The List - Combat

[DarkCloud]

bump. deadlines.... deadliness...

[Solver]

You should have noticed the other thread that contains the compiled ideas, page 2 .

[MORON]

On infinite stacks:

If you pull all the people on earth and lined them up back to back, they'd fit a large town.

Also remember the South Korea has huge military presence (equal that of the north) but no cripping economics.

(demo = + gold on tiles, unlike Nkorea that has negative income and is slowing selling improvements to maintain the army while all the shields are used for the army while lacking a factory)

Of course if one can't send 100 divisions in a 30km radius and have them all fight at the same time, but they can be fit there.

[The diplomat]

Maybe this has already been mentionned but what about introducing tactics.

Basically, before each battle the player would get to choose from a series of tactics:
- withdraw
- full charge
- outflank
- feign retreat
- surprise attack
- stand ground
etc...

Each tactic would modify your units attack/defense values.

This would make battles more exciting and interesting because depending on the choice that you and your opponent make, you might win with an inferior force or lose with a superior force.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Maybe this has already been mentionned but what about introducing tactics.

Basically, before each battle the player would get to choose from a series of tactics:
- withdraw
- full charge
- outflank
- feign retreat
- surprise attack
- stand ground
etc...

Each tactic would modify your units attack/defense values.

This would make battles more exciting and interesting because depending on the choice that you and your opponent make, you might win with an inferior force or lose with a superior force.

you are hired

[lajzar]

Units should have a firepower stat (like civ2), and an armour class stat. The armour class stat deducts from the firepower of the enemy.
Say we have the following fight:

Knights 4-2-2 FP 2 AC 1
longbows 4-1-1 FP 2 AC 0

The knights fight with an effective civ2 firepower of 2, the longbows with an effective firepower of 1. Both would be completely unable to hurt a tank with an AC of 2, as that would knock their effective firepower to zero.

This will prevent the spearmen beats tank situations. Carful tuning will be required of course.

[Addled Platypus]

Build list

After reading most of these post


Who would like the idea of what appears in the build list.

As new units become availble, just a simple yes/no question to include them into the build list. Or maybe a right click once they are in the list to avoid the the repeativness of the same question
throughout the millenia.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Maybe this has already been mentionned but what about introducing tactics.

Basically, before each battle the player would get to choose from a series of tactics:
- withdraw
- full charge
- outflank
- feign retreat
- surprise attack
- stand ground
etc...

Each tactic would modify your units attack/defense values.

This would make battles more exciting and interesting because depending on the choice that you and your opponent make, you might win with an inferior force or lose with a superior force.

This is a good list but I'd like to enhance it a bit:

*Withdrawl: not necessarily a tactic but in Civ IV ALL units should have the possibilty of a retreat (there also should be a chance of a rout too)
*Frontal Assault (or Charge): This is an attack against an opponet, usually resulting in high casulties but necessary against an entrenched opponet
*Envelopment: this is a high risk/reward strategy (best used by mounted units)
*Ambush: Best used by special forces and guerilla type units.
*Counterattack: This is also a high/risk reward tactic best used by horse and armored units
*Entrench: basically the old fortified command, but it would give added bonuses to defensive foot units.

I am not sure of the exact bonuses that would be given but adding more options/commands to your units could only be a positive improvement in combat resolution.

Also0 tye ability to add/remove units from the build list is an excellent idea.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


This is a good list but I'd like to enhance it a bit:

*Withdrawl: not necessarily a tactic but in Civ IV ALL units should have the possibilty of a retreat (there also should be a chance of a rout too)
*Frontal Assault (or Charge): This is an attack against an opponet, usually resulting in high casulties but necessary against an entrenched opponet
*Envelopment: this is a high risk/reward strategy (best used by mounted units)
*Ambush: Best used by special forces and guerilla type units.
*Counterattack: This is also a high/risk reward tactic best used by horse and armored units
*Entrench: basically the old fortified command, but it would give added bonuses to defensive foot units.

I am not sure of the exact bonuses that would be given but adding more options/commands to your units could only be a positive improvement in combat resolution.

Also the ability to add/remove units from the build list is an excellent idea.

How about a twist using Fog of War. Once you declare war on a civ (vice versa). This reduces the ability to really know what is in an attacking stack... maybe include modern military scouts?

If one was attacked my nothing but moblie inf/tanks,etc, would you have time to entrench?

Same thing with terrain, one could entrench in open, forrest, what about inside a city...maybe add guerilla warfare?

[lajzar]

Hmm, Im against tactics for two reasons.

1 - I am not the general in the field in charge of ordering the soldiers on which tactics to use. I am the zeitgeist of the people. This level of control is beneath me.

2 - For any particular attacker - defender combination, there would always be a single optimum tactic to use (unless you turn it into a shell game where the defender chooses a random tactic). This turns combat into a micromanagement festival. It doesnt really add anything to gameplay.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex



How about a twist using Fog of War. Once you declare war on a civ (vice versa). This reduces the ability to really know what is in an attacking stack... maybe include modern military scouts?

If one was attacked my nothing but moblie inf/tanks,etc, would you have time to entrench?

Same thing with terrain, one could entrench in open, forrest, what about inside a city...maybe add guerilla warfare?

1) Fog of war should be inclusive regardless of whether one is at war or not. The overall information known should be (without reconassiance units) the best defensive unit, the best offensive unit and the overall # of units in a stack, no other info should be provided without a recon mission (which mobile units should be able to perform as well as satellites which would be a new unit)

2) It only takes a few hours on most terrain to create earthworks so entrenchment time really is not a significant issue. Fortifications should not change in needing to be built. Also entrenchment should be possible except in the following terrain; Cities with walled fortification, Forts or fortresses (barracades), swamp or marsh, tundra.

Origionally posted by Lajzar

Hmm, Im against tactics for two reasons.

1 - I am not the general in the field in charge of ordering the soldiers on which tactics to use. I am the zeitgeist of the people. This level of control is beneath me.

2 - For any particular attacker - defender combination, there would always be a single optimum tactic to use (unless you turn it into a shell game where the defender chooses a random tactic). This turns combat into a micromanagement festival. It doesnt really add anything to gameplay.

These would just be combat enhancers or reducers(e.g envelopmet reduces retreat possibility by 10%, frontal assault decreases defender HP by 1, ect. ) but I do see your point. For me anything that is possible to shake up the CRAPPY RNG system is a good thing and I think it would add a bit of flavor to the game. It also should be an option, not part of the stock rules.

[Trifna]

The fact that bterrain changes combat is major. I think that having bonus/malus % to certain units in certain environments for certain tasks could do the trick.

It is espescially important in the case of infantry units entering a city: as in SMAC, they should get a +X% since they're more efficient in urban combat. Just look at the case of Bagdad: they discussed at length on TV of the problems of going in a city for a tank. It's infantry that goes in houses, secures areas...

The same issue exists in a dense forest or jungle. The day when a tank batallion starts shooting in a dense forest, I get myself some popcorn


For more detailed information, we'd need to look at battles done in Vietnamese jungles.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber

It also should be an option, not part of the stock rules.

Amen brother

Options are the best way to go, will the programmers hate us if there to many?

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Trifna
The fact that bterrain changes combat is major. I think that having bonus/malus % to certain units in certain environments for certain tasks could do the trick.

It is espescially important in the case of infantry units entering a city: as in SMAC, they should get a +X% since they're more efficient in urban combat. Just look at the case of Bagdad: they discussed at length on TV of the problems of going in a city for a tank. It's infantry that goes in houses, secures areas...

The same issue exists in a dense forest or jungle. The day when a tank batallion starts shooting in a dense forest, I get myself some popcorn


For more detailed information, we'd need to look at battles done in Vietnamese jungles.

Bonuses for certain units in different terrain is another possibilty.

For instance archery defence should be doubled if located in defensive fortifications, Bombardment values halved in forest or jungle.....

Your example of infantry in a city is a correct one but armored forces have been able to operate in dense forrests, so I'm a little dubious about that example.

One thing is certain, the combat system must be modified so that the combat results are not just a calculation of A/D values. I want to see some of the following in the combat system for CIV 4

* Retreating more common
* Standoffs (defender neither wins, nor loses)
* Terrain modification for different unit types
* More units to utilize (Special Forces, Partisans, Unit between Ironclads and modern ship units, howitzer, Self-propelled artillery, Terrorists (spy type unit), Motorized Infantry, Light Cavalry...)
* A rudimentary supply system (units not "in supply" lose a HP per turn, perhaps?
* Units able to move/ attack after parrachute drops.
* More units able to make amphibious assaults (Greeks, Romans and Persians were able to do this)
* Air units should be able to select their targets ( like subs)

[Trifna]

1- About tanks and such units, I would not see them as going as well in a dense forest as in a plain. In Civ though, a forest tile is not by default a dense forest. I never read about how it is to drive a tank though.

2- I do not expect CiV to have modifiers for every single terrain and every single unit since Civ always have been a pretty general game. I would rather expect a few general modifiers.