender Melee) - 2/3/4
If Unit Gr attacks Fm we have 8 rounds of combat
Attack Gr(4)vsFm(3)
Counterattack Fm(3)vsGm(4)

The upshot of all this is that it makes it extremely important to used MIXED stacks.

[Fosse]

wrylachlan... that's great. It's a system that gets around the old "Why are we just letting them kill us?" situation when a high attack/low defense unit is attacked.

And Sore Loser... a drawback to too huge stacks is certainly a must. I don't know what what size the optimal number of units for a stack should be (playtesting should decide that, but I'd guess around 24 or so), but this idea is MUCH better than hardcoded limits.

You CAN stack your units, with diminishing returns... but you might be wiser to split them up.

[Kuciwalker]

Simultaneous Movement

ewww

Seriously, I think this would kill gameplay for almost all but hardcore players. I want to see my Tank attack that Spearman NOW, not 15 minutes later after I've set up all of my attacks

wrylachlan... that's great. It's a system that gets around the old "Why are we just letting them kill us?" situation when a high attack/low defense unit is attacked.

Attack units SHOULD die if put on the defensive. If they can go into "counterattack mode" while being attacked, it removes tons of strategy from the game. A major part of strategy should be to gain the initiative.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker
Attack units SHOULD die if put on the defensive. If they can go into "counterattack mode" while being attacked, it removes tons of strategy from the game. A major part of strategy should be to gain the initiative.

They do die on the defensive. If you looked at the above post, you'd see that when a unit gets its counterattack it uses its Defense value for an Attack value. So an "Attack Unit" (higher attack than defense) is largely ineffective on the counter attack. With the proper balancing of Attack/Defense values for units, you could achieve the exact same unit balance under this system as under the current system. The only real differences are that this system confers a strategic benefit to using mixed armies, and it allows the possibility of a stand-off which makes strategic reinforcement possible.

[Kuciwalker]

That's basically how C3's combat works

A = attacker attack value
D = defender defense value

The chance for the attacker to score a hit is A/(A+D). The chance for the defender to score a hit is D/(A+D).

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker
That's basically how C3's combat works

A = attacker attack value
D = defender defense value

The chance for the attacker to score a hit is A/(A+D). The chance for the defender to score a hit is D/(A+D).

The change I'm making is that for the defender to score a hit = D/(Attacker's Defense + Defender's defense)

This gives the defender an advantage as it makes it easier for the defender to "hit back". But when you make it a ranged and melee together attacking a unit it becomes:

Defender's chance of "hitting back" = D/(Attacking melee's Defense + Defender's Defense). This makes it important to use mixed forces.

Note that through changing the different values, you can create the exact same percentage chance of a win on either side in a straight fight.

[Kuciwalker]

That system seems a bit weird - unless you changed the chance for a defender to hit to defender's attack/(defender's attack + attacker's defense), in which case you encounter the problem of "how do I kill offensive units?"

EDIT: btw, I'm opposed to any distinctions between "melee" units and "ranged" units, except for the bombard system.

[Shogun Gunner]

My apologies for those who have read this in another thread, but since this is the official thread as Fosse points out...one more time.

IF, and that's a big "if", a stacked combat is used, I would hope that the "tactical minigame" utilizing stacked combat was made very robust.

What I mean is that a stack of troops meets an enemy stack of troops on one tile. Then the tactical minigame opens up.

That one tile (from a strategic perspective) expands to 40 tiles (tactical perspective) and each tile has unique geographical features. Your one armor unit breaks down into three or four armored companies. Other units have similiar breakdowns -- from division level to regiment level. You would play a game like Steel Panthers or Panzer Leader. Many of the CTP features (like retreat was mentioned right above) would be incorporated.

no, this isn't quite civ anymore, but I have to admit I would be totally into it if this concept was introduced.

Feel free to disagree/debate as it's just an idea. I will willingly admit that the complexity might be too much and it would potentially break the rhythm of the game. I think Jon Miller and skywalker have made some valid points against a system like this.

[Kuciwalker]

ewwww... reminds me of SW:Rebellion

[Kirastos]

1) I think we should introduce in civ the SMAC morale scale and it's consequences (+ or - xx% in attack/defense) rather than just having more HP at each upgrade.

2) We should be able to build armies (I really get pretty f***ing bored moving hundreds of units across the map at each turn). And not limitate to 9 or 12 units per tile, but each type of unit, according to its size, would occupy a number of place, and the number of places available in a tile should be determined by the nature of the terrain (e.g. 20 slots available in prairy or grassland, 15 available in hills, 5 in mountains, etc...). This requires more uniform landscapes (not excessivly so).

3) Keep the helicopters. They are more than useful when you know how to use them. They should also be able to carry infantry units.

4) We should have land transportation vehicles.

5) I would like more diversified sea units.

6) More anti-aircraft units like in CTP or SMAC (as well as automatic anti-aircraft improvements, whether in the landscape or in cities).

7) Ability to fortify coastlines (like in WW2).

[Myrddin]

6) Have you missed Flak and Mobile SAMs now added to C3C?