OC3: Combat Ideas

[The Joker]

Double post.

Why do I begin doing this now??!?!?
[This message has been edited by The Joker (edited July 31, 2000).]

[The Joker]

Victor:

I don't think those special units would require much extra micromanagement. You would only have to build them and assign them to an army, and they would work by themselves.


Amjayee:

Ok. I finally agree with you. You should be able to build a unit, but at any time in the construction process you should be able to take the men and equipment already made, and make it an independant unit. That will not create the micromanagement that I had dreaded.

But I think that in many cases you shouldn't need more than one turn to create a unit (how long can it take to equip a small band of warriors?). So no more waiting 100s of years for one unit. But in cases where units require more than one turn, or where you lack the men or equipment, it should be possible to simply take what you've got and make them a unit.

I also agree with Phunny that there should propably be a limit to how small you can make a unit. 10% of the original strength sounds reasonable. But I see no need to forbid units weakened in battle to have less than 10% hitpoints left. They should be possibly, but would be pretty useless, as they would be slaughtered by virtually any unit.

I think that your movement point suggestion will propably take care of the small unit rush. Let it be done!

And of cause an army should be considerably more powerful than the same amount of the same kind of units alone. Even without a commander unit the army would be more powerful.

Scout vision range:
I don't know it it should be any larger. 2 hexes is 100 km. Is it possibly within a reasonable amount of time to send out scouts in a larger area? Of cause in the modern era armies and modern scouts should have far greater vision range, but back when they ride around on horses I am not really sure. But I agree that it should propably depend on the terrain. On grassland it might be 3 or even 4 hexes, but in a jungle it would be no more than 1. The same thing with modern scouts, only with a larger range. I agree with the other things. But you should not see scouts moving around.

It would possibly be possible to have scouts being normal units transformed. But as you said these will not start at as high a level as real scouts (=their range would be smaller and their vision percentage likewise).

[Victor Galis]

"Allowing the unit only to defend a city while incomplete is not a good solution. What would you say if you play a game, where a group of men can't move just because they are waiting for more men, or more equipment? The units will get incomplete during the game anyway. Let's just allow the player to form incomplete units. But you do have a point when you are worried of units of 10 men wandering around. Perhaps we should place some kind of limit to the unit size, as phunny pharmer suggested? For example, you could not create units with less than 10% of their hitpoints left. If unit is damaged in combat below that level, you would have two options: you can reinforce the unit, or merge it with the nearest possible unit of same type. I believe that doesn't cause any problems, or much-feared micromanagement if it is done properly."

-I wouldn't put a lower limit per se, but you could have units of 10, men desert or something, or get lost in the shuffle, maybe they would be killed instantly by angry partizans on foreign soil.

"Phunny pharmer introduced a possible problem in the planned combat system, that we must take care of: we must avoid tactics exploiting the weaknesses in game rules."

-That may require actual playtesting though.

"You shouldn't be able to harass large armies with single units."

-Unless those were guerillas

"So, we must a) make armies considerably stronger than the same amount of same kinds of units all alone"

-That's done under this system. Look at archers for instance. 2000 archers vs. 1000, then vs. 1000 again. 2000 attack, and kill 1000, with casualties of less than 1000, then kill the others with casualties less than 1000.

"and b) make it so, that the movement of armies won't slow down, when their way is blocked with small infantry units;"

-"since the units will have much longer movement range than earlier, perhaps we should consider a rule, where the size of battle decides, how many mp's the battle consumes. So, if a large army with 100000 men confronts a 500-men unit, they would literally walk over them with some 0.1 mp loss, while when they confront another army of equal size, the battle would consume several mp's."

-Yes, that's what I was about to suggest.

"Also the difficultiness of the battle needs to be taken into consideration; if the defender is entrenched, the battle will take longer etc."

-Yes

"About scout, supply and command units, sounds good. We might make the visibility range of the scouts a little larger (remember the map scale is smaller) and the range should perhaps be dependent on the terrain; in forest the scouts could not move as far as on plains. Also on coast, they could not move into ocean tile, so they could see only 1 tile away. On the move, the scouts' visibility range would be made smaller, and they could not see very far ahead, but of course farther than ordinary units. So, my idea is, that the scout units need to actually "move" to scout the area; that is done automatic, according to some simple rules. In difficult terrain, they could not move as far as in easy terrain, and would not "see" as far. Also scouts would get a little penalty for noticing stealthy units in the tiles they are scouting - they move quickly in small parties in a large area, so a possibility to notice a guerrilla party is smaller."

-Sounds good.

"I don't think those special units would require much extra micromanagement. You would only have to build them and assign them to an army, and they would work by themselves."

-They would if you were required to use them (you'd have to build 4 units instead of one... but if they only helped...)

"But I think that in many cases you shouldn't need more than one turn to create a unit (how long can it take to equip a small band of warriors?). So no more waiting 100s of years for one unit. But in cases where units require more than one turn, or where you lack the men or equipment, it should be possible to simply take what you've got and make them a unit. "

-I'd say several turns for training, or not, depending on what you wanted (training level-wise).

[amjayee]

Joker: Special units would not usually be visible on map. Also with scouts, you could just see the are they are scouting. The are should depend on the situation; if a unit is on the move, the scouts can't scout very large are. If they are stationed in a garrison, the area will be considerably larger, depending on the range of the scout units; the range tells, how far they can ride with the food supplies they are carrying on them. In some cases, they could scout even farther, but you would need to take care of the supplying.

The time required to build a unit depends on many factors; usually you can form a simple warrior/guerrilla party in one turn, if you just give them weapons and don't train them. Since a turn is one year, also some training could be made. The most time will usually go to manufacturing the equipment.

Victor: Yes, guerrillas can harass armies to some extent - consider the situation in Chechny (or what ever way I should spell it), for example. But of course a 1000 man guerrilla unit can't stop a large army very effectively, you would need a guerrilla army. Guerrilla warcare needs to be considered, it should work somewhat differently from the "normal" warfare.

[The Joker]

I see a problem with having a lot of different levels of training:

As the training makes the unit better, but more expensive, the best training level (where you get the best fighting capabilities for the fewest money) might very well end up being 37. Or 71.

This means that the player might very well end up choosing such training levels without really knowing what is best. And that is not a good situation. Therefor I think that we should only have 2 types of training levels, such as Guildmaster suggested - normal and elite. Or perhabs just one!

This should of cause be combined with an experience level, gained from combat experience.

I know that training levels is more realistic, and might seem as a good solution, but in a grand scale strategic game I don't think they are.

Of cause if we can find a way to overcome these problems with training levels I would be all for them.

[ElmoTheElk]

quote: Originally posted by The Joker on 08-01-2000 11:28 AM I know that training levels is more realistic, and might seem as a good solution, but in a grand scale strategic game I don't think they are.

You are definetly right about that. Things would become too complicated and this will develop in confused players rather than good gameplay.

[amjayee]

I agree. We should have several training levels, but not very many. Two might not be enough, but I think it might be fairly easy to make the available training levels dependent on the unit type; in the unit type definition, you could define the number of levels, the names for them, and the effects and costs. Some unit types would have only one level available, others might have several. Or, make the "default" setting, where units have normal and elite levels. Then if you want, you could add more to some unit types, or decrease the amount to only one. I think that might work best.

I hope that people understand the difference between training and experience; training is given when the unit is formed, and it is maintained. Experience is received only in combat, and will decrease as time passes.

[Guildmaster]

You're going to shoot me for suggesting this, but I think it would be really cute if units were allowed to make mistakes. Say for example: If two rival units from hostile countries are right next to each other but both under strict orders not to open fire unless fired upon. Under normal perfect-little-world Civ games, this means nothing. But what if we made it so one of those units could accidently, in the heat of the moment, "fire the first shot"? That's kinda what happened during the American Revolution, two big monkies seeing how high up they can toss their leaves, somebody got nervous and fired a shot so then the bloodbath begins.
Say, if this were a game possibility, foreign units could be manipulated by psychological warfare into being exactly that nervous, accidents could be so planted...

[The Joker]

Training levels:

It should propably be something you could choose when starting a game. Somebody would be happy with 1, others might want many.


Accidents:

Yeah, it could propably be done. But again I would like it to be a function you could turn off, if you wanted to. But in a game where you want everything to be done realistically, it could be a great thing to have.

------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club