COMBAT (ver 2.0)hosted by Redleg & Theben

[loinburger]

Theben: I understand that you are opposed to specialists of all types, but even if Civ III gets rid of specialists (which I suppose would be fine with me) I would still be in favor of Soldier Specialists. My reasons are:
My idea for how supplies should work are that supplies originate from different cities/supply depots and must be moved to where the soldiers are. This means that there is no such thing as a home city--you could supply all of your soldiers from only one city, so long as you had enough soldier specialists in that city.
There would be two separate Social Engineering modifiers: Corruption and Efficiency. Corruption deals with trade as per Civ I and Civ II, but Efficiency deals with moving supplies around.
Say I've got a tank unit. It needs 3 supplies (swords) each turn. However, I might have to manufacture more than 3 supplies to keep the tank from losing strength, because of a lack of efficiency.
Effeciency would be determined by:
Distance from supplies origin,
Distance from border (efficiency drops dramatically when you leave your country),
City improvements in supplying city (two city improvements would be the Supply Depot and the Ammo Dump, each of which would increase the efficiency of the Soldier Specialists),
and Terrain Improvements connecting unit to supplying city (the farther the supplies have to travel, the more inefficiencies are caused).

So lets say that that tank that needs 3 supplies is receiving those supplies at only 20% efficiency. That means that in order to keep the tank fully supplied I would have to either produce 15 supplies (which means I'd have to make more soldier specialists), create more terrain improvements (railroads and maglevs connecting the tank to my supplying city), or I could shift supplies manufacturing to a closer city (thus eliminating some distance and some inefficiency).

I will post my complete ideas about supplying in a more appropriate thread. But I stand by Soldier Specialists, even though I wouldn't cry over Scientists, Tax Collectors, and Entertainers leaving the game. But, the benefits of having Soldier Specialists (decreased usefulness of population and specialization of supply manufacturing) could probably be implemented some other way. If you think of a way, let me know.

[loinburger]

Theben:
As for the unit orders:

Concealment: I agree with you about not being able to move if the unit's size is too large. This can be solved by, as you say, making only certain units capable of concealed movement, or it can also be solved by giving multiple concealed units a tremendous concealment penalty (1 unit, 50%; 2 units, 10%; 3 units, 2%; etc.).

Scouting: Again, I agree, this time without any reservations. Such a system would be perfect.

Fortify: Did I give Fortify that big of a bonus?!? Whoops! Oh well, the playtesting can determine the numbers. Just let the record show that Fortify gets a BIG bonus.

Hold: Reason for having only veteran troops be able to Hold is that their orders are to hold AT ALL COSTS. For green troops, telling them to hold at all costs is one thing, having it happen is something else entirely. I did not give this restriction to Fortified troops because I figured that they were so well dug in that as soon as the green troops decided to retreat they would find that they couldn't (their pillboxes would be surrounded, let's say).
Your idea about selectively retreating units would solve this problem: just don't issue the retreat order, and the veterans won't retreat (maybe the greens still will, though). That had been my intention all along: to insure that my units won't retreat by issuing a Hold order.

Delay: Same thing as for Hold, this order is unnecessary if there is selective retreating. Without selective retreating, however, I'd still like to have it.

Ambush: I was actually giving ambushers a penalty if they were detected.

Raid: If my supply ideas are used and supply effeciency is determined by terrain improvements, then Raids would be used primarily to destroy railroads and supply relays (a new TI I would propose to go along with the supply system) in order to cut supplies off. The way I'd see it working is:
10% of the damage is done to the enemy unit(s). This is because the raiders kill a few scouts and whatnot on the raids.
40% of the damage is done to the enemy's supplies. This is because the raiders' primary target is the supply trains of the enemy.
50% of the damage is done to the terrain. WHAT I MEAN BY THIS IS: We all know that artillery units will probably be able to bombard TI's, and we all know that TI's can be pillaged. Raiding is a hit-and-run on the TI's: hence the extra movement point that I give to raiders, giving them time to retreat. Pillaging is still preferable because raids cause some damage to the raiding unit, even in unoccupied territory (farmers will guard their farms, and you're going through too fast to properly deal with them, so you suffer a few casualties). But, in occupied squares, raiding is the only way to destroy a TI. But, there is no real point to raids if there isn't a supply bar on the units.

[Theben]

Jon M,
Yeah, I always thought it would have been a great place to move to after the war...

I'm not familiar w/your ideas on generals/leaders, so you may wish to post them here again. But they really should go into UNITS. My ideas for them simply add +1 experience to units grouped with it, reduce any negative effects of Random Combat Effects (described elsewhere), can buy military units as diplomats, or pay them to disband, and enemy units about to die may switch to your side. Of course Nationalism tech or certain SEs may not permit the last 2.

I like your 'manpower bin' idea, but it has one major flaw: those soldiers didn't spend all their time campaigning or training away from home. The vast majority of their lives were spent living as civilians. So their impact on their city's production is negligible. Now if it's a scenario, say the WWII Pacific theatre, I can see this being a valid idea. Maybe it should be allowed as a scenario tool, but I don't think it should be in the game proper.

Technophile,
Someone suggested a difference between corruption & efficiency somewhere else; I guess it was you. I can see how that would work. Based on what I know (not much) that 20% efficiency would be the minimum any supply network could reach and not be raided. Most figures (that I've seen) say that logistic crews equalled about x2 the actual military soldiers.
Aside from my aversion to specialists in general, the main reason I don't like them is Korn 469's -2 Econ with them. Doesn't taking them out of the field constitute enough of a penalty? As far as the nuts n' bolts of efficiency, the distance mods, the supply TI's, that's all good. I'd include tech as a factor in efficiency. But I'm lost as to why we need soldier specialists.

Fortify: Isn't +50% a big bonus?
Hold: Green troops that can't retreat and want to would probably break and be routed. This not only would remove any bonus for defense but would give a penalty. Again I must point out the game is strategic in scale; the bonus for defense & maybe the route effectively cancel each other for game purposes.

Ambush: I read it wrong. Sorry.

Raids: I see no need for a supply bar. Unsupplied units take damage and this is realistic. Using supplies could cause a minimal amount of "damage", which can be "repaired" by resupply. Raids are a good idea, but I like my version.

[marc420]

My apologies if this has already been discussed. But how about looking at how fighting in and around a city affects the structures and improvements of the city.

Currently, you lose population in a city when you lose a battle there, but frequently the structures of the city are untouched. What I'm thinking of is having the a possibility that any improvements in a square where a battle takes place be destroyed.

In the open areas around a city, this could result in farms, mines, railroads being destroyed by combat. And more importantly, when fighting takes place in a city, the improvements of that city should be at risk. This could include Wonders.

Two other options this opens up.....
Both the Attacker and the Defender could have an option of going to "Unlimited War" during a battle. This option would raise combat values, but also increase the destruction caused by a battle.

Also, this could open up the idea of Strategic Bombing. Air and Missile attacks on a city could have an option of attacking improvements or units in the city. Or maybe they should have to eliminate the defenders before getting to the improvements.

I believe either would be an enhancement to the strategy of Civ because they would raise the cost of warfare. A military attacker may conquer cities, but the cities he conquers may be a blasted ruin. An a stalemate war could be costly for both sides by devastating a border region.

By increasing the destruction of war, you raise the price of war in game terms.

[loinburger]

Marc: The building + TI destruction resulting from war has been discussed (the version I like best is that every building gets hit points, and battle reduces hit points), but I do not believe that anybody has yet discussed an "unlimited warfare" option. I personally like this idea, and think that it can be applied as another order:

Devastate Order: Shift + D (denoted by a small 'd' in the lower right corner of unit). The way I see this working, it would benefit the defender more than the attacker (the defender already occupies the farms/houses), so I would give +1% x (number of city improvements) +1% x (population of city) + 10% to DEF. This means that if a city has a population of 10 and 5 city improvements, the defenders would get +25% to DEF. However, this would result in more civilian casualties than usual, and would also damage the buildings more than usual. In non-city fighting, the defender would get +10% +2% x (number of terrain improvements in square) to DEF, but the terrain would be severely damaged and several improvements may be destroyed. The attacker does not occupy the city's houses, but can level them to the ground in an "unlimited war." This, however, is not as powerful as the defender's advantage, and so an invading army on Devastate would get +10% to ATT and nothing else, although it would cause much more damage to TI's, CI's, and population.

Back to Theben:
Soldier Specialists + Supplies Redux: It doesn't seem fair that Podunk Arkansas should have to supply its own garrison in Civ III, but Montezuma is trying to capture the city that is likely how it is going to turn out--you build a garrison, the garrison's home city is Podunk, and so Podunk has to dedicate its industry towards supplying its soldiers and can't build libraries etc. If there are Soldier Specialists, however, then New York can build the supplies (turn Workers into Soldier Specialists) and ship them to Podunk, at the cost of fuel and such (Efficiency). It would be more efficient if Podunk supplied its own soldiers, but then it couldn't build jack squat with all its resources dedicated to holding off Montezuma. THAT is why I like Soldier Specialists so much--it lets the frontier cities expand faster, and allows for larger modern armies (assuming your supply lines haven't been cut). It also adds the element of "what if the enemy paradrops into the heart of my country and rips up my railroads. Sure, I can kill the paratroopers easily enough, but my supply lines are going to be shot to hell." You've got to watch your back or your front suffers.

Holding + Fortifying: Holding is what an army does when it knows it's going to get attacked but doesn't have time to fortify (or has to stay mobile and cannot fortify). It has always angered me that my riflemen cannot be told "hey guys, there are a bunch of tanks coming your way, better get ready because you're about to die." No, they just stand there, saying "what, defend ourselves? But we're not fortified." Hence, the two different orders.

[Theben]

If support is the problem then how about simply letting a unit switch it's city of support at any time, any place?

It would be like the "find city" command, and then supply is drawn from the chosen city, New York in this case, with all the distance supply factors you mentioned in the above.

As for hold, it could be assumed in the defense.

[loinburger]

Support: Yup, that would work too. If that system were used, then you wouldn't need to have Soldier Specialists. The population loss could be simulated some other way just as easily.

Blitzing: It looks like I'm making things too complicated, but at the same time you're making things too simplified for my tastes. Having a unit automatically move into a conquered square if the battle was a pushover and calling it "blitzing" doesn't satisfy me, because:
-blitzing should decrease the defender's chances of retreat,
-blitzing should give an attack bonus, because of the element of surprise, AND
-blitzing should require additional supplies, since not enough time is being taken to set up the supply lines (tremendous inefficiencies will take place on the first turn since the tanks (or whatever) have left their support staff eating dust).
These are my reasons for having a Blitz order which can be given to fast units (tanks etc.). Blitzing unit gets +25% to ATT, no scout, and no conceal, and defending unit gets -75% to retreat.
So the benefits of your system over mine, as I see them, are: it's simple (this is a big one, though) but the benefits of my system are: you can trap units which might otherwise retreat and repair, you get an attack bonus, you FORCE the extra move (it isn't a possibility, it's a "do or die" attack), and your unit suffers accordingly from loss of supplies.

Hold + Fortify: I suppose that the Hold command is implicit in defending, but I've never thought of it that way. I've always figured that my riflemen aren't doing anything but standing around picking their noses until I issue them an order. Perhaps a distinction can be made, however, if:
-Fortify cannot be performed until Construction, and it takes TWO turns to put a unit into a Fortify position (although only one to break it). Fortify units never retreat, get +50% to DEF (+75% after Engineering, +100% after Modern Warfare), and get +150% (instead of +100%) from Fortresses. Fortified units also receive +50% to Scouting.
-Hold can be performed whenever, and gives the unit +25% to DEF (+50% after Modern Warfare), but also gives -25% to ATT (units have to regroup, get out of their trenches, cross their minefields, whatever--they're less maneuverable, let's say). Hold units make full use out of Fortresses. Hold units also receive +25% to Scouting (I'm pulling the Scout numbers out of nowhere, just note that Fortified units get more Scouting ability).

So there's the way to settle it: my Riflemen aren't picking their noses anymore but are creating makeshift breastworks and digging trenches, and the units are earning their Fortify bonuses with the two turn penalty and the required tech advances. I hope I've convinced you that a Hold command is not frivolous.

Last but not least...
Delay: Sometimes you know you're going to lose, but you want your enemy to attack anyway so that he'll be slowed down (or maybe you want to lead him into a trap). It is for these times that I would want a Delay command. I like your idea of being able to issue Retreat orders in the middle of combat, but I still like the idea of being able to tell my riflemen that they're going to get slaughtered and that they should be ready to pull out. Maybe they'd get a +50% bonus to retreat or something, and this could be balanced by a penalty of some sort.

[ember]

Here's my take on the last few posts, trying to fit them in with CLAS-D.

Fortify. Only available to infantry type units. Adds bonuses as stated.

Hold. Available to both infantry and mobile types. Bonuses as stated.

Raid. Available only to mobile units. Acts as a bombard, except both units use their (C) rating, instead of the apropraite (LAS) rating as in a bombard. Good for harrasing arty or TI's.

Bombard. as is.

I don't feel that ambush fits on the scale of a CIV battle. It is included tactically with the bonuses to hold and fortify, as are minefields....

Delay is good. available to all units. When a delaying unit retreats it attempts to destroy the road/RR/base/fort as it goes (Scorthed earth).

Scouting is impicit in units with the scouting ability, like horsmen, calvary, alpine troops, spies, submarines, etc.
Scouting gives a unit 2 vision range. The second square sees as normal, and the first one can determne stack composition. (% chance)

Conceal: Available onle to Disiplined or better troops. (vets). It makes the unit look like something else (Riflemen as tanks, or modern tanks as WWII style, Horsmen like knights. In a square with multiple units, can change the number of units by double or half. scouts have a chance of detecting this. You select wether to conceal or bluff, the AI does the rest. Usefull to hide your disposition of forces.

Attacking pop/structures is already included in CLAS-D.

Intercept. For ships, planes and mobile/bombard units. Launches a raid when the enemy comes in range. Could be combined with sentry.

Sentry. +% to scouting, better chance to retreat, but not as good as delay, and without scorched earth.

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

[ember]

"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by ember (edited August 10, 1999).]</font>

[Theben]

Technophile,
You're right that I do try to simplify things, and perhaps I oversimplify. But that's because micromanagement is a major concern for me. When I post I always try to ask myself, "Is there a way to make this concpet easier to use and for others to understand?" Personally I wish that everyone asked themselves this before posting.

[Jon Miller]

hi all

Theben, the manpower pool is an ever shifting group of the civil service age

they are in the cities and then are moved into the pool (when an equal number are moved out, have served their term) where they then serve their term (and perhaps die in combat) whereupon they go back to the work force and are replaced by younger people

that is what I assyme, does that fix it for you?

please address

Jon Miller

[Theben]

Let me see if I got it.

1) An age group assumes military duties, whereupon it enters the pool, leaving civilian life temporarily behind
2) After a given amount of time, it leaves the pool, to be replaced by another, likely younger group. It now re-enters the civilian populace.

Is your point that over time there is a constant amount of people assuming military duty, and not performing civilian tasks?

If so, I get it now. If not, please explain further. Also if so, you'll need to go into A LOT more detail (more work for me *grumble*)
[*]How many standard sized units=a pop point?[*]Hp's should not=troop mass alone. It's also a reflection of newer equipment, training, etc.[*]Then there are tech & SE modifiers[*]Is an actual "bin" necessary? Maybe as you build units a counter in the city screen notes how many people are serving in the military? (this should be in the SUPPORT box)

Others?

[Theben]

Okay, here's the deal. I will be interpreting everyone's suggestions, so if there's something here you aren't sure you've explained well, or feel needs further updating now's the time to do it.
The deadline is the end of August. I will be aiming to finish the summary by Aug. 23rd.
Please e-mail me with any concerns you have. BTW, I will go back to include all the old COMBAT suggestions.

[Maniac]

The problem with renaming Morale to Experience is that in my SE model Morale doesn't only affect your troops but also how warlike your senate is.

[Jon Miller]

hi all

Theben, yes 1 & 2 are right

what I was thinking is that it would be population as in if you send 1 pop pt from a two pt city to the bin you get 20000 people in civ 2

A settler will take 10000 people (somewere arround there)

other units will continue growing in size (with a minimum of 100) as you try to get more hp than your enemies with technological limitations (before certain techs you can handle only so many troops)

in modern times troops would be division size

(I favor my combat system best but lass is fine, I do not like range combat instead I assume units fight using all there abilities and range is either added into the attack/defense factors, in my system, or is added to the unit as a modifier as in smacs discarded projectile/energy rules or is given modifiers ala pikemen, if something similar to the discarded rules are used it would be close/ancient ranged/modern ranged)

hp's are modified as I stated before= technological level, terrain, (desease rate), organizational level, ect. (I don't remember them all, they were back aways but not in the previous list)

the higher the technology the more effiecent the use of people are same with organization level

the modifiers are precentage lost so that bigger armies lose a lot more manpower factor

hp's would then be gotten by comparing the armies final strength factors in each battle

the city support box sounds all right but it would make population lost for each city and wasted population in the bin that is not being used

the cities spend production to equip and train the men but the men do not have to come from that city

thank you for giving me a chance to clear that up

Jon Miller