The List - Combat

[Kuciwalker]

4) We should have land transportation vehicles.

I say abstract this (just say "combined arms" or something) and give Infantry/Paratroopers/Marines 2 moves.

[Kirastos]

Don't have C3C, so don't really know all the improvements done to the game.

[Kirastos]

Skywalker: That would make too easy. Using LTVs would give another dimension to infantry warfare (that includes fast transportation for spies and unconventional units right behind enemy lines, or diversion tactics by sending empty LTVs. They must be cheap as well).

By the way, I would like unconventional units like in CTP.

[Kuciwalker]

LTV's, however, generally don't come in their own regiments. They are a part of the infantry regiment. It makes no sense to make the game harder on the AI and on the human by creating a unit that would in fact be more realistic if it was abstracted.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker
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.

What about the melee/ranged distinction do you not like? The fact that it causes more micromanagement for the player? That you're afraid the AI can't handle it?

The reason I like it is that if you give them different properties, it opens it up for more disctinct units in each age, since you could have a 1.2.1 melee unit, and a 1.2.1 ranged unit, each with their own advantages.

You can do things like adjust the terrain bonus based on ranged versus melee - ranged get a better percentage bonus for having the high ground, but they have a penalty fighting in the woods because there's more cover, etc. This makes terrain a more dynamic factor in combat, a good thing IMHO.

That said, I totally agree with you that the system I proposed above is "wierd". It was my first stab at it. So I'm gonna step back and try again, and I'm gonna start with the places where the combat system is already wierd:

One of the things I don't like is the way initiative works. If I have a 2.1.1 unit, and I want to attack another 2.1.1 unit, I can't move next to him. If I do, he attacks me with the initiative, and I have a 2 to one chance of loosing what is essentially a square fight. I would like to "fix" this.

How would people feel about this -
Agressor's chance = Agressor's Attack/(Agressor's attack + the higher of Defender's scores either attack or defense)
Defender's chance = Defender's lowest score/(Defender's lowest score + Attacker's lowest score)

What this would mean is that a 2.1 attacking a 2.1 is an even fight. A 2.1 attacking a 1.2 is an even fight. But a 1.2 attacking a 2.1 is a loosing fight. Additionally a 2.2 attacking a 1.2 is a winning fight, where in the current system it's a draw.

This system would still make defensive units valuable, since fortification, city walls, etc. effect defense scores. A 2.2 attacking a 2.1 or a 1.2 in a straight fight doesn't make a difference. The both have the same chance. But the 1.2 fortified is much better than the 2.1 fortified.


It's too late and my eyes are crossing thinking about this, but I'll be back tomorrow to round out this idea with how it plays into the ranged vs. Melee thing.

[wrylachlan]

I'm back. To recap:

Aa = Attacker's Attack score
Ad = Attacker's Defense score
Ah = Attacker's highest score
Al = Attacker's low score
Da = Defender's attack score
Dd = Defender's defense score
Dh = Defender's high score
Dl = Defender's low score.

The attacker's chance to win is Aa/(Aa + Dh)

The defender's chance to win on a counterattack is Dl/(Al+Dl)

If you limit the total number of rounds of attack/counterattack there is the possibility of a standoff, where no one wins, since there is a new random number generated for each attack and counter-attack. My suggestion would be to have as many rounds as there are hp in each unit combined.

Note that this still gives an initiative bonus to the person who initiates combat, since they go first. The difference is that that initiative bonus is not as much of a massive game changer as it was before.

The above applies to any time a melee attacks a melee or a ranged attacks another ranged.

Melee attacking Ranged
How does this play into the melee vs ranged question that was my original goal? First off, charging a ranged unit with melee units shouldn't be a good idea. As you approach the ranged units are picking you off, however, once you get into the line, its an easy win. The game dynamic for that is that if a melee unit attacks a ranged unit, the ranged unit gets a "First Strike" whose chance is:

Da/(Ad+Da)

After the "First Strike" the combat with attack/counterattack pairs with the Normal formula:

Attack = (Aa*(1+.N))/(Aa+Dh)
Counter = (Dl*(1-.N))/(Dl+Al)
(where N is the number of rounds after the first.)

Thus the ranged unit gets a first shot, but every round from there on is ten percent less effective on counter, and the melee is ten percent more effective on attack which represtents the melee unit getting into the ranged line.

Ranged attacking Melee
IMHO a ranged unit with no supporting melee unit shouldn't be attacking a melee unit either, for the same reason's as above. If they break into your lines, you're dead. Granted you get the first shot off, but in the long run.

Therefore Ranged attacking melee should go.

First Strike = Aa/(Aa+Dd)
Attack=(Aa*(1-.N))/(Aa+Dh)
Counter = (Dl*(1+.N))/(Dl+Al)

Again the longer the battle goes on, the better the melee does as it breaks into the ranged line.

Ranged + Melee attacking Melee

Here's where the switcheroo happens. If you attack a melee unit with a ranged unit which is protected by another melee unit in the same stack you get:

First Strike = Aa/(Aa+Dd)
Attack = Aa/(Aa+Dd)
Counter = Dl/(Dl+Attacking Melee Unit's Defense)

A successful counter attack removes a hp from the attacking melee unit. If the Defender, through counterattacks manages to kill the melee unit, the formula changes to the standard ranged vs. melee equation above where N is the number of rounds after the Defender killed the melee unit.

This is obviously a huge advantage to the attacker, since he gets first strike, and the chance of being counter attacked is lower, since you are using melee as a shield.

Order of Attack
In order for this to work, there would have to be a rule that you cannot attack a ranged unit untill all the melee units in a tile are defeated.

Other Stuff
"Attacker Units vs. Defender Units"
The percentage bonus also helps to differenciate "defender units" vs. "attacker units". While a 2.1 melee is equal to a 1.2 melee in a straight fight, if you are trying to attack a ranged unit, the 2.1 unit is better, since the percentage bonus is on the Attack value.

Flanking
One way you could implement flanking, is that if all the melee units in a tile have counterattacked during their turn, an attack from a different direction is allowed to attack the ranged units directly. Example:

Defending tile has 1 melee and 1 ranged. It is attacked from direction A with a melee unit. The Melee unit defender counterattacks. In the same turn a melee unit attacks the same tile from direction B. This second attacker is allowed to attack the ranged unit directly, which, with its "N-bonus", is a significant advantage.

Conclusion
What I like about this system is that even though the individual formulas arent' really that complex. Most are 3 terms, just as they are now, only different values. But the permutations, and effect on game play is profound. You now have each unit much more individualized. Each one is powerful in a different capacity, and must be used strategically to get the most out of them.

[Fosse]

wrylachlan... I like your proposals a great deal. They are still straightforward enough to understand combat in game without having to resort to tables or calculators, while increasing realism. Way to go.

Whatever kinks might need working out can be (if not by us than Firaxis if they adopt it), but the idea is sound.

[ThePlagueRat]

Actually an improved version of the CTP combat system would (law)suit me fine...

Honestly, I must say a well-tailored CTP unit stack is cooler than a so called Civ3 "army". Would be something for Civ4...

[Fosse]

Well... I was assuming that wrylachlan's idea would be the way Army warfare (CTP style) was implemented. I'm so biased that I just assumed.

[ThePlagueRat]

I was assuming something like that too...

Even if wrylachlan's idea could look a bit complex at first glance, when implemented, it would be more or less transparent to the player. A good idea IMO.

In theory it could work similar to CTP where you see the algorithm graphically executed in a form of a battleview.
Or am I also being too biased ?

[MrBaggins]

Not sure if wrylachlan isn't still saying keep individual unit attacks... and with a few to several hundred attacking units, thats about as fun as root canal, even if they move as one.

[hexagonian]

A question

In a defensive situation, how many times does each defending ranged unit in a stack of units get to defend if involved a melee-ranged combo?

Say you have 1 ranged and 10 melees in your defensive stack. The attacker sends in his attackers on at a time. Does that ranged unit assist in every attack until it is destroyed?

[MrBaggins]

To add to Hex's question...

You mention Ranged & Melee attacking also. How would this work in terms of repeatability.

E.G. Does a melee attacker "cooperating" with a ranged attacker mean that the ranged attacker is "used" in any manner, by your method...

Do you only require one ranged attacker in an offensive group to gain this advantage? How would you keep track?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
What about the melee/ranged distinction do you not like? The fact that it causes more micromanagement for the player? That you're afraid the AI can't handle it?

The fact that it really shouldn't be distinguishable in Civ. I view the rock-paper-scissors triange as being foot-horse-arty, not ranged-melee-horse or ranged-melee-arty.

The reason I like it is that if you give them different properties, it opens it up for more disctinct units in each age, since you could have a 1.2.1 melee unit, and a 1.2.1 ranged unit, each with their own advantages.

You can do things like adjust the terrain bonus based on ranged versus melee - ranged get a better percentage bonus for having the high ground, but they have a penalty fighting in the woods because there's more cover, etc. This makes terrain a more dynamic factor in combat, a good thing IMHO.

That said, I totally agree with you that the system I proposed above is "wierd". It was my first stab at it. So I'm gonna step back and try again, and I'm gonna start with the places where the combat system is already wierd:

One of the things I don't like is the way initiative works. If I have a 2.1.1 unit, and I want to attack another 2.1.1 unit, I can't move next to him. If I do, he attacks me with the initiative, and I have a 2 to one chance of loosing what is essentially a square fight. I would like to "fix" this.

How would people feel about this -
Agressor's chance = Agressor's Attack/(Agressor's attack + the higher of Defender's scores either attack or defense)
Defender's chance = Defender's lowest score/(Defender's lowest score + Attacker's lowest score)

What this would mean is that a 2.1 attacking a 2.1 is an even fight. A 2.1 attacking a 1.2 is an even fight. But a 1.2 attacking a 2.1 is a loosing fight. Additionally a 2.2 attacking a 1.2 is a winning fight, where in the current system it's a draw.

This system would still make defensive units valuable, since fortification, city walls, etc. effect defense scores. A 2.2 attacking a 2.1 or a 1.2 in a straight fight doesn't make a difference. The both have the same chance. But the 1.2 fortified is much better than the 2.1 fortified.


It's too late and my eyes are crossing thinking about this, but I'll be back tomorrow to round out this idea with how it plays into the ranged vs. Melee thing.

The way I see it, a 1.2 attacking a 2.1 should be an even fight

[Kuciwalker]

Again, I like how "ranged" is handled in C3 - Archers, Longbowmen, Guerillas, and TOW Infantry have zero-range bombard.