COMBAT (ver 2.0)hosted by Redleg & Theben

[loinburger]

I'd also like to see a Scout Vehicle type of unit, an exceptionally fast half-track or wheeled vehicle with a few anti-tank missiles mounted on it. Or maybe some artillery with anti-artillery radar.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Okay, back from a big Historical Miniatures Convention, time to revisit the Wunnerful Wacko World of Gamey Computers - excuse pliss, Computered Gaming...

Reference Skirmishers. Skirmishers as screens and scouts is a limited and specific term: as used in 'Gettysburg', it relates to the system of the Napoleonic Wars through the Civil War: 1800 to about 1870. After that, almost all infantry was in some kind of skirmish formation, especially after the machinegun made its appearance.
Better: give certain units a Reconnaissance/Scouting ability, which includes the ability to screen an army or other units as related in the Skirmish posts. Scouts would also include the 2-tile 'look'. This could be applied to units in all periods without being anachronistic as the term Skirmishers would.
Ferinstance: the Scout Special Capability would go to:
Ancient:
All barbarian or Nomad units
Light Cavalry
Horse Archers
Medieval:
Unarmored Cavalry (called Hobilars, or Turcopoles among other things, in Civ terms, don't require Upgrading to Knights of your ancient Light Cav)
Early Modern:
Hussars, Dragoons, Lancers, Uhlans - all representing Light Cavalry with gunpowder weapons
Jagers, Light Infantry, Tirailleurs, etc: basically ordinary Musketeers with Special Training (cost for Special Capability) to get the Scout abilities.
Modern:
Reconnaissance or Armored Cavalry units, either on foot, motorized or armored. Again, could be 'ordinary' combat units paying extra costs for the Reconnaissance Special Capability.

The Recon Capability would be automatic for air units, but with the development of Camouflage and/or Maskirovka (Advances) an enemy could reduce the 2-tile Look to 1-tile and the screening ability would be cut in some substantial way. Adding (as a result of another set of Tech Advances) Infrared, Night Vision, or Spy Satellites would return the 2-tile vision and the max screening capability.

Recon ability in ships would be likewise limited to certain types: Triremes, Frigates, Destroyers... that could be the one reason to retain the Frigate with the Ship of the Line: the Frigate was a scout for the battleline, the SoL has 0 recon ability. The modern Destroyer has it, the Battleship does not.
Add Radar, ECM, ECCM, Helicopter-carried jamming capabilities, all would modify, reduce, or increase the effective screening and recon ability of naval units.
I've posted on some of this over in the Units thread, along with some more comments on the Recon Special Capability as it would apply to Building Units using a SMAC-type Design Workshop.

[Westergaard]

I think the class-D combat system is way too complicated, but i realy like the LASS system. One major concern however is that when removing the attack and defend values there is no difference between a defending unit and an attacking unit (obvious). The result would be that high-grade military units, like tanks, also would be used when defending cities. In Civ II you used infantry as city-defense because it was cheaper per defense point compared to attacking units such as the tank, but under the LASS system you could just as well use a tank for defense since it's much stronger in land combat.

One possible solution could be to introduce bonuses to infantry defending against tanks.

Rifleman (strenght 5, defending: +100%) : 10
Tank (strenght 10, no bonus) : 10

Another solution could be that only infantry gained terrain, city wall, and fortress bonuses. Or maybe tanks just got smaller bonuses. I think this is the most realistic solution, since I can hardly imagine tanks fighting any better when behind city walls. And infantry should be the units defending the cities, just like Civ II.

This way infantry would be butchered on plains, give a good fight in forests, and really kick ass when dug in on a mountain side or behind city walls.

This system would have the strenghts of the LASS system (musketeers can't kill planes) and the civ II system, where you used tanks for attack and infantry for defense which is, in my opinion, very realistic.

One of the reasons for LASS given in the summary was that in strategic combat attacker & defender changed often during the battle. And even though that might be true, you still attack with everything you've got but when the battle is over it's the infantry who moves in to make sure the newgained land stays on your hands.

[Theben]

Westergaard,
The LASS system is meant to include some basics found in SMAC, especially the fast units get attack bonus in open, and infantry get bonus in cities. That should help your concerns.
The CLAS-D system tries to cover gaps in the LASS system, mainly a lack of range being included & giving the attacker an "initiative" bonus. The simplicity of LASS is one of it's strengths, but it still needs fleshing out.

[Jimmy]

First, I want to strongly suggest a "recruitment" system for troops. In colonization, you would build muskets and assign a citizen to them to make an infantry unit. I really like this idea and want to see something like it in civ3.
1)It is realistic: war means people die and therefore has a very heavy cost. It also handles an army returning back to civilian life better than disbanding. You keep the weapons for a later time, just reassign the citizen back to a civilian job. You don't have to build another unit, just reassign the citizen back to the muskets if you need a military unit.
2) It makes warmongering more difficult , not any harder than it is in real life, but no longer as easy. It is absurd how easy it is in civ2 or SMAC to go on a conquest.

My second suggestion is to revamp the SMAC "morale" concept. The following suggestion I developped with my grandpa who is a ww2 vet, and gave me extremely valuable insight into the difference between what training gives a soldier and what actual combat gives the soldier in terms of experience.
1) call it "experience" not morale, that is a misuse of the word.
2)have "green","displined","trained","hardened""expert"an d "elite".
3) All new troops would always start at "green". Leaving them for 1 turn in a base with barracks would upgrade them "disciplined", another two turns, they would go to "trained" and this is how far base facilities would take a unit. Only combat would take them to "hardened" then "expert" then "elite".
This would represent time it takes to train your army, the fact that training can only take a soldier so far, combat gives a soldier the extra experience that training never could. It would also make troops with high experience more valuable because they would be rare.
4)Each level would give a certain combat bonus and would retreat at a certain percentage of casualties. For example, "green" would grant -10% combat and would retreat at maybe 20% casualties. "elite" would have maybe +50% combat and would never retreat.
What do you all say?

[ember]

I strongly oppose a recruitment system.
It is not in the scale of the game. In one turn you will have compleatly replaced every person in a unit several times for less than modern era's. People in a unit don't decrease the citie's pop, especially since the number of soldiers is low relative to the total pop, and they live there between tours of duty.
It adds a huge burden of micromanagment, with no real gain.
You can simmulate the price of war just as easily by making all repairs cost gold proportional to the damage taken.

On the moral/experiene system, I aggre that moral is a bogus term. Maybe overall moral can simulate adding or subtracting a level of experience. Those fanatical, but green troops may be as effective as trained, but normally motivated guys.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

actually ember you are not correct, in many times in history the population of countries have been severrely hurt by to many men away at war

examples of these times are WW1, WW2, US civil war, and many other times

this was true in ancient times as well

Jon Miller

[ember]

But that was useually when wars were fought on a counties home soil.
In civ terms, loss of life is not caused by creating a unit, but by losing it. THat's the problem with the model of building units with pop, units don't disband for thousands of years.

THere is already a mechanism proposed to simulate pop loss from war. When cities are attacked improvments take hits whenever the defender does (% chance), pop points count as structures for this purpose.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Jon Miller]

hi all

in WW1 so many US men were out to war that US productivity was hurt (this was true for many other nations as well) and partly to offset this women were allowed into the workplace (gave the womens movement a huge jump)

during the war and after there were so man men gone from Germany and France that both had problems with there industry

I'm not saying what the right way to handle this is, all I am saying is that this is important

Jon Miller

[Jimmy]

Ember: you said that "In civ terms, loss of life is not caused by creating a unit, but by losing it. That's the problem with the model of building units with pop, units don't disband for thousands of years."
I believe this issue would not be a problem with my idea and I wish to demonstrate why some kind of "recruitment" system should be included and would not be a problem.
My recruitment idea does not substract pop when the unit is "built" but only when it is destroyed. The computer would not substract any pop points when the unit is built but if the unit was destroyed, it would look at what city was supporting that unit and substract the appropriate amount of pop points at the moment that the unit is destroyed. This would solve the problem you raise, and accurately represent the loss of life that all wars entail. If you send hordes of units out to fight and lose them there should some pop loss because those units were composed of people. In a civ2 game, after maybe 300 turns of playing, I check my defense minister and the casualties and I see that since the beginning of the game I lost a large number of units maybe 30 chariots, 10 legions and 20 warriors but no pop loss !! I think that is simply unrealistic and makes war a completely unbalanced strategy. Also, in civ2, players almost never disband units because they would have to rebuild them. A "recruitment" type system would make disbanding more advantageous because the city would gain productivity and you would keep the weapons stored away, if you needed the unit again, you could get it back right away.

[ember]

Ok, that sounds better.
How much pop would be represented by one unit?
I would guess 0.100 ro 0.250 pop would be reasonable.
Does this also introduce a maximum amount of units per city?
(as an example a city of 3 loses enough units to bring it's pop below 0, but destroying the city is unreasonable.)
maybe a max of 2 per pop in your civ. If regions are used you could jsut drain the pop off the region as a whole.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[loinburger]

LONG POST:

Sorry for the length of this post, but I've been gone on vacation for awhile.

Population loss due to war: In the Movement/Supply thread, back when it still existed, Korn suggested that a new Specialist be created, the Soldier Specialist. Depending on the Support level of your Social Engineering choices, every Soldier Specialist would produce a certain number of "swords" (as opposed to "shields") which would be used to support a unit. For example, if your Support rating was 5, and you were supporting 10 tanks, then let's say that the first five tanks were free and the next five tanks would cost 2 swords each to support. Each Soldier Specialist would produce 5 swords per turn, so you've effectively decreased your population by 2 people because of supporting your tanks (these Soldier Specialists actually represent just the support staff of the unit. The population loss from the unit's death is still considered negligible). Furthermore, every Soldier Specialist gives -2 to Econ (money spent on support), +1 to Happiness (more jobs), and either -2 to Research (if you're researching a "peaceful" tech) or +2 to research (if you're researching a "warlike" tech). That being said...

[loinburger]

UNIT ORDERS:

I have always favored being able to ambush/conceal/scout/flank an enemy. Despite the fact that, yes, CivX is a tactical game, I continue to feel that giving STRATEGIC level orders to units will enhance the game by adding another level of complexity to it.

GIVEN: The examples I will give will be based on the old Att/Def/Move system, with only two levels of experience: veteran, and not veteran. However, my unit order examples can be modified to fit nearly any combat system (such as LASS) as need be.

GENERAL ORDERS:

Concealment: Every unit will have a base % chance at successfully concealing itself, typically about 0% for tanks etc. and 5% for infantry. Some units (scouts, explorers) get bonuses to concealment. Terrain also adds/subtracts from concealment (alpine troops conceal better in mtns., etc.). The Concealment special ability also adds to the base concealment %.
Concealment Order--Shift + C. This adds to the concealment abilities of a unit. The order takes 1 MP to effect, and slows movement by 50% thereafter. (there are exceptions to this, such as alpine troops in mtns.)
Concealment, well, hides your troops, giving you the element of surprise. It is NOT an ambush, though. Troops attacking out of Concealment gain +25% to ATT. If an enemy unit attempts to move into a space containing one of your concealed units and fails to detect it in doing so, battle commences and your unit gains +25% to DEF. If the enemy unit detects your unit, battle does not commence.

Scouting: Every unit gains a base scouting percentage, and certain terrains allow for scouting better than others. Scouting special ability adds to a unit's scouting ability.
Scouting order--Shift+S. Order takes 1 MP to implement, and reduces movement by 50% thereafter. (concealment + scouting = 25% movement).
Scouting increases the chances of detecting Concealed units and also increases line of sight--if a unit has a high enough Scouting ability then it can see 2 or even 3 spaces ahead. If Unit Stacking is used, then Scouting will also provide additional information about the enemy stack--supply level, fighting strength, commanders, etc. Also, if mines are used, then Scouting allows for the detection+removal of mines.

DEFENSIVE ORDERS:

Fortify: Fortifying is the act of garrisoning a position for long-term occupation, and holding that position at all costs. This means building forts, earthworks, minefields, etc. All this takes time.
Fortify Order-- F. The Fortify order takes 1 turn to take effect--the defending unit gains no bonuses on its first turn fortifying. Defender gains Fortress x 2 + Terrain + 150% + (Veteran Standing) to DEF. Defender cannot Conceal, but gains +50% to Scouting. Defender WILL NOT RETREAT! But, defender cannot move for 1 turn after Fortify order is ended (although it is still considered Fortified during this turn). This means that you cannot sally forth from a fortification.

Hold: This is the act of putting up temporary breastworks, clearing forests in order to get a clear shot, and digging trenches, all with the intention of holding a position at all costs.
Hold Order-- H. The Hold order takes effect immediately, and consists of Fortress + Terrain x 1.5 + 100% + (Veteran Standing) to DEF, but get -50% to ATT. A unit must be a Veteran in order to Hold, and a Holding unit WILL NOT RETREAT! The Hold order can be broken immediately, which means that a unit can attack directly from Holding. Holding units cannot conceal but gain +25% to Scouting.

Delay(skirmish): This is the act of just slowing down the enemy with the full intention of giving up ground. Just get yourself some riflemen, put them behind trees, shoot, and run before the trees get bombed to sawdust.
Delay Order-- D. Delay order is effective immediately, and remains effective even after a retreat. Delaying units gain Terrain x 1.5 + (Veteran Standing) to DEF (note that they do not get a Fortress bonus) and lose -50% to ATT, and also gain +75% to their Retreating chances. When the unit occupies its new position, it reverts automatically to its Delay orders. A Delaying unit must have Veteran standing, and its Retreat chances decrease 5% for every 10% health the unit loses. If a Delaying unit fails to retreat, then for the remainder of the battle it loses -50% to DEF (the unit's plans went awry). Delaying units gain +50% to Concealment and +50% to Scouting.

Ambush: This is concealing your unit in a square and waiting for an enemy unit to stumble into your trap.
Ambush Order-- A. Ambush order requires 1 turn to implement. Battle commences immediately upon enemy entering your square--it gets no second thoughts, and neither do you.
If ambush is undetected: ambushing unit(s) gain Terrain x 2 + 200% + (Veteran Standing) to DEF. (note, again, no Fortress bonus). Unit cannot attack until order is broken.
If ambush is detected by enemy: ambushing unit(s) gain Terrain + (Veteran Standing) - 50%.
Ambushing units gain +75% to Concealment and nothing to Scouting.

ATTACK ORDERS:

Raid: An aside--I feel that there should be supply bars on units (I will discuss my ideas for this elsewhere), but suffice to say that supplies depend in movement Terrain Improvements (roads, railroads, etc.), and that a unit's supplies determine its fighting ability for later.
Raid Order-- Shift + R (denoted by small 'r' at lower left corner of unit). May only be performed by units with 2 or more movement points available, and units which are Veterans. Defending unit gets no terrain bonus and half fortress + fortify bonus (if there is a fortress and/or the unit is fortified), and the Raiding unit gets Terrain + (Veteran Status) + 50% to ATT, BUT: 10% of the damage done by the Raiding unit is done to the defending unit(s), 40% is done to the supplies, and 50% is done to the terrain. Supplies damage is turned into reduced supplies for the defending unit, and terrain damage can result in one or more Terrain Improvements being destroyed. (the order of TI destruction precedence is: Supply Relay, Rail/Maglev Station, Port, Airport, Maglev, Railroad, Road, Farm, Mine, etc.) Raiding units gain +25% to Concealment and +50% to Scouting, and gain an extra move which cannot be used as an attack. The turn after the raid (the unit now has an 'r' on its lower left corner, but it is not highlighted), the unit cannot Raid, and it receives -50% to ATT and DEF (the unit is tired). Raiding units also gain +75% to Retreat, but if Retreat fails, then all additional damage is done to the enemy unit and the Raiding unit gets -50% to ATT for the remainder of the turn.
If the Supply system is used, then Raiding will be a crucial way to soften up the enemy by cutting off his supply lines (ripping up railroads) and stealing his supplies.

and finally...
Blitz: Can only be done by Veterans and units with 3 or more move points. This order is true "lighting war." A Blitzing unit CANNOT RETREAT, cannot scout, and cannot conceal. Also, it gets -25% to DEF for the turn after it blitzes. (additionally, if the supply system is used, a blitzing unit will use more supplies than a regularly attacking unit). Blitzing units get +50% + (Veteran Status) to ATT, and upon killing/driving off an enemy will immediately occupy the vacated square WITHOUT USING ADDITIONAL MOVE POINTS. So if my tank blitzes your rifleman and my tank wins, my tank now occupies the square where your rifleman used to be and I didn't use any more move points. This is ideal for use against Delaying units. HOWEVER: Ambushing units get an additional +150% against Blitzing units.


Well, that does it. Conceal, Scout, Fortify, Hold, Delay(skirmish), Ambush, Raid, Blitz. Obviously, not all of these will be available at once: most will require tech advances, and Blitzing in particular can only be done with modern units.

One addition:
If Generals and Commanding units are used (0 ATT, 0 DEF), then this Orders system would complement the Commander unit. For example, you could train commanders to be experts in specific parts of war, or you could train them to be experts in ALL parts of war, depending on how much money/time you want to spend on them. If a Commander has expertise and/or experience in one particular type of warfare, he/she will give bonuses/reduce penalties for their unit when issued that order. And if you specify which types of warfare your commanders are good at, then it would be cheaper to make a Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example, than a Robert E. Lee, because Forrest wouldn't have all the expertises that Lee had.

[Theben]

Yes, morale is a bad term, but unless it gets used for something else no harm is done (experience still sounds better though). Did you have any ideas for morale separately?

The max training is a good idea, and should be implemented. Should there still be a SE choice that increases base morale (experience)?

The separate construction of arms isn't a good idea, IMHO, and is not in the favor of civ-type games.

Jimmy, the destruction of units causing pop loss is great! I fully support it! I remember hearing long ago of a war with Paraguay on one side, and Bolivia, Argentina, & Brazil on the other. Naturally, Paraguay got crushed, afterwards there were 28,000 men left in the country as compared to 2 million women! This would require a max unit per city.

technophile,
I am strongly against any "specialist" citizens, so I vote against soldier specialists.

The orders...some are good & some I must question.
Concealment: I would think that a concealed unit should not be able to move, unless it is small enough to avoid detection. It's one thing for an explorer or band of partisans to hide while moving, it's another to hide 10 armored divisions rumbling down the highway.

Scouting: Did anyone ever play the boardgame 'Flattop'? It had strategic levels of scouting that I think civ3 could use.
Lvl 1: Something is there. You don't know who, what or how many.
Lvl 2: You get a reading between 1/2 to x2 the actual number of enemy units.
Lvl 3: A mostly accurate number of units, and you know what some of them are.
Lvl 4: All info known.
Of course, detection should not be automatic. Scouting adds +% to detection and some techs would add to your chances. Some techs may subtract from detction.

Fortify & Hold: If I understand your numbers, a defender gets fort x2, so +400%+terrainx1.5, let's say hills, for +150%+another +150% for a grand total of +700% to defense (this assumes they aren't multiplied together, and someone's research a while ago suggests they are, so it'd be +800%). Don't you think this is a bit much? Under these circumstances, why build forts at all? They're LESS defensive! A def 2 unit (non-vet) would have a modified def of 16 or 18. No way! Leave it as is!
As for hold, this should be gotten rid of. Why? Because it invites offensive counter-manuevers. Encircling or pincers often were the answer to hold actions, negating the effect of the hold. Fortifying is one thing, and that's okay, but the hold action isn't. And why would only vets be able to do it? The no retreat for fortifiers is good, though.
Delay: Again, why vet only. The greenies should be lead by vet officers who can give commands. Anyway, simply allow the player to slow combat with a hotkey, and then have another one to order a unit to retreat. Have units assigned a number, and by pressing the number it will attempt retreat. If more units than 9 are allowed in combat then simply use 2 numbers. Assume your commander knows he should start fighting a delaying action, and leave it up to him.
Ambush: I've posted my thoughts on this before. I'd say here that a detected ambusher gains no bonus. Must be concealed 1st to ambush, or at least be completely undetected.

Raids: These should be done to the supply network, not the unit. Simply 'pillage' or give a 'raid' command that would be the same as a banditry/pirating command (instead of pirating trade lines you're pirating supply lines).

Blitz: How about allowing armies that destroy all defenders in a square can occupy it at no cost to move?

Generals/Leaders: These should appear. You cannot build them, ever.

[Jon Miller]

wow, 28000 - 2 million are really good percentages

;~)

how about my generals/leader ideas? (seen in SE and radical ideas)

these would probably have no bonuses (I guess they could have small ones) and you would have to use them if your SE choices made you lose some of the control of the military (in this case)

this would accurately reflect the fact that some of the problems of certain in other ways more favorable SE choices is that loss of control

I think that how many units you have should be limited by your population and that you should lose population when your units die

how this is done I am not completely sure of, if specialists are used the soldier specialist is ok (I know specialists are not realistsic) as a means to limit your troops, perhaps you could only have a certain percentage of your pop or your people(what you see in the city screen)

you should just lose pop if the units die in a certain time frame (like 20 years) so that early on you don't lose pop but later it is much easier to (to many people die at once)

I still sort of like my method which is make one worker in you city screen to add to the manpower bin (which you then make troops from and hp relates to how many troops there are), the worker disappears but the number of pop he was is added to the manpower bin (like 10000, 20000, ect) this shows the true benifit of more populous nations, the pop in the manpower bin can then be brought out to become a worker in that city screen again (showing that that percentage of your population is going back to your cities, the pop in the manpower bin are not exact people, rather they are an ever shifting group of the people who can be used to go to combat), if the unit is loss the pop from the manpower bin that went into it is lost, if it is disbanded the pop that went to create it goes back to the manpower bin (and if the player wishes, back to producing)

Jon Miller