COMBAT (ver 2.0)hosted by Redleg & Theben

[ember]

I think bombards should definatly be able to destroy units.

A destroyed unit does not mean that every guy is dead, it means that the division ceases to be a cohesive fighting unit. It is to badly demoralized / to many casualties.
A bomeber wing that drops a whole bunch of gas-fuel bombs on an infatry unit will destroy their fighting ability. The survivors will be put in other units and mental hospitals.
I see the unit HP representing the % fighting effectiveness remaining, NOT the number of soldiers left. A destroyed divison might have half it's troops left , but they are too scatered.

I fell repairs from the brink of death should cost ~1/2 to 1/3 the price of a new unit.

It is possable to balnce free repairs with bombards that destroy, or bombards that don't destroy with costly repairs, but it is not possable to have usefull bombard units if repairs are free.

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

[Ekmek]

Flavor Dave:
I'm suggesting ideas for civ3 you are worried about problems that are easy to fix in Civ2. If are so upset about the use of bombers the rules.txt in Civ2 is easy to edit. Crank up the power of your bombers.
Besides I have built incredible airforces just with bombers and didn't have problems, yeah howitzers are good but I've had fleets of carriers loaded with bombers and basically demilitarized europe in one turn and then dropped paratroopers in all the cities, eliminating a civilization in a one-turn war.

I am vocalizing my concerns for Civ3. I agree with you that combined arms (even though triad isn't the term for it) is not replicated too well in civ2 and thats why I advocate a more tactical or operational level (as an option).

At the strategic levels it is Army and Corps sized-elements (divisions tend to be at the operational level). Artillery doesn't fight alone nor do tanks (they can at their own folly). I too would like to fight a better combined arms fight (AoE will do for now), but its better at the operational level or if they make the game real-time instead of turn based you could probably synchronize fire and maneuver better.

Oh and two turns and die doesn't apply when you play scenarios ...me and a lot of other players what a more realistic simulation for the challenge.


------------------
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
- Jim Morrison

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by E (edited July 14, 1999).]</font>
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by E (edited July 14, 1999).]</font>

[loinburger]

Flavor Dave: Yes, I am saying that the 10 shield warriors should not be able to destroy an air unit--the statistical possibility should not even exist. But I agree that modern infantry have some chance of destroying an airplane. If the 3D system is used then even modern infantry shouldn't be able to attack anything above altitude 1 (the ground being 0), only going higher in cases of future tech. This would simulate the infantry firing their guns and bazookas into the air and scoring lucky hits (I recall reading that bombers flying milk runs over Vietnam early in the war came back with rifle bullets embedded in their underbellies). In a LASS system the 10 shield warrior (and his like) would have a '0' for air while infantry had a '1', and in the classic Att/Def system the ancient armies would not be allowed to cause any damage to an aircraft (again, unless it was on the ground) whereas a modern ground soldier would cause only say 10% of its normal damage against the aircraft.

No, it isn't very likely that artillery would be able to wipe out a unit, but that's why the amount of damage dealt and the chance of causing damage would decrease with every shot. Yes, there will be some people/tanks/whatever left alive when the unit is destroyed, but they will be so bruised and battered that they'll be useless and must disband. And when you bring something like napalm into the equation, then your chances of killing something with bombardment would increase.

Sure, this would weaken bombers, but that's why you institute costs for repair (but only when damage reaches a certain critical level, like 10% or 25%). It is true that such a system could become tedious (imagine having to click on every one of your units every turn to get it repaired!), so perhaps a better method would be to decrease the combat effectiveness of the enemy unit. This decrease would be exponential--if you've got a tank unit with 90% health, then that means that it's tank tread got blown off, and the driver can Krazy Glue it back on in no time. Minimal restrictions to combat effectiveness. If the tank has 10% health (from repeated bombing raids), then its turret is missing. Extreme restrictions to effectiveness. (or, if you want to keep this strategic--90% health, tank corp has minor casualties and some wounded; 10% health, half the tanks are gone, the commander is dead, and the entire crew has chicken pox). Restrictions would be a decrease in attack and movement, but defense should not be decreased--if half of a unit is missing, there's less stuff to hit. So you might not necessarily be able to kill that pesky rifleman, but you can pretty much knock it out of commission. (perhaps a unit's ZOC will disappear when it reaches 10% health).

[loinburger]

One other thing regarding bombardment, both ground and aerial:

In a Harry Turtledove book I read (something about aliens invading during WW II), the aliens used these fantastic artillery shells that fragmented into several hundred/dozen explosive 'mini-mines' (the number depending on the target's size: tanks or people?). Suddenly finding themselves surrounded by hunks of explosive that wanted to blow them up, the humans had no choice but to stay put or get blown up. Problem is, then came the airforce--the humans couldn't get to cover and were massacred.

Upset that your bombers are going to become 'artillery' pieces that won't be able to destroy an enemy unit worth a darn? Well, either the bombers can drop these fragmentation shells in a target square, or friendly artillery can shell the square. The actual dropping of the fragmentation devices would do little to no damage, but any bombing run thereafter would do something like double or triple damage (and, if they make bombers artillery and insist that artillery not be allowed to destroy an enemy unit, then perhaps there could be an exception that a bomber can destroy a unit if the unit is in a square with fragmentation mines).

Moving into a square with fragmentation mines will do damage to a ground unit, moving OUT of a squre with frag mines will do even more damage. This goes for your guys also, so attacking people in a frag mine square will do automatic damage to your ground forces. Engineers (or whatever the proper unit is) would be able to move into a frag mine square and suffer no damage, and could remove the mines in one turn. Regular ground forces could remove the mines in either two or three turns. After damaging three units, the mines are automatically removed (they've all been detonated, presumably).

These frag mines wouldn't be true mines in the sense that they don't actually do a whole lot of damage (they're sort of a nuisance for an attacker, though, and he will have to waste time removing them while you make reinforcements or else he'll come in with his troops bleeding a little)--the main purpose of them is to help bombing runs. If a unit can float in mid-air (again, I don't know how far they're planning on taking tech), then obviously such units should not be affected by these things.

I dunno, I've been hearing a lot about making bombers artillery only, but so far nobody likes my idea of having artillery that kills and Flavor Dave is the only one who's defending the poor bombers. Frag mines are just a way to make bombers useful again.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by technophile (edited July 15, 1999).]</font>

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Technophile: Harry Turtledove was describing ICM or "cluster bomb" munitions, which can be delivered either by air or artillery strikes. He basically uses those books to describe how a force with modern weapons would fare against a WWII set of armies. The original edition of the MLRS (Multiple Rocket Launcher) we were selling to (then West) Germany would have also had a warhead that could deliver minefields deep into the enemy rear. All of this is a possible Tech Development which would 'enhance' or Upgrade both artillery and bombers.
As regards destruction by Bombardment, I was a professional artilleryman for almost 20 years, and have studied both artillery and air force claims for 'destroying' enemy by pounding them. Usually the claims are much exaggerated. Carpet Bombing by heavy bombers in WWII did effectively destroy most of a Panzer Division (Panzer Lehr in July 1944) exactly once, and concentrated Dive Bombing or ground attack aircraft seriously damaged units on many occasions, but in every case the complete destruction of a ground unit had to be completed by other ground units walking over the remnants.
Therefore, I suggest that Bombardment have a 'diminishing returns' as has been suggested, but in concentrated form a very high chance of damaging the enemy ground unit so that friendly units can eliminate it in the same Combat Turn.
Incidentally, the most vulnerable units to air attack in WWII, in order from Most Lucrative Target to Worst, werre:
Cavalry
Supply Trucks and Wagons
Moving Artillery
Moving Infantry
Moving Tanks
Stationary Artillery
Stationary Tanks
Stationary Infantry
Dug in infantry is virtually impossible to destroy without someone going into the ground after them. Tanks took near misses from 500 lb bombs without sustaining any damage, but destruction of supplies would effectively destroy armor units by stranding them without fuel and ammunition. The modern claims for destruction of armor come from the use of heavy caliber cannon carried by aircraft (A-10) or homing missiles on helicopters, and even there, the claims from Desert Storm turned out to be 'way above the reality.
I suggest that Antitank capability should be a Special Capability added to air, helicopter, or Bombardment units with appropriate Tech (Miniaturization, rockets, computers, lasers, or all of those combined) which would give them a better than near 0 chance to destroy armor.

[ember]

I'll stress again that a destroyed unit should mean that it is no longer capable of fighting as a unit and it is more economical to disband and redistibute the remnats (use as reenforments else where) than to rebuild the unit.

Bomber, in enough concentration, can do this.
A bombaer attack is not a single raid, but a series of sustained attacks. Kosovo might have been a bomber and 5 fighter units attacking once.



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

[Theben]

If that's you're example, ember, I'd remind you that those bombers didn't destroy the Serbian army; they didn't even stop them from their mission. It took a KLA offensive to bring the Serbs out to where they could be attacked effectively from the air, with modern (i.e. laser-targeted) weapons. Which just proves Diodorus Sicilus's point.

If you're worried about bombers becoming useless, bear in mind most people are suggesting that they'd be impervious to most ground/sea units, and that air missions could be escorted by fighters. I've also made several suggestions for heavy bombers that should make you want them for your attack forces (July 5, UNITS). Lastly I'll suggest that groung units that are "in the red" cannot exert ZOC's, or that targets under interdiction cannot enforce their ZOC's w/o suffering additional interdiction strikes as they move out into the open. This would make softening up targets extremely helpful.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Theben (edited July 15, 1999).]</font>

[loinburger]

Diodorus Sicilus:
I thought that cluster bombs were just bombs that sprayed large amounts of flaming shrapnel all over the place, effectively shredding ground troops unlucky enough to be out in the open. What kind of bomb is this "shredder bomb" that I thought were actually cluster bombs, or do they not exist and I'm having hallucinations again? (I think I remember reading that they used zirconium in them, but I'm not sure).
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by technophile (edited July 16, 1999).]</font>

[loinburger]

I like the idea of guerrilla warfare. It may be on the tactical level more than the strategic level, but the way that Civ III could implement it would be attainable on the strategic level. (ex. the Battle of the Wilderness in the Civil War, where Lee's army was exactly where it should NOT have been). There are two things that a Guerrilla Warfare system would need, and those are Raids and Ambushes.

A Raid is characterized by a battle that the attacker is expecting to lose, and so he picks his retreat prior to attacking. Once he is about to be routed, he makes his getaway with his smaller, more mobile army, to live to fight another day. A Raiding army would receive a -25% attack penalty (from morale, if anything--they know they're going to lose) and a 50% retreat bonus. Once the attacking army dips below 50% health it tries to make its getaway. If the defender is quick enough and the retreat fails, then the attacker gets a -50% attack penalty for the remainder of the battle (his plans went wrong).
-A Raid would just be used to weaken a slow but powerful enemy army. The faster Raiding army could retreat to a base for repairs and perhaps launch another Raid before the invading army reaches the Raiding army's city.

An Ambush is the act of a small army hiding itself away and waiting for an enemy army to go marching through. It relies on the element of suprise more than its fortifications-the ambushing army often expects to lose and so does not meet the victim army on a battlefield. There can be only one Ambushing army to a tile square (perhaps there could be an Ambush special ability which would allow two Ambush armies in a tile square). The Ambushing army must have held its position for one full turn prior to the battle in order to receive combat bonuses. The Ambushing army exerts no ZOC and has a chance of being "invisible" to an enemy stack (each stack is counted separately, not each army). This chance is dependant on a. the morale of the ambushing army, b. the morale of the attacking stack, c. whether or not there are any Scout units or units with a Scout special ability in the enemy stack, d. whether or not the Ambushing army has the Ambush special ability, e. certain tech advances which would make concealment/tracking more easy, and f. the terrain in which the ambushers are hiding. Planes, except for Spy Planes, would receive a detection penalty. If undetected, and if an enemy stack attempts to move into its square, the Ambushing army is made visible and the battle is begun. The Ambushing army receives a +50% defense bonus as well as a +50% modifier to its terrain bonus (terrain defense bonus * 1.5) and also receives a +25% retreat bonus. If retreat fails, then all further combat bonuses are halved. If the unit wins the battle it remains visible and exerts a ZOC.
-Ambushing would slow down an enemy army by a. causing it to stop and test every tile square and b. causing it considerable damage with a minimum of damage to the defender. Ambushing could be particularly effective deep in enemy territory on a Maglev or Railroad square as it may catch your opponent off guard and transporting something expensive but fragile. Nukes, however, would not be set off by an ambush.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Technophile:
Cluster Munitions have the effects you describe: all of them. The bomblets used in the basic MLRS warhead have a high fragmentation effect and also were shaped charges with a cloth streamer out the rear to orient them to striking with the shaped charge end against armor. Warhead event, when the outer casing breaks up and releases the bomblets, takes place 1000 feet or more in the air, and the bomblets spread out and hit at roughly the same time. I've seen films of the target arrays underneath that kind of strike, and the terms Confetti or Swiss Cheese accurately describe them: personnel and vehicles both. Most telling are two Iraqi (POW) quotes from the Kuwait Exercise, where MLRS was used extensively against Iraqi artillery positions:
Quote 1: "We stopped firing our artillery; to pull a lanyard was to commit suicide..."
Quote 2: The Iraq troops' nickname for an MLRS strike: they called it "The Steel Rain"

Shift Gears, reference to Raids and Ambushes. I posted in the Other thread on Nomad civs, and in Units thread some loooong posts on Units and the Design Workshop. Several things apply here. The ability to Raid or Ambush could be related to Reconnaissance (Socuting) Capability, a Special Capability which could be built into units and comes automatically with Nomad/Barbarian units (hire them mercenaries, send them out to raid). Next, the ability to pull off a successful ambush should be related to leadership, and could be one of the attributes of a General unit. After all, the largest ambush in history was Lake Trasimene, where Hannibal managed to hide an entire army on a hillside and 'jumped' an entire Roman Army as it marched by: a product of superior generalship as well as the 'fieldcraft' of his Gallic troops.

[ember]

Couldn't 'Leadership' be covered under the banner of 'moral'? do we need seperate abilities?
A good leader is part of having high moral after all.

On the kosovo situation. Yes there was a partisan unit involved, but the air strikes lasted less than 1/6th of a 'turn'. I was pointing out that air can kill things and cause damage. It is more reasonable to assume that three units that take 33% damage each are combined into 2 units (loss of one unit) than they get fully repaired without a factory having to produce a single extra gun for the divisions.... If you pay to bring the units back to full strength there is no contradiction, but if repairs are free there always will be a contradiction. Repairs should be cheaper than buying a new unit, because there is always a significant amount of salvagable equipment.

One other note. An armor unit with 10% damage does not have all the treads nocked off. These are minor damages that would be repaired many times over in the course of day to day opperations. The only damge that should show up in the civ model is permanent losses where re-enforcments have to be sent to 'repair'[replace] the losses.

The repair unit is a good idea, it would simulate a forward supply and staging area where new men and equipment could be integrated into exising units.
I think that you should not normally be able to repair at all within an enemy's borders, to simulate supply lines. (you have to take the soldiers off the front lines before you can effectivly add new troops)

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

[Theben]

My ideas for ambush & concealment:

-Ambushes: Attacker gets +1 firepower, defender STR is halved if ambush successful. Also pre-emptive strikes by defender; same effects as above. Can only be done from attacks launched from concealment (see below) and as random combat effects.
-Concealment: A command given to units. Unit becomes concealed at same rate as fortifying. Unit does not get fortifying bonus (it may fortify after concealing) & does not extend ZOC. Difficult to detect like subs. Allow 'flag' to units to be able to spot them (% chance) such as spies, partisans, scouts. Both land & sea units can conceal. Air units may only conceal at a concealed airbase. Settlers/engineers can construct concealed airbases/fortresses in x2 time. Units may not conceal if location known by enemy. Any attack launched from concealment reveals unit until moves to concealable position again. Some units (spies, partisans, explorer) have 'natural' concealment; this would be a "unit option" in the workshop.

[loinburger]

If there exists a supply bar (see Movement and Supplies) or something of that nature, then this bar should affect the speed and effeciveness of repairs on a unit. For example, a front line soldier located on or extremely near a friendly Maglev line (which connects to a friendly city) would be able to be repaired extremely cheaply and quickly, whereas a unit in the middle of the Himilayas would require greater cost and time for repairs. This would stimulate the difficulty of repairs for front line units--until an unlimited movement TI is discovered then supplies will always be relatively short in enemy territory.

[Jon Miller]

Hello all, time for a long post

I see three different very usable solutions to how combat should be handled

we all know that smac went wrong in that it considered the unit the actual vehicle and that civ2 has grown outdated

most have agreed that civ3 should not be tactical (and I agree that it should not be to the level of moo2 or mom), it would leave too much to do, the AI could never handle it and it would disturb multi play (which is where civ is going with the new cable lines and all; funnest experience with civ type game: smac 3 player on lan simultaneous play) (by the way, I think my idea would be feasible for tactics but it might make it too complicated)

by the way, one of the charms of civ is its simplicity, I and many others in this forum enjoy complex games but this game needs to be for the average gamer like past civs, it can not be as compplicated as ASL, this should be considered in how intricate the combat rules are and how historically accurate

some of this maybe should be in units (I'll post this there too, maybe)

One solution, Theben's, is the lass idea (from units thread)

(by the way I think these two topics should be joined since it is hard to talk general idea about the one without the other)

This is realestic in that it shows army combat, you are in fact so out of the tactical view point that it does not matter even who attacks who (in land to land or air to air or sea to sea or space to space (do we really need space as a seperate setting)) (plus)

it is very simplistic, there are only four numbers to compare with the other unit(s) in the fight (plus)

could it be implemented in a way that would leave gameplay ballanced between attacker and defender?

would there be terrain modifiers (whose to say who is attacking who)?

ortresses and fortifying (and maybe others) would affect the defender. would it be to biased against the attacker?

I have an idea to add to it (I think) make movement related to a general increase in the land modifier of the attacker (for land based attacks) sort of like the 1/3, 2/3 thing in smac and civ2 but with pluses for like going into battle with two movements left (the attacking army would better able to maneuver against the defender and so would have a one up on a defender in a otherwise neutral situation)

this would be if movement rates are increased, different numbers if they are not but same general idea could be used, this is for land

maybe you would have a choice what sort of attack you wanted to do? or maybe that would be too tactical

maybe if a unit used 4 mp in an attack it would have higher rating then a similar unit that used 2 mp, but the one that attacked with 2 mp would still be above land strength, maybe the 2 mp attack would be +50% and the 4 mp attack +150% (if infantry had 2 mp) or maybe instead of % it would be a base number showing that more maneuverbility was needed in the modern era (or maybe still use % but just find the useful attackers mp by subtracting the defenders minus 2 or something like that)

the infantry attacking could do the 4 mp attack but it would have to await next turn in preparational maneuvering since it does not have the points to do it all at once

one of the reasons horses were so useful in ancient war is that they allowed more maneuverbility (and thus attacking the enemy from a better position) so they would of course be better at attacking

this also makes sense since legions were more maneuverable since they had better organization and thus would beat a similar armed less organized group, of course there defense was better too......

an added idea to this is that it would end the catulpult and seige engine question and abuse (admit it, we abused them in civ2 and did not use them (or modern artillary) realistically) instead it would just be like a 6 mp choice for infantry, of course since they were sitting for so long it would be useless against a troop that would be moved (the choice would become available when mathmatics, following the old civ2 tech
tree, was researched)

an air unit just attacking (the same with horse unit and artillary) would take away some of the defenders mp making it easier for an attacking infantry unit to outmaneuver them (this is realistic)

this would also make a needed use of the plane and artillary uniits without the current (civ2) abuses, they would be support units: making a unit with similar land numbers attackable for another unit

of course all the different rules (mostly just the movement modifiers, planes would of course have higher movement and lower % increases for only a 2 mp lead on the defender) would need to be figured out, air, sea, and space would be similar

something similar to this movement idea could be used in any combat setup

enough on that combat setup, more later on it

the second feasible choice would be something like the armies in civ2

this would be more tactical but (obviously) would not be too much so

what is considered is that the defender sort of waits around on the battlefeild for the attacker, who attacks

the attack strength is made up of things that would help in attacking (swords, horses, bows) while the defense strength is made up with things that help with defense (swords, armor, bows)

notice I did not add armor in the attacking strength makeup (these are just a few possible factors, there are tons more), this is because armor is heavy and while it protects you it also hinders maneuverbility so the attacking strength is changed 0 (numbers subject to change), for defending strength however, since this is such a simplified combat model, the armor adds strength because the defender does not need maneuverbility

of course this combat choice is a very simple one, maybe too simple

it is also less realistic then the other two choices

however it has worked in the past, should it be changed?

third setup:

this is by far the most complicated of the three (I probably won't get finished explaining) and that is one mark against it

in this idea the attack and defense come ala smac but instead of just one side attacking and the other defending the attacker would go first and then the defender, each putting their attack vrs the others defense to see how badly they damage the other

defense would be figured from the units armor and maneuverbility (ability to dodge
)

this idea would work well with armies (grouping units together ala ctp)

there would also be initiative (from maneuverbility?) and if a unit got an extra one (from comparing all units' initative rating and then putting some random chance in) the unit that is losing may then retreat away if it is significantly below that of the attacking unit(s) (or its side is) or get in an additional attack the same with one that's side is winning

initiative would have to be a different stat than the maneuverbility that is used to dodge (I think, I may be wrong), it could also depend on the mps each unit has left

I have a lot more on this third idea but I am tired

Jon Miller

[Flavor Dave]

"Flavor Dave:
I'm suggesting ideas for civ3 you are worried about problems that are easy to fix in Civ2. If are so upset about the use of bombers the rules.txt in Civ2 is easy to edit. Crank up the power of your bombers."

I'm not that upset about how bombers are used in Civ2. At the least, I wish I could change bombers so that they have unlimited movement, as long as they don't attack on that turn. Better might be a return and attack.

But remember, we're talking about what Civ3 should be like. I am making the case for certain things, so that IMO Civ3 would be better. You think your changes would make Civ3 better (actually, not better, but more realistic.) That's what this board is for.

"Flavor Dave: Yes, I am saying that the 10 shield warriors should not be able to destroy
an air unit--the statistical possibility should not even exist."

The statistical probability far that humble warrior is the same that a reallife group of 50 bombers would go out on a mission against a primitive fighting force, and most of them crash. So, a 10 shield warrior winning is realistic.;-)

"Ambushes: Attacker gets +1 firepower, defender STR is halved if ambush successful.
Also pre-emptive strikes by defender; same effects as above. Can only be done from attacks launched from concealment (see below) and as random combat effects. -Concealment: A command given to units. Unit becomes concealed at same rate as fortifying."

You didn't say WHY this was a good idea; I'm assuming the purpose is realism. If that's the case, that is alot of the defensive bonus from forest, mountains, fortresses, etc.--concealment. So what you are suggesting is kinda already in the game. It is the cumulative concealment of all the little parts (centurions) of the big part (legion).

Also, you're talking how easy it is to conceal a squad or some small unit. But these are "armies," of varying large sizes. A squad from Napoleon's army might have been surprised by concealment, but Napoleon knew there was an army opposing him at Waterloo. So your suggestion isn't realistic.

If it is for gameplay, it sounds like you think the offense has too much advantage in the game. I agree with you in the late part of the game, and a little in the early part, but in the middle part, the defense has way too much advantage.