COMBAT (ver 1.2) hosted by CyberShy

[Flavor Dave]

ember--I agree that siege warfare should be more effective. Your idea is one way to accomplish that.

[Theben]

This fits under 3 categories-units, combat, and radical ideas-so I'll post this at all 3:

I've suggested before-and this would work great with the SMAC workshop-the attack/defense values should be scrapped and replaced with the following: land/air/sea/space (or LASS for short). Both attack and defense would be based off of the appropriate terrain. FE, a phalanx would use it's air rating vs. a fighter (none or low) while the fighter would use it's land rating vs. the phalanx (low to middle for modern units, but still much higher than the phalanx. Also with more hp's and firepower). Reasons:

1) Combat in CIV/SMAC/CtP is on a strategic scale; although tactics are a part of the combat, you don't make those decisions (thankfully). Combat consists of charges, feints, counterattacks, etc., so the idea of attacker & defender on this grand scale is lessened unless the defender is in a fortification of some sort (which can be taken into account).

2)This is regarding SMAC unit construction mostly, but it appears it will be used in civ3. In SMAC combat is resolved by comparing the weapon strength(attacker) vs. the defender's armor. This is ridiculous; the defender's weaponry and the attacker's defenses aren't taken into account but I think anyone would agree that they should.

3)It would work very well with a modified workshop. The player could buy each attack level for each category when the appropriate technology is gained. FE,
Fighter(WWII era): land=low, air=high, sea=low, space=none
Dive bomber: land=medium, air=low/medium, sea=medium/high, space=none
Torpedo bomber: land=low, air=very low, sea=high, space=none
phalanx: land=low/medium, all others=none
musketeers: land=low/medium, all others=none
marines(20th cent): land=medium/high, air=low, sea=none, space=none
Each category would also be divided by their hit points, and the strengths of each would overlap. FE, Ancient units (1 hp) can have a a strength from 1-5 land(approximately). Gunpowder units (hp 2)would have STR's from about 4-7, modern(hp 3) 7-12, etc. The weapons, etc. for the graphics would change when the hp level is selected in the workshop (where the reactor is now).

To differentiate between similar units, such as legions vs. legions, there would be modifiers:
-Terrain, which would apply to both attacker and defender (infantry bonus in cities; horsemen, tanks in open; special units-alpine, marines-in their specialized terrain); forts could count as terrain that only benefits the defender, but allows attackers to retreat easier & defenders less easily
-Morale, social engineering(happy soldiers fight better than unhappy soldiers), & tech bonuses (techs that would give a minor advantage to combat that are otherwise too small for the workshop; i.e. writing, telegraph, satellite mapping).
-The Random Combat Events: RCE represents the things that happen in combat that are unforseen and out of your control. Applied each and every time units engage in combat. Using a scale from 1-100, whereas 1=disaster for the attacker & 100=disaster for the defender. Most of the time results fall in the middle, which has no effect on combat. Other results give a minor bonus to the attacker or defender. Can be modified by military "leader" units & attacks launched from surprise(to be discussed later). Allow a toggle at game start to turn this effect on or off.

[Eggman]

That combat system has possibilities. However, you may wish to add a couple of other variables into the equation:

Ranged attack: The ability to hit units before they can hit back. Like archers and artillery. As seen in CTP. This encourages the use of combined arms. Done properly, range bonuses should disappear when facing more advanced units (for example, musketeers are a ranged weapon against pikemen but not riflemen).

Bombard: The ability to smack around units with long range attacks but leave the attackers safe from counterattacks (unless the enemy also has bombard units). This is different than ranged combat as some units which are good on a tactical battlefield cannot bombard (like archers) while other units are lousy on the tactical battlefield but good at bombardment (like catapults and maybe submarines).

[Theben]

I have ideas for bombardment also, but not for ranged attack (I was going to lump them together until I saw your post). Plus they need to be reworked w/ the above because IMHO air & sea units that attack land units should be treated as bombardment, whereas air units attacking sea units could destroy the sea unit.

[mingko]

Combat may be more unpredictable by allowing rock-paper-scissors type of attribute built to a unit. A civilization can specialize in one sort of technique but can produce unit of other attributes by building an improvment (barracks perhaps). This can simulate something like cavalry Vs infantry Vs cannons. There may be some leaders which gives bonus to units of a certain attribute as well.

[AXM]

Siege tactics

The computer opponents should understand this type of warfare where appropriate.
For example, I would enjoy seeing an enemy come set up base on a mountain next to one of my cities, or near it if connected by roads or rail. They could set up a fortified base and use it to mount a protracted campaign of attrition.

I know this has already been said, but military units should definitely not be able to take advantage of a spy's immunity to ZOC. This is time wasting and unrealistic.

------------------
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you." Jung

[AXM]

Ability to destroy city improvements

Air units, not just spies, should be able to pick and target city improvements, even before conquering a city.
This is the type of "smart" war waged by NATO in Yugoslavia. NATO air forces limited the vast majority of their attacks to infrastructure, or city improvements. This had devastatingly successful results.
Not only did it effect a diplomatic solution, but Yugoslavia's GDP has been reduced by 50% as a result of the loss in infrastructure!
Any game must be able to synthesise this type of warfare.

------------------
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you." Jung

[NotLikeTea]

I like this idea.. Similarly, there should be weapons to only destroy population, or only destroy millitary units. Smart bombs.

Speaking of Yugoslavia, I'd like to see diplomatic random events. Bomb only improvements, and you may hit an embassy. Uh, oh.

[Theben]

AXM,

I'd limit it to after laser tech is discovered. Prior to that targeting structures in cities was fairly ineffective. The German war machine in WWII was barely hurt until the Allies started targeting oil refineries. And all the bombing done to Vietnam had almost zero effect on their infrastructure (wasn't very industrialized).

[Theben]

Notliketea,
Have missions to target population or military, not weapons.

[Flavor Dave]

"I know this has already been said, but military units should definitely not be able to take advantage of a spy's immunity to ZOC. This is time wasting and unrealistic."

This ability may be too much of an advantage for the human, but it IS NOT UNREALISTIC!! The spy acts as a scout, ensuring that the unit slides thru the square without the enemy's knowledge.

[Eggman]

I would agree for the most part on bomb damage of buildings and reduction in population. However, even if you aim solely at military targets, you are definitely going to hit civilian targets even with smart bombs. WWII Bombers would cause even more unintentional damage. Any sort of bombing should have the chance to cause building damage and population reductions.

As a further twist, perhaps buildings should have hitpoints which are lost anytime the city is attacked (even if the attack is repulsed, some sort of damage in likely) or sacked. If the HPs drop below a certain level, they lose some of their effectiveness. If they fall below another level, they just stop working. However, the buildings can be repaired for less than the cost of building a new one.

[Theben]

Flav Dave,
Having an army be able to move into a ZOC square is okay, but allowing 10 armored divisions to slip through hundreds of miles of closely guarded terrain is another thing. I've used a single spy to slip large armies past many defenders by moving the spy, then the units, then the spy again, etc. That's NOT realistic.

[Theben]

Eggman,
I completely agree that air missions would kill populations. In those two examples above the Allies/U.S. were very successful at killing civilians.
Take it one step further. Prolonged aerial attack has ALWAYS united people behind their ruler, no matter how despotic (it really makes you wonder if Bill Clinton paid attention in history ). Perhaps in civ3 sneak attacks & prolonged bombardment will cause unhappiness to start to shrink in the enemy cities. No idea how to implement, tho.

RE: Buildings w/hit points:
Check out the civ3 general/suggestions; I'll bump up an old thread.

[Agent 000]

Some of these issues, I'm sure, have been addressed, and I havn't played AC yet, so pardon me if I say something stupid, k?

1.Allied troops should be able to move into the same square as each other, as well as allied troops being able to enter allied cities. If the alliance is cancelled, they all go back their seperate ways, just like it is already. Awfully annoying that you can't help an ally defend one of its cities directly.


2.Addressing the "stack" ideas: The other units should add a defensive bonus to the stack. The best defender should add its full bonus, the second, half its defense, the third should add a fourth, etc. If this idea were used, you'd also need to be able to call a joint attack, using the same rules, and if this made stacks too powerful, you could reduce the second unit bonus to 1/4 or whatnot. Another way of handling this is only allowing a certain number of units of a type to participate in combat. For instance, using civ2 units, only 2 melee units could assist, and perhaps 3 missile units, and 1 or 2 air units. Otherwise, units should be killed one by one. It's a little ludicrous to say that just because the front line broke, all the units die.

Addressing post-war situations: All cities should have a variable to indicate its original owner at the beginning of any war. If an enemy of the original owner takes the city, and then an ally of the original owner re-takes it, the city should immediately be given back to the original owner. After all, this is how it is done in war. It would be awfully amusing if this hadn't been done after World War 2...the Americans and English would own almost all of France right now.