The List - Combat

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by 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.

I was thinking in terms of individual units, especially in the early game, since the melee/ranged distinction disappears once your infantry units all have a firearm of some sort. Then again a tank unit has a longer range than a rifleman... hadn't given it a whole lot of thought.

The micro of vast amounts of units, IMHO is a totally separate issue, which also desperately needs to be dealt with, but my above suggestion is not related to that.

That said, it does lend itself to the idea of stacked combat. If you have a stack with 2 catapults, 5 archers, and 10 swordsman, if would make sense to me to be able to to a stacked attack which would cause the cats to bombard first, then the ranged to attack the enemy melee, and if you manage to kill the enemy melee, the swordsmen would rush the enemy ranged units. If you haven't killed the enemy melee by the time it's your melee's turn to attack, you might get a pop-up saying "Do you wish to press the attack by charging their lines?"

Originally posted by 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?

That's a great question. I'll have to think about it, but off the top of my head, I would say Yes. Then if you're the attacker, you need to use your ranged to kill their melee line before you even think of sending in the melee troops. Or alternatively you can try to flank them and attack their ranged directly.

I would say that once a ranged unit has counterattacked during a turn, it can't help the melee units out. Therefore if I run a flanking manuever, even if I don't manage to kill all the enemies ranged units, I've kept them busy which makes it easier for my melee units to attack their melee units.

One of the results of a system such as this is that it would make flanking very powerful. To counteract this, maybe "defensive units" require you to have a bigger angle in order to flank. If you are trying to flank a tile with no "defensive units" you only need a 45 degree angle. If there are "defensive units" you need 90 degrees, and if they are fortified it goes up to 135. There is no flanking a city. To give cavalry the advantage they historically had, and differentiate them in the game, cavalry have a 45 degree flanking bonus. So that they can flank a fortified tile with defenders from only 90 degrees.

A direct result of this is that terrain becomes much much more important. If you can control a choke point where its harder for the enemy to flank you, you have a real advantage. Obviously ZOC has to come back in some way to make this work.

Originally posted by Mr.Baggins 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...

To clarify, the cooperation only comes into play in the form of the melee attacker recieving the brunt of the counterattack when the Ranged attacker attacks

When the melee unit attacks, the ranged unit doesn't come into play. This forces you to attack with your ranged first then your melee to get the best advantage, which is also the logical order of attack in a battle anyways.

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

In an offensive group you would want as many ranged as possible coupled with good defensive units, since you only get the cooperation advantage when your ranged does the attacking.

On the defensive side, the ranged units become much more useful, as they get to cooperate as long as the melee line holds. This is also logical in realworld terms, since fortification is much more of a force multiplier for ranged units than it is for melee units.

Originally posted by skywalker 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.

Shouldn't? That's really not an answer to my question. Why do you feel it "shouldn't"? What civness does it violate? The simplicity? The micromanagement problem? The "This is the way it's always been done factor"?

Also I don't really think of it as a rocks-paper-scissors thing, so much as a combined arms thing. To my mind, a mixed army should be significantly more powerful than an army of only one type. Sure a horde of sordwmen will overwhelm a bunch of archers, but put a couple of swordsmen to stem the charge, and those archers become deadly.

Also note, its not an either or thing with foot, horse, arty, being changed to something else, so much as its broken out into melee,ranged,cavalry,artillery or even melee defender, melee attacker, ranged, cavalry, artillery.

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

Maybe I see it different than you, but I see attack as the unit's total power, and defense as the ability of a unit to leverage the power of being "dug in". A 1.2 unit can face a 2.1 unit of the defense, because its dug in. But when it goes on the offense, even though the 2.1 is a worse defender, it doesn't need to be a great defender because on an open field, it's still twice as powerful.

[Kuciwalker]

I see attack and defense as numbers that show how good the unit is on offense or defense (duh). The reason some units have different attack than defense, despite obviously having the same "power", is because whether or not they are attacking or defending "modifies" it. An infantry unit is going to be much stronger on defense than offense because it is able to hunker down. A Tank is better on offense than defense because it is more effective when used to assault enemy forces. It seems to me the effects of the system you are proposing are either a) far too complex for civ or b) pretty easy to simulate with modified A/D values and zero-range bombard. Why should the attack value come into things when it is defending? If you want it to be better at defense, change the A/D values, don't mess with the entire freaking combat system.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker
I see attack and defense as numbers that show how good the unit is on offense or defense (duh). The reason some units have different attack than defense, despite obviously having the same "power", is because whether or not they are attacking or defending "modifies" it. An infantry unit is going to be much stronger on defense than offense because it is able to hunker down. A Tank is better on offense than defense because it is more effective when used to assault enemy forces. It seems to me the effects of the system you are proposing are either a) far too complex for civ or b) pretty easy to simulate with modified A/D values and zero-range bombard. Why should the attack value come into things when it is defending? If you want it to be better at defense, change the A/D values, don't mess with the entire freaking combat system.

Real world scenario - you take enough guys with swords attacking pikemen to make it an even battle. Now take the same amount of pikemen and put them on the offensive against the same amount of swordsmen. Who's going to win?

This is analagous to the 1.2 versus 2.1 thing I'm talking about above. It just doesn't make sense to me that a better attacker would loose to a worse attacker because it was on the defensive. Why doesn't he come out from the fortifications and meet them head on? I don't think I'm alone in finding that peculiar.

And as for the complexity thing, I don't think that complexity is necessarily bad as long as its logical. As long as I know that having ranged units without some melee to defend them is a bad thing, I don't really need to care about the formula. Yes, it's more behind the scenes complexity, but the end result is that units behave in a predictable and logical manner.

[Kuciwalker]

Real world scenario - you take enough guys with swords attacking pikemen to make it an even battle. Now take the same amount of pikemen and put them on the offensive against the same amount of swordsmen. Who's going to win?

The Swordsmen - both times.

This is analagous to the 1.2 versus 2.1 thing I'm talking about above. It just doesn't make sense to me that a better attacker would loose to a worse attacker because it was on the defensive. Why doesn't he come out from the fortifications and meet them head on? I don't think I'm alone in finding that peculiar.

Because we have TURNS. On his turn, he can. When it isn't, he can't. He could have come out beforehand. By the time it is the other turn, though, it is too late.

[GePap]

The introduction of morale considerations a thread which I made on its own), an greater use of bonuses an modifiers- the basic civ system works fine, but we need more modifiers ala SMAC- you know, making it difficult to use mobile units versus cities, making foot units vulnerable out in the open, so forth and so on. Minor additions, easy to code, and yet so significant.

[ThePlagueRat]

I heard someone say here that the combat system would probably not be so important to remake when they create civ4, because Sid Meier though that civ should be much more than a wargame. Will the developers listen to us at all?
Last time they did not...


So I suggest you guys spends some time finding ways of improving the diplomatic system, which is really lousy in SP games. That's really something I suppose the developers probably will remake and we should have a good plan for them...

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
I heard someone say here that the combat system would probably not be so important to remake when they create civ4, because Sid Meier though that civ should be much more than a wargame. Will the developers listen to us at all?
Last time they did not...


So I suggest you guys spends some time finding ways of improving the diplomatic system, which is really lousy in SP games. That's really something I suppose the developers probably will remake and we should have a good plan for them...

Um if war is in, then you want it to be as fun and realistic as possible. Therefore unless you plan on doing away with war altogether (never gonna happen) then we might as well float some ideas about how to make it better.

[wrylachlan]

I was just looking over the movement supply thread, and I had an idea about supply as it pertains to combat. The reason you would want supply is to model the tactical play of "cutting off the supply lines" Which would involve either a fast attacker, or a sneaky attacker. How's this:

Units beyond a certain tech level require the accompaniment of a "Supply Unit" or they loose say 1 hp every 5 turns, or something like that the exact figures can obviously be changed for balance.

The "Supply Unit" is a 0.0.x+1 unit where x is your fastest non-scout unit's movement. For simplicity sake it can supply an infinite number of units in a radius of 1.

Here's where the tactics comes into play. Here is the field:
ABC
DEF
GHI

We're considering a stack of units at position E. 2 MA, 2 MI, 2 Artillery and 1 "Supply Unit"

If I attack tile E from tile H, I have to plow through the MI then the MA before I get to the Supply Unit. However if I do a flanking manuever (remember a flanking manuever is when the second attack in a given turn comes from at least 90 degrees from the first. In this example if I first attack from tile H and then in the same turn attack from tile F that second attack is a flank) I can attack the "Supply Unit" directly. Cutting off it's supply.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by wrylachlan


Um if war is in, then you want it to be as fun and realistic as possible. Therefore unless you plan on doing away with war altogether (never gonna happen) then we might as well float some ideas about how to make it better.

Of course, but I doubt they will listen to us if we make it to complex. Most of the ideas here are very nice, and to make it better it would have to be a bit more complex than it is... or totally different from what we have seen, if you know what I mean.

The only simple and the good combat system I can imagine was developed in those two CTP games, and I don't know how much they are willing to rip off ?

[ThePlagueRat]

Ok, those who made CTP ripped off a bit from Civ.
(even the name, but that caused a legal twist, I recon)

Why can't those who make Civ4 rip off a bit (legally) from CTP?
It's just to rename the battleview(tm) to battlewatcher.

[Awsric Armitage]

No activity here in a while but I thought I would threw in my 2 cents.

I tried to accomplish some of the ideas discussed here regarding supply, ranged combat, melee combat, and ground transportation by modding the units behaviors in Civ3 before C3C unsuccessfully. All of these need to be present to bring the combat system up to snuff with other strategic empire builder games or this facet of the game will be woefully behind its competitors.

First off I have read the above posts and some of the ideas are intriguing. For ranged combat and supply we have to have a unit type or 'tag' called 'ammo' that is expendable and carried by other units that are capable of 'firing' or expending this ammo at range. Early 'ammo' units of arrows are 0 or 1 ranged possibly javelins and bolts also for this era, later gunpowder and ball shot and early cartridge small-arms ammo are range 1, and only larger caliber guns such as AT batteries or vehicle mounted guns like tanks would be able to reach a range of 2 spaces but no more. These ranges would include the ZOC for defensive fire if other units wander into the units ZOC. The number of 'ammo' units a ranged combat unit could carry would be low at say 2 or 3 before needing to be resupplied by returning to a new tile improvement add-on to the fortress called a magazine or armory OR the ammo would need to be transported to the units by an 'ammo' carrying unit. This 'ammo' carryng unit could be able to fire the 'ammo' itself and merely be trading part of its supplies to the other unit or the 'ammo' carrying unit could be one purely for that purpose like a horse, mule, donkey, camel, truck, halftrack, helicopter, transport plane etc. Point being once the 'ammo' unit has been fired it disappears forever from the game. This also opens up the possability for different types of 'ammo' load outs or grades for slightly different effects from early ball and powder charges to the invention of repeating arms and the centerfire cartridge to later revolver magazines and even later clips of 'ammo'. All this from the creation of a new unit type tag called 'ammo' that is expendable at range only by other units that also have another new 'tag' called 'capable of ranged fire'. The trick is to obsolete older ammo variants from being firable by newer units and the opposite as well. The supply implications I think are self-explanatory as either you have 'ammo' or you do not have 'ammo' and ammunition stores and supply depots can be captured and used against you or destroyed by artillery or aeriel bombardment putting off a good light show. Each unit of 'ammo' would have a corresponding attack value that is universal so that any unit expending that ammo would be firing the same thing. This part actually needs some more work. The combat values listed presently for the current Civ3 units would represent their Hand-to Hand or Melee combat abilities. So in effect a few riflemen could standoff and fire at the Cavalry if it was foolish enough to get within a range of 1 tile but the Cavalry if used properly could just stay at a range of 2 tiles and then charge on its move taking the ZOC shot from the riflemen but then gutting him once they are in Melee combat. Similarly the archer foolish enough to get close to a swordsmen would share a similar fate. Note also that 'ammo' units would be transportable by units unable to fire them to simulate supply caravans or later vehicles but in order to actually fire or expend the 'ammo' the unit in question would also have to have the tag 'capable of ranged combat' enabled. Also the 'ammo' types would change over time making older 'ammo' obsolete.

I got very close to this with the editor with enabling lethal bombardment and the 'ammo' unit were tactical missiles with corresponding range. The only draw back was that multiple units loaded or capable of being loaded with ammo could not then be transportable by another transport. With the introduction of a new unit type of 'ammo' this would disconnect the tranporting a transport code.

It is pretty easy to tell I also am a large proponent of portable resources for supply and economic reasons but that comment belongs else where but it also enables the 'ammo' resupply part of this combat system.

All ranged combat would require 'ammo' be it shells for deck guns to bombs and missiles for planes. This also economically creates more buildable war stores for peacetime build-ups in preparations for war and controlling supply lines becomes very important. Peacetime build-ups would be controlled by the already existant maintenance costs but the ammo would have to cost something like 1/10th the cost of a regular unit. No ammo no ranged combat capability only hand-to-hand.

[lajzar]

Ammo as separate units?

You like micro-management, don't you?

[Awsric Armitage]

Only way to limit the firing of the ranged units linked with resupply and basing ground and air sorties out of a supplied bases of operations.

Creates several tactical and strategic scenarios.

Knock out the local supply bases and insurgents have no resupply local so they have to rely on either raiding yours or resupply by airdrop from air transports or helicopters. That is if playing in the modern or industrial ages. If ancient and middle ages then you have siege trains and Castle armories to resupply from. Choices are to either fight the individual units resupplying from this base of operations or take out the supply all together and use it to supply your own forces.

This same concept could be expanded beyond combat resupply and also into command and control ranges that act similar to cultural generators for claiming territories but would be by military might not by social and cultural influences. People like to be protected to be able to enjoy the culture. If their protection is not ensured they will not be able to enjoy the cultural benefits of the cities. I propose limiting cultural border expansion and somehow linking the same concept with the military influence concept. Both similar in effect of claiming land just by different means.

Yes the last belongs elsewhere and I will cross post into that area when I identify where it is located. It is just this concept also integrates with the supply which also integrates with the ranged combat. It is difficult to explain one without spilling over into another concept. Which IMHO is a good thing to not have to interlink different conceptual ideas with what might eventually become spaghetti codeing.

But back to the original I would also like to have a system where units could automatically be promted to resupply when passing through supply centers or even extending the in-supply state to if they are connected or with-in a certain range of the supply bases and each supply base would have varying ranges dependant upon their sizes and capacities.

[MrBaggins]

While resupply and auxilary functions are very real world situations, its unnecessary to model them in a civ game, because Civ deals with abstracts... almost everywhere.

Civ has a perfectly acceptable form of abstracting resupply... support costs.

No one wants to move around X% more units, that do nothing on their own, except in their absence making whatever military unit useless.

Its just an unwarranted complexity.

[Shogun Gunner]

Mr. Baggins: you have made the understatement of the year.

My take: A ridiculous level of needless complexity,