The List - Combat

[Awsric Armitage]

I believe complexity and realism are more what is needed than more abstract and unrealistic modeling that limits tactics and enables unrealistic work-arounds by way of those very abstractions of flawed game mechanics. Any one for checkers?

If I wanted hyped up Candy Land or Chutes and Ladders than thats what I would play and its high time some real strategy was breathed into the Civ series with a little more detailed attention paid into the combat system. It is very antiquated and needs to be replaced or updated to be on par with its competitors.

Realism not overly complicated but abstracted not counting down to the individual bullets and arrows but more clips, quivers, or artillery rounds but this is the only realistic way to incorporate combat supply lines situations into the combat system. Even the First Person Shooters have a better grasp on the combat supply model than the current Civ combat system. Once the soldiers and platforms exists it is more a matter of resupplying the bombs, guns, and missiles expended in war than reinventing the actual units during peactime build-ups. Arms-races are almost automatically assured and can be linked into the diplomatic models of percieved image and strength. Small changes can round-out and flesh-out the missing pieces of the game.

I do not want a beer-and-pretzels Civ but rather a more realistic game that takes some thought and challenge to be able to play on the higher levels. Re-introduce some challenge and thought process to the strategy not just stacks of tiles that have no connection to each other eccept that they fly the same banner. Link them into cohesive fighting forces of combined units giving the player more meat than more cheese.

Unless under the 'acceptable' abstracts we increase the support costs for units not deemed in-supply and stay with non-realistic your sword against my repeating rifle situations because of abstractions. Very unrealistic.

I also understand those with proven reliable work-around abstraction enabled strategies are put off by having to actually think again when they play Civ but is that not the point of making something more challenging and new and alive once again. I do not think we want to go backwards but rather forwards with the game mechanics and systems and its high time a distinction is made in between ranged and hand-to hand combat. Ranged combat revolutionized and advanced warfare strategy and tactics in its advances much more so than hand-to-hand combat ever did. It is time the game that claims to be a historically based empire builder picks up on this fact.

As always change is resisted at least initially until adpated to and then the norm has changed as well.

[lajzar]

My take on resupply:

Units in a city heal at 20%. Possibly as much as 50% if the city has hospital type improvements.

Units within the nation borders heal at 10%.

units outside the nation heal at 0%.

Ther above numbers should be modified according to unit type. Infantry should always be able to heal regardless of terrain. Ships should only ever heal in port. Air only ever heals on turns where they don't run a mission.

That's about as far into resupply concepts as the game should get.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Awsric Armitage
I believe complexity and realism are more what is needed than more abstract and unrealistic modeling that limits tactics and enables unrealistic work-arounds by way of those very abstractions of flawed game mechanics. Any one for checkers?
*SNIP*

First, Civ is already chess... not checkers... and yes... I'll take Civ chess, as will Sid Meier, and just about everyone else.

Secondly, Civ is defined by explicitly simple rules that become complex in their combination. The city/cultural system don't have more complexity that the combat system or the trade system. If you add an additional layer of complexity to combat, this would infer adding an additional layer of complexity to other systems... and the game starts to become MOO3 *shudders*.

Sid Meier (and Brian Reynolds) has been really clear on this... he's had the opportunity to include wargame like systems in Civ, but has declined, not because he can't do it, but because it breaks the cardinal rule of individual system simplicity.

The additional reason to not do it, is that it involves some amount of finese that the AI won't manage, and that the human will...

E.G. AI builds whole bunch of units. They are supported either by X support units or are in the scope of Y city. The human, knowing this, doesn't attack them directly, but attacks the support unit or supporting city, and the supported units become ineffective.

Humans are much better able to attack specific targets than the AI, due to better understanding of planning and coordination, and recognition of the map. While it might be realistic, it breaks game challenge, and thus is undesirable.

In fact, this whole topic is just about the biggest waste of air possible, since Sid undoubtedly will be producing Civ4, and he's categorically not putting war game functionality in Civ. If he wants to build a war game, he'll make "Sid Meier's Gettysburg2".

[Frank Johnson]

One way to increase the complexity and realism of the game is to attempt to assign deeper meanings that can still be assigned into the "simple" catigories needed to produce and AI that can survive.

When you really break the game down, there's only a few types of units. Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, etc etc.....easy catigories to understand.

Each unit you build would be unique to your civ, and the location of the city where its built. Alot of factors could go into the "quality" of the unit. You just choose the type of unit you want, "make infantry" "make cavalry", etc......and you get a unit. Since we can work with tiny fractions of numbers in the computer, each unit will be different from the last one. Strategic resources, road connections, technology, etc.....these things can all just be factored in without asked the player.

Instead of building a 1-1-1 warrior, or a 1-2-1 phalanx......your civ builds some infantry. They might be 1.3-1.5-1.1, when you open a new iron mine next door, they might jump to 1.8-1.6-1.1.

Eventually you get to "breakpoints" where the improved conditions of the units are displayed as changes in graphics. Like in the case before, you might see the unit now holding a shiny sword.

After all, you never really know how good a unit is before the war starts.

[MrBaggins]

The inconsistancy might be a problem for MP players.

[Frank Johnson]

Well, simply allow for funding to modernization. While civ3 finally gave into the idea that units can be rearmed, they have yet to give in to the fact that they can also be retrained. This allows you some uniformity within the units.....

Also, in a spread out empire for example, you might raise some basic troops in the country side, then send them to the capital to be armed and trained in the better conditions there.

[lajzar]

Also, in a spread out empire for example, you might raise some basic troops in the country side, then send them to the capital to be armed and trained in the better conditions there.

That is already modelled in civ 3. You buy a basic unit in the outlying areas, then send it to the barracks in the big city for the upgrade to modern weapons.

I'd like it so that older units never actually go obsolte, but players can hide the unit from the construction list. After all, just because we don't actually build war chariots today, it doesn't mean we actually can't.

[Awsric Armitage]

Even though 'ammo' units seem undoable for complexity sake of the AIs inability to handle the strategic and tactical implimentation. I still would like to have some form of military control radius similar to culture that expands around fortresses that can lay claim to lands by military means rather than by cultural means. Cities would not convert because of this presence but the ownership of the border lands would remain secure from encrouching cultures other than those of the fortress creator rather than the fortress becoming the property of the culturaly stronger opponent, at least not intially.

Yeah, this belongs pobably in the cultural section not the combat sections.

Supply alernatively could be linked to these military zones created by the fortresses lowering maintenance costs or providing free bonus maintenace to those units under it's influence radius that does not expand like culture does. Call it a military patrol radius or something. Units linked by roads to cities would be similarly effected by reduced maintenance costs.

This I think simulates supply in acceptable game terms of simplicity. No new units just expansion of and slightly different application of an existing concept of cultural influence into military influence as well. Think like the ancient roman fortresses built to watch over the expanding empire. If culture does not eventually catch back up to them then the military outpost could not stem the tide of culture forever but merely delay it for some time.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I'd DEFINITELY like to add my 2c worth to the combat debate ! THe absolute first thing I'd like to say is that I agree 100% with the idea of a 2-phase combat system-involving orders/movement, followed by combat!

On another point, I have a couple of issues which are related, but tangential to, combat!

1) Balancing movement:

(a) OK, first of all, I DON'T think that there should be just one form of roads, but that you should be able to 'upgrade' roads in each era! Perhaps from 1/3mp to 1/4mp to 1/5mp (where they become superceded by rail anyway!) Of course, better roads entails more cost!!

(b) If infinite RR movement is to remain, then it MUST be conditional! Either units moving along RR squares cannot attack from said squares (and are more vulnerable to attack!) OR the inifite movement only applies when you move onto RR's from a city, colony, fortress, outpost or airbase square! In fact, I'd be tempted to say BOTH conditions should apply! An extra RR constraint could be that every city or tile improvement(see above) that you move through, along the RR, should deduct one mp from that unit-to reflect disembarkment/embarkment!!

c) Naval units should be able to 'rebase' between friendly cities containing a naval base improvement-within a certain range-and be able to do the same between 'naval base' tile improvement! This will, in my opinion, help to make naval power MUCH more relevent well into the industrial/modern ages!

Well, thats THOSE issues dealt with, but I will have more DIRECT combat issues I'd like to deal with later!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[lajzar]

c) Naval units should be able to 'rebase' between friendly cities containing a naval base improvement-within a certain range-and be able to do the same between 'naval base' tile improvement! This will, in my opinion, help to make naval power MUCH more relevent well into the industrial/modern ages!

Hmm, navies do need to move faster (much faster), but I don't think rebasing ships is the answer. They still aren't as fast as aircraft after all.

I proposed an idea whereby harbour improvements would give a limited rebasing ability similar to cvi2 airports. This could be intercepted by warships.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

That's correct, but the rebase range would be much, MUCH shorter than for aircraft AND it would be easier to intercept them halfway!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I would now like to discuss the issue of SUPPLY!
First up, I DEFINITELY feel that some form of supply line system is needed for civ4 (and Civ3, if I might make so bold !!) It doesn't have to be too complicated in order to add a fantastic new element to the game, though!
First of all, if you are within your own borders, you are considered 'In Supply'. If you move outside you borders, however, you run the risk of ending up outside your supply lines!
At the risk of sounding repetitive, your 'supply range' or 'operational range' will be ultimately dependant on the type and tech level of the unit! SpecOps and non-combat units would have quite long range (indicating an ability to 'live off the land', wheras cavalry and motorized units will have much shorter ranges.
This basic 'OR' would then be modified by terrain factors! Harsh terrain will shorten 'OR's', wheras good terrain will improve it. The presence of a road and/or farmland (whether they're yours or not) will help to improve OR's. In addition, certain units might possess something similar to the 'Ignore Movement Cost' flag, in that they ignore the 'OR' effects of certain terrain types.
In order to increase OR's into enemy territory, you would need to either capture an enemy city-and connect it to your trade network, or build a road connecting your empire to your 'supply points' (basically, just fortresses!) Being outside your OR has two effects: (a) You have a chance/turn of losing hp (morale??) from each of your units which are outside their range and (b) They cannot heal any damage-AT ALL-until they are back within their OR!! Any unit which loses all of it's hp's by being outside supply is either (i) DEAD or (ii) becomes a 'marauder', a regular barbarian unit that attacks anyone and anyone-and pillages like hell, I might add!!! Oh, and I also agree 100% with lazjar's suggestions about healing rates in various places, with the supply bit being the next step down!!
BTW certain techs, like replacable parts and the like, would all help to improve OR's
Anyway, that's the end of 'part 2' of my combat discussion! Hope to have more later!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, these are the stats which I think units should potentially have:

1) Attack Strength/Defense Strength: A units ability to dish out/avoid an attack from close quarters.

2) Ranged AS/Bombardment Defense: A units ability to dish out/avoid attacks from range.

3) Firepower: The base amount of damage the unit can dish out. Ranged units might have 2 FP's-one for ranged combat and another for close-in!

4) Range: The 'relative' range from which the unit can hit oncoming enemies. This number-the range of the enemy signifies the number of 'free' shots the former unit can get before they 'slug it out'!

5) Armour: An indication of the relative 'toughness' of a unit. This number is deducted from enemy damge before being applied to HP's

6) Hit Points: A combination of the raw amount of damage a unit can sustain, as well as general 'morale'. Should range from 1-20, 1-50 or 1-100! Units starting HP's are based on general unit type and TL, and can increase according to troop experience!

7) Operational Range: The # of hexes outside friendly territory that the unit can operate in. Each hex beyond this range increases the chance of the unit losing HP's!

8) Favoured/Shunned Orders: A short list of the orders which will give a bonus to attack/defense strength, and those most likely to reduce it.

9) Favoured/Shunned Terrains: Just like the above, but for terrains.

10) Special Abilities: This includes things like Anti-Air, bonus vs. certain units, terraforming etc.

Well, there you have it, my definitive view of how combat should operate in Civ4!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[lajzar]

That supply system seems a bit complicated to explain to an AI.

I always imagined that the speed of supply lines was keyed into the movement rates of the units. After all, a modern tank can do 60 mph no problem, while infantry do about 4 mph. Yet tanks don't have a move of 15. I figure it is the supply line that causes the slowed movement.

[Awsric Armitage]

Yes, but in the abstractions of the supply lines they are protected from interuption and thus are not a valid target for an enemy. This should not be and they should be able to be disrupted adding another dimension to the combat tactics.

As for the AI, I say reprogram it rather than make excuses for not reprogramming it. A much better AI is a must have for improving the quality of play. A much better and additional idea that has been offered for other games is for a company to actually add additional AI patches to compensate for known player cheats or work arounds based off the customers own tactics.

No one has been willing to support such an idea to date that I know of. It would make the game play more interesting as the AI in effect learned to counter the human moves by adding the patches.