View Poll Results: How would you like to fight, Sire?
Stacked - CtP style 183 72.05%
Single Units - Civ 2 style 44 17.32%
Banana style 27 10.63%
Voters: 254. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 9, 2004, 01:17   #211
The_Aussie_Lurker
BtS Tri-League
King
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 1,451
A few additional points. I think the Civ3 concept of defensive bombardment should apply to stacked combat, if it is incorporated in Civ4. This would encourage you to have a decent number of ranged units in your stacks, especially in the ancient and Middle Ages.
Secondly, when the combat screen comes up, you should be able to select each individual unit, on the screen, and give it very basic tactics and a priority target. So, for instance, you might want some of your units to retreat, others to make a tactical withdrawl, whilst others might harrass or charge the enemy. Different units would get different attack/defense bonuses (and penalties) for both the maneuver they use AND the unit they target! If you don't select anything, then all of the units would have a 'default target' and 'default tactic'!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
The_Aussie_Lurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9, 2004, 02:12   #212
The_Aussie_Lurker
BtS Tri-League
King
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 1,451
OK, as an option to the tactical 'minigame' style of CtP 1 and 2, another possibility would be to have

i) A maximum stack size, which grows with each age.

ii) When a large stack attacks a much smaller stack, there should be a 'size ratio' combat bonus for the larger stack. In certain terrains, however, a large stack might give you a combat penalty due to fighting in a tight space.

iii) Each unit has a specific type such as defender (ranged and melee), 'brawler', ranged attacker, assault and flanking.

iv) A stack which comprises more than 50% of one unit 'type' would suffer a combat penalty. At the same time, certain combinations of unit types would give you a bonus to attack and/or defense for the entire stack.

v) Certain units AND unit types would grant stack bonuses when fighting in certain terrains, whilst other units and unit types might give stack penalties (like horses in forests or tanks in cities).

vi) You can give each stack a general tactical stance, from fortified, through defensive, all the way up to frontal assault. This might give each unit in your stack a specific bonus/penalty to its attack, defense and firepower. If you don't set this stance, then it will remain in a certain 'default'! You could even have specialist stacks, like artillery which, as has been suggested, might be set to a 'counterbattery' stance-thus this particular stance is 'specialised for elimination of enemy artillery stacks.
vii) Lastly, you can bring multiple stacks into combat, and indicate what unit(s) or stack(s) you want to attack!

In ALL other ways, though, the combat proceed in much the same way as it does in civ3-i.e., no mini-screen!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
The_Aussie_Lurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9, 2004, 09:22   #213
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
OK, I think that a compromise between the Civ3 Armies and the CtP stack is the best way to go! The reason I say this is that I LOVE in civ3 how bombardment units can be used to whittle down defenders, but not to actually take a defended city (though I WISH the pre-C3C element of bombardment randomness was reintroduced!!), but I would also love to have the CtP system of flanking, and the like! So how about if we have stack limits, like Civ3 Armies, and make it impossible to put certain units into a stack, but utilize the CtP form of 'stack combat'!
Non lethal bombardment is *the* big improvement that Civ3 brought to bombardment options.

Quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
A few additional points. I think the Civ3 concept of defensive bombardment should apply to stacked combat, if it is incorporated in Civ4. This would encourage you to have a decent number of ranged units in your stacks, especially in the ancient and Middle Ages.
*SNIP*

Already exists in a CTP2 mod (the CTP2 equivalent of a patch or expansion pack )... Hex's Cradle for example.

It works just great with CTP2 stacks. No reason to avoid it, if you implement CTP2 stacked combat.


Quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
OK, as an option to the tactical 'minigame' style of CtP 1 and 2, another possibility would be to have

*SNIP*

ii) When a large stack attacks a much smaller stack, there should be a 'size ratio' combat bonus for the larger stack. In certain terrains, however, a large stack might give you a combat penalty due to fighting in a tight space.

iii) Each unit has a specific type such as defender (ranged and melee), 'brawler', ranged attacker, assault and flanking.

iv) A stack which comprises more than 50% of one unit 'type' would suffer a combat penalty. At the same time, certain combinations of unit types would give you a bonus to attack and/or defense for the entire stack.

*SNIP*
Firstly, there is no CTP minigame. Its a combined battle display, and has no effect on the battle outcome... except if you retreat. I disagree that you should avoid having this screen in the game. Its a welcome atmosphere addition. I've never wanted or needed to turn it off.

For (ii)-(iv), if you're talking about implementing CTP2 style stacked armies/combat for Civ3, these concepts already exist in CTP2.

The combined arms effect ensures that mixed armies are better than unmixed, and that bigger armies have advantages over smaller armies.

Units are already categorized.

Last edited by MrBaggins; February 9, 2004 at 09:28.
MrBaggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9, 2004, 14:31   #214
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
ii) When a large stack attacks a much smaller stack, there should be a 'size ratio' combat bonus for the larger stack. In certain terrains, however, a large stack might give you a combat penalty due to fighting in a tight space.

iii) Each unit has a specific type such as defender (ranged and melee), 'brawler', ranged attacker, assault and flanking.
Makes sense to me.

Quote:
iv) A stack which comprises more than 50% of one unit 'type' would suffer a combat penalty. At the same time, certain combinations of unit types would give you a bonus to attack and/or defense for the entire stack.
That seems really artificial. A penalty for not using combined arms doesn't sit well with me. If the system is designed well - as it should be - then the player should be rewarded for using them.

Much as this would allow:
Quote:
v) Certain units AND unit types would grant stack bonuses when fighting in certain terrains, whilst other units and unit types might give stack penalties (like horses in forests or tanks in cities).
That is incentive to use different unit combonations, without feeling artificial. People might argue that I'm just being picky here, but I hate when systems are designed to force you to do the strategic thing because you're "supposed to," rather than being designed to reward doing the intelligent thing. It feels artificial and forced, and dumbs down the strategy.



On the whole, Aussie, I like your approach. I agree with MrBaggins that the Miniscreen (NOT minigame) is nice, because it allows you to see, and therefore understand, the results of your army compositions. Turn it off if you like, but it's a valuable tool.
Fosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24, 2004, 14:09   #215
Lord_Davinator
PtWDG Roleplay
Warlord
 
Local Time: 19:18
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kathmandu
Posts: 261
stacked is fun... but hope it doesn't slow down the game too much
__________________
Without music life would be a mistake - Nietzsche
So you think you can tell heaven from hell?
rocking on everest
Lord_Davinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1, 2004, 21:21   #216
Deathmerchant
Chieftain
 
Deathmerchant's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
*Snip
Good post

You shouldn't be penalized for not using combined arms, but I don't think that you should be rewarded for using them either. If the system works well, you shouldn't have to reward a player for using them, combat should just go better for them without rewarding them with a % bonus or whatever is in mind. Who wins when two pikemen units vs. one pikemen unit with an archer unit behind him, well, ideally the archer would be able to damage the enemy pikemen before anything happens, giving the team using diverse units an advantage. So ideally, you shouldn't have to be given a bonus to win.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know everything, that counts.
Deathmerchant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1, 2004, 22:00   #217
Master Zen
PtWDG Glory of WarApolytoners Hall of FameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamSpanish CiversPtWDG2 Latin LoversC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
Master Zen's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: of naughty
Posts: 10,579
:sigh:

the best of two worlds: stack damage.

You wanna stack? Go ahead, but you'll pay a price in some light damage to other units in the stack when bombarded or successfully attacked.

The more choices you give to the player the better. In Civ2 it was always better to spread, in Civ3, always better to stack. SMAC had the best of both worlds with stack damage and I see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented in CIV
__________________
A true ally stabs you in the front.

Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)
Master Zen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2, 2004, 01:10   #218
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
Stack damage is only marginally better than Civ 3. It still doesn't solve the fundamental problem of all combat being 1 on 1, even if one side has an entire army present.

Stack damage is a non-compromise between single unit or stacked combat. it's just a different flavor of single unit.
Fosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2, 2004, 16:28   #219
Mars
Prince
 
Mars's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 321
This is the way combat's got to be in civ4:

1) relatively simple
2) less tedium
3) allowing units to behave in a more strategical manner (combined arms)

With the above criterea the CTP style seems to be the ultimate solution; unfortunately we all know friaxis can never implement a CTP clone combat system. So the challenge is to come up with something that behaves like the CTP system but is fundemetely different at the same time.

So criterea 4 ) not a CTP clone

Tactical minigames are out by criterea number 1. They are simply to complicated for a grand strategy such as civ. Unit vs. Unit is out by number 2.

Now regalur stacked units is the most acceptable option but it still violates number 3, which I, and seemingly a large number of others, would like to be in place in civ 4.


Idea: 5 tier combat system of sorts. 1st tier being the main line, 2nd tier being the ranged line, 3rd being artiellery, 4th noncombatants, sort of 5th being flankers (though they'd actually be right next to the main line).
- Artiellery would be bombers, cannons, howitzers and the like
- Ranged would be archers, Jets, rifleman, infantry etc,
- main line would be hoplites, legionaries, marines, infantry, etc
- Flankers would be Cavalry, helicopters, mechanized infantry, tanks
- non combatants would be anyone who couldn't fight

What category each troop would go to would be selected by the computer. Instead of having units attack one by one they would attack in phases. First the artillery of each side would fire at the main line. Depending on the tech would determine how this worked. From catupults up to field artillery the unit attacked would be randomly picked for each piece of artiellry. for radar and howitzer and precision bombers all the artiellery would be able to fire on the strongest unit(s).

Next the ranged phase of combat would start. All the ranged combatants would be paired with a corresponding unit on the enemies main line and then they would all fire. Some calculation would occur to determine if they hit or not and then damage is done.

Now the main line also pairs with an enemy unit on the main line. If one side has a larger main line than two units are allow to gang up on one unit and have their offense scored added together and then multipled by .75 (so as not to make such a stupendous advantage). If the advantage is more than 2-1 then the enemy is forced move one of their ranged units to the front lines. If their still isn't enough then a flanker has to be moved to the front. If their still isn't enough then the artiellry is moved to the front where it is promptly sacked. Still not enough, then the rest of the main line just sits around. Each unit combat is done in effect simultenously.

Finally the flankers get their turn. This is the most complicated part for the computer that is. if both sides have flankers it operates the same as main line with each flanker being paired up with an oposing flanker. If the enemy has no flankers and its entire main line is occupied by enemy troops (that is the side with flankers main line is > the side's without main line) then the flankers attack the ranged line. and if the side with no flankers main line is larger the flankers attack the main line.

Phew, that's really complicated right. Well true if you're the computer but not to the player. See the player just gets to sit back and watch as all this war business is beautifully taken care of by his field general (the computer) Making this system relatively simple to the player. On the downside this is stil pretty much the CTP combat system the only difference being that combat happens all at the same time rather than unit by unit.
Mars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2, 2004, 19:15   #220
Solver
lifer
Civilization IV CreatorsAge of Nations TeamApolytoners Hall of FamePolyCast TeamBtS Tri-LeagueThe Courts of Candle'BreC4WDG Team Apolyton
Deity
 
Solver's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Latvia, Riga
Posts: 18,355
A very good post Mars. Definitely making its way on to the list of suggestions for combat systems when I compile that.

In fact, since Activision no longer deals with CtP series in any way, I am fairly sure that Firaxis could implement a similar system without legal trouble. What you describe is also very good, as it's similar to the CtP system (as close to perfect as we've had so far), while having its nice twist of difference.
__________________
Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man
Solver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3, 2004, 11:53   #221
Joseph
King
 
Joseph's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ca. USA
Posts: 1,282
I want stacked units. In CTP 2 you can turn off the battles. I also want to be able to remove or add to a unit to a stack just like in CTP 2.

Also I would like to be able to stack all units as in Air, Sea, and Artillery.
Joseph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3, 2004, 14:12   #222
Deathmerchant
Chieftain
 
Deathmerchant's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by Joseph
I want stacked units. In CTP 2 you can turn off the battles. I also want to be able to remove or add to a unit to a stack just like in CTP 2.
Exactly, I loved the CTP system, it simplified combat so much. It was just one army vs. the other, not my 150 tanks vs. your 150 tanks. And of course you must have a limit somewhere, just to avoid large game deciding battles, the limit in CTP was 12. That seemed to work for that game. It is just so much better then the CIV single unit battles, it easily makes a system able to handle different types of units, melee units, long range, artillery, flankers, etc.

To avoid some kind of stacked combat in Civ4 would be a bad decision.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know everything, that counts.
Deathmerchant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3, 2004, 15:14   #223
Enigma_Nova
C4DG The Mercenary Team
Emperor
 
Enigma_Nova's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,988
Good idea Mars, but with one problem.

Flankers should be able to hit the Back as well as the Front,
and Artillery should be able to hit behind the front line.

The unit classes make sense, though.
Meatshields (front line), Short-ranged, Long-ranged, Mobile and noncombattant.

Thing is, where would you put a guided missile in there? You could use it as artillery in a forward launch OR fly it around the battle and attack from the sides.

I propose an addition:
Front line, Ranged, Artillery, Ground Flankers, Aerial, noncombattants
With each section being set up to be able to strike at different possible section(s).
Enigma_Nova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 4, 2004, 02:08   #224
Deathmerchant
Chieftain
 
Deathmerchant's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Thing is, where would you put a guided missile in there? You could use it as artillery in a forward launch OR fly it around the battle and attack from the sides.
I would think I guided missle wouldn't be in a battle as such, wouldn't you just select it to bombard before the battle? I supose it could happen if you were attacked off guard or something, but then shouldn't you just be outa luck? When nukes are attacked in Civ2 they don't explode, they just die as defenders.

Quote:
Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
I propose an addition:
Front line, Ranged, Artillery, Ground Flankers, Aerial, noncombattants
With each section being set up to be able to strike at different possible section(s).

So are we favoring a mini-game where you can actually say for your artillery to attack their artillery? As soon as you get options for one unit to attack with more then one opposing unit to decide on you can never trust the A.I. to do it right. Maybe you wanted to destroy the spy in the back, rather then the troops in the front. So you would have to tell your flankers to attack it, rather then just letting the battle play out.

Because if you wanted different sections to have more then one option to attack, you have to be able to tell them what you want, and you've created a mini-game. And many people are not in favor of that. I, for one, would be in favor of that, but it might get to tedious for others.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know everything, that counts.
Deathmerchant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 4, 2004, 07:03   #225
Enigma_Nova
C4DG The Mercenary Team
Emperor
 
Enigma_Nova's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,988
I was actually proposing to let the AI do it...

Different unit types could only hit certain areas,
and the AI will target so as to 'destroy the highest production of troops overall'.
There's only a certain number of units it can target, so it could simulate ahead and destroy the most - or destroy it all with minimal loss.
Enigma_Nova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5, 2004, 15:34   #226
Grandpa Troll
supporter
PolyCast TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
Immortal Factotum
 
Grandpa Troll's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just Moosing along
Posts: 40,786
Quote:
Originally posted by Solver

Please give me a real example of tactics in civ 3. Is it deciding when to attack a certain unit in the field and how to move your attackers? If so, that also exists with the stack system.

I've mentioned many times I prefer stack combat, and diversity is another reason. In CtP2, late Industrial Age I use:

Machine Gunners - very decent all-around infantry
Artillery - bombarding and very strong ranged attack
Cavalry - for quick raids and pillaging
Infantrymen (Musketeers) - cheap defensive infantry that I can mass
Spies - intelligence, enough said

This is not to mention the different types of ships...

In Civ 3, early Industrial I use:

Cavalry - attack.
Riflemen - defend.

Then, Infantry replaces Riflemen (at which time it's near impossible to take a city, Infantry defends better than Cav attacks). Then, Tanks replace Cavalry - but that remains two units at all times. With then possible "speical" support from Marines, but there's a ton of those in CtP.

Stacked combat is better, all, all the way.
Ok..I poking around some and found this post.

Solver, my buddy from Hosting me at his detention camp to Modererating most of the Forum's I am involved posting in to the observing me as perhaps the absolute worse EVER Call To Power PBEM'er..

But I am really enjoying my CIVIII:Conquets Experience and look forward to what is in store for CIVIV!

I have an opinion about this stacked versus single attack:

I like in CIVIII Conquests where some units attack and fall back. What i dont like is the idea of single attack one after another. In reality an army wouldnt attack a single unit at a time, they would bum-rush a fortified position to overwhelm it.

I would just like the option is all and having come from CTP and some CTP:2 like the idea.

i would like to have a certain number capped though..not like a 20 stack of Tanks that wouldnt be too sweet.

maybe say a battalion of 9-12 tanks or whatever per stack

Thats my vote and oh in defense of Jon..he has that right to want single stack attacks..

Maybe I can play him one day..and one at a time he loses his military might!!

Ok

Thats my input

S*T*A*C*K*E*D A*T*T*A*C*K*S!!!

It was good enough for my man Wyatt and its good enuff fer me!

Gramps
Attached Thumbnails:
Click image for larger version

Name:	ok corral.jpg
Views:	131
Size:	3.9 KB
ID:	77658  
Grandpa Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5, 2004, 22:04   #227
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
One the main arguments that I'm hearing from the "Stacked" camp is that pushing 50+ units around is boring.

How about looking at this from a different angle: what is it about the game that makes you produce so many units?

Answer: units need to be cheap because gamers have a low attention span and want to see things built quickly (over 10 turns is too much for any Civ3 unit, IMO). But cheap units means plentiful units. And this in turn leads to tedium.

Solutions:

1. Return to production-based upkeep (i.e. the more units you build, the fewer you can support, so the fewer overall). Although the Civ3 system of using Commerce for upkeep has the advantage of being intuitive and simple, it's also has the major disadvantage that Commerce is plentiful so it's relatively easy to field a huge/tedious army.

2. Introduce an artificial unit cap system à la RTS genre, and make surpassing it very expensive (as in, an inefficiency % loss to everything - Commerce, Shields, Culture, Happiness, etc.). I'm thinking of the tiered system of Warcraft 3 here, which I believe is exemplary. For those of you who are not familiar with it, bigger/badder units cost more "upkeep points", so for example a Tank would cost more to have around than a Spearman. In Warcraft 3 this favors having a bunch of weaker (low upkeep) units around, but the power of the units could be arranged in Civ4 so that a Tank would always be worth more than, say, 10 Spearmen (in combat and in upkeep).

Of course, this is already present in a more primitive form in Civ3, where upkeep is based on the number of cities you control. This runs into ICS-type problems (more cities = more units = more tedium). Upkeep needs to be disassociated from cities entirely.

3. Increase the cost of units so that fewer get built. In Civ3 you can have 200 Cavalry running around half way through the Medieval era. It's not unusual for late Ancient-era stacks to be some 30 units strong. The upgrade option amplifies the problem (again, because Commerce is too plentiful). The problem here is that, as mentioned above, the cost of the first unit will seem too high; imagine waiting 20 turns to build every Pikeman!

Somehow, the first units need to be relatively cheap, while subsequent units need to be more expensive. Not as upkeep, but as an up-front cost. I imagine that such a staggered cost system would be both more and less intuitive than the upkeep-based solutions above.

4. I'm sure there are other options that I'm not thinking of right now. Sorry if I've repeated something that appears higher in the thread.
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...

Last edited by Dominae; July 6, 2004 at 12:02.
Dominae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5, 2004, 22:48   #228
Grandpa Troll
supporter
PolyCast TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
Immortal Factotum
 
Grandpa Troll's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just Moosing along
Posts: 40,786
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
One the main arguments that I'm hearing from the "Stacked" camp is that pushing 50+ units around is boring.

How about looking at this from a different angle: what is it about the game that makes you produce so many units?

Answer: units need to be cheap because gamers have a low attention span and want to see things built quickly (over 10 turns is too much for any Civ3 unit, IMO). But cheap units means plentiful units. And this in turn leads to tedium.

Solutions:

1. Return to production-based upkeep (i.e. the more units you build, the fewer you can support, so the fewer overall). Although the Civ3 system of using Commerce for upkeep has the advantage of being intuitive and simple, it's also has the major disadvantage that Commerce is plentiful so it's relatively easy to field a huge/tedious army.

2. Introduce an artificial unit cap system à la RTS genre, and make it very expensive (as in, an inefficiency % loss to everything - Commerce, Shields, Culture, Happiness, etc.). I'm thinking of the tiered system of Warcraft 3 here, which I believe is exemplary. For those of you who are not familiar with it, bigger/badder units cost more "upkeep points", so for example a Tank would cost more to have around than a Spearman. In Warcraft 3 this favors having a bunch of weaker (low upkeep) units around, but the power of the units could be arranged in Civ4 so that a Tank would always be worth more than, say, 10 Spearmen (in combat and in upkeep).

Of course, this is already present in a more primitive form in Civ3, where upkeep is based on the number of cities you control. This runs into ICS-type problems (more cities = more units = more tedium). Upkeep needs to be disassociated from cities entirely.

3. Increase the cost of units so that fewer get built. In Civ3 you can have 200 Cavalry running around half way through the Medieval era. It's not unusual for late Ancient-era stacks to be some 30 units strong. The upgrade option amplifies the problem (again, because Commerce is too plentiful). The problem here is that, as mentioned above, the cost of the first unit will seem too high; imagine waiting 20 turns to build every Pikeman!

Somehow, the first units need to be relatively cheap, while subsequent units need to be more expensive. Not as upkeep, but as an up-front cost. I imagine that such a staggered cost system would be both more and less intuitive than the upkeep-based solutions above.

4. I'm sure there are other options that I'm not thinking of right now. Sorry if I've repeated something that appears higher in the thread.
Well, I am headed to bed now work tommorrow

But many interesting points brought forward with your reply

Thanks

Gramps
Grandpa Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6, 2004, 07:29   #229
Fatwreck
Civilization III PBEM
Prince
 
Fatwreck's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 635
Very good post Dominae

I myself have never thought of a system similar to Warcraft 3 but now that you mention it, it makes so much sense...
__________________
You saw what you wanted
You took what you saw
We know how you did it
Your method equals wipe out
Fatwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6, 2004, 07:33   #230
Max Sinister
Warlord
 
Max Sinister's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 263
Yes, a plain "every unit needs so-and-so much gp for maintenance" would be better. Plus, at the current system despotism is so much better than monarchy: Unless the number of your megalopolises is at least half the number of your towns, despotism is cheaper. Often much cheaper. Yes, despite higher corruption, I've seen it so often.
Max Sinister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6, 2004, 11:08   #231
Drachasor
Prince
 
Local Time: 08:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 493
Hmm, well, to advertise my own idea, my idea here could handle this pretty well.

The problem with Civ II's system is that your individual cities had to handle the troop cost of any troops they made. If my idea was used, then excess shields could also go to support costs on troops.

However, I am a strong advocate of stacked combat, as it makes things have a much, much more realistic feel. When you outnumber the enemy 10-1, you shouldn't lose anyone attacking them on an open field, but non-stacked combat makes that happen. It is silly and anti-immersive.

A CtP-like system would be best, probably. Flanking and some other considerations would be nice, but not as essential as a basic stacked combat system. The Army system is Civ3 was better than nothing, but not nearly as good as the CtP system. Anything that made me feel like my Archers were *Archers* and not some sort of early legion would be nice. There needs to be something to encourage unit diversity. Hmm, perhaps even the classic Civ model needs to go too, but that might be too drastic.

-Drachasor
Drachasor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8, 2004, 22:40   #232
Kramerman
Prince
 
Kramerman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
Hmm, well, to advertise my own idea, my idea here could handle this pretty well.

The problem with Civ II's system is that your individual cities had to handle the troop cost of any troops they made. If my idea was used, then excess shields could also go to support costs on troops.

However, I am a strong advocate of stacked combat, as it makes things have a much, much more realistic feel. When you outnumber the enemy 10-1, you shouldn't lose anyone attacking them on an open field, but non-stacked combat makes that happen. It is silly and anti-immersive.

A CtP-like system would be best, probably. Flanking and some other considerations would be nice, but not as essential as a basic stacked combat system. The Army system is Civ3 was better than nothing, but not nearly as good as the CtP system. Anything that made me feel like my Archers were *Archers* and not some sort of early legion would be nice. There needs to be something to encourage unit diversity. Hmm, perhaps even the classic Civ model needs to go too, but that might be too drastic.

-Drachasor
my thoughts as well
__________________
"I bet Ikarus eats his own spunk..."
- BLACKENED from America's Army: Operations
Kramerman - Creator and Author of The Epic Tale of Navalon in the Civ III Stories Forum
Kramerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9, 2004, 06:34   #233
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
The question shouldn't be stacking or no stacking. A few luddites aside, everyone agrees stacking is superior. The question is should be how the stacking system could be made even better than it already is.
You can have certain units give bonuses to an entire stack, and some other units can work against a whole stack instead of just one unit.

For example, arty gives an offensive bonus to the whole stack so each individual unit gets it. Furthermore, arty attack can damage the whole stack (much like Alpha Centauri) instead of individual units.
__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Urban Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17, 2004, 20:00   #234
Quezacotl06
Alpha Centauri PBEM
Warlord
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 122
Stacking doesn't make a large difference in the overal turnout of combat.

If you have 4 units, and ur surrounded by 3 enemy units, 2 things can happen.

Stacked: you move ur wad of 4 over to the 1. Naturaly, they're crushed. Then the 2 attack you, and they die too, while you suffer some loss yourself.

Individual: you move 1 against 1 of them. If you lose it, send another, say the 2nd 1 wins. Then you send ur other 2 to take out the remaining 2. And let's say that you win.

In the end, you end up with the same turnout. Unstacked means that u just have more control over ur battalions, and combat is more fluid.

Armies in civ3 are unrealistic anyway. When u build spearmen, you're not building 1 spearman taht will take over a city of 10,000 (population size 1) by itself. The individuals obviously represent armies already, right?
Quezacotl06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17, 2004, 20:10   #235
Grandpa Troll
supporter
PolyCast TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
Immortal Factotum
 
Grandpa Troll's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just Moosing along
Posts: 40,786
Quote:
Originally posted by Quezacotl06
Stacking doesn't make a large difference in the overal turnout of combat.

If you have 4 units, and ur surrounded by 3 enemy units, 2 things can happen.

Stacked: you move ur wad of 4 over to the 1. Naturaly, they're crushed. Then the 2 attack you, and they die too, while you suffer some loss yourself.

Individual: you move 1 against 1 of them. If you lose it, send another, say the 2nd 1 wins. Then you send ur other 2 to take out the remaining 2. And let's say that you win.

In the end, you end up with the same turnout. Unstacked means that u just have more control over ur battalions, and combat is more fluid.

Armies in civ3 are unrealistic anyway. When u build spearmen, you're not building 1 spearman taht will take over a city of 10,000 (population size 1) by itself. The individuals obviously represent armies already, right?
In an abstract sense yes, I mean it could mean a platoon, a company, a battallion, a Brigade or a Division....

Gramps
Grandpa Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28, 2005, 11:21   #236
Adagio
staff
Spore
Deity
 
Adagio's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,112
Stacking does make combat easier. It's better to move once and attack with 10+ units at the same time, than to move 10+ times to attack with one unit at a time...
__________________
This space is empty... or is it?
Adagio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28, 2005, 19:10   #237
bigvic
Prince
 
bigvic's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Columbia, S.C.
Posts: 417
stacking limits, stacked combat option, and imho, just plain less units what about giving cities and forts some kind of intrinsic defenders or something. the more units on board, the more tedius the game as a whole becomes. i see stacking limits and stacked combat as integral to solving this.

i think that if they could get the average number of units in play down to about a third of what they have now the game would play a lot more smoothly and be superior tactically as well as strategically.

ctp did have civ3 beat for the most part in this area.
__________________
"Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you." No they don't! They're just nerve stapled.

i like ibble blibble
bigvic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28, 2005, 21:23   #238
The_Aussie_Lurker
BtS Tri-League
King
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 1,451
Well, I feel that the place where stack limits should be MOST important would be in cities. Lets face it, how would any of US feel if there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers deployed on our streets? Yet this-and even worse-is allowed to happen frequently in Civ! Having a barraks should allow you to store more units within a city, but ultimately the numbers should be very few. This would NOT, however, stop you from having units in nearby forts-to come to the city's defence when needed.
Ultimately, though, most military forces DREAD city combat, and as such we should be aiming at having most battles occuring in the open, with resort to city combat being more of an act of desperation.
Also, though, I love the idea of cities (not forts) having intrinsic defenders. When enemy units enter a city, there should be a quick 'resolution' to see how much damage the units recieve (if any) based on the size of the city, its level of happiness, the strength of the invader etc etc.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
The_Aussie_Lurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28, 2005, 23:04   #239
Grandpa Troll
supporter
PolyCast TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
Immortal Factotum
 
Grandpa Troll's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just Moosing along
Posts: 40,786
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Well, I feel that the place where stack limits should be MOST important would be in cities. Lets face it, how would any of US feel if there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers deployed on our streets? Yet this-and even worse-is allowed to happen frequently in Civ! Having a barraks should allow you to store more units within a city, but ultimately the numbers should be very few. This would NOT, however, stop you from having units in nearby forts-to come to the city's defence when needed.
Ultimately, though, most military forces DREAD city combat, and as such we should be aiming at having most battles occuring in the open, with resort to city combat being more of an act of desperation.
Also, though, I love the idea of cities (not forts) having intrinsic defenders. When enemy units enter a city, there should be a quick 'resolution' to see how much damage the units recieve (if any) based on the size of the city, its level of happiness, the strength of the invader etc etc.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
good points
Grandpa Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29, 2005, 11:53   #240
wrylachlan
Prince
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Well, I feel that the place where stack limits should be MOST important would be in cities. Lets face it, how would any of US feel if there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers deployed on our streets? Yet this-and even worse-is allowed to happen frequently in Civ! Having a barraks should allow you to store more units within a city, but ultimately the numbers should be very few. This would NOT, however, stop you from having units in nearby forts-to come to the city's defence when needed.
Ultimately, though, most military forces DREAD city combat, and as such we should be aiming at having most battles occuring in the open, with resort to city combat being more of an act of desperation.
Also, though, I love the idea of cities (not forts) having intrinsic defenders. When enemy units enter a city, there should be a quick 'resolution' to see how much damage the units recieve (if any) based on the size of the city, its level of happiness, the strength of the invader etc etc.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Without Zone of Control, this does nothing. The reason you put defenders in the cities is that if you try to engage them on the field, a fast unit could go right around you to the city and burn it to the ground. Stacked combat does nothing to alleviate this problem. In fact with limited numbers you'd actually have to make MORE moves. If a fast enemy has say 10 stacks all within range of your city, instead of being able to concentrate all your units in the city you now have 1 in the city and a bunch of defensive stacks surrounding. This is actually MORE micromanagement.

Also, this idea that stacks will somehow magically cut down on the micromanagement is IMHO bunk. Stacks by themselves don't cut down on anything. Its the ratio of unit cost to total economic output that determines the number of units. Depending on this balance you could have a game with stacked combat with twice as many stacks as there are units now, or you could have a non-stacked game with one tenth as many units as there are now.
wrylachlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team