{The List-} Movement, supply, etc.

[MrBaggins]

CTP(2) doesn't use a separate screen. Thats merely a way to display the battle progress and outcome. You can turn it off, and battles are negotiated exactly the same way, on the main map, just without a progressive display.

As for including directional entrenching.

K.I.S.S.

[hexagonian]

Initially, I had said that a tactical minigame was a (potentially) good idea and should be considered, but I have also said that it is something that I do feel is not needed in civ4.

As time goes on, I am becoming less in favor of a tactical minigame.

I have used the CTP setup as an example of taking the basic concepts of tactical elements such as flanking and mid-ranged attacks, and applying them in a broad way that does not force the player to establish these tactics on a tactical minigame screen.

Where we differ is that you want to establish the use of tactics like flanking on the mainmap through the use of bonuses based on where you position your troops and from what direction you attack the enemy - and I think I've understood that basic concept from Day 1. I may have not completely grasped the the implimentation, but I did get the concept...

I do understand the aspect described below though...

The complaint I''ve heard over and over again about the use of a tactical minigame is that it will increase the micromanagement aspect of the game, in that every time you enter a battle, you have to issue a series of commands - and I have played games where this is the case. It's fun for a few days, and then its the same old thing, ad naseum.

Your proposal does exactly the same type of thing in adding these additional levels of micromanagement. Couple that with unlimited units in stacks, the fluid nature of troop positioning on a turn-by-turn basis, and the continued use of the worker system, and I see civ4 potentially becoming an even greater tedious micromangement nightmare.

Perhaps that is what players want though...

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by hexagonian Your proposal does exactly the same type of thing in adding these additional levels of micromanagement. Couple that with unlimited units in stacks, the fluid nature of troop positioning on a turn-by-turn basis, and the continued use of the worker system, and I see civ4 potentially becoming an even greater tedious micromangement nightmare.

I think the tediousness of micromanagement is not a factor of the different combat techniques (flankning, combined arms, etc.) but rather a factor of the total number of units.

Doing a straight up fight with 30 units is significantly more tedious than having to think about the tactical movements of say 5 units. As such I think that there are two totally seperate issues:

1) Make sure that the number of units stays low
2) Make the combat with those units that remain as dynamic and tactical(ergo fun) as possible.

Additionally, I think that a cure for tedium is to allow stack movement, and group commands. If I could drag a box around units in multiple tiles (a la starcraft & war3) and give them group orders (attack this city, move to this tile, form a line at this tile, retreat to the nearest city, etc. etc.) that would cut down on tedium.

P.S. for an answer to worker tedium check out my suggestion in the Terrain Improvement poll forum: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=106007

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
CTP(2) doesn't use a separate screen. Thats merely a way to display the battle progress and outcome. You can turn it off, and battles are negotiated exactly the same way, on the main map, just without a progressive display.

Yes, and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to understand the separate mechanics of the battle screen in order to make the decisions about which units to put together as an effective stack? So even if you aren't watching the battles, you have to learn the rule set in order to be successful. The only difference I'm suggesting is that the rule sets should all apply to the main map.

[MrBaggins]

The ruleset DOES apply to the main map in the CTP system.

As for the learning curve... from a basic standpoint, its trivial.

You stack attack and defensive troops with ranged troops, to gain a combined arms advantage. Mix in a few flankers and bombarders when available for additional advantage.

The great library tells you that much... no battle screen depiction required.

There are, of course, many combinations of troop compositions, and theres no such thing as a perfect stack (well... they set Tanks ranged ability too high, being that it can flank too... but thats another story.) You can tell the outcomes of battle just by looking at the survivors. The battle screen is optional.

Furthermore, it's never gotten in the way... since its quick and non-interactive. Its actually quite gratifying, in fact... a nice "flavor" addition.

[wrylachlan]

I just looked up the CTP rules and I'll admit I was wrong about some of my issues. Mea Culpa.

However there are a few issues still outstanding for me:
1) The de-emphazing of terrain. I think that my flanking implementation makes much more dynamic use of the terrain than CTP.
2) This is more of a question than anything else, but are your armies movement points used up in an attack? If so, then your ability to press the attack on the same turn is taken away which de-emphasizes the dynamics of "overextending".
3) The CTP system has a few too many "basic numbers" for units. I think that my system of using the movement of a unit to implement its flanking capability is inherently simpler.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
erm... double huh?

ABC
DEF
GHI

If E is the defender and H the attacker, the front line is the line between E and H. The mounted unit moving from H to F is moving around the edge of the front line. The attack from F to E is the flanking attack around the edge of the front line. Where's the issue?

Ok. I understand what you mean. I see the situation a bit differently, though... if you read that post above?

...In the B,E,D, "spearhead" situation both bonuses could apply, and that would be more balanced...

Ok, so the frontline could look like this:

ABC
DEF
GHI

or this:

ABC
DEF
GHI


Lets say it's the straight diagonal one. In your case E would be attacked from two directions giving that bonus, but it should be negated by that unit in E having two or more friendly units on it's sides. It is not possible to flank a frontline like that, you must break through it first! So this diagonal one allow us to go into D and B and flank there too, so they should also be covered by either artillery or more units, like this:

ABC
DEF
GHI

Would allow for more interresting gameplay in terms of front wars.
Sorry I was not all clear in the other post, but you understand now?

[hexagonian]

Your entire proposal is based on the premise of resolving combat on a unit-by-unit basis - and those units are sent into battle one at a time. IMO, this system is the most primative and simplistic method to resolve combat - (its also interesting to note that many games that fall into the TBS genre have moved onto a more complex stacked-combat resolution.) It's really a carryover from hex-board games, where combat was set up this way because there was no real way to simulate simultaneous combat on a board game - something that is not a limitation to the computer.

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I just looked up the CTP rules and I'll admit I was wrong about some of my issues. Mea Culpa.
However there are a few issues still outstanding for me:
1) The de-emphazing of terrain. I think that my flanking implementation makes much more dynamic use of the terrain than CTP.

Not necessarily - its just that your proposal is based on the use of surrounding tiles as part of the equation, whereas the current CTP setup uses the tile where the combat takes place. For instance, using the CTP format, you can take away any attacking flanking bonus if a stack attacks a mountain tile. Or you can even use your proposal of using those factors to incur an additional flanking penalty/bonus when you move into combat from different directions in a CTP format. It's really the same concept in both situations - you are merely adding a numerical modifier into the equation once you commit to battle, and the computer then resolves the battle. And as it has been pointed out, the CTP screen is a only a representation of battle result.

Originally posted by wrylachlan
2) This is more of a question than anything else, but are your armies movement points used up in an attack? If so, then your ability to press the attack on the same turn is taken away which de-emphasizes the dynamics of "overextending".

I tend to favor the loss of movement points for all units when combat is initiated, but again, the CTP system could allow mounted units additional movement after a battle. This is more of a 'implimentation' question rather than a 'basic concept' question.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat Ok, so the frontline could look like this:

ABC
DEF
GHI

or this:

ABC
DEF
GHI


Lets say it's the straight diagonal one. In your case E would be attacked from two directions giving that bonus, but it should be negated by that unit in E having two or more friendly units on it's sides. It is not possible to flank a frontline like that, you must break through it first! So this diagonal one allow us to go into D and B and flank there too, so they should also be covered by either artillery or more units, like this:

ABC
DEF
GHI

Would allow for more interresting gameplay in terms of front wars.
Sorry I was not all clear in the other post, but you understand now?

I would amend your rule slightly so that you can't flank a tile that is bordered by melee units. There is a difference between the line being held by Pikemen versus Archers.

I would like to note, however that ideally, the cost balance of the units would be such that it would be cost-ineffective to maintain such a big army that occupying multiple tiles along a front is effective. I think that could get really micro intensive.

[ThePlagueRat]

Ok, seems fair enough. Since you mention those, I would also bring up the idea of archers and other ranged units being attachments to melee units instead of being separate units.

That should give the melee unit more hp, values and bombarment ability... Almost as they did in Hearts of Iron and Victoria. Would IMO be the best alternative when not using CTP-style armies.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Your entire proposal is based on the premise of resolving combat on a unit-by-unit basis - and those units are sent into battle one at a time. IMO, this system is the most primative and simplistic method to resolve combat - (its also interesting to note that many games that fall into the TBS genre have moved onto a more complex stacked-combat resolution.) It's really a carryover from hex-board games, where combat was set up this way because there was no real way to simulate simultaneous combat on a board game - something that is not a limitation to the computer.

Simultenaiety can only be truly achieved if you create a system where all movements happen at once and the defender has equally as fine control over his units in real time as the attacker.

CTP's system is no less an aproximation of this than Civ3's is. Can you attack a single tile from 3 other tiles simultaneously and gain the force multiplier that such an attack would give you in real life? No. The attacks from each of the 3 tiles are sequential.

If we accept that anything other than some sort of RTS implementation will always be an aproximation, then the question becomes reframed:

"How do I structure the game mechanics in terms of penalties and bonuses such that result of sequential attacks as closely as possible aproximates the results that would happen in real life if those attacks were simultaneous."

Thinking along those lines, you realize that there must be some sort of "strategic flanking" bonus to represent a pincer move. Again with my little square:

ABC
DEF
GHI

If E is the defender and I attack from D and I in the same turn, there ought to be some sort of bonus. If you're going to implement a bonus for that situation, it just makes sense to me that you would reuse the same game mechanism to implement flanking, instead of implementing flanking as a bonus in a mini-map game.

I tend to favor the loss of movement points for all units when combat is initiated, but again, the CTP system could allow mounted units additional movement after a battle. This is more of a 'implimentation' question rather than a 'basic concept' question.

But the hard-coded tile limit makes it impossible to bring enough units with you that you could attack and quickly press on with the units that weren't involved in the attack.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Ok, seems fair enough. Since you mention those, I would also bring up the idea of archers and other ranged units being attachments to melee units instead of being separate units.

That should give the melee unit more hp, values and bombarment ability... Almost as they did in Hearts of Iron and Victoria. Would IMO be the best alternative when not using CTP-style armies.

How about just giving ranged units a much lower attack value but giving every ranged unit in a tile a "free shot" every time a melee unit attacks or defends? Or alternatively give them a bonus to a certain number of melee unit's attack. For instance, every archer can give its bonus to the first 2 melee attacks per turn. Rifleman to the first 3, etc. etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Sounds like a lot of additional micromanagement to me...and what you are proposing is basically the same idea as a mini tactical screen.

No, not quite. Plus, this is completely optional, so it doesn't add all that much MM.

For instance, if there are several surrounding tiles with enemy units next to your stack, you will have to indicate the orientation of the 'front'. And given that the front often can and will change on a turn-by-turn basis, you will have to reorient that front on a turn-by-turn basis.

This is just an individual unit order, like fortify - just when you do it, you get to select the direction.

And if you have 30 units on a tile, will you have the freedom to select different orientations for units within that stack? Logically, you should have that option to deploy your forces against multiple threats based on direction - especially since those attacking forces will be visibly deployed on tiles as an indication of their attacking direction.

Yes, they can fortify in different directions. However, that means that you only have 3/8ths of the units defending effectively in each direction. 1/4th will have no bonus, and another 3/8ths will have a penalty.

Plus, this wouldn't be that useful for big single stacks anyway - it's better for deploying your troops all along a front.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
Simultenaiety can only be truly achieved if you create a system where all movements happen at once and the defender has equally as fine control over his units in real time as the attacker.

CTP's system is no less an aproximation of this than Civ3's is. Can you attack a single tile from 3 other tiles simultaneously and gain the force multiplier that such an attack would give you in real life? No. The attacks from each of the 3 tiles are sequential.

Granted, its not true simultaneous...but it is a step in the right directon regarding a simultaneous situation because it takes a numerical group of units (as opposed to a single unit), sends them into battle, uses unit abilities such as flank and range as part of the equation, and resolves that battle with a push of a button.
Personally, I wouldn't mind taking it a step further - similar to what is in EU2. Select all the units in a surrounding tiles that can reach that tile on that turn, issue your attack order(s) and then let the computer resolve it. That order can only be a simple 'Attack this tile' commmand too - you don't need to muddy it up with additional commands.

Originally posted by wrylachlan
Thinking along those lines, you realize that there must be some sort of "strategic flanking" bonus to represent a pincer move. Again with my little square:

ABC
DEF
GHI

If E is the defender and I attack from D and I in the same turn, there ought to be some sort of bonus. If you're going to implement a bonus for that situation, it just makes sense to me that you would reuse the same game mechanism to implement flanking, instead of implementing flanking as a bonus in a mini-map game. But the hard-coded tile limit makes it impossible to bring enough units with you that you could attack and quickly press on with the units that weren't involved in the attack.

If you limit the game to single-unit combat resolution, you can only have the strategic level flanking ability, but if you make stacked combat part of the equation, you can actually have both as part of the equation (read my post above...) I don't see why the game cannot have both a strategic flanking bonus (that is what you are proposing) and a tactical flanking bonus.

Ultimately, the sticking point for me is single-unit combat resolution. You had mentioned that if the player had the ability to group his individual units and send them into battle as a cohesive whole, that would be workable. And to give the player incentive to group his units into armies, you give those armies combat bonuses that they would not have if they fought individually. Grouping and ungrouping units can be done for an attack on a side panel that would not obscure the map. If you decide to attack a tile, a checklist would show up on that panel where you can check off individul units that would simultaneously attack that tile when you give the final order (in civ3, you already have to select units with the pulldown menu). In fact this 'grouping' does not have to be permanent either, but only for that turn. If you go to this format, you open the door for a wide range of possibilities in your combat model. If you retain the current civ3 setup, that door is never opened.

Doing stacked combat in this way does not mean that you have to have a unit cap either. (IMO, this is why Skywalker seems to be against stacked combat, as he sees it in CTP - I am for some kind of cap because not having a cap dumbs down defensive considerations)

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker
This is just an individual unit order, like fortify - just when you do it, you get to select the direction...

...Yes, they can fortify in different directions. However, that means that you only have 3/8ths of the units defending effectively in each direction. 1/4th will have no bonus, and another 3/8ths will have a penalty.

Establishing your front with a single order like 'Fortify this Direction...' is very workable, though having the ability to do it on a unit-by-unit basis probably ends up as tedium overkill.