The List - Combat

[wrylachlan]

If infantry are supply what is to stop a stack from fortifying and recieving supply from the infantry in the stack? What causes the "supply unit" to hang back out of the front line? If an infantry unit is the source of supply doesn't that totally defeat the sneaking past the front line to get at the supply dynamic?

I also think that giving different amounts of supply for different terrains is hopelessly micro-intensive.

[lajzar]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
If infantry are supply what is to stop a stack from fortifying and recieving supply from the infantry in the stack? What causes the "supply unit" to hang back out of the front line? If an infantry unit is the source of supply doesn't that totally defeat the sneaking past the front line to get at the supply dynamic?

But infantry are NOT the supply source. They are merely a supply node. Let's say you have the tiles below:

ABCDEFGHI

Tile A is a city. As the standard supply radius is 3, any unit in tiles BCD are in supply. If there is a infantry unit in tile E, that unit is not in supply. However, if that same unit is in tile D, then it is in supply, and its status as a supply node means that the suppl radius gets extended a further 3 tiles from itself, to tiles EFG. So assuming you have infantry in tiles D and G, it makes sense to attack D, sidestepping G, and effectively putting G out of supply.

I also think that giving different amounts of supply for different terrains is hopelessly micro-intensive.

Agreed. Keep it flat. At most, I'd say keep ancient units always in supply in hospitable terrain. This reflects the fact that they can forage for just about all their needs in hospitable terrain. Even archers can find enough trees to keep them in ammo. Supply only becomes an issue when you need non-foragable resources, which means gunpowder units onwards. Arguably also platemail armoured troops (ie medieval infantry), but I'd let that one get the hospitable terrain forage benefit too.

[Awsric Armitage]

I also think that giving different amounts of supply for different terrains is hopelessly micro-intensive.

I think you are confusing the game mechanics that are private parts of the inner workings of the program and its complexity of dealing with supply and what is public to the user.

All the player will have to know about supply is that certain tiles with bad terrain can not support any more than a certain number of units with free terrain supply points. After that units suffer hp damage. All the calculations and other details that we have discussed while complicated is not seen by the user but is rather a part of the code. It is easy to say this will cause intensive micro-management and dismiss the idea but ineffect it will only create more restrictive rules that the player and AI must abide by that create a more realistic model of supply. Restricting players behaviours also enables better AIs abilities as the possabilties of the human players actions are narrowed.

This sytem also defeats the 'killer stack' and introduces a terrain specific supply system. Any new additions to the game mechanics comes with a minimum of micro-management. Planning any successful military campaign should involve a minimum of micro-managment not just they are in that direction go get them.

If its simplicity you crave then moving the game forward is going to be nigh but impossible. Some micro-managment models reality but it is and should be balanced for playability.

Too many people are using the 'micro-management' tag to dismiss good game mechanics and systems because they know most players run away in terror when they hear the word.

I would hope that publishers can discern the difference.

[lajzar]

You know, the killer stack thing only becomes an issue in the late game, when modern units are roaming around. I don't think anyone has proposed that they should ever get the ability to live off the land.

I still think collateral damage is a better mechanism for defeating the killer stack than terrain-specific supply limits.

Besides, so what if you have a stack of 500, and 490 are out of supply? It is still the unit with the best defence factor that defends, and he will be in supply if you you that terrain-limited supply model.

[Awsric Armitage]

Not necessarily so because units at one hp that cannot be supported are automatically disbanded starting with the furthest from a supply point.

This means all units unable to be supplied will be disbanded in from 2 to 7 turns depending on their experience levels if moving in a large stack beyond your supply range and terrain limits. Conscripts get disbanded first then on to the more experienced units. After 4 to 5 turns your example stack of 400 to 500 units becomes more like probably 50 to 100 who also are about to disband and seek food and shelter away from the large army who cannot feed them.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, my view on terrains and combat are as follows (sorry about being repetitive!)

1)Terrain should influence a units 'operational range' stat-much as it reduces movement rates in the current game! Certain units might be able to ignore this penalty for certain terrain types-like arab troops in desert terrain for instance!

2) Terrain should effect the number of units which can be in a tile at any one time. Mountains, for instance, should have a lower stack number than plains. For each unit you have above a terrains stack number, the greater chance/turn that the units in your stack will suffer some kind of physical degradation (whether hp loss, or lost attack/defense strength if attacked!)

3) Terrain should give units attack penalties/bonuses. In addition, certain units should gain benefits if attacking into/out of a particular type of terrain tile (for instance: alpine troops, a great civ2 staple, would have 'Ignore Movement costs' for mountain terrain, would ignore the Op Range costs of mountains and would recieve a bonus for attacking into/out of mountain tiles (but would get a serious penalty in all other terrain types!) This would give a player or AI an excellent incentive to build what has long been a useless unit!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Awsric Armitage]

I am in complete agreement with what The_Aussie_Lurker has outlined.

I think we are talking about the same system just calling it something different. One is terrain support/supply points the other is Operational Range. In effect they are almost identical as I understand them.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, just to be safe, I'd like to make sure that I am on the same page as Awsric on this one.

Lets say, for example, you have an infantry unit with an Operational Range of 6. Within friendly territory, this range won't matter, 'cause all such units are considered 'In Supply'. If the unit moves beyond his borders, however, then he can only move 6 hexes out before he risks suffering damage from being 'out of supply'. If he designates a point within his borders as a 'Supply Point', then his range increases to 12. Now, for my part, I would like to see some kind of 'graphic' indicating the 'line of supply' connecting a unit to it's supply point-as it gives the enemy something to attack, so to speak, by sitting on it for a whole turn!

Anyway, back to my example. Using Lazjars method:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ.

Let's say that A is a friendly city, and B is your border-the farthest the infantry unit can go is H. If he travels beyond this, then he runs the risk of suffering damage (perhaps 10% per square-so if he went to M, it would be a 50% chance/turn of suffering damage) If he assigns city A as a 'Supply Point', then he can now travel out to M without difficulty-which he might need to if the nearest enemy city lies that far out. Alternatively, he could build a fort at E, assign it as a supply point, and then could travel well beyond M (as far as Q!) Of course, if he is at Q, and then that fort gets captured (or his supply-line is severed), then the infantry unit will start to automatically suffer damage every turn, until he gets back to H! Also, if a desert lay at F, for example, then the Operational Range of the infantry will drop to 3, or 5 if he has assigned a supply point! This is where having a specialized Desert unit would come in handy, as it would ignore the Op Range cost of harsh terrain. As Wrychlan said in his earlier post, though, the supply-line graphic I mentioned would probably be invisible to an enemy unless they were within about 2-4 hexes of it (depending on the 'viewing range' of the unit). This would make scouts VERY important for detecting the supply lines of an enemy invader. This system would also make paratroopers VERY important, as they would probably have a starting Op Range of about 10 (compared to the 6 I mentioned for infantry!)
Anyway, is that how you envisaged the system working, Awsric?

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Awsric Armitage]

Yes, I think they are similar enough to merge them together.

This is the supply system as presented by several posters ideas merged together, if I understand them correctly.

Given:[List=1][*]Each unit has a statistic called Operational Range or OR.[*]OR is a measure of the base supply range in contiguous tiles that the unit can travel safely without becoming ‘out of supply’.[*]The effective OR is modified by the terrain types and tile improvements of the tiles in between the units current location and either the nearest city or the player designated supply point. (which ever is closer with auto-detection for optimization enabled???).[*]Units with-in cultural boundaries are immune from supply checks.[*]Valid supply points are Cities, Fortresses, and ‘Supply Nodes’ OR Valid supply points are Cities only and Fortresses and ‘Supply Nodes’ are considered tile improvements that have OR bonuses for that tile the same as other tile improvements like roads.[*]Tiles have a maximum number of units that can be stacked in them and considered to be in supply.[/List=1]
Terrain and Tile Improvements and OR bonuses and penalties: ( I made these up but they seem to make some sense)

1. Road +3 (might need to be trimmed down a bit to only one road applies otherwise cumulative gets large)
2. Irrigation +1
3. River +2
4. Fortress +6 can act as supply point
5. ‘Supply Node’ +6 can act as supply point
6. Town +6 can act as supply point
7. City +8 can act as supply point
8. Metropolis +10 can act as supply point
9. Desert -3
10. Forests -1
11. Hills -1 might be additionally modified by dominate terrain
12. Mountains -4 might be additionally modified by dominate terrain
13. Jungle -2
14. Coastal Impassable for land based units
15. Sea Impassable for land based units
16. Ocean Impassable for land based units

Terrain and Tile Improvements Maximum Units supportable/tile: (any units over this are considered out of supply)

1. Grasslands 12
2. Plains 12
3. Flood Plains 12
4. Hills 10 might be additionally modified by dominate terrain
5. Mountains 6 might be additionally modified by dominate terrain
6. Deserts 6
7. Jungles 8
8. Forests 10
9. Roads +3
10. River +2
11. Irrigation +1
12. Fortress Limited only by overarcing maintenace costs
13. ‘Supply Node’ Limited only by overarcing
14. maintenace costs
15. Town Limited only by overarcing maintenace costs
16. City Limited only by overarcing maintenace costs
17. Metropolis Limited only by overarcing maintenace costs

ORs vary for different units but standard is about 6 tiles.

I like the OR and supply line graphics but with multiple units spread across several tiles this would begin to look like spokes on a wheel radiating from the supply points that would form the hub of that wheel. Any single spoke controlled/intercepted by an enemy unit could cut the supply of the one unit that it supplied or the attacker could isolate the source of the spokes and control that supply point thus cutting all the supply lines or spokes connected to that supply point. I would think a minimum of 1 to 2 turns for rebaseing supply would be in order here. This would assume that only cities, fortresses, and temporary tile improvements or 'supply nodes' could act as valid supply points. With the graphic I believe we would require a toggle for showing/hiding supply lines so as not to clutter the screen unnecessarily unless prompted to do so by the player searching for supply lines. Valid supply points on such a map might radiate a range similar to the cultural borders graphics.

This is a little more detailed than what I had envisioned but I do like it and I believe the two systems can both coexist together to form a larger workable whole system.

If I missed some areas let me know but I think the above lists include the areas we have been discussing. I would set-up a screen shot example from the editor for graphical presentation if that would prove more explanatory for some viewers. Let me know if it might help the illustration of the system.

Awsric Armitage

[wrylachlan]

I'd like to bring up a few points:
1)How do you deal with naval invasion in your supply model? Are transport vessels considered a supply node?
2)Are cities the only "original node" with fortified infantry only extending their range, not generating their own? If so, can you daisy chain infantry to extend the range even further? or is there a limit to the range? Do you think it will become tedious stringing out daisy chains of supply if you push into enemy territory and he has pop-rushed down to size 1 cities that you destroy???
3)As for changing supply for different terrain. What play decisions does it create that aren't created by other systems? I mean if you avoid mountains because of their slow movement, it isn't necessary to also make the player avoid them because of difficult supply. In terms of decision-making its kind of redundant.

Also MM doesn't just refer to the keyboard input. You can have a decision between 2 different tiles which you can input with 1 keystroke, but if it requires taking out a calculator and a bunch of charts to figure out which keystroke is the most advantageous, then I would consider that micro-intensive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A suggestion for if they go with a daisy-chain mechanism for supply:

Why not use the borders system? When you're in your borders you are under supply. So simply have the infantry units radiate borders and borders tend to bend to military units:

ABCDEF
GHIJKL
MNOPQ

If the original border is at AGM, and a military unit in wartime moves to tile I, the border fills in. If he were to move one more tile, to J, the border would snap back to its original position and the unit would be out of supply.

ABCDEF
GHIJKL
MNOPQ

If an infantry unit fortifies at I, other units can move to L and P, and still be within the borders = in supply. If an enemy takes out the Infantry at I, OR interdicts tile H, the border snaps back to its original position and all units are out of supply.

[lajzar]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I'd like to bring up a few points:
1)How do you deal with naval invasion in your supply model? Are transport vessels considered a supply node?

Ships are never considered out of supply. However, like civ2 bombers, they have a fuel statistic. For galleys and non-ocean going sail, this is effectively unlimited. Standard is say, 30 turns for ocean sailships, 15 for steam, 30 for oil, and 50 for modern. The effect of using up this fuel is similar to the effect for civ2 bombers.

2)Are cities the only "original node" with fortified infantry only extending their range, not generating their own? If so, can you daisy chain infantry to extend the range even further? or is there a limit to the range? Do you think it will become tedious stringing out daisy chains of supply if you push into enemy territory and he has pop-rushed down to size 1 cities that you destroy???

In my supply model (not sure how much it agrees with teh others)...

Yes, cities are teh only original supply source. Fortified infantry are "supply nodes". A node extends teh supply range, but if a supply node unit is out of supply, it does not generate or extend any supply anywhere. You can daisy chain fortified infantry to extend the supply lines across the entire map if you desire.

Yes, I suppose it would be tedious if he manages to strip bare that many cities that then get destroyed by your attack. On the other hand, there's now all that uninhabited land just itching for you to plonk a settler unit in there. And you have all those infantry units all ready to defend your new city (and supply source).

3)As for changing supply for different terrain. What play decisions does it create that aren't created by other systems? I mean if you avoid mountains because of their slow movement, it isn't necessary to also make the player avoid them because of difficult supply. In terms of decision-making its kind of redundant.

Also MM doesn't just refer to the keyboard input. You can have a decision between 2 different tiles which you can input with 1 keystroke, but if it requires taking out a calculator and a bunch of charts to figure out which keystroke is the most advantageous, then I would consider that micro-intensive.

And that's one reason why I don't want to worry about terrain for supply.

[Awsric Armitage]

OK

1). Naval vessels should have a different supply model similar to what ljazar has outlined above representing fuel and food stores as well as crew morale all abstracted into a fuel stat. You can remain at sea for this long wthout suffering from supply penalties but must resupply at a port or suffer out of supply penalties just like land units and if supply is not replenished by returning to port the unit may eventually be lost.

Amphibious Invasions must gain a beach-head and then from that beach-head capture a city or other source of supply quickly in order to remain effective before out of supply issues begin to eat away at the units hps. This models reality in that your invasion will quickly fail if not supported by a land based supply point. We might consider giving certain amphibious units a number of free turns of supply before out-of-supply penalties begin. Current game amphibious units could be a starting point here with marines and Vikings Berserkirs as the earliest examples.

In this situation it might be wise to actually bring along a settler unit to build a new city if you plan on razing the captured coastal cities. Otherwise sustained invasions must capture a city to act as a supply point and if not then the attack was more just a raid than an invasion. Coastal cities would probably be preferrable because your invasion fleet could now be based from the newly conquered cities port.

2). I believe this point is still somewhat debated at this point. I feel as though fortresses and ‘supply nodes’ could radiate their own supply radiuses but this is also reflected with the same fortresses and ‘supply nodes’ bonuses to the OR and seems redundant to include them as original supply points. The fortresses and ‘supply nodes’ themselves must be in supply to be able to radiate supply themselves so the systems seem very similar to me. Both situations require interdicting the supply line somewhere by claiming a tile to cut the supply or controlling the ‘supply node’ or capturing the fortresses which are the larger extenders of the OR system.

Daisy-chaining supply or OR by fortifying Infantry which then becomes a ‘supply node’ is the method of extending supply or OR into enemy territory without capturing an enemy city. If a player wants to slow an invaders advance into his territory he very well could employ the tactics of stripping his cities to pop 1 and pillaging his own terrain improvements thus using a scorched earth policy. Building new cities or fortresses to base from would be the method of further extending your supply or OR into enemy territory.

3). Terrain supply or OR bonuses and penalties are not as much about movement restrictions as it is about supply ranges across them. For instance you have a mountain range in between two civilizations. One moves to invade the other and must now trace his supply lines over or around the mountains. Without the supply penalties of the mountains terrain he could draw an unimpeded supply line directly across the mountains rather than having to skirt his supply lines around the mountains to a thinner point and cross the supply lines over the mountains at that point. This realistically models using mountain passes rather than going over the peaks for the supply lines and has tactical as well as strategic gameplay implications. The same is true for units tracing supply lines through deserts and jungles and other inhospitable terrains. The supply lines are better maintained at a shorter crossing point. Also units deep inside mountainous terrain or others such as deserts or jungles would find it very difficult if not impossible to maintain supply.

Also MM doesn't just refer to the keyboard input. You can have a decision between 2 different tiles which you can input with 1 keystroke, but if it requires taking out a calculator and a bunch of charts to figure out which keystroke is the most advantageous, then I would consider that micro-intensive.

I agree. This is why I propose a method be introduced for having the computer automatically trace the supply lines through the best available or shortest path available.

I would like to use the borders system as well but bear in mind the current borders system only reflects the cultural borders not the military influence borders proposed. I talked a little about this a while ago but will reiterate here for brevity of searching that post out again.

Military influence would radiate from Fortresses similar to what culture does from Cities. This military influence would trump cultural influence for control of bordering areas with a possible 2:1 or 3:1 determining ratio for which influence military vs culture would dominate ultimately. This creates three situations for border areas.[list=1][*] Military influence is greater than cultural influence.

The area is considered owned by the stronger military influence and cultural borders reflect this.
[*]Cultural influence is greater than military influence but less than military to culture determining ratio.

The area is considered occupied by the stronger military influence and resource extraction goes first to that civs cities if they overlap each other. If not then the other civs cities can extract resources from those tiles at reduced rates as they are considered in occupied territory.
[*]Culural influence is greater than military influence and is also greater than the military to culture determining ratio.

The area is considered owned by the stronger cultural influence.[/list=1]
I do see the merits of the other above posted system but it does not include the difference in between cultural and military influences over who actually controls the lands. In my example above both situations can exist with the occupation militarily of culturally stronger lands up to a certain threshold or ratio after which military occupation makes no difference to the people until removed or eliminated.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Awsric Armitage
I do see the merits of the other above posted system but it does not include the difference in between cultural and military influences over who actually controls the lands.

I think that depends on how you visualize the border system. To me, everything in your borders does have a military presence. A token military presence enough to handle basic duties, but not enough to even make a dent in a enemy that enters in force (except perhaps to slow him down as modelled by the movement penalty crossing borders.)

And the system I outlined does take into account the difference between military and cultural borders, in that borders created by military control only exist as long as the military unit stays put. As soon as the military unit gets too far into enemy territory, the border snaps back to the original cultural border line.

[Gen.Dragolen]

Solutions to the CIV combat model

I have enjoyed reading this spirited and creative discussion. Wrylachlan, lajzar, Aussie_Lurker and Awsric have both made excellent points on how C4 could have a realistic and playable combat system.

Now to toss in my 2 cents worth.

The pieces of the puzzle that I feel are missing are:
1. Supply lines and supply status
2. Initiative to decide who attacks and who defends
3. Leadership
4. Stacking Limits
5. Technology
6. Tactics
7. Morale vs HP
8. Terrain effects

I do like the ideas floated for a supply system for units in the field. The one thing that I think units should have a forage rate for living off the land. Ancient units would be better able to survive off of what ever was available than a modern infantry unit. What is missing is the impact of troops on the local economy. A unit should consume food that otherwise would go to the populous. In smaller cities with a large cultural area, this isn't a problem. But in a metropolis, an invading army living off the land would lead to starvation.

Units do need supply lines and something that qualifies as a baggage train with supply depots. This should correspond to a movement range since an army would try to carry as much food with it as possible. Any unit that uses up its supplies is essentially stuck, and if it's stuck for more than a turn without sufficient forage, it should start to loose HPs. This would nicely reflect what happens in seige situations as well. So if you have a stack of units in a square drawing off one food per turn per unit from the surrounding squares, it makes going into a desert a good way to kill off a lot of your units if you don't have enough supplies in your baggage train to make up the difference.

The lack of anything to do with initiative is another sore spot. This also touches on how stacks of units should work, and how combined arms should work. I liked the idea in games like Squad Leader where you could get leader units that would have a given Morale effect, Initiative rating and leadership rating. This ties in to how the battle should work out. I would like to see a turn based battle resolution system where each turn, you get to determine who has the initiative based on the leader's initiative, the unit morale, and the outcome of the last turn. Once that is decided, then the units with the highest initiatives (like mounted or missle weapons) get to attack first, and their effect is resolved against the defending units. This would also affect the defending unit status since troops on the march are more vulnerable than those that are arrayed for battle.

The next missing component is a stacking limit for each square. If you want to prevent the Stack o' Death syndrome, then make a limit of 9-12 division sized units in a given square, with lesser limits on coast squares. I keep thinking how ridiculous it was to see a stack of 200 MA's in one game, all in the same square. Just to keep the gas tanks filled up would have been improbable. That makes the need for a good combined arms force essential if you are going to make a stand in one square.

This brings me to the role of technology. Iron is better than bronze, Rifles better than muskets, and cannons better than catapults. There is a lack of realism for the effects of the technological improvements in armour and weapons. What made the Hittites such a terror was that they had weapons made of Iron that would cut a bronze sword in two. What we need is a greater differentiation between the different units possible with a given technological era. What I have tried to mod into my units is a first generation, second generation evolution: an F-18 will murder an Me-262 in a dog fight. This should lead to the need to keep units current. Again, a longbow will outrange a simple bow and a composite bow will have a greater damage with a shorter range. The tech race is somewhat present in the game, but not enough to make it a valuable part of the overall game. This leads to another problem and that is one of tactics.

Tactics are how you organize your troops and how you use them on the battlefield. Spearmen line up in rows with overlapping shields to form a single face to the enemy. Attack them with a tank, and you have HE shells and MG's which could decimate a formation of spearmen in a few minutes. Spearmen attacking a formation of tanks should still allow for a miracle like in Ethiopia vs. the Italians. But against modern armour, corrctly employed, its going to be a slaughter. Again, this is where a good leader unit would make all the difference since a low morale unit would be more succeptible to having 'Miracles' happen to them.

And what of Morale? I hated the idea of units having Hit Points. What they should have done is to have a damage rating and a morale rating to reflect what happens to the human psyche. When a unit is left in battle for too long, the morale suffers first. Battle damage may heal if left in the field, but morale may suffer for the prolonged campaigning. Alexander the Great was forced back to Persia when his troops refused to go any further. They were still able to fight, but after marching so far, they had had enough. This leads to the need for a good government that is capable of producing as high morale recruit. So governments like Despotism will produce a lower morale unit than a Democracy.

My last point is the need for more varied terrain types. While the game engine may not allow for River movement, there should be a way of having fords, mountain passes and other paths across the terrain that restricts movement and has an impact on combat. For those that have served and done field exercises, you can attest to how big a challenge it is to move large numbers of people across the land when its fairly level and you have good visibility. Now add it a forest, or hilly terrain, where your Line of Sight are reduced, and you become vulnerable to ambushes, and being our manuevered. While going to a CTP combat model is an idea, I don't feel it is a very good one. What I figure would be a better solution would be to have a more granular terrain model, to reflect how hard it is to move, how hard it would be to form up an army, and how easy it would be to place an ambush. This would mean adding some more stats to the units and the terrain, but it would make life much more interesting if you could have a unit prepare an ambush instead of setting up for a set piece battle. A unit in ambush would be more vulnerable to attack if the ambush was detected, but if it wasn't detected, then there should be an attack bonus for the surprise factor.

Well, that's a good deal for only 2 cents, but there it is. Any comments as to how workable you think all of this is ?


D.

[Awsric Armitage]

First I have to agree that removing the absraction of Morale into hitpoints needs to be done for an effective command and initiative system to operate effectively. We need both Morale and Hitpoints stats along with Attack, Ranged Attack, Defense, and Movement. Foraging would also be nice as well as Operational Range for the supply model everyone contibuted to above but these two may combine in some way.

My last point is the need for more varied terrain types. While the game engine may not allow for River movement, there should be a way of having fords, mountain passes and other paths across the terrain that restricts movement and has an impact on combat. For those that have served and done field exercises, you can attest to how big a challenge it is to move large numbers of people across the land when its fairly level and you have good visibility. Now add it a forest, or hilly terrain, where your Line of Sight are reduced, and you become vulnerable to ambushes, and being our manuevered. While going to a CTP combat model is an idea, I don't feel it is a very good one. What I figure would be a better solution would be to have a more granular terrain model, to reflect how hard it is to move, how hard it would be to form up an army, and how easy it would be to place an ambush. This would mean adding some more stats to the units and the terrain, but it would make life much more interesting if you could have a unit prepare an ambush instead of setting up for a set piece battle. A unit in ambush would be more vulnerable to attack if the ambush was detected, but if it wasn't detected, then there should be an attack bonus for the surprise factor.

I couldn't agree more about maintaining unit cohesion of larger formations in challenging terrain. Some terrain types would only allow for a maximum size of formation to effectively support each other. For example in dense forests and jungles or hilly mountain passes and gourges just to name a few army sized formations are very difficult to wield effectively breaking down into smaller command and control formational levels.

A pop-up battle map of a grid would be nice where the player could position his units if more than one existed in a stack. This battle map would be representative of the terrain types prominent of the tile engaged in and if necessary for extremely large stacks the surrounding tiles. Say a 10x10 grid for each stack of 10 units for both the attacker and defender to manuever on thus taking the battles into a tactical mode.

I know, I know, its only Civ but its Civ4 and with the more historically accurate scenarios coming out and C3C themes this might actually occur.

Think of a series of stacks say 8 to 10 stacks of 10 units each engaged in a pitched battle. I am talking Brave Heart or Gladiator style epic battle cut-scene stuff here playing out after the commanders from both sides issue orders to their troops. Then a few minutes or longer depending upon command ratings and communication technology and a new orders phase is initiated.

Talk about compelling battles compared to the move my unit into your square play a sound bite and live or die. I know which one I would pick-up off the store shelves.