this combat system has to **GO**

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by vmxa1
In that case it is reasnable to not upgrade with limited funds

In "Mao's Problem," I provided China plenty of gold. They promptly upgraded. It is a matter of limited funds and setting priorities.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
As for the combat system, I must say I really hate it. It is just far too random for me. I understand other people can have fun playing the game and don't mind this, but there are some of us for which the sheer randomness ruins the game. This thread is for us to complain about it.

Seriously... have you tried to play the game having hitpoints doubled or tripled? That should do the trick for you, I believe... I haven't tried it myself, as I am quite happy with the default setting, but the simple math behind the combat system shows that increasing the number of hitpoints decreases the randomness in battle results.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Great Leaders/'normal' leaders that decrease random factors or give bonuses would be nice. Putting your good commanders in various positions is a strategic level decision.

Hm. I like this idea of leaders decreasing randomness. As much as I dislike the concept of great leaders hurrying great wonders, I would love to see great leaders give bonuses to the units under their "command" (=units in the same tile or whatever). Decreasing the influence of the RNG would be a great and pretty realistic bonus... Yeah, I really like the idea.

[WarpStorm]

You could make armies (as opposed to leaders) be greater than the sum of their parts (they already are, but it's subtle) today.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by vondrack

Well, how many "civs" are able to actually produce computers today (I am not talking about the ability to assemble them). Advanced processors and chips are produced by very few manufacturers... most of them would be the US, Japan, China (+Taiwan)... dunno, if Britain, Germany, France etc. have their own sources of processors. It is rather tricky to draw parallels from the current world though, as current world is very globalized. Civ will probably never get that globalized. Aztecs will never build a silicon chip factory in a Babylonian city, I guess.

Then go with how many civs could produce computers. Answer: All of Western Europe, Japan, China, Canada, USA, and very, very likely several other places. How many countries have access to electricity? Nearly all. Seems to fit my model pretty well. If you didn't have a globalized world and countries kept goods (not tech) to themselves, then you would have more countries making computers too.

Originally posted by vondrack
This is simply not possible in a turn based strategy game. You cannot have two units "attacking" simultaneously each other. When it is your turn, your units are attackers. When it is not your turn, your units are defenders. You can't change this attacker-defender scheme, at least I can't imagine a way you could under the current turn system (it would be possible if all the players "planned" their moves first and only after everybody finishes the planning phase, the resulting conflicts would be resolved - if two units tried to enter the same square, both would use their attack values to fight - which is what you would probably like).

Cavalry have been used for raiding and such, so they aren't always accompanied by other troops. In any case, given the size of a square in a civ game, the idea of 'defending' it can take many, many different meanings. The Cavalry could defend it by hiding and then ambushing the other cavalry troop. Or they could both meet on the field of battle and duke it out, both riding horses, both attacking/defending. They would not decide to get off their horses and try to hold their ground there for no reason though...that's just suicide. This is why attack and defense values really aren't that good, because the unit 'defending' might not be defending in the sense you are thinking of...and many 'defenses' are much more mobile than you are thinking of. This also makes a nice segway into this issue of why you need stacked combat, I think. If you have one unit, by itself, attack a stack of 9 units, say. That one unit should be almost commiting suicide...instead it might do well and take out 1 troop...which is silly when it is so outnumbered. If it is a tank, it might take out two or three units. Also silly. There are cases when non-stacked combat emulates reality alright (equal numbers of units for example), but there are problems with it that are massive.

Hmm, though now that you mention it, it would be nice to have everyone declare their moves and then everyone moves at once....There's an option somewhat like that with PTW, I think, though not exactly. It would make games go quicker, I think, and it would make more sense and still be a TBS. Different than the Cav vs. Cav issue though.

If you dislike the term "defense" regarding cavalry, then "control" might be more appropriate. Cavalry is great for beating defenders of a certain area down, for dispersing them and effectively destroying any organized defense. But it is not suited to control any area (as "controlling" an area means establishing strongpoints, holding bridges, and generally preventing any hostile activity).

Originally posted by vondrack
I would prefer if you try to give a general example, not just three units... there are lots of units and there must be a universal mechanism of resolving their encounters. Such a universal mechanism needs simple attributes it would be able to compare and process. Just saying that Pikes do fine against Horsemen and Knights says nothing about how they do against swords, (long)bowmen etc.

Alright...here goes. Units would have a 'range' value, an attack type and attack value, and armor type and value. Units with the best range get the first attack. Attack values determine damage. Attack types determines the kind of damage, and armor type signifies what damage you are resitant too. Horse melee units wouldn't be good against pikes, but would do well against arrows and foot troops. Note that doing well against arrows means that they'd be able to weather the damage and get into melee combat easily enough (whereas pikes couldn't do that easily). So the general idea of RPS holds, though in later eras, it might get a little more complicated (with air units, for example). What troops a unit was good against could even be signified by little icons you'd see when selecting them or selecting what to build (broken arrows means it is good against arrows, for example). Hence the system would be easy to aquaint oneself to, since there'd be in-game reminders. It would also make more sense...since pikes are going to do well against knights no matter who initiates the battle.

City combat and fortress defense would probably need to be revamped some. Since, seriously, archers are going to be better able to defend a place with walls to keep people out Pikes and swordsmen can help a lot, but only when defenses are breached. Likewise, attacking archers and catapults are going to be the only things that can do any damage unless defenses are breached. So, it would just work much better.

[Trifna]

HEY!!!!

Just to say that a pretty serious research with me, Korn49 (not sure of his number ) and some others just showed that throughout history, technologically inferior wins were ALWAYS (we saw no exceptions and we had a whole lot of battles) in a case where the technologically inferior had LOTS more men.

So how could the present system be correct?

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by vondrack


Seriously... have you tried to play the game having hitpoints doubled or tripled? That should do the trick for you, I believe... I haven't tried it myself, as I am quite happy with the default setting, but the simple math behind the combat system shows that increasing the number of hitpoints decreases the randomness in battle results.

I guess I always planned on playing multiplayer or something...or just irked about the idea of changing the default settings. Maybe I'll mess around with this though and find I can enjoy the game again. I'd prefer an "officially unofficial" mod though.

[Blue Moose]

Re: HEY!!!!

Originally posted by Trifna
Just to say that a pretty serious research with me, Korn49 (not sure of his number ) and some others just showed that throughout history, technologically inferior wins were ALWAYS (we saw no exceptions and we had a whole lot of battles) in a case where the technologically inferior had LOTS more men.

So how could the present system be correct?

Hmm, those damnable aliens are giving spearmen laser pistols again....grrr...

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by vondrack
Hm. I like this idea of leaders decreasing randomness. As much as I dislike the concept of great leaders hurrying great wonders, I would love to see great leaders give bonuses to the units under their "command" (=units in the same tile or whatever). Decreasing the influence of the RNG would be a great and pretty realistic bonus... Yeah, I really like the idea.

Thanks : )
Nice to know some people like some of my ideas some of the time.

Thank you too, Zachriel...though the RPS-idea isn't really mine (stole it from EE), I'll take credit (even though you didn't give me credit).

Hmm, some population cost thing would be nice...to bad you can't have things cost a percentage of food in the food box or something.

[vmxa1]

I am one who dislike the RNG as well. I do not have huge problems with he combat, but I would like to see the randomness be very minimal. I mean that if unit A fights unit B, the out come (all vars being unchanged) be the same 48 out 50 times. I am not concerned with what the out come is, just that it be very consistent. The 2 out of 50 is for the weird scenarios that people are so fond of presenting. So if spearmen can beat tanks, I don't care so long as they can be relied upon to do so nearly all the time. The idea that you can run the same battle 5 times and see 5 different results without the save seed is what disturbs me. That is too powerful. I mean going from A kills B with out a loss of a HP to B kills A without a loss of a HP is what I detest.

[Zachriel]

Re: HEY!!!!

Originally posted by Trifna
So how could the present system be correct?

Losing an occasional Tank to a Spearman is not the same thing as losing a battle or a war.

You might look for a battle where the victor didn't lose any significant resources. That is rare, as well. In other words, losing an odd Tank or two is not unexpected -- no matter how primitive the foe.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Thank you too, Zachriel...though the RPS-idea isn't really mine (stole it from EE), I'll take credit (even though you didn't give me credit).

The archer-foot-horse analysis of combat is very old. Presumably, Firaxis decided it was an unnecessary complexity in a strategy game wherein combat is just one element.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Cavalry have been used for raiding and such, so they aren't always accompanied by other troops. In any case, given the size of a square in a civ game, the idea of 'defending' it can take many, many different meanings. The Cavalry could defend it by hiding and then ambushing the other cavalry troop. Or they could both meet on the field of battle and duke it out, both riding horses, both attacking/defending. They would not decide to get off their horses and try to hold their ground there for no reason though...that's just suicide. This is why attack and defense values really aren't that good, because the unit 'defending' might not be defending in the sense you are thinking of...and many 'defenses' are much more mobile than you are thinking of.

I find it pretty amusing that your imagination is so powerful when it comes to the cavalry battles, but fails so miserably, when it comes to obsolete units beating more advanced ones...

As I have said before. The Civ3 TBS implementation doesn't allow encounters with both units "attacking". I try to tweak my imagination in such a way that it does not interfere with the basic principle of Civ3 TBS implementation, which is: during your turn, you are the active side. For the rest of the time, you are the passive side. Unfortunately, while passive, my cavalry is not allowed to attack or even ride their horses... the riders just unmount, camp, and rest... so they are slaughtered if attacked by another cavalry unit.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
This also makes a nice segway into this issue of why you need stacked combat, I think. If you have one unit, by itself, attack a stack of 9 units, say. That one unit should be almost commiting suicide...instead it might do well and take out 1 troop...which is silly when it is so outnumbered. If it is a tank, it might take out two or three units. Also silly. There are cases when non-stacked combat emulates reality alright (equal numbers of units for example), but there are problems with it that are massive.

Oh, sure, stacked combat would be nice. I guess I have never opposed the idea of stacked combat. However, it does not directly relate to tank-bashing spearmen, does it? Still, you need a mathematical model behind the combat, be it stacked or trivial...

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Hmm, though now that you mention it, it would be nice to have everyone declare their moves and then everyone moves at once....There's an option somewhat like that with PTW, I think, though not exactly. It would make games go quicker, I think, and it would make more sense and still be a TBS. Different than the Cav vs. Cav issue though.

I once spent countless hours playing a board game called Diplomacy with my friends... back at the high school. It used exactly this system. Everybody wrote a list of his moves on a piece of paper and then, during the resolution phase, the outcome was determined. It was incredibly fun, since it incorporated more tactics, lots of psychology, deception etc. I can imagine having it implemented in a computer game, but it would be one completely different from the current Civ3.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Alright...here goes. Units would have a 'range' value, an attack type and attack value, and armor type and value. Units with the best range get the first attack. Attack values determine damage. Attack types determines the kind of damage, and armor type signifies what damage you are resitant too. Horse melee units wouldn't be good against pikes, but would do well against arrows and foot troops. Note that doing well against arrows means that they'd be able to weather the damage and get into melee combat easily enough (whereas pikes couldn't do that easily). So the general idea of RPS holds, though in later eras, it might get a little more complicated (with air units, for example). What troops a unit was good against could even be signified by little icons you'd see when selecting them or selecting what to build (broken arrows means it is good against arrows, for example). Hence the system would be easy to aquaint oneself to, since there'd be in-game reminders. It would also make more sense...since pikes are going to do well against knights no matter who initiates the battle.

I still don't think this is actually an RPS system. OK, is the range used to determine who attacks first? Does that mean that both fighting units attack during the battle? First one, then another? How is that done? How is the combat resolved then? You still end up with the attack and defense rating only, just with extra bonuses based on the attack/defense(armor) "types".

Just BTW, an idea of pikemen charging at knights really gets me... I am sure they would win. As far as the knights stand fast, that is... which is something they would never do... just as your cavalry would never try to hold a position... Knights can't easily beat pikes, correct, but pikes have no way to actively defeat knights, since mounted knights evade their attack in no time. Pikes can inflict huge losses to attacking knights, but attacking pikes will fail to even scratch (evading) knights. Which is perfectly modelled by Pikes' A=1 and D=3. Strong defense, woeful offense.

Originally posted by Trifna
So how could the present system be correct?

And we are back at the argument about the level of realism in Civ3. That will get us nowhere. Let's stop drawing parallels and let's talk about what would changes to the combat system do to the gameplay. What new options would players have? As far as I can remember, the real world is exactly what I want to escape from when playing a computer game, so it seems hardly desirable to bring the game as close to the reality as possible... What matters for me is how can the rules be used, how broad is the variety of different tactical manoeuvres, how much one's skill matters etc.

If I have no problem playing a game allowing the Hoover Dam to give a free hydroplant in every city on the same continent, then I have no problem accepting the fact that the units, which are just by coincidence using names of the similar things known from the real world, also behave in a bit different way. Ugh... I guess I am just repeating the same thing over and over, aren't I?

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by vondrack

I find it pretty amusing that your imagination is so powerful when it comes to the cavalry battles, but fails so miserably, when it comes to obsolete units beating more advanced ones...

As I have said before. The Civ3 TBS implementation doesn't allow encounters with both units "attacking". I try to tweak my imagination in such a way that it does not interfere with the basic principle of Civ3 TBS implementation, which is: during your turn, you are the active side. For the rest of the time, you are the passive side. Unfortunately, while passive, my cavalry is not allowed to attack or even ride their horses... the riders just unmount, camp, and rest... so they are slaughtered if attacked by another cavalry unit.

I just think units behaving stupidly is...well...stupid. While, as Zachriel has stated, losing a few tanks in a battle is not to be unexpected, a tank unit represents more than just one tank, it represents a very good sized number (how much exactly is the subject of endless debate...heh). Spearmen, even with anti-tank bazookas, shouldn't be able to eliminated all of the tanks (in nearly all cases). They'd be poorly trained in those weapons, at least, and the tanks are simply a superior force. Probably such weapons are in limited numbers as well, otherwise the unit would be more advanced (upgraded)...hence tank units might take some damage, but they shouldn't be destroyed (in all but the most unlikely of cases...one in a blue moon...which isn't the current system).


Oh, sure, stacked combat would be nice. I guess I have never opposed the idea of stacked combat. However, it does not directly relate to tank-bashing spearmen, does it? Still, you need a mathematical model behind the combat, be it stacked or trivial...

Originally posted by vondrack
I once spent countless hours playing a board game called Diplomacy with my friends... back at the high school. It used exactly this system. Everybody wrote a list of his moves on a piece of paper and then, during the resolution phase, the outcome was determined. It was incredibly fun, since it incorporated more tactics, lots of psychology, deception etc. I can imagine having it implemented in a computer game, but it would be one completely different from the current Civ3.

Well, the idea is to make a better, more interesting game than Civ3...sounds like you think such a system might well do that. (And diplomacy is a really kick-ass game, I agree...I don't get to play it enough though...)

Originally posted by vondrack
I still don't think this is actually an RPS system. OK, is the range used to determine who attacks first? Does that mean that both fighting units attack during the battle? First one, then another? How is that done? How is the combat resolved then? You still end up with the attack and defense rating only, just with extra bonuses based on the attack/defense(armor) "types".

Woo....you've never played an rts game have you? By "attacking" I mean the unit uses its weapons to cause damage. The whole thing would be simulated, of course (maybe there'd even be a nice, simple screen to show it). As units closed they'd fire or attack when they could. It would be a simulated affair, and some random elements (like partially randomized damage values) would be in there. Maybe you could even get a retreat command (or have morale and possible retreats without your say-so). The system is a lot different from the current civ3 system..I am proposing a radical departure..but such things are necessary in "next generation" games...if they just keep the current system as a "sacred cow," then combat will always be just a rehashing of the civ1 game...which isn't a good thing, I think. My concern about this stems from the fact that they said they are not even going to allow the option to adjust movement bonus for railroads because it is a 'staple' of the civ3 system (and a bad one, in my opinion). Anyhow...I guess I just feel I should make clear that these ideas are for a game that would be better to civ3...something like that, anyhow.

Originally posted by vondrack
Just BTW, an idea of pikemen charging at knights really gets me... I am sure they would win. As far as the knights stand fast, that is... which is something they would never do... just as your cavalry would never try to hold a position... Knights can't easily beat pikes, correct, but pikes have no way to actively defeat knights, since mounted knights evade their attack in no time. Pikes can inflict huge losses to attacking knights, but attacking pikes will fail to even scratch (evading) knights. Which is perfectly modelled by Pikes' A=1 and D=3. Strong defense, woeful offense.

They could defend units that moved with them though, and they'd be able to force knights back. Hence they'd control the land, which in my book is at least a bit better than a stalemate (and it isn't a defeat like civ3 says). In my above example with a retreat option...it could be done so that retreat was clearly the best choice to choose (and you could retreat in any direction with a more mobile force)...hence all the bases would be covered.

Originally posted by vondrack
And we are back at the argument about the level of realism in Civ3. That will get us nowhere. Let's stop drawing parallels and let's talk about what would changes to the combat system do to the gameplay. What new options would players have? As far as I can remember, the real world is exactly what I want to escape from when playing a computer game, so it seems hardly desirable to bring the game as close to the reality as possible... What matters for me is how can the rules be used, how broad is the variety of different tactical manoeuvres, how much one's skill matters etc.

I guess I didn't understand that you are a general and regularly conduct military campaigns in real life
My mistake....

There are those of us though, that neither want to conduct military campaigns in real life, nor do we. We might like to in a computer game though, especially as part of a game of establishing a grand civilization.

The combat options I have described would then be more realistic, and make for more interesting strategies. If your opponent is favoring knights, you'd go a bit harder on your pikes. Or maybe you'd find it might be good practice to go a bit hard on one counter to wipe out a particular type of units the enemy has...then attack with another army and take care of that newly created weakness. It would encourage the use of varied armies and easy the movement and use of these armies (by making actually armies...instead of attacking with one unit after another, you attack with all your units...even if you use defensive units a lot and artillery...it must get annoying having to move them in stacks, especially when you are attacking and have to move attacking units one at a time, then any other units afterwards). A better sieging system would make it so that you can't just go heavy horsemen to attack with, and unit counters would encourage this too. Flanking would add a great deal of depth as well...as there'd be questions of where to go between a long thin army and a short thick one. In general a lot of strategic depth and ease of use would be added.

Originally posted by vondrack
If I have no problem playing a game allowing the Hoover Dam to give a free hydroplant in every city on the same continent, then I have no problem accepting the fact that the units, which are just by coincidence using names of the similar things known from the real world, also behave in a bit different way. Ugh... I guess I am just repeating the same thing over and over, aren't I?

For some reason the combat thing bugs me more than the wonder thing...maybe it is because there is really no good reason for the combat issue...it doesn't make the game more fun in my view...whereas the wonders are neat and were never attempting to model real life at all (nor making any real pretense at it). I repeat myself a lot too. : ) So it's ok. (not to imply that everything I do is ok)

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
...hence tank units might take some damage, but they shouldn't be destroyed (in all but the most unlikely of cases...one in a blue moon...which isn't the current system).

Well, this is another highly unrealistic aspect of the Civ combat. With the exception of the mobile units being able to retreat now, if losing badly, the combat always ends with a total annihilation of the defeated unit. THAT is more unrealistic than anything else. A better system should incorporate much more of the retreat option. I mean, how many times in the history were units/armies totally destroyed? It is not that rare, right, but it is definitely not what happens every time.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Well, the idea is to make a better, more interesting game than Civ3...sounds like you think such a system might well do that. (And diplomacy is a really kick-ass game, I agree...I don't get to play it enough though...)

It was not my intention to suggest that a diplomacy-like system (planning phase - resolution phase) would help to improve the game (make it more fun). However, from the theoretical point of view, it would remove some vital restrictions currently inherent to the game.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Woo....you've never played an rts game have you?

Heh, you got me. I hate RTS games. I did play Warcraft 2 all the way through to the very end... I did try AoE2, Starcraft and a bunch of other famous RTS games. But I just do not like the basic principle... TBS is what I love.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
By "attacking" I mean the unit uses its weapons to cause damage.

I guess I start to get it... Both units cause damage at the same time, right? The combat rounds do not cause hitpoints for the "losing" units to be removed, but cause damage to be done to BOTH units according to their A/D values (A1-D2 and A2-D1). Well, that might work, yes... at least, it would make the same units (e.g. cavalry) equally able to win a mutual encounter, right. However, it would also suggest that cavalry battles would be very bloody (assuming the cavalry would have a high attack, but low defense rating)... Would that be realistic? I mean the question, I really have no idea if cavalry battles were bloody (=with many casualties) in the real world or not... However, I do know that tank-to-tank battles were "bloody" in this sense, so it might be accurate...

Originally posted by Blue Moose
I am proposing a radical departure..but such things are necessary in "next generation" games...if they just keep the current system as a "sacred cow," then combat will always be just a rehashing of the civ1 game...which isn't a good thing, I think.

Yes, I know that what we are discussing is a radical change. As a matter of fact, I believe that only a radical change would make sense. I consider the current combat system fairly balanced (even if not very realistic) from the gameplay point of view and most "minor twists" and "adjustments" proposed by those that dislike the tank-bashing spearmen just disbalance it... and that is why I oppose them. OTOH, I would love to try a totally different system.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
My concern about this stems from the fact that they said they are not even going to allow the option to adjust movement bonus for railroads because it is a 'staple' of the civ3 system (and a bad one, in my opinion).

There was a good discussion about the RR problem some time ago. The reason for not allowing to change the zero-cost RR movement is it's hardcoded. And the reason for hardcoding it is that it tremendously speeds up the game pathfinding algorithms. I do understand this reason just as much as I dislike what the zero-cost RR movement does to the gameplay in the later stages of the game... Seriously, making the RR movement non-zero is a change just as serious as what we are discussing regarding the combat model. Perhaps a different game...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
I just think units behaving stupidly is...well...stupid. While, as Zachriel has stated, losing a few tanks in a battle is not to be unexpected, a tank unit represents more than just one tank, it represents a very good sized number (how much exactly is the subject of endless debate...heh).

Just to make sure my point wasn't misunderstood, the tank units are abstractions. In the Industrial Age, a stack of tanks usually consists of several dozen such abstract units. Fighting against a stack of Spearmen, you might lose a couple of percent of your units to represent this attrition. This is as expected.

If you are losing more, you are doing something seriously wrong. Veteran Tank v. Veteran Spearman fortified in a city has a 97.3% chance of victory -- and the losers will probably still retreat to recover their lost hitpoints and their pride. And this assumes you don't know how to use Bombers. With a little bombardment to protect your embarrassed and cowardly Tanks, Veteran Tanks v. Damaged (1hp) Spearman fortified in the rubble of a former city wins 99.96% of the time.

How much more certainty in a combat zone do you want? What more of your soldiers can you rightly expect? This is war!