EC3 New Idea #20 - Stacked Combat

[Tiberius]

A few idea for the stacked combat model.
1. You could assign only one commander to an army (a bunch of stacked troops) OR you could assign 2 of them, but only one of them gives att/def bonus and if the first commander dies, the second takes command, this time with the right bonus.
2. I like the idea that commanders can control a limited number of troops, and this number should depend on the commander’s type (trained, veteran, etc)
3. Have the possibility to name your generals AND/OR your armies. This name will appear on the map and this way you could easily recognize the placement and readiness of your troops. (ex: “The Third East Roman Legion have just won the great battle of Sarmisegetusa leaded by the great commander Tiberius ).
4. In early times, you can’t build commanders, but you must promote one of your soldiers to be general (after all, in those times, the generals were actually great soldiers). He should have greater att/def than regular soldiers, but fewer bonuses for the army. (ex: legion 3att/2def, roman general 5att/4def, bonus for army 1att/1def). After the discovery of tactics, you must build a military academy in order to build a modern general. He should have less att/deff than a regular soldier, but greater att/def bonus for the army (ex: armor 10att/5def, general 3att/5def, army bonus 2att/2def).
5. Have the possibility to stack engineers (2 eng. working double speed than a single one)
6. Something similar for spies (maybe 3 stacked spy should have n + n/2 + n/3 chance of success, where n is the possibility of success that one spy would have)
7. About the combat look you are talking about with the tactical stuff attack/defense/retreat/etc: take a look to the “real combat screens” thread. In this case I think the combat screens should be optional in the “graphics option” screen and for those who do not want to see the battles, just keep the clasic view (like CTP).
8. Have the possibility to bribe generals with spies, but at very high prices, because if you bribe the general, the whole army he commands should be yours! Also spies should assassinate generals.

I’m glad you woke up, Ata, . I think this could be one of the greatest new idea in CIV3.

[Atahualpa]

Okay, thanks Tiberius for your comment.

I see, that we shouldnt go to much into combat, but rather concentrate on a better unit/stacking system.

Tiberius: I dont think the commander should have an own attack/def strength. Rather I think he gives a bonus to the unit. His icon is displayed on the map, but he is no unit. When it comes to battle, the commander doesnt fight. He is much too important to throw him into combat.
Of course that may apply to later generals, as I think most swordfighting armies have had their commanders fighting like other soldiers as well.

The commander idea is a very good idea, since you then have to spend a lot of money (war costs alot of money) on training him and you may achieve advantages over your enemy (who maybe has a weaker commander).

Now, a problem is: When 2 commanders with their army are placed on one square and your opponent attacks with 2 commanders and kills one of your commanders in the battle. Whats with the rest of the died commanders men? Or are we talking about battles to death?

Because I think there should be a retreat option and once in a turn you can retreat. So when you are attacked the first time, you can retreat. But when you are attacked in the same turn once again, your men are too tired to retreat, of course they are also to tired to fight at maximum strength and therefor should get some penalties.
Retreating at the very first round of the battle is not an option. You must at have at least lost 33% of your men so that you can order retreat.
When given retreat, you lose additional 5-20% of your men, due to the chaos! That depends on wether you retreat at 33% (lower loss when retreat) or you retreat at 66% for example (higher loss).
Should there be an autoretreat too? So that when you suffer 80% loss that your men are automatically beginning to retreat, if and only if your opponent suffered less loss. So that when your opponent suffered 60% and you got 80% your men retreat. Maybe the absolut numbers have to be taken into account too.

ATa

[Tiberius]

I don't understand very well how you imagine the retreat. First, you are atacked. Now, before atacked again, in the same turn, because of massive losses, you would retreat, right? But how could you retreat during your enemy's turn?
About the commanders, I agree. Swordfighting generals will have great att/deff but less bonus for the army, while modern generals no attack at all but great bonus, right?
I like the combat screen idea (with tactical battles and all the other military stuff), but since it seems like not everybody likes it, I think it should be an option.

[korn469]

ok tell me if i am getting the idea

commanders are units

if that is true then commanders should do the following

increase stack size...increase stack morale

a stack should fight together as a whole, and it should take commander/general units to create a stack...for example

Ancient World: you could have stacks up to three units (so three warriors plus a commander...this stack would have a 3-3-1 value)
Medieval Era: you could have stacks up to four units
Industrial Age: you could have stacks up to six units
Modern Age: you could have stacks of up to eight units

you would need a commander to have a stack...additional commanders in a stack could provide bonuses

that's my thoughts

korn469

[Tiberius]

- commanders are units - yes
- increase stack size...increase stack morale - yes
- a stack should fight together as a whole, and it should take commander/general units to create a stack - yes
- the stack size should depend on the commander's battle experience: standard stack (which should depend on the era) for a trained comm, +1 unit for a veteran comm, +2 units for elite commanders.
My idea about different eras:
- Ancient World:
You could NOT build commanders, but instead of this you could promote veteran soldiers to the rank of commander. You could have stacks up to four units (2 for trained comm, 3 for veteran, 4 for elite). Once the soldier promoted, he got +1att/+1def. The army (2,3 or 4 units + comm) got +1att/+1def
- Medieval Era:
the same, but add +1 to the units numbers and +1 to bonuses
- Industrial Age:
In order to build a general, you must build a "Military Academy". You cannot promote soldiers anymore. The generals will have 0 att and 0 def, but they will die only if the whole army is destroyed. Stacks: 6-7-8, with +3att/+3def bonus
- Modern Age:
The same, but add +1 to the units numbers and +1 to bonuses.
Else:
- you would need a commander to have a stack...yes
- additional commanders in a stack could provide bonuses - no, count as regular soldiers, but if the first comm dies, take command OR yes, but smaller bonus than the first comm

[Atahualpa]

Why should commanders be units?

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>you could have stacks up to four units
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I think, we should abandon the unit model and replace it with a number of men. So lets say 10,000 men or something like that.
As I said, we should take the recruiting idea as presedence.

ATa

[Tiberius]

If commanders are not units, then how do you build them?
About the unit model: I think it isn't very important what do you say: 10.000 men or one unit. After all, one unit is the abstract representation of 10.000 men (or a tank platoon, or a batalion or whatever).

[MidKnight Lament]

Yeah, I'm hearing a bit of stuff like this count-per-head not per-unit, but I don't think I've heard a good explanation of how one would work yet. The same sort of thing goes within cities.

How do you propose you break these 10,000 troops up? or don't you? is this synonymous with the idea of battle-screens? I'm not inherantly against it, but I need more detail.

[Atahualpa]

Tiberius: I think of commanders like MOO2, where you have your leader pool. This will be the commander pool. Then you can train some men in a city and they are stationed in the barracks. Now, assign a commander to them and you are done.
If you want to have men from other cities aswell, move the army with the commander to this city and attach these men. OR, you could of course use the send troops option, to quickly send troops from one barracks to another barracks (from another city). Dependant on how far the city is away, the troops arrive in some turns there. This would also reduce the micro stuff you had to do about moving units around, just for gathering purposes.
Nevertheless, the system still has some flaws.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>one unit is the abstract representation of 10.000 men
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

The problem with one unit is you cant have half a unit, but you can have 5,000 men!
Sure we could reduce the units health to 50%. Would be an option.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>How do you propose you break these 10,000 troops up
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Double click on your men and select the number you want to divide.

See, my idea works this way: In your city you have a barracks window were all your soldiers are listed: 2,000 swordsman + 500 archers + one commander, 1,000 swordsman + 200 archers + one commander for example. The 2,000 swordsman are represented with a swordsman icon and the number of men below. Now by doubleclicking on them you can divide them up. Oh and yes, units in cities need no commanders. For defending purposes just put them into the barracks. If you want to move them however, you need to assign a commander. This to reduce micro, or else you would spend a lot of time searching for a lot of commanders for your city-defending armies.

Ata

[MidKnight Lament]

So how do you give properties like A/D/M (or whatever it becomes) to the men? Is the number of men taken into the calculation and used as a multiplier...using 10000 men as a base? Do these men start with full health or part health (as you suggested) compared to a group of 10000?

Can you move 1 man into battle if you wanted to? (what's the lowest unit you could have?)

Can you still only build them in groups of 10000, or would you be able to build 100 if you wanted? How often do you foresee you'd be splitting groups of men?

Can a small number of troops move any faster than a huge army?

I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing the idea out of hand, but these are the sort of things that I haven't heard any details on yet. Do you have a system worked out that I missed somewhere along the line? How are the combats worked out in relation to the number of men?

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited March 07, 2000).]</font>

[Tiberius]

Ata, I understand now how do you see the commanders. I still love more the idea having flash-and-blood commanders (you know, with their own name, beautiful, golden clothes, fearless eyes, etc; maybe, in your final draft, you could mention this as an option ). But your idea is not bad.
The barracks idea is again not bad, but you are proposing a new window, and many people will not like it. (too much micromanage). But it can be done in the city screen, with a new button, Barracks, besides the other buttons: info, happiness, etc.
There's an idea I like: let's establish a minimum number of men you can work with. Let's say a battalion or something (~ 1000 men). If a newly built swordsman represents 10.000 men, then you have 10 battalions. For assigning men to armies, you can handle only battalions! And even when you build troops, you don't build one swordsman, but 10 battalions of swordsmen. So, instead of waiting 20 turns for a swordsman, you could have one battalion after 2 turns! But, because in this way we could have thousands of tiny little armies moving all around the map, there must be a restriction for the number of battalions that can be moved outside cities: for ex. 10 battalions. (10 archers or 5 archers+5 warriors).
Of course, a stacked army is moving with the speed of the slowest unit in the stack.
Now, what other rules for stacking?

[Atahualpa]

Tiberius: yes I thought about that too. For example in Colonization you needed 50 muskets to generate one unit. So I think in Civ3 you need 1000 bows&arrows to create a "archer unit". If you do so, 1000 men are taken away from the city. The city therefore needs some other sizes than a solid number! Elite commanders can handle a maximum of 10,000 men. so to say: 10 units. Of course, there are not 10 seperate units displayed (in the info window) but a representative unit and the number of men below. So, you have for example a stack of 1 commander (okay, let commanders be "units" then) + 5 warriors + 2 archers + 1 horesemn. This would mean: 5,000 warriors + 2,000 archers and 1,000 horsemen. We have a whole of 8,000 men and it would require a veteran commander to handle them. Of course you can assign a green commander to do the job, but you will get massive penalties if you do so!

wait someones shouting for dinner,
ATa

[Youngsun]

Hallo Ata

"Ranged attack and defense" <-really well pointed out! well done.

This concept "longer range weapon has more chances to attack first" was also adopted in Panzer General as "Initiative".

ie) PZIIIH armour:7 HA:11 Initiative:7
T-34/76 armour:12 HA:9 Initiative:6

The overall superiority of T-34/76 can be penalised because of the 1 initiative gap! PzIIIH will always hit T-34/76 first whether it attacks or is attacked.

[Tiberius]

ATa,
I don't have Internet access from now until tomorrow, so I wish you luck with the final draft. Good luck!
Tiberius

[Atahualpa]

Yeah the final draft! hehe, it is about 23:23 here and I really hadnt any time today to do it! So yes I will try it now but well, just wanted to say!

Ata