Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

resolving combat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • resolving combat

    there is nothing in the manual about combat. I've played turn based strategy games before and you could stack units. In age of wonders units from adjacent hexes are included in combat. what's the scoop in SMAC? Sir Stanley

  • #2
    hmmm, well....you can stack units on the same tile but only attack with one at a time.

    However, if an enemy unit attacks that stacked tile and destroys one of your units, the other units take collateral damage and have their health reduced. It's better not to stack units on the same tile IMHO but when you have a base or enemy unit surrounded, it's all fair game.

    So, if an enemy unit is next to a tile which has 2 of your units, you have to have each of your units attack that enemy unit. Additionally, if you have artillery within range of the enemy unit, you can bombard it to reduce it's health, THEN attack with your conventional ground forces.

    Does this sorta help? Can you understand my gibberish?
    Despot-(1a) : a ruler with absolute power and authority (1b) : a person exercising power tyrannically
    Beyond Alpha Centauri-Witness the glory of Sheng-ji Yang
    *****Citizen of the Hive****
    "...but what sane person would move from Hawaii to Indiana?" -Dis

    Comment


    • #3
      frankychan is right-- There are serious downsides to stacking with the possibilities if collateral damage or arty fire-- but leaving your units solo means they are vulnerable to being probe controlled

      Note that when you attack a stack, the computer automatically picks the best defender to fight the battle
      You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Flubber
        frankychan is right...


        Flubber's the man!
        Despot-(1a) : a ruler with absolute power and authority (1b) : a person exercising power tyrannically
        Beyond Alpha Centauri-Witness the glory of Sheng-ji Yang
        *****Citizen of the Hive****
        "...but what sane person would move from Hawaii to Indiana?" -Dis

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks guys. That's very helpful. I'll take it from there. Sir S

          Comment


          • #6
            stacking pros and cons:

            it all depends on which units design you decide to produce.
            _____
            To my knowledge, no precise assessment on the amount of collateral damege taken by stacked units (and on the factors that influence it) has ever been determined, or possibily even discussed.

            The issue is that combining Weapon AND Armor on the same unit makes it *more expensive* (to produce, that is).

            There is no clearly superior approach to this dilemma, it is of course all matter of personal preferences and playing style.
            I personally prefer to keep separate offensive and defensive designs as far as I possibly can (until you get Fusion Reactor that is, which totally changes the unit cost opportunity).

            ___

            A brief coverage of the issue shoud imho separate the case of infantry units and rover units (of course you can then aventually mix the two in a stack or a task force you assemble to attack)

            Infantry chassis:
            This might be considered attractive because of its +25% bonus in attacking a base (although when in the field it would suffer if caught in flat/rolling terrain by an enemy rover). Downside is that it lacks the "move initiative" (leving alone Ogie's pet tactic ), thus it must approach the target and sit there to endure the enemy strike before delivering its own.

            Imagine you have Impact and Plasma.
            A defensive 1-3-1 costs 2 rows.
            I don't have the game handy now, but offhand I figure that a 4-1-1 costs 2 rows just as a 2-1-1 (it might be 3)
            I don't know about a 4-3-1 (I almost never design such units ), but *for sure* costs more that a 4-1-1.
            *Maybe* it might cost 1 row less than the combination of the two separate above units (and 1 mineral to support insted of two for two units)
            But production cost and support considerations apart, there is something specific too to be said in the combat deployment of a 4-3-1 vs a 4-1-1 + 1-3-1 combo.

            As we said, the 4-3-1 must endure the enmy strike before being able to retaliat. The same for the combo, BUT if the 4-3-1 wins the defense taking partial damage, then the *stacked* combo behaves even better as only the 1-3-1 defender would have damage, while the 4-1-1 would be unscathed and ready to atack at *full* potential.
            Should instead the 4-3-1 perish, you'd have lost *at the same time* your attack capability. In case of the stacked combo, only the 1-3-1 defender would have died, and the 4-1-1 would have survived with *partial* collateral damage. The exact amount of that "partial" could make a big difference. But I would offhand say that it usually ranges in the 30-40%.
            Having a (collaterally damaged) 60-70% healty 4-1-1 attacker unit is better than having no unit at all. Imho. I wonder how do you see it.
            You could object that ONCE you have gone the combo way, the topic was indeed discussing about NOT stacking it, because the concept of "collateral damage" scares you so much.
            Well, you are welcome, I invite you to come against me with a 4-1-1 and a 1-3-1, and *spread* them on two different tiles. WHICH one do you think I will attack with my preemptive defense? I will pick and bury your unarmored 4-1-1, and then you can have your barehanded 1-3-1 squat there to endure my successive blows until you bring on another attacker.

            Rover chassis:
            In this case you will have the initiative of the attack.
            But in the same line of reasoning, even if your 4-3-2 wins its initial attack, it will have taken some damage in winning, and its defense value will be reduced for the blow it will have to sustain (and there WILL be a retaliation blow, or adding armor to an attacking rover would be purposeless in the first place).
            Having a 4-1-2 and a 1-3-2 instead, will allow the defender to defend at full health, regardless of the partial damage taken by the attacker unit in winning. And again, if you spread them, the retaliation will pick the unarmored attacker, and there would be no use to bring a separate defender altogether.
            With rover chassis there is then the not marginal consideartion that while a 4-3-1 is a bit expensive, a 4-3-2 is *outrageusly* more expensive than the two split units! A 1-3-2 costs 3 rows, a 4-1-2 costs 4 rows (IIRC). I don't frankly recall how much a 4-3-2 costs but I'd bet that it costs *at least* 8 rows (more than 3+4=7), and probably even more.
            ___
            OF COURSE, you should apply common sense to this all, and adjust to peculiar cases.
            For instance if you have 3x 4-1-1 units, and you have to face only one "offensive garrison", you can spread them, as they can hit only one of them, and you'll sacrifice on of your 3 being sure that the other two will be unhurt.
            OR, if you have TWO 4-3-1, then it's quite logical to spread them, although you problem would be earlier (in the effort to produce them)
            _____

            Thus, IMHO, cost considerations apart:
            - a Best-1-x + 1-Best-x combo is superior in combat to a single Best-Best-x unit
            - once you have a combo of separately specialised offensive/defensive units, "in general" it's meaningless to spread them. The very purpose itself of designing and producing off/def specialised units, is to use them stacked indeed.
            I don't exactly know what I mean by that, but I mean it (Holden Caulfield)

            Comment


            • #7
              Stacked units can't be infilitrated and bribed either; lone units can.

              Comment


              • #8
                MariOne is very accurate in his analysis of the benefits of stacking.

                Factions like Morgan and Zakharov can do some serious damage to an incoming army or a defender base simply by building and stacking strategically cooperative units. In this fashion a few battlegroups of only two or three units can do a lot of damage, at low support and low production costs.

                Of course for those of us who play Miriam or Yang, the 'raging horde' variant is also a real possibility
                "lol internet" ~ AAHZ

                Comment


                • #9
                  More good info. Thanks. Sir. S.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think one of the most critical aspects of the question of whether to build fewer complex units or more simple units has to do with your situation at the moment. If you have very high support, you can afford to build more units as they won't cost you any support over time. If you are in a shooting war as opposed to merely building up a military "in case" you will more likely choose to build more numerous but simpler units, in part because they roll off the assembly line quicker, and in part because they may be used up in battle quickly, obviating the need to worry about how much support they will cost in the long run. Your own economic situation also plays a part. If you have enormous industrial capacity you may be able to turn out moderately complex units in one turn, so why not? Similarly, if you are rolling in energy credits you may be able to turn trained scout infantry costing one row into clean drop armored shard squads as they come off the assembly line. So in addition to the tactical analysis by Marione above, operational, strategic and economic factors also play a very large role in this equation.
                    He's got the Midas touch.
                    But he touched it too much!
                    Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Mario of course refers to my pet tactic....LOL.. allowing for the unfettered use of of hordes of Best weapon -1-1's and having "move initiative" benefits at least at the point of attack that is.

                      "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                      “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Also fun: Assembling a line of forces facing the enemy, making them a group, then moving them to an enemy base...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          excellent, guys. you would not believe what I have learned about smac and "the genre" since I posted that question. I've got this game much more under my belt and have mastered the fundamentals of galciv. I think i can appreciate what these games are trying to simulate and i'm pretty impressed. Your discussion adds to that understanding. What with railroad tycoon 3 coming out in the fall, my girlfriend and kids are going to be neglected this year. Sir S.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X