The List - Combat

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I don't think it would be THAT complex! Mostly it's just telling the AI that it can move freely within friendly territory, but make it increasingly reluctant to stray further from it's maximum operational range. You would also tell the AI to bee-line to it's OR the moment it starts to recieve damage! As for attacking supply lines, in order to strand enemy units outside their operational range, the AI pretty effectively attacks roads and rail links inside enemy territory, so it shouldn't be too hard to tell the AI to attack such targets inside their OWN territory-especially if faced with a seemingly unbeatable opponent! Also healing inside enemy territory, if within your supply line, should be about 5%, rather than 0%-another factor which should encourage the AI to use it!
Ultimately, though, I do feel that MP's would need to be increased a bit, at least for mounted and motorized units, to make up for their shorter OR! This would reflect their ability to rapidly strike a target, then fall back to within their OR! I just want situations where you can defeat those awful SoD's, simply by dashing behind their lines, and severing their lines of supply! Just as was done to the Russians in Afghanistan, Hitler in Russia, and Napolean in Russia!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[lajzar]

ok, how about this for supply:

Each unit has a supply attribute. For special forces and other live off the land units, this will be high. For tanks and other high maintenance units, it will be low. Each turn the unit spends outside the national borders, it loses 1 supply. Supply is replenished in full when entering a friendly city.

If a unit reaches 0 supply, it takes 0-100% (randomly determined) of its maximum health each turn.

I know it is easy to say reprogramme the ai to make it identify mobile supply points as valid targets. But if you can do this, you'll have made history in wargame design.

[lajzar]

...Just as was done to the Russians in Afghanistan, Hitler in Russia, and Napolean in Russia!!

In Russia, it wasn't anything the Russians did that smashed the supply lines - it was the weather. And the Russian armies were suffering just as badly.

Well, the French could have lived off the land in that, if the Russians hadnt conducted a scorched earth policy as they retreated to Moscow. But I think pillaging your own improvements to prevent the enemy having a supply line during a harsh winter (the only time that would be effective) is going a bit too far into exceptional circumstances. An intelligent commander limits his campaigns to summer.

[Awsric Armitage]

I know it is easy to say reprogramme the ai to make it identify mobile supply points as valid targets. But if you can do this, you'll have made history in wargame design.

I would have to disagree with the amount of difficulty that apparently people are attaching to programming the military AIs behavior. Classifying targets as hard and soft targets has been done repeatatively successfully for many games with differing target parameters. this would be a simple (x,y) system. Add the additional elements of target priority assignments to known and identified targets and then command and control recieves a 8 to 10 on a 10 point scale, supply receives a 7 to 9, high attack strength armored units if armed with armor piercing or effective weapons gets a 5 to 8, etc. Just because the programming gets complicated does not mean it is beyond doing and workable and just that someone has not does not mean that it cannot be done. Just think outside the (x,y) planar geometry of combat AI and enter the (x, y, z) of adding target prioritization to the combat AI.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, Lazjar, Napolean did have a very effective supply line, but it was attacked and destroyed by the Cossacks, which just goes to prove my point! The situation Russia faced in Afghanistan is an even better proof of my point, though!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[wrylachlan]

There's an extensive discussion of supply in the (drumroll please) Supply Thread. But just to recap some of my ideas from there, since it does relate to combat:

What is the behavior that we want to emulate in the game? We want to create a situation where it is advantageous to get behind the line and attack the "supply lines".

So there needs to be a target behind the main lines, which is worth something to the troops. Since building a supply depot every time your troops move is prohibitively tedious, it stands to reason that the target should be some sort of "Supply Unit".

I think that the simplest way to implement this is to create a "Supply Unit" that radiates something along the lines of a 3 tile radius of attack/defense bonus (maybe 25%). Then you need to create a mechanism that keeps this unit behind your main stack. It does no good for gameplay if players just keep the supply unit in the stack with the rest of the units.

A couple of mechanisms will keep the Supply unit a couple of tiles behind the main stack:
1)Supply units defend first. If you're dumb enough to put your supply guys on the front line when you're being attacked, you deserve to loose them.
2)Bombard does extra damage to supply units and the bonus is based on a percentage of hit points. Once you get range 2 bombard pieces, this guarantees that Supply units stay 2 tiles behind your main stack.

While this isn't a perfect representation of the way supply works in RL, it will create gameplay that mimics RL strategic concerns i.e. sneaking around behind the lines to attack the supply.

[wrylachlan]

Another thought about combat.

I don't like the gameplay that the current A/D initiative system creates. The fact that a fair fight, on level ground between two equal units (say swordsmen) overwhelming favors the agressor creates some funky gameplay. No one wants to close with the enemy, because you give the other player the initiative. So you end up with this standoff, where you circle around each other waiting for one to move in.

Its even more exasperating with something like archers. Are you telling me that in a 1 on 1 battle, the advancing archers are going to beat the defending archers??? No way. At the very least, it's a fair fight, if not slightly balanced in the defenders favor.

The only way I can think of to fix this is to make 1 on 1 fights perfectly 50-50. But allow terrain, fortification, etc. to adjust this. Initiative would still play a role, in the fact that if you allow them a turn to fortify, you are loosing out. But it wouldn't be as drastic as it is now.

[Fosse]

If each round of combat has both sides attack and defend, then the problem is solved. Initiative to the attacker means that the damange he causes the defender is calculated first each round, meaning he has chance to kill the defender in any given round before the defender can counterattack.

This is more realistic, and would create the 50-50 situation that wrylachlan has brought up.


I'd like to point out that I want this to be the type of system that is used to resolve stacked combat.

[LDiCesare]

CtP style combat is great. There is no weird advantage to defenders or offense, so you can move units in range without fear of losing them immediately. It prevents people from using only strong attack units by providing support fire (a strong attacker vs. a strong defender wins, but the odds are reversed if both have support fire), and flanking is present too, making for some real combined arms tactics.
Note if you don't like stacks, using simultaneous moves (orders phase/moves only solved when end turn is pressed) lets you have stacked combat without stacks.
Some supply line mechanism is definitely needed.

Sieges should be handled too. Fortifications are the only reason why people built catapults in the first place, and the main reason firearms (cannons) were developped. City walls should not just add a bonus to defense. They should bring huge defense bonus until they are breached, or breaching them should be necessary before fight actually takes place. If you want simple systems like civ always had, you can add a breach figure in every unit. f.e. archer/swordsmen have 1, while catapult has 10, and it takes 10 breach points to take out an ancient wall, 20 a medieval fortification, 40 a star-fortification, 80 a WW2 bunker.

[Awsric Armitage]

Siege trains and siege equipment for breaching walls has significant historic change and progress through out the ages.

Catapult to later Trebuchet.

Even the first recorded biowarfare of launching diseased carcasses over the walls to infect the defenders. Much, much, more....including fire and its effects. Boiling oil and Wall Archers.

IMHO supply needs to be expendable and replishable and transportable. All three need to be present so units run out of supply, can be replinished by land or even later remote air-drop and sea for those units beyond your borders on foreign shores. Lastly transportable along with all other commodities including food but not shields and research as those are local. Transporatable so that these resources can be intercepted by barbarians and robbers or bandits and enemy units if not protected. Also one cities abundant harvesting of local fields with the proper storage and transportation technology could support other cities not so well off geographically for farming but do have other valuables to trade for the food internally generating extra trade incomes for both cities. Valuable lines for supply and also for commerce. Very viable tatgets for any would be attacker. Actually wars have begun over such routes.

[lajzar]

If you want a detailed ammunition supply model, I believe there are plenty of games that can do that. battle Isle III is a bit old now, but does a fine job. There are doubtless others.

However, focusing on the war side to this level of detail distracts from the real charm of Civ - making a civilisation.

On the idea of having supply lines as separate units: No thanks. Adding an extra unit which does nothing on its own is called micromanagement. In addition, the proposed range of the expanded supply from such units is roughly equivalent to having a city there. It makes about as much sense simply to conquer the enemy city first. And if you're going to use them to wander across Siberia to attack, well, thats unrealistic.

Having a supply unit that increases combat stats by 25% is also silly. Why not just call it a "field marshal" unit? That would have the same effect, and be for more exciting. Which gets your blood pumping more; moving your generals or moving your supply trains?

Here's my proposal:

First, units cost maintenance. Civ2 had shields, Civ3 had gold. The basic maintenance should be in both gold and shields (these can be different), and varies depending on the unit, so carriers cost more than phalanx to maintain. Modern armies especially place a horrendous drain on resources that just isn't adequately expressed by just charging one or the other of gold/shields.

Gold costs are taken from the treasury. Shield costs are taken from the unit's home city. If a unit's home city falls, each surviving unit from that city automatically switches to the city nearest to where they are at that moment (ancient govs where the loyalty is to city before nation will still disband in this situation). This can still result in cities supporting too many units, resulting in units being disbanded due to lack of shields. Lack of gold too can cause unit disbanding.

Any unit that starts a turn in hostile territory costs 2x normal maintenance. Hostile is considered to be within the borders of a civ that you are currently at war with.

Units also have a supply range statistic. For primitive melee units, this will be unlimited. For tanks, this might be 15. Any unit that is more than [supply range] tiles from a friendly/allied city suffers a x0.5 penalty to attack.

For unit healing, there are 2 general categories:

Vehicles - Heal at 20% in a city. No healing outside cities. Improvements appropriate to the vehicle type can increase the healing (repair) rate. A Seaport should repair ships faster, an airport can repair aircraft faster.

Foot/Horse - Heal at 20% in a city. No healing in hostile territory (within the borders of nations you are at war with). Heal at 10% in all other areas. Battlefield Medicene small wonder allows healing in hostile territory at 10%. Hospitals increase city healing rate.

We could also have field doctor/mechanic units that provide 20% (equal to an unimproved city) healing/repair to units stacked with them. In all cases, maximum city healing should be 40% or so. No insta-healing.

Regarding combat, I favour CTP style, with the extra change that the stack size that can engage in combat is determined by how effective your military leadership technology is.

[Awsric Armitage]

On the idea of having supply lines as separate units: No thanks. Adding an extra unit which does nothing on its own is called micromanagement. In addition, the proposed range of the expanded supply from such units is roughly equivalent to having a city there. It makes about as much sense simply to conquer the enemy city first. And if you're going to use them to wander across Siberia to attack, well, thats unrealistic.

You are forgetting the tactical combat implications of cutting supply lines and capturing enemies supplies to be used as your own forcing defending your supplies. An army has and will always travel on its stomach and empty gas tanks and no ammo means no war and no taking that city to base your supply from. Also other commodities have been proposed to also be transportable and thus are also valid targets for interception. However, I do agree that a system of automation can also exist to minimize micro-management once assets have been set-up and allocated to fullfill this role.

A city will not fall if the attackers cannot breach its defenses. This takes time and efforts hence the siege trains and equipment to lay siege to the cities and starve them out during that particular era of warfare and civilization development.

What actually gets my blood pumping is realistically modeled but yet still simple to comprehend and manage combat systems that enhance both tactical and strategic levels. I also want enhanced leaders and unit training facilities with trained units coordinating tactics better with units that they have previoulsy drilled with or fought besides. Additionally battle honors for units and organizations also needs to be included so the history and signifigance of some units and formations are a source of pride to the civilization and the player.

Going backwards with unit support coming from the home cities is just, well, going backwards. Militaries are supported by and created from the resources of the entire civilization not just the city of origin or base. Ancient slavery and choices of fight or die might well cause some interesting game play challenges as well.

Regarding building civilizations that is the name of the game and no one is disputing that fact. This is the combat thread afterall and that is what the discussions have rotated around. However, protecting that civilizations advancement through out the changing technolgical fields of warfare and city improvements through out that time period also needs to be modeled. Warfare has changed throughout the history of civilization but almost invariably the civilization that can out produce its rivals in either materials or raw population reserves will eventually win any war of attrition. Cases proving this are too numerous to mention. So economically you must develope your society technologically, militarily, and culturally to survive. No one has debated that these need to be balanced and adding more realism to all aspects needs to be done more thoroughly to improve on the existing games model of this trek through history.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I've had another idea regarding Supply Lines in Combat. How about you simply click on a unit (or stack of units), and have one of the commands for the unit be 'assign supply point'. You then click on a city, tile improvement or possibly even a UNIT, which then becomes your 'Nearest' point of supply! As your unit moves outside of friendly territory, a thin line appears (like a tether), which 'attaches' the unit(s) to their supply point. A unit which has not done that has a half normal operational range! Basically, any friendly or captured city can be a 'supply point', as can airbases, naval bases, outposts, fortresses and colonies. It might be possible to have a slow unit which can act as a mobile supply point-but this is just optional! Of course, if an enemy wants to hurt you, then they will have to either a) Capture and/or destroy the city or tile improvement which is acting as your supply point or b) sit on the 'line', attaching your units to that supply point, for a whole turn! All my other ideas relating to supply (such as terrain effects, Operational Ranges and recieving and repairing damage) should, in my opinion, be retained !

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[lajzar]

Originally posted by Awsric Armitage


You are forgetting the tactical combat implications of cutting supply lines and capturing enemies supplies to be used as your own forcing defending your supplies. An army has and will always travel on its stomach and empty gas tanks and no ammo means no war and no taking that city to base your supply from. Also other commodities have been proposed to also be transportable and thus are also valid targets for interception. However, I do agree that a system of automation can also exist to minimize micro-management once assets have been set-up and allocated to fullfill this role.

I agree that attacking and capturing/destroying enemy supply lines is a valid tactic. I just feel that creating supply units is going the same way as the CTP lawyer unit. It just doesn't seem like an exciting way to implement it. I'm all for a supply model which does not involve creating a non-combat unit.

What actually gets my blood pumping is realistically modeled but yet still simple to comprehend and manage combat systems that enhance both tactical and strategic levels. I also want enhanced leaders and unit training facilities with trained units coordinating tactics better with units that they have previoulsy drilled with or fought besides. Additionally battle honors for units and organizations also needs to be included so the history and signifigance of some units and formations are a source of pride to the civilization and the player.

Well, I want general units to give a combat bonus for, say, every unit within 1 tile (or an enhanced stack limit if stacked combat is implemented). Creating a unit history where you can name units is also cool. Barracks are cool too. I'd even go so far as to suggest that certain uits should require a particular city improvement as an optional flag. No knights without stables for example.

Going backwards with unit support coming from the home cities is just, well, going backwards. Militaries are supported by and created from the resources of the entire civilization not just the city of origin or base. Ancient slavery and choices of fight or die might well cause some interesting game play challenges as well.

I agree that in a modern context, having support coming from specific cities and losing armies that came from that city if the city falls, well, is crazy.

But in the context of ancient civilisations and primitive government systems, it makes perfect sense. If the soldiers identify more as being citizens of a particular city than as being citizens of an entire nation, your generals are going to have a very hard time maintaining discipline once the soldiers believe their wives and children are in danger. That's why I proposed that only ancient governments would have this issue. I'd amend that further to say that once nationalism is researched, this will no longer be an issue at all.

[lajzar]

JUst a thought...

How about this:

All cities act as supply sources. I think we are all in agreement on that point anyway. All infantry units act as supply nodes. A supply node/source provides supply to all units within 3 tiles.

I specifically state only infantry acts as a supply node to represent the fact that only infantry can hold ground effectively. This also helps to encourage a mix of units; infantry to hold the ground (either as supply nodes or guarding captured cities), cavalry for the assault, and artillery to crush tough defences. Let's face it, infantry get short shift in the late game.

Under this model, if you are making a deep assault without capturing cities (supply sources), you'd leave behind a string of infantry along your advance path.

This is basically The_Aussie_Lurker's proposal, but without those extra funky graphics on screen to represent the supply lines.