Tweet
Introduction
This is the discussion on one of the most important aspects of Civ, namely, combat. This topic is very closely related to Units, but focuses on how combat should happen more than what the units involved in it are. Provided are possible alterations to the combat system found in previous Civ games, as well as many other thoughts.
Something else to be noted is that many ideas related to combat are not included on this part of the list, because ideas detailing how units should move, which flags they should have and how supply lines should work are all in separate parts of the list, so the scope of this part is more limited.
Summary
It is obvious that the majority of long-time players want to see a more complex battle model than currently present in Civ4. An overwhelming majority wants to see mixed arms combat of some style included, be it stack combat, mixed unit attacks or complex battle resolution on a separate tactical map. It is evident, however, that keeping the traditional combat formula from Civ1-Civ3, where numbers are much more important than positioning and types of units would upset many players.
Related threads
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103947 – highly recommended to Firaxis, contains very in-depth descriptions of some possible systems.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103349 – also highly recommended, the most comprehensive discussion on stacked combat system
Table of Contents
1.0. Stacked combat and unit vs. unit combat
1.1. Reasons for stacked combat.
1.2. Reasons against stacked combat.
1.3. Tactical minigames, optional aspects.
1.4. Specific ideas for stack combat.
2.0. Naval combat.
3.0. Zones of control.
4.0. Space and future combat.
5.0. Radical changes to system.
6.0. Miscellaneous ideas.
The ideas
Organized by: Solver.
1.0. Stacked combat vs. single unit combat
In a poll aimed to find out preferences of posters regarding the combat system, 71% voted for a stacked combat system, 18% for a single unit combat system, whereas the rest abstained. Therefore, serious consideration needs to be given to ideas about implementation of stack combat.
1.1 Reasons for stacked combat.
1) More realistic.
2) Less Micromanagement.
3) The community wants it.
4) Additional possibilities*
*Additional possibilities? Well, if your military is divided into armies, instead of units, each army could have different standing orders. You could craft orders so that your 5th cavalry will attempt to flank any enemy forces that your 10th infantry is engaging. The old supply layer could be added without overcomplicating things. And dozens of more ideas that I can't think of.
-Fosse
At any period of time, there’s reason to use more types of units, creating more variety.
-Solver
Stacked combat, for certain! That way you can have regiments and form large armies to do battle on the screen!
-DarkCloud
The most basic strategies [with stacked combat] all imply putting less or more units in different places, having as a goal to catch the other in number superiority. This could easily bring something very nice to Civ.
-Trifna
My vote is for stacks.
In civ II where two or three decent defenders on good terrain can hold off an army, is just silly. Every city has three quality defenders or two defenders and one mobile attack unit,..............Boring. There has to be more terror involved when you spot that army stack (not knowing what's it's composed of) trying to figure out how best to defend it.
-Rah
Civ tactics are VERY simplistic - it takes little thought, if you are on the attack, to use your bombard units first to soften up the target, and then use your most powerful offensive units - going down the line until the enemy is eliminated.
In fact, all you need to make sure is that you have enough units. Brute numbers rule the day. I remember a poster here who limited his own tech in a civ3 game to the lowest class unit (spearman) and he won the game because of sheer numbers.
-Hexagonian
To me, unlimited units [in one tile] is the main killer in the civ3 model, because it destroys, what I call, the field game. When you do not have a limit on the number of units that a tile can hold, you basically can put all of your units in a super-stack (or several large stacks) Those units basically remain in cities because there is little need to set up fronts outside your city - only if you have a chokepoint do you need to set up outside the city.
-Hexagonian
1.2. Reasons against stacked combat, or potential problems with it
With stackable combat, the problem lies in making sure that the AI can effectively compose a balanced force - and has been pointed out, to make sure that the AI pathing is not blocked by a full stack
-Hexagonian
I'm not sure if I prefer stacked system or not (sounds good, but I'm so used to Civ2 system...), but I'm pretty sure that I don't want to micromanage battles... as John Miller, I don't want to see them - ever! I want to be informed of the results. Period.
At the end of the day, I really appreciate quickness when playing civ.
That is one of the reasons I love civ2.
-Yaroslav
Balancing problem with small stacks being ineffective against bigger stacks.
-Ennet
It's tradition.
-Fosse
1.3 Tactical minigames, optional aspects of stack combat.
I have played tactical minigame games (like AoW, MoM, Heroes, ect)
and while they were all fun, they were much more limited in scope than civ
if something is to have as grand of scope as I would like Civ to (And as Civ has had in the past)
than Tactical Minigames would be a terrible idea
when you have more than 50-60 moveable pieces, than the forward momentum gets lost and you lose the one more turness
-Jon Miller
I agree Jon Miller, a "tactical minigame" addition would be tantamount ot civ-suicide. CTP's tactical minigames were annoying little resource-dump wastes taht took away from the general game experience. CIV IS NOT A GAME FOCUSED UPON INDIVIDUAL HEROES OR TROOP COLUMNS... civ is a game focused upon the marshalling of large amounts of troops (like a wargame... a classic wargame) and the management of large amounts of resources.
Civ Is macro while Heroes of Might and Magic focuses upon the war units...
If civ were to focus on war mini-games then the game would lose its focus and its flavor... war would become the focus instead of management.
-DarkCloud
It is very very easy to just put an option to have no stacks. Or perhaps the only stack that would be permitted in this case would be to move more units at the same time, exactly as if you had moved them one after another.
-Trifna
I would be in favor of adding a tactical minigame, whereby you can set basic commands and then run the battle. (and once commited to battle, the die is cast and you can't change anything) Of course this would not work in the current civ3 setup.
-Hexagonian
I would like to see a tactical pop-up map that allows me to marshall my forces against my enemies on an appropriate screen (a la the 'war' series of games) and fight tactical battles if I wish to. In fact, it could also include the possibility of leaders that influence the troops morale etc (a la warcraft III).
-SpencerH
In CtP2 you can change in the settings whether to watch the battle or you can just see your units live or die on the normal terrain, not in "zoomed combat". If you lose all troops then the fog of war descends quickly and you dont see how damaged or how many your enemy has left, so its sensible to watch the battle, unless its an archer attacking a settler, which can be turned off too "simple battles".
-Maquiladora
[When] a stack of troops meets an enemy stack of troops on one tile. Then the tactical minigame opens up.
That one tile (from a strategic perspective) expands to 40 tiles (tactical perspective) and each tile has unique geographical features. Your one armor unit breaks down into three or four armored companies. Other units have similiar breakdowns -- from division level to regiment level. You would play a game like Steel Panthers or Panzer Leader. Many of the CTP features (like retreat was mentioned right above) would be incorporated.
-Shogun Gunner
1.4. Specific ideas on stacked combat.
It should be noted that most discussion on stacked combat took place with the ‘basic’ idea of stack combat being as in Call to Power 2. A description of that combat system along with pictures can be found in a comprehensive thread discussing the differences between CtP2 and Civ3.
Instead of each unit fighting individually as they do in CTP I... I would suggest that the units combine their firepower and suffer damange as per one unit versus one unit... Example:
Classic Civ-
Unit X attacks A... kills A suffers 50% damage.
Unit B attacks X... kills X, suffers 25% damage.
My suggestion-
Unit X,Y attacks A... kills A, suffers 25% damage (because when there are more units attacking ,they will likely suffer less casualties)
-DarkCloud
What about choosing actions for each of your units? A bombards G; D assaults G; E assaults G; F defends against H and I. B and C opportunity fire. Orders entered first, then actions carried out concurrently.
Your Troops......Enemy Troops
...B...D--------------G...J
A......E--------------H......L
...C...F--------------I...K
Actions could be:
Frontal assault (ala Kamakazi)
Assault (move, fire, move, fire)
Ranged attack (stay in position, fire)
Opportunity Fire (like cav/tanks when you pass by the position)
Defend
Fighting withdrawl (retreat, fire, retreat, fire)
Retreat
Flee (drop your sh*t and haul a55)
Different choices produce advantage and/or vulnerability. For example, choosing opportunity fire means nothing if the enemy doesn't advance on your position (out of range). Frontal assault is very costly when the enemy is in "opportunity fire mode"
Another example, counterbattery fire could be an option for artillery to artillery combat which we haven't seen at all in Civ. I love reading in the Civlopedia about Radar Artillery's ability to locate enemy artillery by tracing back the trajectory of the fire and destroying the enemy artillery. Can't really do that in Civ, can we? This new combat system may be able to incorporate those changes.
This would finally bring some "combined arms" concepts into the game, hopefully without too much micromanagement, because the additional work is the downside here.
-Shogun Gunner
I think some stacks should be available as an option.. where the stack can have a General or Knight commanding it. Depending on his skill and technological , tactics and training level he can work out what units to defend with, and what to attack. The player must be involved in all stages.. I hate having combat resolved automatically simply based on an abstract defencive value. One example here is The player could select skirmish mode, where the stack units spread out and think for themselves, but the general
still directs them to ambush or harrass the enemy. Formations and combined warfare tactics can be simulated too.
-Admiral PJ
For every unit more than 5 in a stack the whole stack gets a 1% attack increase, up to a limit of 12. After twelve the bonus goes down by 1% for each unit.
Thus the optimal distribution of units is in stacks of 12. However, if you have 14 units, you don't need to make them travel separately and have those extra two be easy prey. But having really large stacks in battle becomes a drawback, as everyone's tripping over each other and their effectiveness goes down. Also, if you want to move a lot of troops en masse, you can do that and then break them out into their groups of 12 before the battle.
-Wrylachlan
Battlefield maneuvers would be generic changes to the way the battle is resolved.
a) Battle field maneuvers should be defined extensibly (see combat AI, below) and apply to specific situations depending on the commanding general, the units involved, tech advances etc.
b) are not necessarily shown in any great detail graphically
c) are always defined in the battle setup or left to the general
d) should be define a simple exclusive list of options with minimal user input. Example: Pin Down and Flank, Fighting Retreat, and Charge. Combinations - if desired, can be defined by modders (see combat AI, below). The point being that the player (or leader AI or rival AI) doesn't need to spend five minutes setting battle options that aren't understood.
e) can effect the location that units are in at the end of the battle. e.g. a player can 'win' a fighting retreat and end up in the square behind him. A successful flank might leave the player behind the position of the enemy. This could be optional
f) can have outcomes that are not completely win or defeat. Both armies could survive in some form.
-Merp
Idea: 5 tier combat system of sorts. 1st tier being the main line, 2nd tier being the ranged line, 3rd being artiellery, 4th noncombatants, sort of 5th being flankers (though they'd actually be right next to the main line).
- Artiellery would be bombers, cannons, howitzers and the like
- Ranged would be archers, Jets, rifleman, infantry etc,
- main line would be hoplites, legionaries, marines, infantry, etc
- Flankers would be Cavalry, helicopters, mechanized infantry, tanks
- non combatants would be anyone who couldn't fight
What category each troop would go to would be selected by the computer. Instead of having units attack one by one they would attack in phases. First the artillery of each side would fire at the main line. Depending on the tech would determine how this worked. From catupults up to field artillery the unit attacked would be randomly picked for each piece of artiellry. for radar and howitzer and precision bombers all the artiellery would be able to fire on the strongest unit(s).
Next the ranged phase of combat would start. All the ranged combatants would be paired with a corresponding unit on the enemies main line and then they would all fire. Some calculation would occur to determine if they hit or not and then damage is done.
Now the main line also pairs with an enemy unit on the main line. If one side has a larger main line than two units are allow to gang up on one unit and have their offense scored added together and then multipled by .75 (so as not to make such a stupendous advantage). If the advantage is more than 2-1 then the enemy is forced move one of their ranged units to the front lines. If their still isn't enough then a flanker has to be moved to the front. If their still isn't enough then the artiellry is moved to the front where it is promptly sacked. Still not enough, then the rest of the main line just sits around. Each unit combat is done in effect simultenously.
Finally the flankers get their turn. This is the most complicated part for the computer that is. if both sides have flankers it operates the same as main line with each flanker being paired up with an oposing flanker. If the enemy has no flankers and its entire main line is occupied by enemy troops (that is the side with flankers main line is > the side's without main line) then the flankers attack the ranged line. and if the side with no flankers main line is larger the flankers attack the main line.
Phew, that's really complicated right. Well true if you're the computer but not to the player. See the player just gets to sit back and watch as all this war business is beautifully taken care of by his field general (the computer) Making this system relatively simple to the player. On the downside this is stil pretty much the CTP combat system the only difference being that combat happens all at the same time rather than unit by unit.
-Mars
2.0 Naval combat
I would really like to see naval movement and combat abstracted, in order to add realism and fun to the game.
Except for cities use, the seas are not treated as tiles, but instead are treated as zones. My example assumes modern times, so bear with me.
First, let’s start off with some assumptions, you have continents A and B which are five sea zones apart. To move into a zone costs one movement point. Moving into port is free from a zone which touches it, moving from a port into a zone costs one point, since its moving into a zone. Units can do several things in sea zones, move through them, evade detection, or search for the enemy.
Consider that you’re at war, with a civ on B, and you’re on A. You have 3 naval task forces including destroyers (8), cruisers (7), battleships (5), carriers (8), transports (5) (movement points are in parentheses). You’ve somehow detected that the enemy intends to invade your coast, and has vessels with similar movement capability. You continent is touched by three different sea zones, and you have ports in each task force which can patrol your coastal zones. You send all your units out for patrol duty in the closest zone, which means only one movement point is used for movement, and a lot more can be used for searching out the enemy. You take a chance on being able to detect some unprotected tansports and happen to have a small task force of a carrier and a couple of destroyers and a cruiser which you deploy to the middle zone. The carrier launches aircraft to begin sweeps for a) patrols, b) transports, c) both. This improves carrier detection as if it used one less point if using props, and 2 less if using jets. Detection is handled on a die roll based on a combination of searching power-evasion power +random element. The random element should include opportunities for surprise of the searching side, and even the evasion side and even stranger, both sides suprised. Surprise grants the ability to pick out selected targets or not engage the enemy, unless both sides are surprised, in which case combat must be fought, with probably disastrous results for both sides.
Subs may operate independently of the task force and also have a greater chance of surprising the enemy. Civs with helicopter units on destroyers, carriers can negate some of the sub’s surprise through ASW operations in their zone. Subs can also engage in ASW.
Planes in coastal cities can engage in naval recon and combat. Their recon abilities are half of their standard bombardment range, considering there is a lot of ocean to cover. Planes in support of task force operations lend their firepower to the task force, and have less chance of being shot down, planes operating in combat singly have a huge chance of being shot down.
Combat happens on a task force scale, with picket ships taking the brunt of initial damage, and later more valuable ships are damaged. Bombers and fighters aboard carriers should be able to be called in and SINK ships, at least occasionally. Coastally based planes assigned to naval operations lend their firepower.
My rationale for this is to remove battleships as the preeminent naval unit, the only one worth being produced in previous Civs. It actually utilizes the concept of pickets, as these are the first units to detect an enemy task force, sometimes being lost in the process of protecting the capital ships. It really gives the carrier a purpose now, besides simply a movable, if vulnerable, airbase. Subs wouldn’t be so limited because of their movement.
This is a modern example, but in ancient times, the similar rules to CIV3 could apply, coastal zones are passable to all shipping. A seafaring advance or wonder could expand it to zones bordering coastal zones (call them sea zones). Once magnetism is reached, deep sea zones, which are bordered exclusively by sea zones can be traversed. Travel through deep sea and sea zones could cause a unit to be misdirected and arrive in the wrong zone near the intended zone. If small wonders are implemented, building Longitude, available with Magnetism will aide in navigation and allow correct navigation intended zones through sea and deep sea zones. Zones could also be smaller in the ancient era. In the example above, say there are 8 zones between A and B. 2 coastal, 2 sea zones, and 4 deep sea zones. Moving through multiple sea and deep sea zones, increase the chance of the ship being lost (delayed, not necessarily being destroyed) to getting to the destination.
My rationale for these changes take into account the historical fact that ships often foundered at sea or arrived at the wrong destination, because of an inability to measure longitude accurately. Note that for the US, this was often the case with the initial colonists, and of course we all know how well Columbus was able to navigate…
-Ka Plewy
Either have ships re-base similar to aircraft in Civ3, within a limited range and from Harbours, or increase movement cost for ships dramatically.
-Lajzar
3.0. Zones of control
Civ2 ZoC is the 3rd most ridiculous combat feature in Civ2 behind one kill eliminating the stack and bombers blocking squares from being attacked.
Seriously, how does a warrior unit in 4000bc prevent another warrior unit 100 miles away from walking by? (I think each tile is supposed to represent 100 square miles)
Civ2 Zoc is brainless. Plunk a unit down every other square and you're great. Civ3 you can't (probably) defend every square so you have to choose where to defend and where not to defend.
-Asleepatthewheel
Here's my take on it - With no ZOC rule in effect (and this is in combo with the use of infinite-sized stacks), you have little need of establishing a front outside your cities (other than protecting a strategic good or a choke point), because the opponent can simply walk past your units to target cities (and let's face it...the priority in civ regarding the use of a military is to take cities.) Your cities are the fronts, not the land between you and the attacker.
With a ZOC, units can be used as shields out in the field to protect cities - to buy time for proper defenses to move into position. This is also historical, as cities were often considered to be the last line of defense.
It may not have been implemented as well as it could have been in civ2 (or for any other civ-style game for that matter) but the concept of ZOC makes for a better game, IMO.
-Hexagonian
4.0. Space and future combat
Satellites in space, SMAC style. Non-military satellites exist and provide benefits to economy, but there are also space wars, with combat satellites that can try to knock each other down, as well as SDI satellites to attempt nuke interception.
-Solver
Powerful biochemical weaponry for future.
-Krum, Panag, Solver
Space units partially abstracted or with special abilities. Space marines like paratroopers with enormous range. Only certain units can engage other space units.
-Lajzar
Add an extra level of unit upgrades for the game in 22nd century. Space Fighters and Bombers, Ion Cannon as Artillery upgrade, Plasma Tanks to upgrade Armor and Laser Infantry instead of Mech. Inf.
-Odin
Unmanned combat units, close future tech. Have unmanned versions of planes and long-range ground weaponry. Should be less effective than manned counterparts, for instance, have a random chance of failure. Advantage of using these is that loss of these units does not cause war weariness – I am assuming here that war unhappiness comes because of the people lost, while losing unmanned units does not upset the general population.
-Solver
5.0. Radical changes to the system
Implement various attack bonuses for units, such as AT units against Tanks. Implement bombardment that does not harm units but reduces their bonuses, such as destroying fortifications (eliminating the “F key” bonus). Allow some units to provide suppression fire, giving the actual assaulting units more power or less casualties.
-Tatilla the Hun
Allow defensive units to hold off attackers without either unit dying. No longer have each battle result in death of either defender or attacker.
-Wrylachlan
Big bonuses for different units based on terrain. South American units have bonuses when attacking to and from jungles, Scandinavian units have bonuses in Tundra, etc
-Aaglo
Big stacks are seen approaching from a larger distance, while small ones can sometimes sneak up undetected with hit-and-run tactics.
-Sore Loser
Battles happen in rounds with defense/offense values being important in turn, as follows:
Right now it is attack value versus defense value and one looses a hp. Instead it goes in rounds of attack and counter attack with the attacker getting the initiative. On the counterattack the defenders defense rating becomes his attack rating and there are as many rounds as there are combined hp in the two units battling. It sounds complicated but it works out like this:
Unit G(aGressor)- A/D/Hp=4/2/4
Unit F(deFender) - A/D/Hp=2/3/3
That means that there are 7 rounds in which Unit G has to kill off F after which the turn is over in a draw.
Attack = G(4)vsF(3)
CounterAttack = F(3)vsG(2) note defenders attack value is actually its defense value on counter-attack.
-Wrylachclan
Have units be ‘loaded’ with ammo, essentially the same way that transports move units now. For instance, an Archer would be built and then arrows would be built and ‘loaded’ onto the archer. Ammo can be replenished by returning to a tile/city with an armory improvement or getting extra ammo from an ammo transport unit.
- Awsric Armitage
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.
-Frank Johnson
6.0. Miscellaneous ideas
AFAIK, Sid Meier did not design CIV as a wargame, and has purposefully tried to steer it away from becoming a wargame over the years. So your comment is right on target. The problem though, is that CIV games always seem to be decided by war, especially when playing other humans, and CIV sucks as a wargame.
As I see it, either the war element is removed or the combat system and warfare side of the game is improved. If they want my money again something big has to change.
-SpencerH
Create an ability to persuade other civs without a full scale war, through limited combat or similar pressure.
-CerberusIV and ThePlagueRat
Disable infinite rails because they eliminate the need to think about positioning troops, as you can instantly get your army wherever you want it.
-Hexagonian, Asleepathewheel and others
Make stronger units have larger upkeep costs. Use production instead of gold for upkeep because it’s less abundant.
-Dominae
Morale levels as in SMAC with percentage bonuses to effectiveness, not extra HP like in Civ3.
-Kirastos
This is the discussion on one of the most important aspects of Civ, namely, combat. This topic is very closely related to Units, but focuses on how combat should happen more than what the units involved in it are. Provided are possible alterations to the combat system found in previous Civ games, as well as many other thoughts.
Something else to be noted is that many ideas related to combat are not included on this part of the list, because ideas detailing how units should move, which flags they should have and how supply lines should work are all in separate parts of the list, so the scope of this part is more limited.
Summary
It is obvious that the majority of long-time players want to see a more complex battle model than currently present in Civ4. An overwhelming majority wants to see mixed arms combat of some style included, be it stack combat, mixed unit attacks or complex battle resolution on a separate tactical map. It is evident, however, that keeping the traditional combat formula from Civ1-Civ3, where numbers are much more important than positioning and types of units would upset many players.
Related threads
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103947 – highly recommended to Firaxis, contains very in-depth descriptions of some possible systems.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103349 – also highly recommended, the most comprehensive discussion on stacked combat system
Table of Contents
1.0. Stacked combat and unit vs. unit combat
1.1. Reasons for stacked combat.
1.2. Reasons against stacked combat.
1.3. Tactical minigames, optional aspects.
1.4. Specific ideas for stack combat.
2.0. Naval combat.
3.0. Zones of control.
4.0. Space and future combat.
5.0. Radical changes to system.
6.0. Miscellaneous ideas.
The ideas
Organized by: Solver.
1.0. Stacked combat vs. single unit combat
In a poll aimed to find out preferences of posters regarding the combat system, 71% voted for a stacked combat system, 18% for a single unit combat system, whereas the rest abstained. Therefore, serious consideration needs to be given to ideas about implementation of stack combat.
1.1 Reasons for stacked combat.
1) More realistic.
2) Less Micromanagement.
3) The community wants it.
4) Additional possibilities*
*Additional possibilities? Well, if your military is divided into armies, instead of units, each army could have different standing orders. You could craft orders so that your 5th cavalry will attempt to flank any enemy forces that your 10th infantry is engaging. The old supply layer could be added without overcomplicating things. And dozens of more ideas that I can't think of.
-Fosse
At any period of time, there’s reason to use more types of units, creating more variety.
-Solver
Stacked combat, for certain! That way you can have regiments and form large armies to do battle on the screen!
-DarkCloud
The most basic strategies [with stacked combat] all imply putting less or more units in different places, having as a goal to catch the other in number superiority. This could easily bring something very nice to Civ.
-Trifna
My vote is for stacks.
In civ II where two or three decent defenders on good terrain can hold off an army, is just silly. Every city has three quality defenders or two defenders and one mobile attack unit,..............Boring. There has to be more terror involved when you spot that army stack (not knowing what's it's composed of) trying to figure out how best to defend it.
-Rah
Civ tactics are VERY simplistic - it takes little thought, if you are on the attack, to use your bombard units first to soften up the target, and then use your most powerful offensive units - going down the line until the enemy is eliminated.
In fact, all you need to make sure is that you have enough units. Brute numbers rule the day. I remember a poster here who limited his own tech in a civ3 game to the lowest class unit (spearman) and he won the game because of sheer numbers.
-Hexagonian
To me, unlimited units [in one tile] is the main killer in the civ3 model, because it destroys, what I call, the field game. When you do not have a limit on the number of units that a tile can hold, you basically can put all of your units in a super-stack (or several large stacks) Those units basically remain in cities because there is little need to set up fronts outside your city - only if you have a chokepoint do you need to set up outside the city.
-Hexagonian
1.2. Reasons against stacked combat, or potential problems with it
With stackable combat, the problem lies in making sure that the AI can effectively compose a balanced force - and has been pointed out, to make sure that the AI pathing is not blocked by a full stack
-Hexagonian
I'm not sure if I prefer stacked system or not (sounds good, but I'm so used to Civ2 system...), but I'm pretty sure that I don't want to micromanage battles... as John Miller, I don't want to see them - ever! I want to be informed of the results. Period.
At the end of the day, I really appreciate quickness when playing civ.
That is one of the reasons I love civ2.
-Yaroslav
Balancing problem with small stacks being ineffective against bigger stacks.
-Ennet
It's tradition.
-Fosse
1.3 Tactical minigames, optional aspects of stack combat.
I have played tactical minigame games (like AoW, MoM, Heroes, ect)
and while they were all fun, they were much more limited in scope than civ
if something is to have as grand of scope as I would like Civ to (And as Civ has had in the past)
than Tactical Minigames would be a terrible idea
when you have more than 50-60 moveable pieces, than the forward momentum gets lost and you lose the one more turness
-Jon Miller
I agree Jon Miller, a "tactical minigame" addition would be tantamount ot civ-suicide. CTP's tactical minigames were annoying little resource-dump wastes taht took away from the general game experience. CIV IS NOT A GAME FOCUSED UPON INDIVIDUAL HEROES OR TROOP COLUMNS... civ is a game focused upon the marshalling of large amounts of troops (like a wargame... a classic wargame) and the management of large amounts of resources.
Civ Is macro while Heroes of Might and Magic focuses upon the war units...
If civ were to focus on war mini-games then the game would lose its focus and its flavor... war would become the focus instead of management.
-DarkCloud
It is very very easy to just put an option to have no stacks. Or perhaps the only stack that would be permitted in this case would be to move more units at the same time, exactly as if you had moved them one after another.
-Trifna
I would be in favor of adding a tactical minigame, whereby you can set basic commands and then run the battle. (and once commited to battle, the die is cast and you can't change anything) Of course this would not work in the current civ3 setup.
-Hexagonian
I would like to see a tactical pop-up map that allows me to marshall my forces against my enemies on an appropriate screen (a la the 'war' series of games) and fight tactical battles if I wish to. In fact, it could also include the possibility of leaders that influence the troops morale etc (a la warcraft III).
-SpencerH
In CtP2 you can change in the settings whether to watch the battle or you can just see your units live or die on the normal terrain, not in "zoomed combat". If you lose all troops then the fog of war descends quickly and you dont see how damaged or how many your enemy has left, so its sensible to watch the battle, unless its an archer attacking a settler, which can be turned off too "simple battles".
-Maquiladora
[When] a stack of troops meets an enemy stack of troops on one tile. Then the tactical minigame opens up.
That one tile (from a strategic perspective) expands to 40 tiles (tactical perspective) and each tile has unique geographical features. Your one armor unit breaks down into three or four armored companies. Other units have similiar breakdowns -- from division level to regiment level. You would play a game like Steel Panthers or Panzer Leader. Many of the CTP features (like retreat was mentioned right above) would be incorporated.
-Shogun Gunner
1.4. Specific ideas on stacked combat.
It should be noted that most discussion on stacked combat took place with the ‘basic’ idea of stack combat being as in Call to Power 2. A description of that combat system along with pictures can be found in a comprehensive thread discussing the differences between CtP2 and Civ3.
Instead of each unit fighting individually as they do in CTP I... I would suggest that the units combine their firepower and suffer damange as per one unit versus one unit... Example:
Classic Civ-
Unit X attacks A... kills A suffers 50% damage.
Unit B attacks X... kills X, suffers 25% damage.
My suggestion-
Unit X,Y attacks A... kills A, suffers 25% damage (because when there are more units attacking ,they will likely suffer less casualties)
-DarkCloud
What about choosing actions for each of your units? A bombards G; D assaults G; E assaults G; F defends against H and I. B and C opportunity fire. Orders entered first, then actions carried out concurrently.
Your Troops......Enemy Troops
...B...D--------------G...J
A......E--------------H......L
...C...F--------------I...K
Actions could be:
Frontal assault (ala Kamakazi)
Assault (move, fire, move, fire)
Ranged attack (stay in position, fire)
Opportunity Fire (like cav/tanks when you pass by the position)
Defend
Fighting withdrawl (retreat, fire, retreat, fire)
Retreat
Flee (drop your sh*t and haul a55)
Different choices produce advantage and/or vulnerability. For example, choosing opportunity fire means nothing if the enemy doesn't advance on your position (out of range). Frontal assault is very costly when the enemy is in "opportunity fire mode"
Another example, counterbattery fire could be an option for artillery to artillery combat which we haven't seen at all in Civ. I love reading in the Civlopedia about Radar Artillery's ability to locate enemy artillery by tracing back the trajectory of the fire and destroying the enemy artillery. Can't really do that in Civ, can we? This new combat system may be able to incorporate those changes.
This would finally bring some "combined arms" concepts into the game, hopefully without too much micromanagement, because the additional work is the downside here.
-Shogun Gunner
I think some stacks should be available as an option.. where the stack can have a General or Knight commanding it. Depending on his skill and technological , tactics and training level he can work out what units to defend with, and what to attack. The player must be involved in all stages.. I hate having combat resolved automatically simply based on an abstract defencive value. One example here is The player could select skirmish mode, where the stack units spread out and think for themselves, but the general
still directs them to ambush or harrass the enemy. Formations and combined warfare tactics can be simulated too.
-Admiral PJ
For every unit more than 5 in a stack the whole stack gets a 1% attack increase, up to a limit of 12. After twelve the bonus goes down by 1% for each unit.
Thus the optimal distribution of units is in stacks of 12. However, if you have 14 units, you don't need to make them travel separately and have those extra two be easy prey. But having really large stacks in battle becomes a drawback, as everyone's tripping over each other and their effectiveness goes down. Also, if you want to move a lot of troops en masse, you can do that and then break them out into their groups of 12 before the battle.
-Wrylachlan
Battlefield maneuvers would be generic changes to the way the battle is resolved.
a) Battle field maneuvers should be defined extensibly (see combat AI, below) and apply to specific situations depending on the commanding general, the units involved, tech advances etc.
b) are not necessarily shown in any great detail graphically
c) are always defined in the battle setup or left to the general
d) should be define a simple exclusive list of options with minimal user input. Example: Pin Down and Flank, Fighting Retreat, and Charge. Combinations - if desired, can be defined by modders (see combat AI, below). The point being that the player (or leader AI or rival AI) doesn't need to spend five minutes setting battle options that aren't understood.
e) can effect the location that units are in at the end of the battle. e.g. a player can 'win' a fighting retreat and end up in the square behind him. A successful flank might leave the player behind the position of the enemy. This could be optional
f) can have outcomes that are not completely win or defeat. Both armies could survive in some form.
-Merp
Idea: 5 tier combat system of sorts. 1st tier being the main line, 2nd tier being the ranged line, 3rd being artiellery, 4th noncombatants, sort of 5th being flankers (though they'd actually be right next to the main line).
- Artiellery would be bombers, cannons, howitzers and the like
- Ranged would be archers, Jets, rifleman, infantry etc,
- main line would be hoplites, legionaries, marines, infantry, etc
- Flankers would be Cavalry, helicopters, mechanized infantry, tanks
- non combatants would be anyone who couldn't fight
What category each troop would go to would be selected by the computer. Instead of having units attack one by one they would attack in phases. First the artillery of each side would fire at the main line. Depending on the tech would determine how this worked. From catupults up to field artillery the unit attacked would be randomly picked for each piece of artiellry. for radar and howitzer and precision bombers all the artiellery would be able to fire on the strongest unit(s).
Next the ranged phase of combat would start. All the ranged combatants would be paired with a corresponding unit on the enemies main line and then they would all fire. Some calculation would occur to determine if they hit or not and then damage is done.
Now the main line also pairs with an enemy unit on the main line. If one side has a larger main line than two units are allow to gang up on one unit and have their offense scored added together and then multipled by .75 (so as not to make such a stupendous advantage). If the advantage is more than 2-1 then the enemy is forced move one of their ranged units to the front lines. If their still isn't enough then a flanker has to be moved to the front. If their still isn't enough then the artiellry is moved to the front where it is promptly sacked. Still not enough, then the rest of the main line just sits around. Each unit combat is done in effect simultenously.
Finally the flankers get their turn. This is the most complicated part for the computer that is. if both sides have flankers it operates the same as main line with each flanker being paired up with an oposing flanker. If the enemy has no flankers and its entire main line is occupied by enemy troops (that is the side with flankers main line is > the side's without main line) then the flankers attack the ranged line. and if the side with no flankers main line is larger the flankers attack the main line.
Phew, that's really complicated right. Well true if you're the computer but not to the player. See the player just gets to sit back and watch as all this war business is beautifully taken care of by his field general (the computer) Making this system relatively simple to the player. On the downside this is stil pretty much the CTP combat system the only difference being that combat happens all at the same time rather than unit by unit.
-Mars
2.0 Naval combat
I would really like to see naval movement and combat abstracted, in order to add realism and fun to the game.
Except for cities use, the seas are not treated as tiles, but instead are treated as zones. My example assumes modern times, so bear with me.
First, let’s start off with some assumptions, you have continents A and B which are five sea zones apart. To move into a zone costs one movement point. Moving into port is free from a zone which touches it, moving from a port into a zone costs one point, since its moving into a zone. Units can do several things in sea zones, move through them, evade detection, or search for the enemy.
Consider that you’re at war, with a civ on B, and you’re on A. You have 3 naval task forces including destroyers (8), cruisers (7), battleships (5), carriers (8), transports (5) (movement points are in parentheses). You’ve somehow detected that the enemy intends to invade your coast, and has vessels with similar movement capability. You continent is touched by three different sea zones, and you have ports in each task force which can patrol your coastal zones. You send all your units out for patrol duty in the closest zone, which means only one movement point is used for movement, and a lot more can be used for searching out the enemy. You take a chance on being able to detect some unprotected tansports and happen to have a small task force of a carrier and a couple of destroyers and a cruiser which you deploy to the middle zone. The carrier launches aircraft to begin sweeps for a) patrols, b) transports, c) both. This improves carrier detection as if it used one less point if using props, and 2 less if using jets. Detection is handled on a die roll based on a combination of searching power-evasion power +random element. The random element should include opportunities for surprise of the searching side, and even the evasion side and even stranger, both sides suprised. Surprise grants the ability to pick out selected targets or not engage the enemy, unless both sides are surprised, in which case combat must be fought, with probably disastrous results for both sides.
Subs may operate independently of the task force and also have a greater chance of surprising the enemy. Civs with helicopter units on destroyers, carriers can negate some of the sub’s surprise through ASW operations in their zone. Subs can also engage in ASW.
Planes in coastal cities can engage in naval recon and combat. Their recon abilities are half of their standard bombardment range, considering there is a lot of ocean to cover. Planes in support of task force operations lend their firepower to the task force, and have less chance of being shot down, planes operating in combat singly have a huge chance of being shot down.
Combat happens on a task force scale, with picket ships taking the brunt of initial damage, and later more valuable ships are damaged. Bombers and fighters aboard carriers should be able to be called in and SINK ships, at least occasionally. Coastally based planes assigned to naval operations lend their firepower.
My rationale for this is to remove battleships as the preeminent naval unit, the only one worth being produced in previous Civs. It actually utilizes the concept of pickets, as these are the first units to detect an enemy task force, sometimes being lost in the process of protecting the capital ships. It really gives the carrier a purpose now, besides simply a movable, if vulnerable, airbase. Subs wouldn’t be so limited because of their movement.
This is a modern example, but in ancient times, the similar rules to CIV3 could apply, coastal zones are passable to all shipping. A seafaring advance or wonder could expand it to zones bordering coastal zones (call them sea zones). Once magnetism is reached, deep sea zones, which are bordered exclusively by sea zones can be traversed. Travel through deep sea and sea zones could cause a unit to be misdirected and arrive in the wrong zone near the intended zone. If small wonders are implemented, building Longitude, available with Magnetism will aide in navigation and allow correct navigation intended zones through sea and deep sea zones. Zones could also be smaller in the ancient era. In the example above, say there are 8 zones between A and B. 2 coastal, 2 sea zones, and 4 deep sea zones. Moving through multiple sea and deep sea zones, increase the chance of the ship being lost (delayed, not necessarily being destroyed) to getting to the destination.
My rationale for these changes take into account the historical fact that ships often foundered at sea or arrived at the wrong destination, because of an inability to measure longitude accurately. Note that for the US, this was often the case with the initial colonists, and of course we all know how well Columbus was able to navigate…
-Ka Plewy
Either have ships re-base similar to aircraft in Civ3, within a limited range and from Harbours, or increase movement cost for ships dramatically.
-Lajzar
3.0. Zones of control
Civ2 ZoC is the 3rd most ridiculous combat feature in Civ2 behind one kill eliminating the stack and bombers blocking squares from being attacked.
Seriously, how does a warrior unit in 4000bc prevent another warrior unit 100 miles away from walking by? (I think each tile is supposed to represent 100 square miles)
Civ2 Zoc is brainless. Plunk a unit down every other square and you're great. Civ3 you can't (probably) defend every square so you have to choose where to defend and where not to defend.
-Asleepatthewheel
Here's my take on it - With no ZOC rule in effect (and this is in combo with the use of infinite-sized stacks), you have little need of establishing a front outside your cities (other than protecting a strategic good or a choke point), because the opponent can simply walk past your units to target cities (and let's face it...the priority in civ regarding the use of a military is to take cities.) Your cities are the fronts, not the land between you and the attacker.
With a ZOC, units can be used as shields out in the field to protect cities - to buy time for proper defenses to move into position. This is also historical, as cities were often considered to be the last line of defense.
It may not have been implemented as well as it could have been in civ2 (or for any other civ-style game for that matter) but the concept of ZOC makes for a better game, IMO.
-Hexagonian
4.0. Space and future combat
Satellites in space, SMAC style. Non-military satellites exist and provide benefits to economy, but there are also space wars, with combat satellites that can try to knock each other down, as well as SDI satellites to attempt nuke interception.
-Solver
Powerful biochemical weaponry for future.
-Krum, Panag, Solver
Space units partially abstracted or with special abilities. Space marines like paratroopers with enormous range. Only certain units can engage other space units.
-Lajzar
Add an extra level of unit upgrades for the game in 22nd century. Space Fighters and Bombers, Ion Cannon as Artillery upgrade, Plasma Tanks to upgrade Armor and Laser Infantry instead of Mech. Inf.
-Odin
Unmanned combat units, close future tech. Have unmanned versions of planes and long-range ground weaponry. Should be less effective than manned counterparts, for instance, have a random chance of failure. Advantage of using these is that loss of these units does not cause war weariness – I am assuming here that war unhappiness comes because of the people lost, while losing unmanned units does not upset the general population.
-Solver
5.0. Radical changes to the system
Implement various attack bonuses for units, such as AT units against Tanks. Implement bombardment that does not harm units but reduces their bonuses, such as destroying fortifications (eliminating the “F key” bonus). Allow some units to provide suppression fire, giving the actual assaulting units more power or less casualties.
-Tatilla the Hun
Allow defensive units to hold off attackers without either unit dying. No longer have each battle result in death of either defender or attacker.
-Wrylachlan
Big bonuses for different units based on terrain. South American units have bonuses when attacking to and from jungles, Scandinavian units have bonuses in Tundra, etc
-Aaglo
Big stacks are seen approaching from a larger distance, while small ones can sometimes sneak up undetected with hit-and-run tactics.
-Sore Loser
Battles happen in rounds with defense/offense values being important in turn, as follows:
Right now it is attack value versus defense value and one looses a hp. Instead it goes in rounds of attack and counter attack with the attacker getting the initiative. On the counterattack the defenders defense rating becomes his attack rating and there are as many rounds as there are combined hp in the two units battling. It sounds complicated but it works out like this:
Unit G(aGressor)- A/D/Hp=4/2/4
Unit F(deFender) - A/D/Hp=2/3/3
That means that there are 7 rounds in which Unit G has to kill off F after which the turn is over in a draw.
Attack = G(4)vsF(3)
CounterAttack = F(3)vsG(2) note defenders attack value is actually its defense value on counter-attack.
-Wrylachclan
Have units be ‘loaded’ with ammo, essentially the same way that transports move units now. For instance, an Archer would be built and then arrows would be built and ‘loaded’ onto the archer. Ammo can be replenished by returning to a tile/city with an armory improvement or getting extra ammo from an ammo transport unit.
- Awsric Armitage
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.
-Frank Johnson
6.0. Miscellaneous ideas
AFAIK, Sid Meier did not design CIV as a wargame, and has purposefully tried to steer it away from becoming a wargame over the years. So your comment is right on target. The problem though, is that CIV games always seem to be decided by war, especially when playing other humans, and CIV sucks as a wargame.
As I see it, either the war element is removed or the combat system and warfare side of the game is improved. If they want my money again something big has to change.
-SpencerH
Create an ability to persuade other civs without a full scale war, through limited combat or similar pressure.
-CerberusIV and ThePlagueRat
Disable infinite rails because they eliminate the need to think about positioning troops, as you can instantly get your army wherever you want it.
-Hexagonian, Asleepathewheel and others
Make stronger units have larger upkeep costs. Use production instead of gold for upkeep because it’s less abundant.
-Dominae
Morale levels as in SMAC with percentage bonuses to effectiveness, not extra HP like in Civ3.
-Kirastos
.
Comment