RISK-II style combat - simultaneous, still not real-time

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 12-07-2000 11:32 PM Ralf, Simultaneous combat works only if movement is also simultaneous...

Sorry, my mistake. I realise that i havent been clear enough on the "re-health to full status, then switch roles" -issue:

Lets forget about stacks, and concentrate on this very simple battle-example. A single player-controlled unit attacks a single AI-controlled unit. If the defending AI-unit is fortyfied; the old Civ-2 rules applies. If the defending AI-unit is NOT fortyfied however, the following happens:

- If the defending AI-unit withstands the attack, and the attacking player-unit dies; the battle is already over.

- If the defending AI-unit instead dies, and the attacking player-unit survives, the player-unit´s wounded health-bar score is temporarily stored, by the computer.

- Both the AI-unit and the player-unit now gets automatically re-healthed to full status, and their roles are automatically switched. The AI-unit now immediately and automatically counter-attacks the now defending (but non-fortified) player-unit. If the player-unit withstands the attack, the battle is over, and the surviving player-unit gets above stored health-bar reloaded again.

- IF, however the attacking AI-unit wins, the AI-unit´s damaged healt-bar score is compared with above damaged player health-bar, and who ever has the least damage wins the overal battle.

Two stacks figthing each other works according the same principle.

Now, WHY is this approach necessary?

Beacuse the human player has an almost ridiculously huge battle-tactical advantage over the AI. Time and time again i have moved my late-game tanks and howitchers on non-movement penalty enemy-railroads, and conquered 4-5 AI-cities within a single turn - and the whole civ within just a few turns. Its too easy!!

Implementing above would give the AI a better chance to fight an invading player, and the human player would get a much more challenging game.

quote: This would change the entire nature of the game.

Yes, and it would change it in a good way, i think.

quote: It's also hard to resolve movement this way.

The retreat-alternative was a mistake - both the AI and the human player can only choose between attack or fortify.

quote: For example, say one of your units move out from hex H while one of my units move into it. Will there be a combat? Who gets to move first? You or I?

All battles take place on the attacked unit/unit-stack square. Theres no need for "moving in" or "moving out" anywhere.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 11, 2000).]

[Stuff2]

I didn't mean that it would be hard for the AI to figure out the 'best' solution for organizing the troops, the hard thing is to make the AI to adjust to the players gameplay. If the AI always does the 'best' solution it will beacome easy to predict. And if it's easy to predict it's easy to win. On the other hand, if the AI always makes the 'best' possible move under the circumstances taking your tactic into account, the player will almost all the time meet a superior army. How fun is it to loose all the time? And if it's randomized, what's the point, you could play RISK instead? The hard thing for the AI is to make an educated guess about your tactic and then adjust it's own tactic to it's guesses. That's what a real person would do.

[airdrik]

Ralf, the problem with what you propose is that the units are both attacking once and both defending once, which would eventually turn into only building units that have the highest total at and def.

You could, on the other hand, order a unit to 'ambush' any unit that comes along (as long as they have at least 1 move remaining(?)). Then they can get to attack things that would otherwise attack them first.

They could also implement surprise attacks, certain units would be more likely to surprise other units, and others would be less susceptable to surprise attacks. Also terrains would have a factor in the chances for surprise attacks. If you surprise a unit you get 1-2 free hits before he can retaliate. An ambush would also act as a surprise attack.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited December 11, 2000).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 12-11-2000 05:23 AM I didn't mean that it would be hard for the AI to figure out the 'best' solution for organizing the troops, the hard thing is to make the AI to adjust to the players gameplay. If the AI always does the 'best' solution it will beacome easy to predict. And if it's easy to predict it's easy to win.

The logic behind above quote isnt exactly crystal-clear to me. You seem to imply that the human player always knows exactly that the most effective moves really is, in such a battle-model. Is that necessarily always true?

Also, compare your statement applied on chess:

The better the Chess-AI can figure out what BEST possible moves it can make, the easier it can be predicted - and if its easy to predict, its easy to win.

Sure.

quote: On the other hand, if the AI always makes the 'best' possible move under the circumstances taking your tactic into account, the player will almost all the time meet a superior army. How fun is it to loose all the time?

In open-field battles; that would only be true if an AI mirror-image (or bigger version) of your stack - both in terms of unit-types and number of units - would attack/defend against you.

How likely is that to happen?? In reality, its much more likely that the human player have the biggest stack, and the best units in it. So skilled human players are most likely to win, in terms of the general quality of the unit-stacks.

Also; the advantages/disadvatages with city-attacks and different battle-terrain can work for (or against) the AI, as well. And the ability to overview and predict those advantages/disadvantages is generally often stronger with veteran civ-players.

quote: The hard thing for the AI is to make an educated guess about your tactic and then adjust it's own tactic to it's guesses. That's what a real person would do.

Once, the retreat-option is scrapped, the programmers have only "attack" and "fortify" left to deal with. They know the unit-datas and the terrain- and city-wall effects. It shouldnt be THAT hard to come up with some AI battle-screen rules.

Anyway: they can simplify above suggested model even further, if they want to.

My, MAIN point with the "attack > save damage-bar data > re-health both units > switch side > counter-attack > then compare damaged health-bar with the saved one; and the least damaged wins - all within the same turn" -idea, is that i want to do something about the turnbased "Stan & Oliver fighting-effect".

You know: Oliver puts marmalade on Finn´s head, and Stan puts an egg in his mouth - then Oliver smacks Finn´s chin, and the egg crushes. Finn, however just sits there and wait - because it isnt hes TURN to retaliate yet.
Now, i realise that Civ is a turnbased game, it it hopefully stays that way. But, at the same time, you guys must admit that because of this effect, the human player have an enormous tactical battle-field advantage (especially then most of the AI-civs are railroaded = no movement-points to take into account) that the AI simply cannot match.

All i want to do, is to even up the odds a little. Is that a bad thing? Many complain/bragg about the fact that they can conquer-the-world before 1000 AD easily, in Civ-2. Is THAT a good thing?

Its perfectly OK to be against a particular problem-solution. But, in that case: why not come up with a better solution? Sweeping non-specific statements about "a better battle-AI" isnt good enough. Give us some feasible, alternative examples. Just dont ignore the problem.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 12-11-2000 01:10 PM Ralf, the problem with what you propose is that the units are both attacking once and both defending once, which would eventually turn into only building units that have the highest total at and def.

I have two answers to this: Is that bad? and; No, not necessarily.

Six weaker units in a stack, can take turns to attack two stronger enemy-units in another stack - and those two stronger ones can only counter-attack two of the weaker units, within that same game-turn.

Remember:

"A single unit cannot however, attack simultaneously two or more units in that other stack. A single unit can only attack another single unit, regardless of that enemy-unit is alone, or within a stack".

quote: You could, on the other hand, order a unit to 'ambush' any unit that comes along (as long as they have at least 1 move remaining(?)). Then they can get to attack things that would otherwise attack them first. They could also implement surprise attacks, certain units would be more likely to surprise other units, and others would be less susceptable to surprise attacks. Also terrains would have a factor in the chances for surprise attacks. If you surprise a unit you get 1-2 free hits before he can retaliate. An ambush would also act as a surprise attack.

Well, why not? Anything that makes any final Civ-3 combat-model more interesting, is welcome. I just hope the implement a battle-screen this time.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 11, 2000).]

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 12-11-2000 03:16 PM I have two answers to this: Is that bad? and; No, not necessarily. Six weaker units in a stack, can take turns to attack two stronger enemy-units in another stack - and those two stronger ones can only counter-attack two of the weaker units, within that same game-turn.

So you're saying this only applies to stacked units? If so, then what about if one single unit attacks one single unit?

I still think that (one unit attacking one other unit) civ 2 had the best system. As for stacked units, you can stack up to x (8?) units in a stack and the at/def/fp/hp of the stack is the total of all units in the stack, and move is equal to that of the slowest unit. That stack pretty much becomes one single unit that can be divided into several smaller units. When that unit takes damage, not all units in the stack may take damage (random how much to each unit?), and if one unit in the stack is destroyed, then it is simply removed at the time that it is destroyed.

New Idea: recalculate at/def each round of combat, ie. a knight hits a musketeer, and it's hp go down to one third it's total, that round the musketeer's at and def go down to 2. Next round the musketeer (luckely) hits the knight and brings it's hp down a quarter what it's max is, the knight's at drops to 3, etc.

This would also apply to stacks of units, since in combat a stack of units is treated like one unit. Different units in the stack will take damage each round of combat, and as they loose hp, the total at/def of the stack decreaces.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 12-11-2000 04:56 PM New Idea: recalculate at/def each round of combat, ie. a knight hits a musketeer, and it's hp go down to one third it's total, that round the musketeer's at and def go down to 2. Next round the musketeer (luckely) hits the knight and brings it's hp down a quarter what it's max is, the knight's at drops to 3, etc. This would also apply to stacks of units, since in combat a stack of units is treated like one unit. Different units in the stack will take damage each round of combat, and as they loose hp, the total at/def of the stack decreaces.

It seems to be a good idea, to me. I have only one question: You talk about "next round the musketeer....". Should i interpret that as "the knight and the musketeer, automatically take turns in attacking each other, until one dies, all within the same game-turn"? Or does the battle span other several turns? (if its two big unit-stacks that attack each other, its OK that the battle can take 2-4 turns).

Well, perhaps we got something here. As long something is done with the "Stan & Oliver fight-syndrome", its all fine by me. That was my underlying critisism with the old Civ-2 model.

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 12-11-2000 05:37 PM It seems to be a good idea, to me. I have only one question: You talk about "next round the musketeer....". Should i interpret that as "the knight and the musketeer, automatically take turns in attacking each other, until one dies, all within the same game-turn"? Or does the battle span other several turns? (if its two big unit-stacks that attack each other, its OK that the battle can take 2-4 turns). Well, perhaps we got something here. As long something is done with the "Stan & Oliver fight-syndrome", its all fine by me. That was my underlying critisism with the old Civ-2 model.

What I ment was that each round of battle (The computer generates a random number and compairs it to the at of the attacker and the def of the defender, whereever the number lands, that's who 'attacks' the other and does damage. That's one round of combat).

But you bring up a good point. A long enough battle could last multiple turns, like if a battle lasts for more than 8-10 combat rounds, then it is postponed until next turn. On the defending player's turn, he can have the choice to pull out with the price of the attackers get 1 free hit in before the defenders can leave. Or if the defender doesn't leave, the attacker has the choice to pull out or continue combat at the begining of his turn for the same penalty.