Advanced Combat System

[Ben Williams]

One of the dissapointing aspects of Civ3 is the lack of a realistic combat system. While the terrain plays a greater role in the game then it did in Civ2, much more could have been done combat-wise to add a whole dimention to the game.

The ability of units should depend on the actual way in which that unit fought in real life. An archer uses arrows, arrows have range, therefore, an archer on a mountain or hill should have a huge advantage over any unit, esspecially non-projectile unitse, and very much wheeled units. An infantry of marine unit in a city should have an advantage over an attacking tank because they would prepare for the attack with roadblocks, explosives etc..., which should also be a function of how long the tank(s) were in the city radius, giving them more time to prepare (this could be another option, something like spend fifty gold to prepare city for armor attack).

Archers should suffer a penalty, however, when defending from a forest or swamp against a foot unit, yet still have an advantage over some wheeled units (who should have an attacking and defending minus because they are not good in that sort of terrain). Tanks should also get a bonus when attacking from numbers and from differant angles in a city depending on the number of units defending the town and reletive population (this would have to be built into a system that would allow you to group units).

Town surrounded on any side by water should also get a defending bonus for not having to defend as many sides from ground attack (with the exception of marines coming of a boat, of course). The longer planes are around, the more resistant populations should become to them, having had time to build airraid shelters (another possable option). And nuclear weapons should be allowed to be fired simultainusly, and the effected nations should get a warning in which they can launch a counter-attack, just like the real world.

There are much more they could do with the combat system. The cardinal rule should be "how did this work in the real world?" It's sad but true that after the gun became commen and as it was more perfected, those who had it ruled, and those who didn't have (usually) got ruled. One thing this would require would be a LOT more units, specifficly taliored to the terrain.

What do you think?

-Ben

[Shadowlord]

Sounds like a good idea, something that would be good to go with Multiplayer, adding a significant challenge to the game.

[Long Happy Man]

I like your combat enhancement idea. Definitely if make the game much more interesting and adds logistical challenge. Other may not like it because Civ is a broad aspect empire building game, but I treat Civ like any other war games anyway

Yeah designers should have flagged units according to the unit type. Like you said ranged units (e.g archers) gets a combat bonus in certain type of terrains. So each kind of units performs differently in different terrain, forcing the player to use a mix of units (which is realistic IMHO).

What happened to the concept in CTP 2 where you can group different units and fight together? Melee troops would be fighting in the front and missile troops behind fire away. I know there's a serious bug with the combat engine back then..where it gives rise to spearman beating tank scenarios (or something like that). But can that concept be redesigned to be perfected?

[Zoid]

They have improved (made more realistic) the game in this aspect IIRC from Civ2 and SMAC. But since Civ never was intended to be a battle simulator but rather a empire building game I see why they don´t put more effort into realistic combat.

[Ben Williams]

I'm not saying Civ should be a full combat simulator, I just think the idea that the only thing that distinguishes units and attack and defense points is kind of stupid. I also hate it when a chariot attacks my spearmen or immortals in a swamp and win. The idea of chariots working in swamps is just crazy. It wouldn't take a whole lot of re-programming (I'm only guessing, I have no idea how programming works).

Another problem with the new combat system I believe is the computer factors in previous battles for the one your fighting. That means if two archers attack my spearman, the second will generally have a better chance (disreguarding lost hit points) then the first. I don't have any evidence, has anyone else got this impression?

-Ben

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Williams I also hate it when a chariot attacks my spearmen or immortals in a swamp and win. The idea of chariots working in swamps is just crazy

Ummm... I wasn't aware of the existence of swamps in Civ3...

[Ben Williams]

Um, jungles, sorry.

[SpencerH]

I would love to see a more complex combat model used but I've come to realize from these forums that the AI couldnt handle it. Maybe MP though.

[Mark_Everson]

I second Spencer's point. A more sensible combat model would be great, but the AI would utterly flounder with it based on the track record so far.

But while we're putting together a wish list, a system that properly handles combined arms effects would be really cool. That would eliminate the ridiculous 'battles' where bare artillery fights something. Making armies, especially combined arms ones, part of the system would be another big improvement.

[Shadowlord]

Actually, it would require a fair amount of recoding (assuming their combat system code is pretty clear, which I think is a fair assumption based on how simple civ III combat is). It'd probably take a few days, and they'd have to add additional flags to units.

Of course, I'm assuming that only one person would be working on it.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Ben Williams

Another problem with the new combat system I believe is the computer factors in previous battles for the one your fighting. That means if two archers attack my spearman, the second will generally have a better chance (disreguarding lost hit points) then the first. I don't have any evidence, has anyone else got this impression?

-Ben

Sorry but I think it's just a mistaken impression. If you disregard the lost hit points, the previous battles have nothing to do with the current ones - except that they use the next set of numbers in the random number generator seed string.

I'm not an expert on the math of the RNG, but there are many here who are. Try a search about the random number thing, there have been dozens - if not hundreds - of threads about people's frustrations with the so-called non-randomness, and their gradual acceptance of the reality of chance as they come to a better understanding.

It is a well documented phenomenon that people tend to underestimate the role of chance in outcomes and events. It is our human nature to look for meaning and assign purpose. Everyone, scientist or not, looks for patterns and tries to create rules from their observations... it's how we learn to make decisions in life. But more often than we like to think, events happen simply because of chance, and there is no mechanism or rule. You can always assign meaning to it, but there may be none intrinsic to it. That is what differentiates us from the machines.

[Shadowlord]

(And I didn't consider making the AI know anything about how to use the new combat model effectively. That'd take more time.)

[Dom Pedro II]

Lines of Supply : Always wanted to see it. Never happened. No supplies? You're dead... basic military principle.

[Shadowlord]

Originally posted by Captain


Sorry but I think it's just a mistaken impression. If you disregard the lost hit points, the previous battles have nothing to do with the current ones - except that they use the next set of numbers in the random number generator seed string.

I'm not an expert on the math of the RNG, but there are many here who are. Try a search about the random number thing, there have been dozens - if not hundreds - of threads about people's frustrations with the so-called non-randomness, and their gradual acceptance of the reality of chance as they come to a better understanding.

It is a well documented phenomenon that people tend to underestimate the role of chance in outcomes and events. It is our human nature to look for meaning and assign purpose. Everyone, scientist or not, looks for patterns and tries to create rules from their observations... it's how we learn to make decisions in life. But more often than we like to think, events happen simply because of chance, and there is no mechanism or rule. You can always assign meaning to it, but there may be none intrinsic to it. That is what differentiates us from the machines.

[twistedx]

Originally posted by Ben Williams
I also hate it when a chariot attacks my spearmen or immortals in a swamp and win. The idea of chariots working in swamps is just crazy. It wouldn't take a whole lot of re-programming (I'm only guessing, I have no idea how programming works).

There's an attribute in the unit abilities for "wheeled". As far as I can tell, it is only used to define what can't be loaded on to a transport. It probably wouldn't be impossible to make various tiles restrict movement of wheeled vehicles, as the game already has this ability implemented (sea units can't move on land and vice versa). I don't, however, know how to do that. Anybody have any ideas on how to mod something like that?

-- twistedx