Thread Tools
Old July 20, 1999, 18:54   #31
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 04:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
Jon Miller: I like the first idea you've posted (the one of medium complexity) the mostso far. Adding a maneuverability factor (which could also turn into an initiative factor) would help balance the game between offense and defense better, which is Flavor Dave's (and my) primary concern. I've been worrying about the defenders getting crushed later in the game, but Flav's right, the middle game is opposed to the attacker. Maneuverability would help this, as it would be a strike AGAINST riflemen (the folks who tip the balance) and a boon FOR Mech. Inf. (who, with their 6 defense, just can't cut it against howitzers). So, a maneuverability bonus would help to alleviate both the middle game defense advantage AND the end game offense advantage.

Flavor Dave: The way I'd see an ambush working is that it would provide concealment, a defense bonus, and a bonus to retreat (since the defenders are probably hopelessly outnumbered and are expecting to lose). However, ambushers would NOT be able to take advantage of fortresses or other terrain improvements--it would be like hiding infantry in a battleship, as in it just wouldn't work. Furthermore, only one unit could be in ambush in a tile square--and if that one unit is detected by scouts or whatever, then it receives a massive penalty to defense. So what's the point of an ambush, besides realism (talk to Diodorus about that one)? Just a delaying tactic, nothing more. Damage the enemy a little bit and hope to stay alive. Then hopefully your bombers can pick them off later. Is it necessary? Probably not, but I know I'd probably use it once or twice.
loinburger is offline  
Old July 20, 1999, 20:25   #32
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
LASS(R) is a much better system than civ2 combat.
Attackers have initiative and should have an advantage over defending units in the open. Terrain can negate this by making the attacker take so long initiative is lost.
The terrain bonus can never excede the amount gained by the attacker haing inititive.
Fortification bonuses still count.

attackers take adavantage of combined arms.
If stacked with a ranged unit, the ranged unit makes 1/4 of the rounds in a regular bombard against the defender/attacker
Having infantry combined with mobile troops gives a 0.5x the combat rating of the unit not dirreectly involved in the attack as a bonus.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old July 21, 1999, 15:00   #33
Flavor Dave
Prince
 
Local Time: 08:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 452
And what makes the defense's advantage in the middle so bad (with pikemen and musketeers) is that this is the same period in which the great, game-changing, permanent, all-city wonders are available. So you shut down the military and try to build as many of Mike's, JSB, Adam Smith, Darwin's, Hoover Dam, UN, as possible. Boooring.

AN ABSOLUTE MUST FOR CIV3--all sea units act like they're in a fortress (die one at a time). This will end the tyranny of the cruise missiles, which I HATE!!! It will make a navy worth building, since you wouldn't have the constant threat of losing a battleship, a transport, an aircraft carrier, and all the poor soldiers on the transport, due to a barrage of 5 cruise missiles.

About concealment--let me make an alternative suggestion. Firaxis has another game called Gettysburg! You can put your units in one of 3 formations--line (for combat), column (for movement) and skirmish (for delaying the enemy.) You put units in skirmish formation in front of your troops, hopefully in woods, or behind rocks. They cover a broad front, and basically take one or two shots at the approaching enemy before turning and running. They do alot more damage than they suffer, and can really slow down the enemy. I suggest adding skirmish to fortify and sleep, available with leadership or something. Only one unit in skirmish formation per tile. It gets a big combat bonus, maybe triple defense (limit other bonuses, or else it's too powerful, IMO--perhaps terrain but not fortress, for example) with this provision--once it gets to 70% strength, it stops fighting. The unit in skirmish is ALWAYS the first to fight.

This would go a long way to slowing howies, at least if the AI is improved as far as its use of terrain and fortresses. Even a humble rifleman will likely give some damage to a howie, and it will still be there. At worst, it will take the howie two attacks to wipe out one unit.

So your tank or howie uses one of its attacks, probably gets close to yellow, or even close to red if it's an MI. Then the next attacker takes on the non-skirmish unit, and let's say wipes him out. Then the attacker still has to finish off the (now out of skirmish formation) first defender. If you set up a picket line of 2-3 fortresses, with one unit in skirmish and one not, that would have to be one hell of a howie dump to get thru. You'd use 3 units' turns (likely, altho it could be 2 or 4) just to get one tile.
Flavor Dave is offline  
Old July 21, 1999, 20:54   #34
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 04:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
Flavor Dave: I love the skirmish idea! That is EXACTLY what I had hoped Ambush and Raid would be able to do, but so long as it doesn't get too powerful, Skirmish could replace them both very easily.

BUT: there was another reason that I liked the idea of an Ambush unit, and that was to provide a "sensor array" (or whatever) before that tech became available. With the addition of Skirmish then Ambush would no longer be necessary, in fact it would be almost pointless, but I would still like a special ability or basic ability to be Conceal or Scout (probably Scout, I suppose), which would provide a sight bonus (unit can see farther) and provides concealment, but provides no other combat bonuses (in face it may provide a combat penalty, especially when attacking from a Scout stance) and can only be performed by certain specialized units. Just a unit to be your eyes and ears without the Sensor Array (or whatever) tech.

But as I said, I like the idea of the Skirmish position.
loinburger is offline  
Old July 21, 1999, 21:04   #35
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
The CLAS-D combat system (modifed from the LASS system)
(note: all specific numbers are, obviously, arbitrary and would be subject to play testing)
All units are given combat ratings for:
close \ land \ air \ sea \ defense

close: is for non-ranged, within domain fighting (two legions fighting)
land \ air \ sea (LAS) : is for ranged combat against each domain. all combat between units from different domains or between air units is considered ranged.
defense: is the amount the opponents combat rating is reduced by. This makes certain modern units involnerable to weaker ancient units, like a tank vs. a phalanx in the open.

The rating used in a battle is called the combat rating.

The combat system:
Each round a number between 1 and 100 is picked for each combatant. If it is equal to or less than their modified combat rating the other takes damage equal to the units FP.
close combat proccedes to the death of one unit.

Ranged combat runs for a number of rounds equal to the percentage of max HP the attacker had at the start of combat.

Attackers get a + to attack due to them having initiative. Rough terrain takes away some or all of this bonus, but can never give a net penalty.

Infantry get +25% normally and +50% vs. cities and forts.
mobile units get +50%.
River, hills forest, etc. take away -25%
mountains, galciers, etc take away -50%

Fortifying and forts and city walls gives +50%.

Stacking.
The main attacker is the unit used to launch an attack, and the main defender is the one with the higest combat rating (or designated for it).
If the main unit is an infantry type the auxillary unit is a mobile type, and vice-versa if the main unit is mobile. For naval combat most ships qualify as both.
The ranged unit on each side is the one with the best applicable LAS rating.

The attacker initiates combat and uses 1 MP. The auxillary unit adds 0.5x times it's close rating to the main unit (for both sides). Every 4th turn any damage taken goes to the auxillary unit instead of the main unit. The ranged unit makes an attack every 3rd round. The auxillary and ranged units for the attacker use 1/3 or 1/2 MP.
This allows a simple way of giving benifits to a combined arms strategy. Some units can be used in more than one roll. Mech inf count as both infantry or mobile. Armour are mobile or ranged. The attacker can choose which units act as auxillary and ranged combatnts, nearby aircraft can be used as ranged units also.

Bombards
bombards are ranged combats without the close fighters involved.
Not all units that have a combat rating vs. a domain can bombard it.
cannons can only bombard land, even though they have a relativly good rating vs. sea. If a ship bombards a square with a cannon in it the cannnon shoots back. (it has to wiat for the ships to get in range, even if they are trying to hit the temple, the cannons still shoot back)
In a bombard the defender is the unit with the best LAS rating. The target is what takes damage, not neccisarily the same thing. For older tech units this is random for every round, as tech gets better the target can be chosen, and hit, with more presision.

Raids
Raids are similiar to bombards, except they are conducted by mobile units, with both using their close combat rating. After the number of rounds given by HP is finsihed they automatically retreat. Ships can also conduct raids.

Defense:
dragoons, riflemen, ship of the line are the first units to recieve any defense rating, with 1-2. Stealth-fighters have a small amount also.
Mech inf. cruiseres, carriers, marines, etc have a miedium amount, 2-3.
and Armour, battleships, subs, stealth bombers. have the most.
These are all units that are very hard to damage with even WWII weapons, or in the case of subs/stealth bombers, you need modern weapons to hit at all.

Air combat. Air units are based in cities, airbases/forts, and carriers. They can only be moved between cities by deploying them. All air units have 1MP, with which they can launch an assult (normal ranged combat) or assist in 2-3 ground/naval assults anywhere within their range, or they can re-deploy. Fighters can intercept one incoming assult per turn, and bombers can intercept one naval unit per turn if they have MP left (even a fraction).
Air units do not have a close combat rating, all air combat is considered ranged.
When a fighter intercepts an incoming unit it does a normal ranged attack against it. If the incoming unit survives, it continues to it's taraget, but attacks for fewer rounds do to lost HP.
Helicopters take 2x damge in air combat. They can transport 1 infantry unit into a battle, and act as the ranged unit. They can spot submarines (% chance every turn, higher the nearedr to the sub). AIr units in a city or carrier will intercept land/naval/air units attacking that square even if they have no HP left. Only helicopters can intercept subs this way.

Terrain gives a penalty to air units attack ratings.
-25% for hils, forest, etc. and -50% for mountains, etc.
Infantry give air units an aditional -25% penalty. (infantry on mountans are very hard to kill with planes). Spies cannot be attacked with ranged combat.

All buildings have HP. They are reduced in effectiveness by damage. Both units and building require money to repair. Units cannot be repaired in enemy territory. Population can be bombarded also, at ~10-20 HP per pop point, with fractional amounts lost. TI's ahve a ~2x land or Sea rating of being destroyed.

Nuclear weapons:
Count as a stealth bomber attack against every unit, structure, TI and population in the target zone, as a regular bomber in the surrounding squares, and a Fighter in the 2 square radius (shpaed like a city radius).



------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old July 22, 1999, 08:38   #36
SnowFire
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
SnowFire's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, NY
Posts: 3,736
This is just my own bias, but I still prefer VG's VMIT Combat system, summarized <a href="http://www.firaxis.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000013.html">at Firaxis</a>.
SnowFire is offline  
Old July 23, 1999, 14:27   #37
Mo
Warlord
 
Mo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 124
If stacks attack together, then there should be a way tto coordinate the attack of 2 or more stacks attacking a unit from different sides. Also if a unit is surrounded and attacked and it is lossing badly it should surrender thus creating prisoners of war which can be exchanged or sold back to the other country.
Mo is offline  
Old July 23, 1999, 15:22   #38
Flavor Dave
Prince
 
Local Time: 08:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 452
technophile--howzabout units in skirmish position can see two squares? It accomplishes the following:

1. Makes defense easier late in the game, once skirmish is available.
2. It is realistic. In skirmish position, your guys are spread out. Some will be out in front, and see the enemy coming early.

Over in the technology thread, there has been alot of talk about gateway techs. One suggestion has been modern warfare. Perhaps skirmish position will only become availabe with modern warfare. This would be similar to construction making available the "f" command for settlers.
Flavor Dave is offline  
Old July 23, 1999, 19:00   #39
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
Flav Dave,
The ambush is also something that an attacker should be able to do. That being said, 1) all units should be able to ambush/pre-emptive strike; 2)your skirmish idea sounds better than mine. I like it. But the reasons for the ambush, random combat effects are still there. To sum it up in one quote, "No plan survives contact with the enemy". While you might know SOMETHING is there, you might not realize it's a couple of enemy divisions. This could affect your commander's battle plan, with results=to the disaster outlined above. This is, in effect, "concealment". Also we're talking HUGE tiles here. If I really wanted to hide an army in one square, I could do it (just ask the Russians of WWII).

ember,
Somebody suggested a bonus to the attacker for initative. I guess it was you . I'll have to get back to you on the CLAS-D system, but it looks good. One thing I was working on was incorporating range into the LASS system; range would be a factor between units of the same domain, giving extra shots &/or STR per range difference. Range and bombard would be different; bombard would be an option chosen in the unit workshop (attacks between different domains would still be considered bombardment). If you have any comments on this I'd be very glad to see them.
What does the "defense" do in this case? What is the definition of an "aux" unit here? How does it perform?
Bombards: Another option that would be required is that land-based "bombard" units need to specify what domains they can bombard into.

Jon Miller,
Terrain bonuses, as I see them, would be tailored to the different unit chassises, since both attacker & defender fight in the same terrain. Certain things (forts & fortifying, FE) would be defender only. And as for the space domain, that'll only be used in futuristic eras. I'd rather do without it, but people want space-based weapons. Where else could we put them?

Snowfire,
I prefer my/ember's system. I'm definitely biased.
Theben is offline  
Old July 23, 1999, 20:35   #40
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
Iniative for attackers only is an issue for LASS and CLAS-D, because they use the same rating for combat, otherwise defense would be favored to much.
These systems have the advantage of alwyas having the same offense/ defense balance (assuming equal tech)

there are three basic types of land unit (for this systems purposes)
Infantry, Mobile and ranged. Many units can be counted in two catergories.
An infantry or mobile unit can iniate combat. (primary combatant) You can also include an auxillary attacker, which is the other type of ground unit (if primary is infantry, mobile is auxillary), You can alos have a ranged unit. The ranged unit can be in a differet square if it is a air or sea bombard capable unit, but all land units have to be in the same square. All sea combatants count as both Prim. and Aux., most ranged as well.

Obviosly we need 4 flags for each unit,
They are attack using rating (C\L\A\S),
a bomber might be able to attack land and sea, but not close or air (air units don't fight close anyways) Units may still have a rating in a catergory, but not be able to initate contact. Usually this air can iniate the easyest, then sea, and only a few ground units can start a fight out of domain.

Defense should apply inranged situations. Bombers for instance will tend to never be engaged in close combat.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old July 24, 1999, 02:14   #41
Iceman88888888
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Wollongong,NSW, AUST
Posts: 28
Here is my Idea--
Have a combat "view" like Deadlock BUT NOT like CTP!!!. For those who havent played deadlock The combat system was a Terrain view which was standard and consisted of 1000 "squares" that the person playing couldnt see. The Units fought on that and you could only watch them, not direct them etc. My proposition is that CIV 3 has a View like this only you choose the Tatics you want to use first. You could see each individual soldier so when you recruit armys you would have to recuit them in numbers. As Techknolegy advances their will be more and more tatics. Each Unit would have a Value for
Range of Weapons, Reload Time, Mele Combat etc. And you actully watch the combat. However you have the choice of watching or not. (I am Hoping this make scense right now)
I will post more on this idea later
Iceman88888888 is offline  
Old July 25, 1999, 19:51   #42
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 04:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
Iceman: Too much eye candy for my tastes. As I believe Theben has said, CivIII should remain primarily strategic and not tactical (I included the "primarily" bit, as I am in favor of quite a few additions which could be classified as none other than tactical). Although your idea would not necessarily turn CivIII into a purely tactical game (in fact the way you have described it this new enhancement would not add to the tactical level at all), it nevertheless detracts from the main purpose of the game far too much IMHO. I can see myself watching maybe five tactical battles before I turn them off and get on with the game. That's an awful lot of programming for an option that most of us are going to get sick of pretty quickly. So my initial response is definitely negative to your idea.
loinburger is offline  
Old July 27, 1999, 06:00   #43
Iceman88888888
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Wollongong,NSW, AUST
Posts: 28
I see what you mean, Maybe it only should come on for major battles or something,(I still like the idea of seeing all 50,000 knights storm into battle against a defended 30,000 phalanxs)
Iceman88888888 is offline  
Old July 27, 1999, 14:08   #44
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 04:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
Diodorus: I still like the idea of there being a Skrimish ability made available with Modern Warfare (or a similar tech advance) as outlined by Flavor Dave, although it might require a new name in order to not become anachronistic.

My reasons are:
-I've always viewed a Fortified army as an army ordered to "hold down the fort", aka NEVER retreat. A fortified army would receive a huge defense bonus but would be incapable of retreating and could not move/attack until the turn after becoming reactivated. A Fortified army would also not become fortified until the turn after the Fortify command was issued. This is to simulate entrenchment etc.
-A Sentried or Normal army would be one that has no orders, and so is not prepared to attack nor defend. It is prepared for both. As such, this army receives no bonuses or penalties.
-This leaves the Skirmish (name change?) army, which is the delayed retreat army. It receives a defense bonus (it is always prepared for an enemy attack) and a retreat bonus (its formation and its preparedness). While the Fortified army could be wiped out in one attack (it is almost incapable of retreating due to its formation), the Skirmishing army would almost always require at least two attacks to destroy (due to its defensive stance and retreating nature). However, you cannot put an army into Skirmish position unless you have the proper tech advance(s), and it may be that your Skirmishers would have to have sufficient morale in order to stay in formation (they'd have to be veterans or whatever).

I don't know, you're the historian, I'm just a Physics student. What do you say?

--P.S. I'm all for the Scouting/Recon special ability, howzabout a Concealment special ability (in order to make Ambushing/Raiding easier, or in order to replace Ambushing and/or Raiding?)
loinburger is offline  
Old July 27, 1999, 17:05   #45
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
Scout troops could have a vision of two squares (at two squares they see as a normal unit). At one square they can see (somtimes) camauflaged units, and they can see what is in a stack, not just the fact that there is a bunch of units there, only scouts can determine exactly what is in a stack.
In civ II terms scouts are:
horsemen, warriors, knights
Draggons, calvary, explorers (maybe double chance of seeing camauflaged units?)
Apline troops, partisans, paratroopers.
Stealth fighter, destroyer, submarine.
Spy (Very good at it)
along these lines?

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old July 27, 1999, 22:11   #46
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 04:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
I'd also like to see a Scout Vehicle type of unit, an exceptionally fast half-track or wheeled vehicle with a few anti-tank missiles mounted on it. Or maybe some artillery with anti-artillery radar.
loinburger is offline  
Old July 28, 1999, 00:45   #47
Diodorus Sicilus
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Steilacoom, WA, USA
Posts: 189
Okay, back from a big Historical Miniatures Convention, time to revisit the Wunnerful Wacko World of Gamey Computers - excuse pliss, Computered Gaming...

Reference Skirmishers. Skirmishers as screens and scouts is a limited and specific term: as used in 'Gettysburg', it relates to the system of the Napoleonic Wars through the Civil War: 1800 to about 1870. After that, almost all infantry was in some kind of skirmish formation, especially after the machinegun made its appearance.
Better: give certain units a Reconnaissance/Scouting ability, which includes the ability to screen an army or other units as related in the Skirmish posts. Scouts would also include the 2-tile 'look'. This could be applied to units in all periods without being anachronistic as the term Skirmishers would.
Ferinstance: the Scout Special Capability would go to:
Ancient:
All barbarian or Nomad units
Light Cavalry
Horse Archers
Medieval:
Unarmored Cavalry (called Hobilars, or Turcopoles among other things, in Civ terms, don't require Upgrading to Knights of your ancient Light Cav)
Early Modern:
Hussars, Dragoons, Lancers, Uhlans - all representing Light Cavalry with gunpowder weapons
Jagers, Light Infantry, Tirailleurs, etc: basically ordinary Musketeers with Special Training (cost for Special Capability) to get the Scout abilities.
Modern:
Reconnaissance or Armored Cavalry units, either on foot, motorized or armored. Again, could be 'ordinary' combat units paying extra costs for the Reconnaissance Special Capability.

The Recon Capability would be automatic for air units, but with the development of Camouflage and/or Maskirovka (Advances) an enemy could reduce the 2-tile Look to 1-tile and the screening ability would be cut in some substantial way. Adding (as a result of another set of Tech Advances) Infrared, Night Vision, or Spy Satellites would return the 2-tile vision and the max screening capability.

Recon ability in ships would be likewise limited to certain types: Triremes, Frigates, Destroyers... that could be the one reason to retain the Frigate with the Ship of the Line: the Frigate was a scout for the battleline, the SoL has 0 recon ability. The modern Destroyer has it, the Battleship does not.
Add Radar, ECM, ECCM, Helicopter-carried jamming capabilities, all would modify, reduce, or increase the effective screening and recon ability of naval units.
I've posted on some of this over in the Units thread, along with some more comments on the Recon Special Capability as it would apply to Building Units using a SMAC-type Design Workshop.
Diodorus Sicilus is offline  
Old August 1, 1999, 06:26   #48
Westergaard
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 09:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Denmark
Posts: 58
I think the class-D combat system is way too complicated, but i realy like the LASS system. One major concern however is that when removing the attack and defend values there is no difference between a defending unit and an attacking unit (obvious). The result would be that high-grade military units, like tanks, also would be used when defending cities. In Civ II you used infantry as city-defense because it was cheaper per defense point compared to attacking units such as the tank, but under the LASS system you could just as well use a tank for defense since it's much stronger in land combat.

One possible solution could be to introduce bonuses to infantry defending against tanks.

Rifleman (strenght 5, defending: +100%) : 10
Tank (strenght 10, no bonus) : 10

Another solution could be that only infantry gained terrain, city wall, and fortress bonuses. Or maybe tanks just got smaller bonuses. I think this is the most realistic solution, since I can hardly imagine tanks fighting any better when behind city walls. And infantry should be the units defending the cities, just like Civ II.

This way infantry would be butchered on plains, give a good fight in forests, and really kick ass when dug in on a mountain side or behind city walls.

This system would have the strenghts of the LASS system (musketeers can't kill planes) and the civ II system, where you used tanks for attack and infantry for defense which is, in my opinion, very realistic.

One of the reasons for LASS given in the summary was that in strategic combat attacker & defender changed often during the battle. And even though that might be true, you still attack with everything you've got but when the battle is over it's the infantry who moves in to make sure the newgained land stays on your hands.
Westergaard is offline  
Old August 1, 1999, 11:03   #49
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
Westergaard,
The LASS system is meant to include some basics found in SMAC, especially the fast units get attack bonus in open, and infantry get bonus in cities. That should help your concerns.
The CLAS-D system tries to cover gaps in the LASS system, mainly a lack of range being included & giving the attacker an "initiative" bonus. The simplicity of LASS is one of it's strengths, but it still needs fleshing out.
Theben is offline  
Old August 7, 1999, 10:06   #50
Jimmy
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Madison, IN, USA
Posts: 59
First, I want to strongly suggest a "recruitment" system for troops. In colonization, you would build muskets and assign a citizen to them to make an infantry unit. I really like this idea and want to see something like it in civ3.
1)It is realistic: war means people die and therefore has a very heavy cost. It also handles an army returning back to civilian life better than disbanding. You keep the weapons for a later time, just reassign the citizen back to a civilian job. You don't have to build another unit, just reassign the citizen back to the muskets if you need a military unit.
2) It makes warmongering more difficult , not any harder than it is in real life, but no longer as easy. It is absurd how easy it is in civ2 or SMAC to go on a conquest.

My second suggestion is to revamp the SMAC "morale" concept. The following suggestion I developped with my grandpa who is a ww2 vet, and gave me extremely valuable insight into the difference between what training gives a soldier and what actual combat gives the soldier in terms of experience.
1) call it "experience" not morale, that is a misuse of the word.
2)have "green","displined","trained","hardened""expert"an d "elite".
3) All new troops would always start at "green". Leaving them for 1 turn in a base with barracks would upgrade them "disciplined", another two turns, they would go to "trained" and this is how far base facilities would take a unit. Only combat would take them to "hardened" then "expert" then "elite".
This would represent time it takes to train your army, the fact that training can only take a soldier so far, combat gives a soldier the extra experience that training never could. It would also make troops with high experience more valuable because they would be rare.
4)Each level would give a certain combat bonus and would retreat at a certain percentage of casualties. For example, "green" would grant -10% combat and would retreat at maybe 20% casualties. "elite" would have maybe +50% combat and would never retreat.
What do you all say?
Jimmy is offline  
Old August 7, 1999, 14:42   #51
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
I strongly oppose a recruitment system.
It is not in the scale of the game. In one turn you will have compleatly replaced every person in a unit several times for less than modern era's. People in a unit don't decrease the citie's pop, especially since the number of soldiers is low relative to the total pop, and they live there between tours of duty.
It adds a huge burden of micromanagment, with no real gain.
You can simmulate the price of war just as easily by making all repairs cost gold proportional to the damage taken.

On the moral/experiene system, I aggre that moral is a bogus term. Maybe overall moral can simulate adding or subtracting a level of experience. Those fanatical, but green troops may be as effective as trained, but normally motivated guys.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old August 7, 1999, 16:28   #52
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
Hi all

actually ember you are not correct, in many times in history the population of countries have been severrely hurt by to many men away at war

examples of these times are WW1, WW2, US civil war, and many other times

this was true in ancient times as well

Jon Miller
Jon Miller is offline  
Old August 7, 1999, 17:39   #53
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
But that was useually when wars were fought on a counties home soil.
In civ terms, loss of life is not caused by creating a unit, but by losing it. THat's the problem with the model of building units with pop, units don't disband for thousands of years.

THere is already a mechanism proposed to simulate pop loss from war. When cities are attacked improvments take hits whenever the defender does (% chance), pop points count as structures for this purpose.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old August 7, 1999, 17:51   #54
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
hi all

in WW1 so many US men were out to war that US productivity was hurt (this was true for many other nations as well) and partly to offset this women were allowed into the workplace (gave the womens movement a huge jump)

during the war and after there were so man men gone from Germany and France that both had problems with there industry

I'm not saying what the right way to handle this is, all I am saying is that this is important

Jon Miller
Jon Miller is offline  
Old August 7, 1999, 21:28   #55
Jimmy
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Madison, IN, USA
Posts: 59
Ember: you said that "In civ terms, loss of life is not caused by creating a unit, but by losing it. That's the problem with the model of building units with pop, units don't disband for thousands of years."
I believe this issue would not be a problem with my idea and I wish to demonstrate why some kind of "recruitment" system should be included and would not be a problem.
My recruitment idea does not substract pop when the unit is "built" but only when it is destroyed. The computer would not substract any pop points when the unit is built but if the unit was destroyed, it would look at what city was supporting that unit and substract the appropriate amount of pop points at the moment that the unit is destroyed. This would solve the problem you raise, and accurately represent the loss of life that all wars entail. If you send hordes of units out to fight and lose them there should some pop loss because those units were composed of people. In a civ2 game, after maybe 300 turns of playing, I check my defense minister and the casualties and I see that since the beginning of the game I lost a large number of units maybe 30 chariots, 10 legions and 20 warriors but no pop loss !! I think that is simply unrealistic and makes war a completely unbalanced strategy. Also, in civ2, players almost never disband units because they would have to rebuild them. A "recruitment" type system would make disbanding more advantageous because the city would gain productivity and you would keep the weapons stored away, if you needed the unit again, you could get it back right away.
Jimmy is offline  
Old August 7, 1999, 22:52   #56
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
Ok, that sounds better.
How much pop would be represented by one unit?
I would guess 0.100 ro 0.250 pop would be reasonable.
Does this also introduce a maximum amount of units per city?
(as an example a city of 3 loses enough units to bring it's pop below 0, but destroying the city is unreasonable.)
maybe a max of 2 per pop in your civ. If regions are used you could jsut drain the pop off the region as a whole.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old August 8, 1999, 19:58   #57
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 04:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
LONG POST:

Sorry for the length of this post, but I've been gone on vacation for awhile.

Population loss due to war: In the Movement/Supply thread, back when it still existed, Korn suggested that a new Specialist be created, the Soldier Specialist. Depending on the Support level of your Social Engineering choices, every Soldier Specialist would produce a certain number of "swords" (as opposed to "shields") which would be used to support a unit. For example, if your Support rating was 5, and you were supporting 10 tanks, then let's say that the first five tanks were free and the next five tanks would cost 2 swords each to support. Each Soldier Specialist would produce 5 swords per turn, so you've effectively decreased your population by 2 people because of supporting your tanks (these Soldier Specialists actually represent just the support staff of the unit. The population loss from the unit's death is still considered negligible). Furthermore, every Soldier Specialist gives -2 to Econ (money spent on support), +1 to Happiness (more jobs), and either -2 to Research (if you're researching a "peaceful" tech) or +2 to research (if you're researching a "warlike" tech). That being said...
loinburger is offline  
Old August 8, 1999, 23:51   #58
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 04:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
UNIT ORDERS:

I have always favored being able to ambush/conceal/scout/flank an enemy. Despite the fact that, yes, CivX is a tactical game, I continue to feel that giving STRATEGIC level orders to units will enhance the game by adding another level of complexity to it.

GIVEN: The examples I will give will be based on the old Att/Def/Move system, with only two levels of experience: veteran, and not veteran. However, my unit order examples can be modified to fit nearly any combat system (such as LASS) as need be.

GENERAL ORDERS:

Concealment: Every unit will have a base % chance at successfully concealing itself, typically about 0% for tanks etc. and 5% for infantry. Some units (scouts, explorers) get bonuses to concealment. Terrain also adds/subtracts from concealment (alpine troops conceal better in mtns., etc.). The Concealment special ability also adds to the base concealment %.
Concealment Order--Shift + C. This adds to the concealment abilities of a unit. The order takes 1 MP to effect, and slows movement by 50% thereafter. (there are exceptions to this, such as alpine troops in mtns.)
Concealment, well, hides your troops, giving you the element of surprise. It is NOT an ambush, though. Troops attacking out of Concealment gain +25% to ATT. If an enemy unit attempts to move into a space containing one of your concealed units and fails to detect it in doing so, battle commences and your unit gains +25% to DEF. If the enemy unit detects your unit, battle does not commence.

Scouting: Every unit gains a base scouting percentage, and certain terrains allow for scouting better than others. Scouting special ability adds to a unit's scouting ability.
Scouting order--Shift+S. Order takes 1 MP to implement, and reduces movement by 50% thereafter. (concealment + scouting = 25% movement).
Scouting increases the chances of detecting Concealed units and also increases line of sight--if a unit has a high enough Scouting ability then it can see 2 or even 3 spaces ahead. If Unit Stacking is used, then Scouting will also provide additional information about the enemy stack--supply level, fighting strength, commanders, etc. Also, if mines are used, then Scouting allows for the detection+removal of mines.

DEFENSIVE ORDERS:

Fortify: Fortifying is the act of garrisoning a position for long-term occupation, and holding that position at all costs. This means building forts, earthworks, minefields, etc. All this takes time.
Fortify Order-- F. The Fortify order takes 1 turn to take effect--the defending unit gains no bonuses on its first turn fortifying. Defender gains Fortress x 2 + Terrain + 150% + (Veteran Standing) to DEF. Defender cannot Conceal, but gains +50% to Scouting. Defender WILL NOT RETREAT! But, defender cannot move for 1 turn after Fortify order is ended (although it is still considered Fortified during this turn). This means that you cannot sally forth from a fortification.

Hold: This is the act of putting up temporary breastworks, clearing forests in order to get a clear shot, and digging trenches, all with the intention of holding a position at all costs.
Hold Order-- H. The Hold order takes effect immediately, and consists of Fortress + Terrain x 1.5 + 100% + (Veteran Standing) to DEF, but get -50% to ATT. A unit must be a Veteran in order to Hold, and a Holding unit WILL NOT RETREAT! The Hold order can be broken immediately, which means that a unit can attack directly from Holding. Holding units cannot conceal but gain +25% to Scouting.

Delay(skirmish): This is the act of just slowing down the enemy with the full intention of giving up ground. Just get yourself some riflemen, put them behind trees, shoot, and run before the trees get bombed to sawdust.
Delay Order-- D. Delay order is effective immediately, and remains effective even after a retreat. Delaying units gain Terrain x 1.5 + (Veteran Standing) to DEF (note that they do not get a Fortress bonus) and lose -50% to ATT, and also gain +75% to their Retreating chances. When the unit occupies its new position, it reverts automatically to its Delay orders. A Delaying unit must have Veteran standing, and its Retreat chances decrease 5% for every 10% health the unit loses. If a Delaying unit fails to retreat, then for the remainder of the battle it loses -50% to DEF (the unit's plans went awry). Delaying units gain +50% to Concealment and +50% to Scouting.

Ambush: This is concealing your unit in a square and waiting for an enemy unit to stumble into your trap.
Ambush Order-- A. Ambush order requires 1 turn to implement. Battle commences immediately upon enemy entering your square--it gets no second thoughts, and neither do you.
If ambush is undetected: ambushing unit(s) gain Terrain x 2 + 200% + (Veteran Standing) to DEF. (note, again, no Fortress bonus). Unit cannot attack until order is broken.
If ambush is detected by enemy: ambushing unit(s) gain Terrain + (Veteran Standing) - 50%.
Ambushing units gain +75% to Concealment and nothing to Scouting.

ATTACK ORDERS:

Raid: An aside--I feel that there should be supply bars on units (I will discuss my ideas for this elsewhere), but suffice to say that supplies depend in movement Terrain Improvements (roads, railroads, etc.), and that a unit's supplies determine its fighting ability for later.
Raid Order-- Shift + R (denoted by small 'r' at lower left corner of unit). May only be performed by units with 2 or more movement points available, and units which are Veterans. Defending unit gets no terrain bonus and half fortress + fortify bonus (if there is a fortress and/or the unit is fortified), and the Raiding unit gets Terrain + (Veteran Status) + 50% to ATT, BUT: 10% of the damage done by the Raiding unit is done to the defending unit(s), 40% is done to the supplies, and 50% is done to the terrain. Supplies damage is turned into reduced supplies for the defending unit, and terrain damage can result in one or more Terrain Improvements being destroyed. (the order of TI destruction precedence is: Supply Relay, Rail/Maglev Station, Port, Airport, Maglev, Railroad, Road, Farm, Mine, etc.) Raiding units gain +25% to Concealment and +50% to Scouting, and gain an extra move which cannot be used as an attack. The turn after the raid (the unit now has an 'r' on its lower left corner, but it is not highlighted), the unit cannot Raid, and it receives -50% to ATT and DEF (the unit is tired). Raiding units also gain +75% to Retreat, but if Retreat fails, then all additional damage is done to the enemy unit and the Raiding unit gets -50% to ATT for the remainder of the turn.
If the Supply system is used, then Raiding will be a crucial way to soften up the enemy by cutting off his supply lines (ripping up railroads) and stealing his supplies.

and finally...
Blitz: Can only be done by Veterans and units with 3 or more move points. This order is true "lighting war." A Blitzing unit CANNOT RETREAT, cannot scout, and cannot conceal. Also, it gets -25% to DEF for the turn after it blitzes. (additionally, if the supply system is used, a blitzing unit will use more supplies than a regularly attacking unit). Blitzing units get +50% + (Veteran Status) to ATT, and upon killing/driving off an enemy will immediately occupy the vacated square WITHOUT USING ADDITIONAL MOVE POINTS. So if my tank blitzes your rifleman and my tank wins, my tank now occupies the square where your rifleman used to be and I didn't use any more move points. This is ideal for use against Delaying units. HOWEVER: Ambushing units get an additional +150% against Blitzing units.


Well, that does it. Conceal, Scout, Fortify, Hold, Delay(skirmish), Ambush, Raid, Blitz. Obviously, not all of these will be available at once: most will require tech advances, and Blitzing in particular can only be done with modern units.

One addition:
If Generals and Commanding units are used (0 ATT, 0 DEF), then this Orders system would complement the Commander unit. For example, you could train commanders to be experts in specific parts of war, or you could train them to be experts in ALL parts of war, depending on how much money/time you want to spend on them. If a Commander has expertise and/or experience in one particular type of warfare, he/she will give bonuses/reduce penalties for their unit when issued that order. And if you specify which types of warfare your commanders are good at, then it would be cheaper to make a Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example, than a Robert E. Lee, because Forrest wouldn't have all the expertises that Lee had.
loinburger is offline  
Old August 9, 1999, 06:19   #59
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
Yes, morale is a bad term, but unless it gets used for something else no harm is done (experience still sounds better though). Did you have any ideas for morale separately?

The max training is a good idea, and should be implemented. Should there still be a SE choice that increases base morale (experience)?

The separate construction of arms isn't a good idea, IMHO, and is not in the favor of civ-type games.

Jimmy, the destruction of units causing pop loss is great! I fully support it! I remember hearing long ago of a war with Paraguay on one side, and Bolivia, Argentina, & Brazil on the other. Naturally, Paraguay got crushed, afterwards there were 28,000 men left in the country as compared to 2 million women! This would require a max unit per city.

technophile,
I am strongly against any "specialist" citizens, so I vote against soldier specialists.

The orders...some are good & some I must question.
Concealment: I would think that a concealed unit should not be able to move, unless it is small enough to avoid detection. It's one thing for an explorer or band of partisans to hide while moving, it's another to hide 10 armored divisions rumbling down the highway.

Scouting: Did anyone ever play the boardgame 'Flattop'? It had strategic levels of scouting that I think civ3 could use.
Lvl 1: Something is there. You don't know who, what or how many.
Lvl 2: You get a reading between 1/2 to x2 the actual number of enemy units.
Lvl 3: A mostly accurate number of units, and you know what some of them are.
Lvl 4: All info known.
Of course, detection should not be automatic. Scouting adds +% to detection and some techs would add to your chances. Some techs may subtract from detction.

Fortify & Hold: If I understand your numbers, a defender gets fort x2, so +400%+terrainx1.5, let's say hills, for +150%+another +150% for a grand total of +700% to defense (this assumes they aren't multiplied together, and someone's research a while ago suggests they are, so it'd be +800%). Don't you think this is a bit much? Under these circumstances, why build forts at all? They're LESS defensive! A def 2 unit (non-vet) would have a modified def of 16 or 18. No way! Leave it as is!
As for hold, this should be gotten rid of. Why? Because it invites offensive counter-manuevers. Encircling or pincers often were the answer to hold actions, negating the effect of the hold. Fortifying is one thing, and that's okay, but the hold action isn't. And why would only vets be able to do it? The no retreat for fortifiers is good, though.
Delay: Again, why vet only. The greenies should be lead by vet officers who can give commands. Anyway, simply allow the player to slow combat with a hotkey, and then have another one to order a unit to retreat. Have units assigned a number, and by pressing the number it will attempt retreat. If more units than 9 are allowed in combat then simply use 2 numbers. Assume your commander knows he should start fighting a delaying action, and leave it up to him.
Ambush: I've posted my thoughts on this before. I'd say here that a detected ambusher gains no bonus. Must be concealed 1st to ambush, or at least be completely undetected.

Raids: These should be done to the supply network, not the unit. Simply 'pillage' or give a 'raid' command that would be the same as a banditry/pirating command (instead of pirating trade lines you're pirating supply lines).

Blitz: How about allowing armies that destroy all defenders in a square can occupy it at no cost to move?

Generals/Leaders: These should appear. You cannot build them, ever.
Theben is offline  
Old August 9, 1999, 14:52   #60
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:23
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
wow, 28000 - 2 million are really good percentages

;~)

how about my generals/leader ideas? (seen in SE and radical ideas)

these would probably have no bonuses (I guess they could have small ones) and you would have to use them if your SE choices made you lose some of the control of the military (in this case)

this would accurately reflect the fact that some of the problems of certain in other ways more favorable SE choices is that loss of control

I think that how many units you have should be limited by your population and that you should lose population when your units die

how this is done I am not completely sure of, if specialists are used the soldier specialist is ok (I know specialists are not realistsic) as a means to limit your troops, perhaps you could only have a certain percentage of your pop or your people(what you see in the city screen)

you should just lose pop if the units die in a certain time frame (like 20 years) so that early on you don't lose pop but later it is much easier to (to many people die at once)

I still sort of like my method which is make one worker in you city screen to add to the manpower bin (which you then make troops from and hp relates to how many troops there are), the worker disappears but the number of pop he was is added to the manpower bin (like 10000, 20000, ect) this shows the true benifit of more populous nations, the pop in the manpower bin can then be brought out to become a worker in that city screen again (showing that that percentage of your population is going back to your cities, the pop in the manpower bin are not exact people, rather they are an ever shifting group of the people who can be used to go to combat), if the unit is loss the pop from the manpower bin that went into it is lost, if it is disbanded the pop that went to create it goes back to the manpower bin (and if the player wishes, back to producing)

Jon Miller
Jon Miller is offline  
 

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 04:23.


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