COMBAT (ver1.0): Hosted by Redleg

[VaderTwo]

I am probably going to get flamed for this one, but how about a battle screen.

When a battle occurs, a player would have the option to go to a battle screen for more strategic-like combat in a screen that is 10*10,20*20,or 30*30 with terrain randomly composed of terrain in the battle square and the eight squares around it. For example, if there are three mountains out of the nine squares, there would be about 33% mountains in the battle area, randomly placed around the battle screen. With the speed of computers these days, it should only take about 10-15 seconds, if that, to create these maps.

Around the edges of the battle screen would be eight areas that would refer to the eight squares surrounding the battle screen. These areas would have the icons of the units in those squares. These units could be called upon for reinforcements at the cost of all of their movement points for the turn and join the battle. You or your enemy would also have the option to withdraw from the battle.

To get rid of some of the "tank vs phalanx" problem while not making it too easy for advanced units to defeat less advanced ones, we could give: units with 10 HP - three units on the screen (total 30 HP), units with 20 HP - two units (total 40 HP) and units with 30 or more HP - one unit but has choice of either augmenting HP by 50% or increasing attack or defense factors by 50%. The more advanced units would have greater movement, likely greater firepower and/or armor, and longer attack range than their less advanced counterparts. All units would have much more movement points then usual.

For attacking cities, there would be a larger battle screen that would include the city. All of buildings, wonders and even the citizens would be represented as icons on the map. All of them could be damaged during the battle. To capture the city, you would have to occupy the keep/city hall/capital.

Could also use a battle screen for naval battles (and possibly air battles) as well.

Could have the option to use or not use the battle screen for each battle or have an button at the beginning of the game to use it (like the strategic/tactical button in MOO2).

[Jon Miller]

Hi

have some ideas, hopefully I will not wander to far off base

1st idea

I think it would be fun to have tactical battles, a la moo2 and mom

the terrain would provide the map for the battle and the troops would be the units in the army with like every 1000 men be a unit (increasing as civ size grows larger and becoming strong by the fractional precentage) and the left over fraction being a partial strength unit

since you would probably not want to fight every battle (diffinetly not in Multi Play), you could have generals that go with your armies (bait for those who want heroes), however they would not be mercenaries but would rather be based on that civs historical figures and common names (such as if you are france you usually get someone called Louis or something but on a random chance (or by some other method) you get Napolean or something (these generals would be realistic in that they would only last 20 years or so, also there would be no way for generals to be so good that they could make bronze age units defeat gunpowder era units

if anything was made realtime this could (bait for the rtsers)

a major problem I see is that like in moo2 and mom it would require two different AIs and the AI for the tactical combat would need to be good too (mom and moo2 had suckie tactical ai) and if this can not be done good it should be left out

2nd idea

an alternate way might be to have tech advances give you certain preset strategies that you could choose from when attacking an enemy unit, this would effect which unit in the army attacks which unit and when, the defender would choose the same, therefore there could be tactics and counter tactics, maybe if enough troops were involved, a certain number would be loss and then you would have another round of choices

early choices for the attacker would like be only frontal assault and retreat

good moral and training would also be a prerequisite for some tactics

for those who want heroes you could still have generals if you want but I repeat again they need to be realistic, there were never 7 napoleans around at one time and napolean was not arround for 9 centuries

3rd idea

in either case the armies should take down the population number (remember that one that civ2 had 10000, 30000, 60000, ect) in equal amount of what is in the army, the collecter person that represents that pop group takes the percentage of the resources from their collecting square

an add on - to simulate a nomadic culture have an army or group of armies be able to join together their population fragments to make a city (their old weapons would be kept in storage or something, this by the way is another idea of mine, be able to store things in cities for a rainy day), in modern times this is like an army holding up or making a base or making a work base, these cities of course would not be as big as normal cities and because of their transient nature would probable never build anything of merit (they would not be as big because they would be made by military units which are only small portions of their cities and nations) (I think that some of a cities structures should remain after the population has all departed (ruined cities) and decay at the rate of like one a turn, World Wonders would not decay like this and should only be lost if they are the objext of destruction (a mad leader, a meteor, ect)


enough for now, I have a final paper due tomorrow that I have not started yet, even in college macroeconomics is not as fun as games (Physics and Math on the other hand)



------------------
Jon Miller

[redleg]

what about units perfoming coup de ta? I posted this in the other list.
Units could have a loyalty factor, and more advanced governments lessen the probability of a unit attempting a coup de ta.
Anyone think this would be good?

------------------
Redleg

Small minds talk about people, Average minds talk about events, Great minds talk about ideas.

[NotLikeTea]

*ahem*

"Coup d'etat" with a little / over the e.

Sorry.. this bugs me after 6 years of french immersion. At least you got the Coup bit right (I've seen Koo De Ta before...)

[Sieve Too]

The Coup factor would be a great idea in another way. It would take away the advantage of the early warmonger. Right now, CivII is easily beat by cranking out hordes of vet Knights or Crusaders and smashing your enemies early. In reality, a civ should pay a penalty when its armies get too big in proportion to its size. The Greeks after Alexander and the Romans had all sorts of problems with rogue generals either attacking the capital (in game terms they could turn into barbarians) or splitting the empire.

[delcuze2]

How would the Sub Combat Game Work?
===================================

* Leader Units - Leaders could be made less abstract and more personable by assuming they are the current generation member of a ongoing family. Leaders/families could act as in MOO, having morale, speed, and strength effects.

* Armies - Stacks of units are treated in combat as a single army. All units in a single stack are deployed in the tactical game. Each unit will be deployed and moved seperately in the tactical battle.

* Terrain - the square/hex where the defender was on the strategic map should determine the terrain set used in the tactical game. Some option to design and assign specific tactical terrain sets to specific hexs on the strategic map would make for great historical play, but might be too complex... This could make town attacking very interesting!

* Combat - Something like we find in Heroes of Might and Magic? Each unit moves in initiative order and attacks during its move. Ranged attacks, special abilities (from tech tree of course) make for interesting and changing battle tactics.

[delcuze2]

How would this work in Multi Player mode?
===================================

First, not everyone will want to play the military sub games I mentioned above, so some sort of strategic level resolution option has to included.

I think a system with tactical options picked by each player in a hidden and simultaneous manner (as mentioned above) would solve this issue.

The idea was that each player had certain battle options (Attack left, Attack Middle, Attack Right, Retreat, Stand, Defend Middle, Defend Right...)

As time goes on, technology provides you with more combat options. (Defend infantry and shoot with archers, "Hail Mary", Slash and Burn retreat, etc.)

[Mo]

I think there shouldn't be a tactical sub game. It would make the games far to long.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I agree, tactical combat would be too much for the Civ games. It worked in MoO and MoO2 because they were far less complex in terms of units and movement, but it would detract from the Civ model if it were included.

[delcuze2]

Rather than make you all read one long post, I'll break this up into several small ones!

Why have a Tactical Combat sub-Game?
=====================================

1. Realism - as I noted before a tactical sub game helps resolve thetime scale issues of short intense conflicts vs long term civ development.

2. Game Involvement - Tactical battles with specific units and heroes (maybe called "Generals" here?) help you to identify with your armies and thier achievements more.

3. Unit Strategies - Many of the issues we have been debating about unit forces, tech levels, combined arms etc... can be resolved easier in a sub-game (i.e. not on the main map).

[feanor]

In land combat, should we ignore some of the concepts from Blitzkrieg warfare like Over run, Break thorugh. Exploitation, Evelopement, and bridge head? ( For more explanation of these in Game terms, I suggest looking up on a board game called 'Advanced Third Reich'. ) Including some of these concepts may not be difficult, but would make players more conscious of strategy. I also believe that in end you need some troops on land, not helicopters but real infantry, to secure any ground. There is a famous saying in Army. 'In end, it is the dogs on land who plants our flags on top of the mountains.'

------------------
My wife likes Civillization


[This message has been edited by feanor (edited May 26, 1999).]

[redleg]

I think these ideas SHOULD be factors, but very automated. In other words, the player can look to them in detail or in summary or not at all, but the factors are there none the less. A highly detailed player will be in heaven, and the quick player wont need to worry about it. The military advisor should point out EXTREME problems (i.e. "your highnes, the Third Infantry Division is planning a coup - maybe we can assign them to the balkans"). Pont them out and SUGGEST A CORRECTION. Harder on the progrmmers, but more fun to play? What do you think?


------------------
Redleg

Small minds talk about people, Average minds talk about events, Great minds talk about ideas.

[NotLikeTea]

I, too, don't want to see a tactical game, for several reasons.

1) There can be dozens of battles per turn in a good war.. who want's to handle all of them?

2) A tactical game handled by a human would do better than an AI tactical game.. another advantage for the player

3) "One good game is better than two great games"

4) I'm no good at tactical games

[delcuze2]

Tactical Sub-Game Issues
========================

Here are the basic objections (so far). I'll try to deal with each.

--------------------
1) Takes too Long

This depends upon how you implement the strategic and tactical modes of the game.
In the current games of Civ II, SMAC, & CTP the tactical game is one-and-the-same as the strategic game and many factors of unrealism result (e.g. units that can move only "so far" in a whole year).

It is possible, practical, realistic and, most importantly, just as much fun to minimize the strategic movement of military units in periods of non-warfare and maximize the military maneuevers in tactical during periods of warfare.

The current batch of Civ games often has us moving dozens of units every turn from the mid-game on. While some of this has been made easier with unit automation, we spend WAY more time moving military units around than balancing economys, practicing politics, and setting social policy.


--------------------
2) Too Complex

It is all too true that a complex tactical sub game would not work.

The trick then is to keep the tactical game simple OR to move some of the complexity from the strategic game to the tactical game.

MOO, MOM, HoMM, and many other popular games are examples of how different play balances between the tactical and strategic can be achieved in grand scope games.

I don't think the question is one of complexity but of balance.

Depth and replayability are a result of well balanced and easily manageable complexity.

--------------------
3) Humans are better than AI

Well, that will always be true. Where the AI is best is in simple discrete systems. Where the AI is worst (translate: most difficult to program) is in complex integrated systems.

It should be EASIER to build a better AI by having a seperate tactical sub-game than not! There are less factors to take into account.

--------------------
4) One good game is better than two great games

Gosh, right now we have many games in one, neatly tied together:

Economic/City management
Trade
Diplomacy
Military/Combat
Technology
...etc.

The fun of civ type games has always been fundementally rooted in the creative integration of interesting sub-systems.

This issue strikes to the core of why we "always want to play one more turn". The answer is, because there is just one more battle/technology/city improvement/etc. I just gotta let my people have...

--------------------
5) I'm no good at tactical games

I don't have a clue how to answer this one...

[Goob]

There is always the option of including the tactical battles in the game, and also a "Skip Tactical Battle" button for those that think it detracts from the game.

Goob