Announcement

**Theben** · July 8, 1999, 00:06

Hmmm...it worked, but not how I planned...oh well.

**redleg** · July 8, 1999, 22:57

The other half -

Enable the Air force (others?) to destroy city improvements. This would simulate a campagin against the cities infrastructure, such as industry, transportation, population, etc... Give targeted buildings Hit points and then bombing attacks would damage (and reduce the ability and effects of) improvements. Also add a degree of randomness in bombing so that the target is not nessecarily what is hit. Perhaps a targeted factory is missed and a population center is hit instead. Give diplomatic or happiness penalties to more enligtened govermnets for bombing population. Increase the morale (will to fight, hatred of the bomber) of the city whose population has been bombed.

AXM, Theben, Eggman

random Diplomatic events comes up agian...

NotLikeTea

Remove the ability of non-combatant units (like the spy or caravan types to bypass ZOC.

Flavor Dave

Give the ability to fight with allied armies and help them directly
Keep information on the original owner of a city so the city can be returned to its owner after liberation. Allow the player and the AI to surrender or return a city that originally was owned by another nation.
Limit the amount of units that fight in a stack per round, without limiting the maximum size of the stack.

Agent 000

Allow unlimited stacking, but limit the combatants per round of combat to four

Ember

Lost computer time - will continue

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

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

**Jon Miller** · July 9, 1999, 17:53

One of my ideas from a long time ago got ignored, I believe, so I will repeat it here, expand upon it, and add more ideas to it

look at my long thread posted may 23 in combat (ver 1.0): hosted by redleg

my first idea I know longer like very well and my third idea needs more thought but I would like to expound upon my second idea

please go look up the thread it is on the third page, if you would like I could repost it

I still support(or at least think the idea should be considered) that in battle both sides should make a battle choice reflecting organization and style and army make up

(each large army should be made up of several other units ala CTP)

like once you have learned legion organization and your army has the proper make up you should be able to attack as a legion would with the corresponding bonuses towards some enemies and minuses towards others

which way and all that tactical stuff would be figured out by the game as your army generals, each battle choice will have information about when to retreat and the like

these battle choices would be preset by firaxis and you can give up to like 5 of them to every unit type you design to be built (if we have anything like smacs workshop) or will be ingrained in the units if we have preset units

examples of offensive battle choices would be frontal assualt, delaying retreat, flank assault

something like delaying retreat would fight until you lost just a little amount of hp and then the unit would retreat, but it would take the proper amount of moral or training to do

some battle options would be like this defensive one (if the unit had artillary and infantry): infantry line up before artillary and then artillary shells enemy, then if the enemy chose frontal assault the defender would have a plus but if they had calvary and chose a mobile unit flank attack then if the chance was right the offender would have a plus

some battle options might have a certain number of MPs prerequisite (like the calvary one)

each battle would only have one choice and if the sides withdrew before one side was destroyed so be it, the next person to move can fight another battle (and would be the attacker)

the available defenders and attackers battle plans would be identicle and the army would have the same five to choose from (the number 5 could be changed) this will allow more realism

adding different tactics to your unit would add cost to it (for the training)

thats enough on that for now, I don't know if it would be practical to implement but it would be better than battles like in :Lords of" or "Master of" serieses

one thing I think should be changed is that airplanes should not attack enemy units the way they do in smac or civ2

against enemy armies or units they should mostly be used as a means of support, by themselves fighters should be useless in covered terrain vrs enemy units and bombers should have limited use

in open terrain the airplanes should have more use

also it should be very hard to hurt planes and except with other planes (and sams and aa), the planes should usually not get injured at all

in a supporting role planes of all types should be very benificial, having high attack when used in concert with ground troops

they should also play a role in defensive combat, maybe they could be placed on some sort of alert and jump to defend any units in range (maybe even an auto where you can pick wich units to support and then the planes will do so

in my battle plan idea there would be plans with planes in them

planes should also be very good at attacking vehicled units on roads and railways and infantry on railways

infantry in cover should be near impossible for any plane to injure

planes should also be good at attacking infrastructure, especially bombers

aa should do little to bombers and sam sites should not times the infantries defense by two but instead should be a constant, like CTP's city walls, fighters like they are now should be the only true defense against bombers

done for now,
Jon Miller

**Icedan** · July 12, 1999, 23:23

I didnt know where to put this, or if this has already been suggested, but couldnt we have the option to capture an army rather than kill them?

Because we have reached an age where we try to keep everyone alive, enemy or not.

We could have POW, and maybe interrorgate them? Maybe thats a bit much...but I highly suggest an option to try and capture an army.

Oh! And how about the spy unit or another unit, named "Assassin" who's job is entirely to assassinate the leader or one of the leaders advisors, (whom you get to pick).
This won't kill the whole civilization, it will just put it into complete misery for a couple of years (turns) untill a new leader takes its place, and that new leader may be a worse leader than the previous one, or maybe he's even better! >

**FinnishGuy** · July 13, 1999, 04:56

Um, I had some ideas about air combat back in thread ver1.1 that seem to be missing from the summary. I'll repeat here in short:

- Air units (icons) are only allowed to exist in base squares (specifically built airbases or cities). They create an "effect zone" (EZ) around them, which includes all squares within the unit's operational radius. Player can move air units from base to base by selecting the unit, clicking on the new base and watching a nice little animation of planes taking off, flying and landing.

- Automatic Recon Flights: If an enemy land/sea unit is inside friendly EZ, there is a chance per turn that it will be spotted. This chance increases the closer the enemy unit is to the base square. The spotting would be re-evaluated every turn.

- Bombing Runs: Player selects a bomber air unit, clicks on the target enemy unit (can also be air unit) and again watches a neat animation of bombers doing an attack run and returning to base. If the bombers fly through an enemy fighter EZ, there is a check whether they are spotted by the enemy. If spotted, enemy fighter interception is very likely. There can be multiple interceptions if flying through multiple/overlapping enemy EZs. If the bombers take too much damage, the mission is aborted and they (try to) return to base.

- Automatic Fighter Escort: If a moving/attacking bomber unit is within friendly fighter EZ, it has fighter escort. Possible enemy interception then first engages the fighters, and if sufficient strength remains then the bombers.

- Automatic Air Superiority: If friendly and enemy fighter EZs overlap, there is a chance of air superiority combat between the fighter units (much like artillery duel in SMAC). The chance increases the more EZs overlap. Enemy bombers entering friendly fighter EZ are intercepted, if spotted.

This sacrifices some player control, BUT reduces combat micromanagement with air units. IMO, it's also more realistic as all air combat is concluded within game turn.

**Theben** · July 13, 1999, 11:20

Jon M & Finnish Guy,
The current summary only deals with COMBAT v. 1.2. Looking back I don't see any summary for COMBAT since Goob's summary in 1.0, with the exception of Victor's summmary. There's also been some confusion here, and I haven't heard from Redleg in a while. I'll try to make a full summary tonight, but only of ver. 1.2, as Yin needs it now. Later I'll see if I can do a complete COMBAT summary. Another horrifying discovery I just made is that I cannot access the 2nd page of closed threads! If someone else can, please let me know...

Jon Miller,
Many have suggested for or against tactical combat in civ. It's really a question of preference: realism or strategy? Perhaps a game option will allow you to choose between the two, but now every time people can't decide which to use, an "option" is suggested instead, leading to an option glut.

Your ideas regarding air combat have also been discussed, with the exception of terrain severely hampering air operations. Thank you for pointing this out. As for bombers I have argued that they should have very limited success bombing specific targets until the advent of laser-targeting, for historical reasons.

Icedan,
I like the idea of capturing armies, but under limited situations. Perhaps thru leader/general units; also depending on the happiness of the civs in question (the capturing civ would have a greater chance of capture if it's HAPPINESS was higher than the enemy's, lower or non-existent if otherwise), any diplomatic bonuses/penalties/atrocities/generous gifts, and if the civ has the "nationalism" tech. No POW interrogation, IMHO.

Also no assassin unit, but spy MISSIONS that include assassination, from a espionage screen.

Finnish Guy,
Those ideas almost mirror what donDon posted in the SUPPLY, MOVEMENT, ETC. ver. 1.0 thread. Are you sure you didn't read that 1st? Anyway, they're good ideas (not that I'm biased ).

**FinnishGuy** · July 13, 1999, 14:10

Theben,

I'm a sort of newcomer here (look junior civer ), I registered in mid June. I haven't read the old thread versions. Actually, I haven't read even the current MOVEMENT thread. There's so much stuff on this site... Ember already commented in combat v1.1 that many of those ideas I proposed have been brought up earlier by him and other people. But I did think them out myself. Trust me.

Anyway, the above ideas was not all I wrote in v1.1.

**Flavor Dave** · July 13, 1999, 14:26

"Oh! And how about the spy unit or another unit, named "Assassin" who's job is entirely to assassinate the leader or one of the leaders advisors, (whom you get to pick). This won't kill the whole civilization, it will just put it into complete misery for a couple of years (turns) untill a new leader takes its place,"

It's bad enough that with a spy you can spend 30 shields to destroy a cathedral and put a city into disorder; do you want a unit that can do that for a whole civ??? In order to keep this unit from being too powerful, it'd have to be worth like 400 shields.

**loinburger** · July 13, 1999, 20:39

I agree with the spy/assassin analysis: you just don't need an extra unit to do what a spy already comes capable of doing. But you should be required to upgrade the spy (for a huge cost) in order to have it properly trained to carry out assasinations. That would also deal with the "spies come too cheap" problem.

More later once I read all the other threads. Don't want to repeat myself unecessarily.

**loinburger** · July 14, 1999, 00:43

My first response is in regards to bombardment. I HATE the fact that bombardment cannot kill an enemy unit. The thing is, if you carpet-bomb and shell a tank platoon (or even a division) until there's nothing left but a smoking crater, then there shouldn't be any tanks left, IMHO. However, I do agree that it's pretty darned hard to destroy one single tank in a mountainous forest, no matter how much the thing is smoking and burning. So, my solution is that as a unit loses hit points its chances of being damaged by a bombardement decrease, and the unit also takes less and less damage, until finally the unit is near death but only has a 5% chance of getting killed. If the units can heal themselves, then bombardiers and bombers ought to be able to kill them.

I agree that repairs should cost money. Perhaps when a unit reaches a critical level of damage (25% HP remaining) then the unit can only be repaired if you spend some cashola. This is because if a tank doesn't have a gun turret anymore it's probably gonna cost a lot to fix up, but if the tread's fallen off than the driver/commander/cook can just glue it back on for free.

In another thread, Fuji was suggesting, among other things, that a completely 3D rendering of the world be used, complete with spherical shape. I believe that this can indeed be done--you zoom in on a sphere far enough and the thing looks more or less flat, and if you are given the option of changing the viewing angle than there won't be any problems of a tank platoon hiding behind the Himalayas (not that you should have to look behind every mountain, that would be a waste of everyone's time). Not only would this provide some excellent eye candy, but it could also be used as a grand new combat system (I think someone else may have mentioned this, but not in any thread that I've read, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone else). Not only would there be a 2D position but there would also be an altitude (or depth!) involved with the game. I don't know how far Firaxis is planning on having the tech tree go, but this could allow for a space combat system as well (everything above altitude 10, for example, would be "in space", and satellites would be at altitude 15 or so). It would allow for a better combat bonus system in regards to height (attacking Nepal from India is a little different than attacking North Carolina from Tennessee, even though you cross the "mountains" both ways). Airplanes could fly at different altitudes (a bomber flying at altitude 6 wouldn't have a chance of getting shot down by SAM's, but a bomber at altitude 1 or 2 had better be good at evasive maneuvers), and subs could dive to different depths (you're NEVER going to detect a sub at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, but of course you'd have to pay an arm and a leg to be able to get a sub down that low). The North and South poles would actually exist, and you could cross the Arctic Ocean as a shorter way around the world than through the Strait of Magellan. And finally, this would add a whole new element to city building (Fugi's cities as well as the traditional Civ cities, although a traditional city would work better): not only would you be able to glean resources from the land, but you could also take resources from the sky and underground! Deep core mining operations, floating farms--cities in the sky that are more than just cities taking their supplies from the surrounding land (no, cities in the sky would take their supplies from DOWN and UP as well as OUT, just like a normal city, and the ground might not even be in their production spheres). This would mean that your high altitude bombers would never have to land on the ground at all. But I digress. The combat system suggestion is in there, I was merely touting other features albeit on the wrong thread.

LASS, not ATT/DEF. It doesn't matter that you're on the offense and you've got a singularity laser (or whatever they'll have in CivIII), all the other guy needs is a big stick to kill you. Assuming, of course, that he can reach you--warriors should not be able to destroy airplanes (unless the aircraft are on the ground, of course). Armor upgrades should increase hit points and should perhaps increase the unit's heal rate (an energy shield, for instance, would repair faster than a ten-ton block of steel--just add energy), but should not otherwise aid in attack.

I've gone on too long and must sleep. I shall return, though.

**FinnishGuy** · July 14, 1999, 03:28

Tank and artillery units should be vulnerable to aerial bombardment. Infantry units on the other hand should be more resistant. Pretty hard to target those foot soldiers hiding in bushes and forest. Also terrain and fortification status should affect damage (more in open terrain/unfortified) from a single air strike.

IMO, land units should never be completely destroyed by air strikes (although a tank unit can drop to say 5% hit points after several attacks). No matter how much you do conventional bombing there are always survivors. This is actually the experience of real-life militaries. You have to send in the ground troops to finish up and secure territory.

Nukes of course should be fully capable of destroying any unit.

**Flavor Dave** · July 14, 1999, 11:46

"warriors should not be able to destroy airplanes"

Do you mean here the 10 shield warrior unit, or do you mean ground troops? If the former, well, it's pretty near a statistical impossibility anyway. If you mean the latter, have you heard of those shoulder launched missiles? Give enough of them to some riflemen or MIs, and they could wipe out quite a few planes.

"IMO, land units should never be completely destroyed by air strikes (although a tank
unit can drop to say 5% hit points after several attacks). No matter how much you do
conventional bombing there are always survivors."

This isn't only true of bombers, of course, but every unit. Since one of my biggest complaints about Civ2 is that you can't really use the full triad, I could not be more opposed to any idea that singles out and weakens bombers.

Alot of folks seem to favor repair costs for damaged units. (I suspect they're all AofE fiends;-) I see your point in terms of realism, but this would disrupt the game's balance between war and peace. Either the repairs would have to be cheap (and therefore pointless to include in the game) or expensive enough to make civilized perfectionism the way to play. Unless other changes are made, this is unquestionably a bad idea for the game. And it seems a pretty minor thing to overhaul the game for.

**Ekmek** · July 14, 1999, 14:57

Flavor Dave:
I do not know what your experience is with military matters but the concept of bombardment by bombers on reducing a unit may seem like it weakens bombers but the fact is that is what bombers do. Bombers and other indirect fire units (such as Field Artillery) define success by reducing not eliminating units. Direct fire units (like tanks and infantry) do the actually engaging and killing by either decisive maneuver or overwhelming direct firepower (depending on doctrine). Of course bombers do conduct carpet bombing but they mainly have a strategic purpose of destroying the enemy's infrastructure. Close Air support units, which are not bombers (like Apaches and A10 War Hogs) attack enemy units but they are part of the combined arms fight (even though they did
a lot of damage in the Gulf War, i.e. "The Highway of Death.") I'm sure Diodorus can back me up on this (probably with more technical info).

As for Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) and Infantry ADA weapons like the Stinger and (the latest) the Javelin are primarily for infantry units interdicting enemy close air support (like helicopters, HINDs) not for bombers. Bombers have too high of an altitude and since bombers tend not to engage infantry units (to small and dispersed) it is usually the role of fighters or ADA units (like the patriot which was originaly intended to intercept aircraft) to destroy enemy bombers and protect strategic assets.

------------------
"All great things must first wear terrifying and monstrous masks in order to inscribe themselves on the hearts of humanity."
- Nietzche

**Flavor Dave** · July 14, 1999, 16:19

E--you have done a magnificent job of completely missing my point. As it is, 120 shield bombers are nowhere near as good as 1 5/7 howitzers. That's b/c they are so fragile, and can't return to a city. They just sit there and get killed by the AIs fighters (once the AI has flight). The value of the bomber is in wiping out the rifleman that is a roadblock for your howies. Even that value is limited by the fact that a howie can, with rails, move around the world in one turn, and is often "ahead" of the bombers.

So why in the hell would you want to take away the only purpose for a bomber, limited tho it is???

When you are weakening a unit that already is pretty close to useless, I couldn't care less about "real life." I'd like for Civ3 to be changed to allow me to fully employ the triad, instead of use howies and engineers to wipe out the enemy. If you prefer reality that much, play two turns and die of old age.

Announcement

COMBAT (ver 2.0)hosted by Redleg & Theben

COMBAT (ver 2.0)hosted by Redleg & Theben

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment