COMBAT (ver 2.0)hosted by Redleg & Theben

[Theben]

Hello all. I've been in communication with Yin & Redleg both. Redleg & I have teamed up to do this summary, I will post my part of the summary (of v. 1.2 only) here 1st. Many thanks to Cybershy for caring for this thread when no one else could! So, with out further ado:

COMBAT
Summary of v. 1.2

STACKING

Limit size of stacks, to 5? Stacks must be in the same square at the
beginning of a turn to combine, outside enemy ZOC's unless in a city.

Units move together but attack individually. Bonuses for certain combinations of unit types (air, ground, and artillery)? All, some, or none of the stacked units may attack.

No more than 2-3 units in a stack can defend. Will not necessarily be the strongest units. Stack "breaks" if the 2-3 killed. Rest of stack must then retreat (see below). If cannot, destroyed. May retreat onto transports (Dunkirk). This will reduce transports MP's next turn.
(Francis)

Liked CtP stacked combat.
(Mr. Bigglesworth)

Max in stack should be 9, not 5. All units in stack should fight, but agrees that losing
key units could cause retreat.
(Eggman)

Varying stack size:
Supply rules would help limit stack size. Organizational advances in the Tech Tree could also limit size until late game.

Initial stack is approx. 4-5 units. Other things to increase size:
Generalship tech, or a general unit.
Units that require an internal organization, like Phalanx or Legion.
Bureaucracy/Centralization Social Engineering or tech.
Military advances of Conscription, General Staff, Divisional Organization, Military
Academy, etc., would greatly increase stack size.

Also:
Macadamizing (cheaper all-weather hard-surface roads, better supply)
Canned Food (better storage of bulk food for depots and transport)
Railroads (allowed million-man armies of WWI to be deployed and supplied)

In game terms, perhaps an initial limit of 6 or 8 by Medieval or early Gunpowder
times, rising to 40 before radio & telephones raise it again in the 20th century. Suggested limiting max to 30 by modern times.

Reasoning: No matter how big the ancient armies got, w/o a chain of command most of them were just on the battlefield as spectators.
(Diodorus Sicilus)

Who attacks whom in stack is random. Ranged units only ranged vs. their era & older.
Give a bonus for having infantry / mobile / ranged units stacked together.
(Ember)

Stacks should be able to have more than 9.

Have the primary attacker + half #2 + 1/3 #3 + 1/4 #4 (etc.) strengths added together;
also for defender. This would represent that while you can always draw support,
sometimes that support is effectively non-existent; also you can only focus your attack
on a few defenders/attackers.

Collateral damage (SMAC style) would then be limited proportionally to the amount
of support that unit could provide to the combat.
(Darkstarr)

RETREAT

Vets may retreat after taking >50% damage. Less experienced units
may fail to retreat. Player option when to retreat. Player chooses where to retreat to,
with the MP's used deducted from next turn. If cannot retreat, must stay & fight to
death. May retreat into squares held by friendly units, even if in enemy ZOC.
Attackers may also retreat; mobile units can retreat even if greater damage taken.

Units in square not in combat:
There's a chance the rest of the units will scatter (retreat) when stack loses units. Approx. 25% after 1st unit defeated, 50% after 2nd, 75% after 3rd, 100% after 4th.
(Francis)

Stalemates. Both sides can be damaged but neither is destroyed.
(Mo)

Retreat by routing sounds good, but questions if is too complex. The computer, not the
player, should decide who retreats.
(Eggman)

Routing/retreating could be interesting, but it would lengthen the game.
(Darkstarr)

Only attackers should be able to retreat.
(Mr. Bigglesworth)

Retreat option is a good idea because few battles resulted in the complete
annihilation of either side. Using a well-made battle screen; if 1 side reaches a # of
casualties it starts to retreat. If enemy has a mobile unit w/same or better MOVE than
retreating unit & hasn't been damaged, that unit can pursue. If unopposed by a fresh
enemy mobile unit, it will inflict damage beyond it's normal ability to do damage.
This keeps combat a gamble: There's no easy out if something goes wrong.
(Diodorus Sicilus)

OTHER

If units survive battles often (due to retreat) there will be problems if repairs stay free. Suggests having to pay for repairs on x# of gold à x# of shields repaired. If retreats/stalemates allowed then city sieges become pointless as units will be repaired by next turn (barracks, etc.); units will rarely be destroyed.
(Ember)

Agreed that Ember's idea will make siege warfare possible.
(Flavor Dave)

Better AI to take advantage of terrain in siege warfare: knowing how, when where to
build defenses near an enemy city, with roads connecting to defenses.
Bombers should be able to target specific city improvements.
(AXM)

Supports specific targeting by bombers, suggests weapons to attack only populace.
(NotLikeTea)

Bombers should have poor chance of success with specific targeting until laser
targeting available. Suggested air missions to attack populace instead.
(Theben)

Bombarding & ranged combat:
The # of rounds of bombard should be = current HP's of attacker. Air units can only
bombard.
(Ember)

Scrap att/def values, replace with LASS (land/air/sea/space):

The player could buy STR points for each category when the appropriate
technology is gained.
Ancient (land) units would have approx. 1-5 STR for land, 0 air/sea/space.
Renaissance (land) units would have approx. 4-7 STR land, 0 air. 1-2 sea, 0 space.
Modern (land) units approx. 7-12 land, 0-6 air, 2-7 sea, 0-? space.
Graphics would change radically when STR's, HP's, options, changed in workshop.

Combat between different domains is always treated as bombard. Bombards cannot
destroy a unit, but may disable a 'unit option' (i.e. "carry air"; sinks carriers but not fleet). Not all unit options can be disabled, just certain ones.

Modifiers between like units:
-Terrain. Some applies to both attacker & defender (infantry in cities, mobile units in
open, special option units [alpine, marines] in their specialized terrain), while other
terrain only applies to defender.
-Military morale, happiness, & tech bonuses (techs that would give a minor advantage
to combat that are otherwise too small for the workshop; i.e. writing, telegraph,
satellite mapping).
-Random Combat Events: % results; 1=disaster for attacker, 100=same for
defender. Most results have no effect, but applied each time combat occurs.

Reasons:
-Combat in CIV is strategic, attacker & defender change often during battles.
-SMAC combat doesn't take attacker's armor & defender's weapons in account
-Would work well with modified workshop
(Theben)

Liked LASS, suggested adding Range to units.
(Eggman)

Military units cannot take advantage of spy/partisan immunities to ZOC.
(AXM, Francis)

Recon: The ability for a unit to see what another army's size &/or unit composition is.
Similar to the "variable vision" in CtP.
(Diodorus Sicilus)

Diplomatic random events [w/ effects on combat?].
(NotLikeTea)


Thanks to Francis, Diodorus Sicilus, NotLikeTea, Mingko, Mr. Bigglesworth, AXM, Eggman, Darkstarr, Flavor Dave, Ember, and Mo for their help in making this summary possible. Redleg will finish this summary. In the meantime, keep posting! J

[Theben]

Hmmm...it worked, but not how I planned...oh well.

[redleg]

The other half -


Enable the Air force (others?) to destroy city improvements. This would simulate a campagin against the cities infrastructure, such as industry, transportation, population, etc... Give targeted buildings Hit points and then bombing attacks would damage (and reduce the ability and effects of) improvements. Also add a degree of randomness in bombing so that the target is not nessecarily what is hit. Perhaps a targeted factory is missed and a population center is hit instead. Give diplomatic or happiness penalties to more enligtened govermnets for bombing population. Increase the morale (will to fight, hatred of the bomber) of the city whose population has been bombed.


AXM, Theben, Eggman


random Diplomatic events comes up agian...

NotLikeTea


Remove the ability of non-combatant units (like the spy or caravan types to bypass ZOC.

Flavor Dave


Give the ability to fight with allied armies and help them directly
Keep information on the original owner of a city so the city can be returned to its owner after liberation. Allow the player and the AI to surrender or return a city that originally was owned by another nation.
Limit the amount of units that fight in a stack per round, without limiting the maximum size of the stack.

Agent 000


Allow unlimited stacking, but limit the combatants per round of combat to four

Ember

Lost computer time - will continue

------------------
Redleg

Small minds talk about people, Average minds talk about events, Great minds talk about ideas.

[Jon Miller]

One of my ideas from a long time ago got ignored, I believe, so I will repeat it here, expand upon it, and add more ideas to it

look at my long thread posted may 23 in combat (ver 1.0): hosted by redleg

my first idea I know longer like very well and my third idea needs more thought but I would like to expound upon my second idea

please go look up the thread it is on the third page, if you would like I could repost it

I still support(or at least think the idea should be considered) that in battle both sides should make a battle choice reflecting organization and style and army make up

(each large army should be made up of several other units ala CTP)

like once you have learned legion organization and your army has the proper make up you should be able to attack as a legion would with the corresponding bonuses towards some enemies and minuses towards others

which way and all that tactical stuff would be figured out by the game as your army generals, each battle choice will have information about when to retreat and the like

these battle choices would be preset by firaxis and you can give up to like 5 of them to every unit type you design to be built (if we have anything like smacs workshop) or will be ingrained in the units if we have preset units

examples of offensive battle choices would be frontal assualt, delaying retreat, flank assault

something like delaying retreat would fight until you lost just a little amount of hp and then the unit would retreat, but it would take the proper amount of moral or training to do

some battle options would be like this defensive one (if the unit had artillary and infantry): infantry line up before artillary and then artillary shells enemy, then if the enemy chose frontal assault the defender would have a plus but if they had calvary and chose a mobile unit flank attack then if the chance was right the offender would have a plus

some battle options might have a certain number of MPs prerequisite (like the calvary one)

each battle would only have one choice and if the sides withdrew before one side was destroyed so be it, the next person to move can fight another battle (and would be the attacker)

the available defenders and attackers battle plans would be identicle and the army would have the same five to choose from (the number 5 could be changed) this will allow more realism

adding different tactics to your unit would add cost to it (for the training)

thats enough on that for now, I don't know if it would be practical to implement but it would be better than battles like in :Lords of" or "Master of" serieses

one thing I think should be changed is that airplanes should not attack enemy units the way they do in smac or civ2

against enemy armies or units they should mostly be used as a means of support, by themselves fighters should be useless in covered terrain vrs enemy units and bombers should have limited use

in open terrain the airplanes should have more use

also it should be very hard to hurt planes and except with other planes (and sams and aa), the planes should usually not get injured at all

in a supporting role planes of all types should be very benificial, having high attack when used in concert with ground troops

they should also play a role in defensive combat, maybe they could be placed on some sort of alert and jump to defend any units in range (maybe even an auto where you can pick wich units to support and then the planes will do so

in my battle plan idea there would be plans with planes in them

planes should also be very good at attacking vehicled units on roads and railways and infantry on railways

infantry in cover should be near impossible for any plane to injure

planes should also be good at attacking infrastructure, especially bombers

aa should do little to bombers and sam sites should not times the infantries defense by two but instead should be a constant, like CTP's city walls, fighters like they are now should be the only true defense against bombers

done for now,
Jon Miller

I didnt know where to put this, or if this has already been suggested, but couldnt we have the option to capture an army rather than kill them?

Because we have reached an age where we try to keep everyone alive, enemy or not.

We could have POW, and maybe interrorgate them? Maybe thats a bit much...but I highly suggest an option to try and capture an army.

Oh! And how about the spy unit or another unit, named "Assassin" who's job is entirely to assassinate the leader or one of the leaders advisors, (whom you get to pick).
This won't kill the whole civilization, it will just put it into complete misery for a couple of years (turns) untill a new leader takes its place, and that new leader may be a worse leader than the previous one, or maybe he's even better! >

[FinnishGuy]

Um, I had some ideas about air combat back in thread ver1.1 that seem to be missing from the summary. I'll repeat here in short:


- Air units (icons) are only allowed to exist in base squares (specifically built airbases or cities). They create an "effect zone" (EZ) around them, which includes all squares within the unit's operational radius. Player can move air units from base to base by selecting the unit, clicking on the new base and watching a nice little animation of planes taking off, flying and landing.

- Automatic Recon Flights: If an enemy land/sea unit is inside friendly EZ, there is a chance per turn that it will be spotted. This chance increases the closer the enemy unit is to the base square. The spotting would be re-evaluated every turn.

- Bombing Runs: Player selects a bomber air unit, clicks on the target enemy unit (can also be air unit) and again watches a neat animation of bombers doing an attack run and returning to base. If the bombers fly through an enemy fighter EZ, there is a check whether they are spotted by the enemy. If spotted, enemy fighter interception is very likely. There can be multiple interceptions if flying through multiple/overlapping enemy EZs. If the bombers take too much damage, the mission is aborted and they (try to) return to base.

- Automatic Fighter Escort: If a moving/attacking bomber unit is within friendly fighter EZ, it has fighter escort. Possible enemy interception then first engages the fighters, and if sufficient strength remains then the bombers.

- Automatic Air Superiority: If friendly and enemy fighter EZs overlap, there is a chance of air superiority combat between the fighter units (much like artillery duel in SMAC). The chance increases the more EZs overlap. Enemy bombers entering friendly fighter EZ are intercepted, if spotted.


This sacrifices some player control, BUT reduces combat micromanagement with air units. IMO, it's also more realistic as all air combat is concluded within game turn.

[Theben]

Jon M & Finnish Guy,
The current summary only deals with COMBAT v. 1.2. Looking back I don't see any summary for COMBAT since Goob's summary in 1.0, with the exception of Victor's summmary. There's also been some confusion here, and I haven't heard from Redleg in a while. I'll try to make a full summary tonight, but only of ver. 1.2, as Yin needs it now. Later I'll see if I can do a complete COMBAT summary. Another horrifying discovery I just made is that I cannot access the 2nd page of closed threads! If someone else can, please let me know...

Jon Miller,
Many have suggested for or against tactical combat in civ. It's really a question of preference: realism or strategy? Perhaps a game option will allow you to choose between the two, but now every time people can't decide which to use, an "option" is suggested instead, leading to an option glut.

Your ideas regarding air combat have also been discussed, with the exception of terrain severely hampering air operations. Thank you for pointing this out. As for bombers I have argued that they should have very limited success bombing specific targets until the advent of laser-targeting, for historical reasons.

Icedan,
I like the idea of capturing armies, but under limited situations. Perhaps thru leader/general units; also depending on the happiness of the civs in question (the capturing civ would have a greater chance of capture if it's HAPPINESS was higher than the enemy's, lower or non-existent if otherwise), any diplomatic bonuses/penalties/atrocities/generous gifts, and if the civ has the "nationalism" tech. No POW interrogation, IMHO.

Also no assassin unit, but spy MISSIONS that include assassination, from a espionage screen.

Finnish Guy,
Those ideas almost mirror what donDon posted in the SUPPLY, MOVEMENT, ETC. ver. 1.0 thread. Are you sure you didn't read that 1st? Anyway, they're good ideas (not that I'm biased ).

[FinnishGuy]

Theben,

I'm a sort of newcomer here (look junior civer ), I registered in mid June. I haven't read the old thread versions. Actually, I haven't read even the current MOVEMENT thread. There's so much stuff on this site... Ember already commented in combat v1.1 that many of those ideas I proposed have been brought up earlier by him and other people. But I did think them out myself. Trust me.

Anyway, the above ideas was not all I wrote in v1.1.

[Flavor Dave]

"Oh! And how about the spy unit or another unit, named "Assassin" who's job is entirely to assassinate the leader or one of the leaders advisors, (whom you get to pick). This won't kill the whole civilization, it will just put it into complete misery for a couple of years (turns) untill a new leader takes its place,"

It's bad enough that with a spy you can spend 30 shields to destroy a cathedral and put a city into disorder; do you want a unit that can do that for a whole civ??? In order to keep this unit from being too powerful, it'd have to be worth like 400 shields.

[loinburger]

I agree with the spy/assassin analysis: you just don't need an extra unit to do what a spy already comes capable of doing. But you should be required to upgrade the spy (for a huge cost) in order to have it properly trained to carry out assasinations. That would also deal with the "spies come too cheap" problem.

More later once I read all the other threads. Don't want to repeat myself unecessarily.

[loinburger]

My first response is in regards to bombardment. I HATE the fact that bombardment cannot kill an enemy unit. The thing is, if you carpet-bomb and shell a tank platoon (or even a division) until there's nothing left but a smoking crater, then there shouldn't be any tanks left, IMHO. However, I do agree that it's pretty darned hard to destroy one single tank in a mountainous forest, no matter how much the thing is smoking and burning. So, my solution is that as a unit loses hit points its chances of being damaged by a bombardement decrease, and the unit also takes less and less damage, until finally the unit is near death but only has a 5% chance of getting killed. If the units can heal themselves, then bombardiers and bombers ought to be able to kill them.

I agree that repairs should cost money. Perhaps when a unit reaches a critical level of damage (25% HP remaining) then the unit can only be repaired if you spend some cashola. This is because if a tank doesn't have a gun turret anymore it's probably gonna cost a lot to fix up, but if the tread's fallen off than the driver/commander/cook can just glue it back on for free.

In another thread, Fuji was suggesting, among other things, that a completely 3D rendering of the world be used, complete with spherical shape. I believe that this can indeed be done--you zoom in on a sphere far enough and the thing looks more or less flat, and if you are given the option of changing the viewing angle than there won't be any problems of a tank platoon hiding behind the Himalayas (not that you should have to look behind every mountain, that would be a waste of everyone's time). Not only would this provide some excellent eye candy, but it could also be used as a grand new combat system (I think someone else may have mentioned this, but not in any thread that I've read, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone else). Not only would there be a 2D position but there would also be an altitude (or depth!) involved with the game. I don't know how far Firaxis is planning on having the tech tree go, but this could allow for a space combat system as well (everything above altitude 10, for example, would be "in space", and satellites would be at altitude 15 or so). It would allow for a better combat bonus system in regards to height (attacking Nepal from India is a little different than attacking North Carolina from Tennessee, even though you cross the "mountains" both ways). Airplanes could fly at different altitudes (a bomber flying at altitude 6 wouldn't have a chance of getting shot down by SAM's, but a bomber at altitude 1 or 2 had better be good at evasive maneuvers), and subs could dive to different depths (you're NEVER going to detect a sub at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, but of course you'd have to pay an arm and a leg to be able to get a sub down that low). The North and South poles would actually exist, and you could cross the Arctic Ocean as a shorter way around the world than through the Strait of Magellan. And finally, this would add a whole new element to city building (Fugi's cities as well as the traditional Civ cities, although a traditional city would work better): not only would you be able to glean resources from the land, but you could also take resources from the sky and underground! Deep core mining operations, floating farms--cities in the sky that are more than just cities taking their supplies from the surrounding land (no, cities in the sky would take their supplies from DOWN and UP as well as OUT, just like a normal city, and the ground might not even be in their production spheres). This would mean that your high altitude bombers would never have to land on the ground at all. But I digress. The combat system suggestion is in there, I was merely touting other features albeit on the wrong thread.

LASS, not ATT/DEF. It doesn't matter that you're on the offense and you've got a singularity laser (or whatever they'll have in CivIII), all the other guy needs is a big stick to kill you. Assuming, of course, that he can reach you--warriors should not be able to destroy airplanes (unless the aircraft are on the ground, of course). Armor upgrades should increase hit points and should perhaps increase the unit's heal rate (an energy shield, for instance, would repair faster than a ten-ton block of steel--just add energy), but should not otherwise aid in attack.

I've gone on too long and must sleep. I shall return, though.

[FinnishGuy]

Tank and artillery units should be vulnerable to aerial bombardment. Infantry units on the other hand should be more resistant. Pretty hard to target those foot soldiers hiding in bushes and forest. Also terrain and fortification status should affect damage (more in open terrain/unfortified) from a single air strike.

IMO, land units should never be completely destroyed by air strikes (although a tank unit can drop to say 5% hit points after several attacks). No matter how much you do conventional bombing there are always survivors. This is actually the experience of real-life militaries. You have to send in the ground troops to finish up and secure territory.

Nukes of course should be fully capable of destroying any unit.

[Flavor Dave]

"warriors should not be able to destroy airplanes"

Do you mean here the 10 shield warrior unit, or do you mean ground troops? If the former, well, it's pretty near a statistical impossibility anyway. If you mean the latter, have you heard of those shoulder launched missiles? Give enough of them to some riflemen or MIs, and they could wipe out quite a few planes.

"IMO, land units should never be completely destroyed by air strikes (although a tank
unit can drop to say 5% hit points after several attacks). No matter how much you do
conventional bombing there are always survivors."

This isn't only true of bombers, of course, but every unit. Since one of my biggest complaints about Civ2 is that you can't really use the full triad, I could not be more opposed to any idea that singles out and weakens bombers.

Alot of folks seem to favor repair costs for damaged units. (I suspect they're all AofE fiends;-) I see your point in terms of realism, but this would disrupt the game's balance between war and peace. Either the repairs would have to be cheap (and therefore pointless to include in the game) or expensive enough to make civilized perfectionism the way to play. Unless other changes are made, this is unquestionably a bad idea for the game. And it seems a pretty minor thing to overhaul the game for.

[Ekmek]

Flavor Dave:
I do not know what your experience is with military matters but the concept of bombardment by bombers on reducing a unit may seem like it weakens bombers but the fact is that is what bombers do. Bombers and other indirect fire units (such as Field Artillery) define success by reducing not eliminating units. Direct fire units (like tanks and infantry) do the actually engaging and killing by either decisive maneuver or overwhelming direct firepower (depending on doctrine). Of course bombers do conduct carpet bombing but they mainly have a strategic purpose of destroying the enemy's infrastructure. Close Air support units, which are not bombers (like Apaches and A10 War Hogs) attack enemy units but they are part of the combined arms fight (even though they did
a lot of damage in the Gulf War, i.e. "The Highway of Death.") I'm sure Diodorus can back me up on this (probably with more technical info).

As for Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) and Infantry ADA weapons like the Stinger and (the latest) the Javelin are primarily for infantry units interdicting enemy close air support (like helicopters, HINDs) not for bombers. Bombers have too high of an altitude and since bombers tend not to engage infantry units (to small and dispersed) it is usually the role of fighters or ADA units (like the patriot which was originaly intended to intercept aircraft) to destroy enemy bombers and protect strategic assets.

------------------
"All great things must first wear terrifying and monstrous masks in order to inscribe themselves on the hearts of humanity."
- Nietzche

[Flavor Dave]

E--you have done a magnificent job of completely missing my point. As it is, 120 shield bombers are nowhere near as good as 1 5/7 howitzers. That's b/c they are so fragile, and can't return to a city. They just sit there and get killed by the AIs fighters (once the AI has flight). The value of the bomber is in wiping out the rifleman that is a roadblock for your howies. Even that value is limited by the fact that a howie can, with rails, move around the world in one turn, and is often "ahead" of the bombers.

So why in the hell would you want to take away the only purpose for a bomber, limited tho it is???

When you are weakening a unit that already is pretty close to useless, I couldn't care less about "real life." I'd like for Civ3 to be changed to allow me to fully employ the triad, instead of use howies and engineers to wipe out the enemy. If you prefer reality that much, play two turns and die of old age.

[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.