Announcement

**Deathwalker** · August 30, 2000, 06:46

I agree the war/battle system needs the bigest overhaul of the game just above diplomacy.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

**Youngsun** · August 30, 2000, 07:04

quote:

1. Attacking from different sides
Attacking a unit from different sides give different battle odds.. For example, a frontal attack would have the normal odds, from behind would stack them twice in your favour, and from the sides 1.5 times. Paratroopers could be used here effectively, and maneouvres like flanking and stuff will become important.

I agree. Especially surrounded enemy units should suffer from massive penalty.

I don't support No.2, considering time scale of civ(1 year at minium), it's too much detailed.

Yes. No.3 can be applied to "rail gun","battleship"(may be not)or "missiles" but not field artillery nor any other support firearms of caliber similar to FA.

No.4 is for Shogun style wargame I reckon. If one tile represents one region, moutain tile can represent mountainous region.

Could you think of something more strategic things? Just imagine you are army/army group commander and see what comes to your mind. Please exclude something that company or regimental level HQ should consider such as "elevation" or "ambush".
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited August 30, 2000).]

**Hannibal3** · August 30, 2000, 13:04

I agree with much of what you say. It only makes sense. Warfare in civilization is far too limited.

1. Attacking from different sides is a good idea, but how do we determine which is the front and which is the back? Maybe certain units should have flanking ability or something, so that it is determined on a battle screen rather than just on the regular game map.

2. Camouflage is not as impossible as it sounds. TOT already has something like an ambush attack where certain until can not be seen until they actually attack. Good for stealth too.

3. Ranged attack is good I think, but it should be broken down a bit more. Artillery should be exempt from being damaged because it makes no sense that they get damaged because their not going head to head with any units, same thing with bombers.

I think missiles should be set up differently than the way they are currently. It makes no sense that you can fly a missile from city to city. They should be launched straight to a target.

4. Well, elevation is KIND OF dealt with in the terrain issue. It can be assumed that Mountains are higher than Plains. I think that thats enough.

Ok, so here's some other ideas. I recently posted a message (which obviously went greatly unnoticed) supporting new kinds of warfare. One I think is that units should have lines of supply so that if the enemy army cuts of the supply, they can easily crush the invaders. It allows us generals to think on whole new levels.
Another thing. Economic Warfare. (Well, my whole point on Economic Warfare gets a lot more complicated) but I think bombers, ships, artillery, etc. should all be able to destroy buildings in cities. Bombers should also be able to take out tile improvements as well.
It certainly beats throwing diplomat after diplomat into a city to get those city walls down, I mean the whole reason they invented the cannon was to take out city walls!!! Why don't they do that here?!
Another thing. I've had just about enough of the stacked units thing. I mean if you've got three armies there, you've got three armies there. Why should only one defend??

Ok, I'm done ranting. Anybody else have any ideas?

**Hannibal3** · August 30, 2000, 17:32

Actually, probably the best tactical addition that can be made is for a more tactical AI. Because tactics is action, but it is also reaction, and we can not fully utilize our tactical abilities if the AI just does dumb things.

**Vitmore The Great** · August 30, 2000, 17:49

Number 2 should be implemented in the form of a special unit. A commando unit that is trained to be stealthy on land, just like subs in the sea. Hiding regular units in different terrain would be hard in todays time, so it should be in the modern era of Civ III. HIding an entire armour division just isn't as easy as it used to, especially with satellite tech. For pre-modern units, the hiding would work well and be plausable.

Vitmore

**DarkCloud** · September 3, 2000, 19:12

I agree with all of the options excepting number 2 which I believe should as
Vitmore says be used as a special unit.

However here are a few more unit attack methods:
5. Formations
Select from three simple formations when you wish to fight. This option can be turned off
or left on as you chose. Formations: Frontal Attack, Blitzkrieg, Napoleons Gambit
(I believe that is what it was called, striking through the center and sides with all but one
group of your forces which was left behind and then summoning that group to get behind the
enemy force and attack from behind.)
Each formation would have different advantages and disadvantages.

Frontal Attack- +1 Movement +1 Attack -2 Defense
Napoleons Gambit- -1 Movement +2 Attack -1 Defense
Blitzkerieg- +2 Movement +2 Attack -3 Defense

**rremus** · September 8, 2000, 08:44

quote:

Originally posted by Hannibal3 on 08-30-2000 01:04 PM1. Attacking from different sides is a good idea, but how do we determine which is the front and which is the back?

How about determining the front of the attacked unit (or stack of units) by the direction of the first attack in a turn?

**Adm.Naismith** · September 8, 2000, 10:13

Hmmm, you'll end "cheating"on the poor AI, sacrificing a weak unit to attack first "forcing" the defender to "turn" to the wrong side, letting your main unit attack to be by side or rear.

I still loved the simultaneous turn(*) because of you must declare all the attack first, so easily taking in account when a unit is surrounded by enemy...

Camuflage and ambush are easy to implement, as artillery barrage fire. A joy to fight. Really, trust me, I already played so

(*) note: sorry for the nuisance about simultaneous. I'm a little obsessed whit this topic, you know.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

**Shadowstrike** · September 8, 2000, 18:42

But will the poor AI stand up to this... I mean its taking a beating already oer the (relatively) simple system of Civ2... wouldn't it drop dead at the sight of this?

**UltraSonix** · September 8, 2000, 21:53

It's good to be back after a break.

quote:

2. Camouflage, Ambush
You should be able to hide units in forests and stuff, or camouflage them.. This way you could attack from behind. Another thing - the element of surprise.. If your enemy sees you approaching, he can prepare himself.. So, if a unit appears suddenly out of nowhere, like a submarine or a hidden unit waiting to ambush, it should gain an advantage.

3. Ranged Attacks
I'm not sure about this one... Should projectile units be able to fire from one square across a few onto another.
Elevation would increase the range, and some strategically hidden (in mountain forests) archers/artillery could destroy a group of enemies passing nearby.

4. Elevation?
Attacking from higher ground should give an advantage, as does defending higher ground.

I think Camouflage, Ambush and ambush shouldn't really be implemented 'cause how do you hide an entire battalion without and advancing army realising? An I agree that "1. Attacking from different sides" should not be implemented, though it seems a plausible idea, simply because the AI would go into an infinite loop trying to decypher everything.

However, the ranged attack is an excellent idea, and the bombard feature of SMAC should definitely be extended so that it is actually a VIABLE, USEABLE feature - in SMAC it couldn't do any damage. And finally, I agree that attacking from higher should give an advantage, but I think that so obvious and easy to implement that Firaxis doesn't need to be told to do it .

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

**Dienstag** · September 8, 2000, 22:27

Question: is this thread dealing with tactical combat on the world map (!) or on a battlescreen like in CTP2? I think it's been said before that the tile size on the world map is beyond the scope of tactical combat.

And while I'm at it: simultaneous turns would be quite nice. Keep it up, Adm. Naismith.

**UltraSonix** · September 9, 2000, 23:06

What's the battle screen in CTP2 like? (As a famous politician in Australia once shrieked - "Pleash explain!")

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

**Dienstag** · September 11, 2000, 09:30

There are screenshots of the CTP2 battlescreen (among others) somewhere in the CTP2 area of Apolyton. Looks to me like a bunch of opposing units facing each other outside a city. I'm not sure if this was a feature in CTP1, but it does seem more suited to this topic of tactical warfare. I can't really say more until I play CTP2.

What famous Australian politician said that? and why? *sorry*

**UltraSonix** · September 12, 2000, 03:28

quote:

(As a famous politician in Australia once shrieked - "Pleash explain!")

She was racist scum - Pauline Hanson.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Announcement

Advanced Tactical Warfare

Advanced Tactical Warfare

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment