COMBAT (ver 2.0)hosted by Redleg & Theben

[loinburger]

Theben: I understand that you are opposed to specialists of all types, but even if Civ III gets rid of specialists (which I suppose would be fine with me) I would still be in favor of Soldier Specialists. My reasons are:
My idea for how supplies should work are that supplies originate from different cities/supply depots and must be moved to where the soldiers are. This means that there is no such thing as a home city--you could supply all of your soldiers from only one city, so long as you had enough soldier specialists in that city.
There would be two separate Social Engineering modifiers: Corruption and Efficiency. Corruption deals with trade as per Civ I and Civ II, but Efficiency deals with moving supplies around.
Say I've got a tank unit. It needs 3 supplies (swords) each turn. However, I might have to manufacture more than 3 supplies to keep the tank from losing strength, because of a lack of efficiency.
Effeciency would be determined by:
Distance from supplies origin,
Distance from border (efficiency drops dramatically when you leave your country),
City improvements in supplying city (two city improvements would be the Supply Depot and the Ammo Dump, each of which would increase the efficiency of the Soldier Specialists),
and Terrain Improvements connecting unit to supplying city (the farther the supplies have to travel, the more inefficiencies are caused).

So lets say that that tank that needs 3 supplies is receiving those supplies at only 20% efficiency. That means that in order to keep the tank fully supplied I would have to either produce 15 supplies (which means I'd have to make more soldier specialists), create more terrain improvements (railroads and maglevs connecting the tank to my supplying city), or I could shift supplies manufacturing to a closer city (thus eliminating some distance and some inefficiency).

I will post my complete ideas about supplying in a more appropriate thread. But I stand by Soldier Specialists, even though I wouldn't cry over Scientists, Tax Collectors, and Entertainers leaving the game. But, the benefits of having Soldier Specialists (decreased usefulness of population and specialization of supply manufacturing) could probably be implemented some other way. If you think of a way, let me know.

[loinburger]

Theben:
As for the unit orders:

Concealment: I agree with you about not being able to move if the unit's size is too large. This can be solved by, as you say, making only certain units capable of concealed movement, or it can also be solved by giving multiple concealed units a tremendous concealment penalty (1 unit, 50%; 2 units, 10%; 3 units, 2%; etc.).

Scouting: Again, I agree, this time without any reservations. Such a system would be perfect.

Fortify: Did I give Fortify that big of a bonus?!? Whoops! Oh well, the playtesting can determine the numbers. Just let the record show that Fortify gets a BIG bonus.

Hold: Reason for having only veteran troops be able to Hold is that their orders are to hold AT ALL COSTS. For green troops, telling them to hold at all costs is one thing, having it happen is something else entirely. I did not give this restriction to Fortified troops because I figured that they were so well dug in that as soon as the green troops decided to retreat they would find that they couldn't (their pillboxes would be surrounded, let's say).
Your idea about selectively retreating units would solve this problem: just don't issue the retreat order, and the veterans won't retreat (maybe the greens still will, though). That had been my intention all along: to insure that my units won't retreat by issuing a Hold order.

Delay: Same thing as for Hold, this order is unnecessary if there is selective retreating. Without selective retreating, however, I'd still like to have it.

Ambush: I was actually giving ambushers a penalty if they were detected.

Raid: If my supply ideas are used and supply effeciency is determined by terrain improvements, then Raids would be used primarily to destroy railroads and supply relays (a new TI I would propose to go along with the supply system) in order to cut supplies off. The way I'd see it working is:
10% of the damage is done to the enemy unit(s). This is because the raiders kill a few scouts and whatnot on the raids.
40% of the damage is done to the enemy's supplies. This is because the raiders' primary target is the supply trains of the enemy.
50% of the damage is done to the terrain. WHAT I MEAN BY THIS IS: We all know that artillery units will probably be able to bombard TI's, and we all know that TI's can be pillaged. Raiding is a hit-and-run on the TI's: hence the extra movement point that I give to raiders, giving them time to retreat. Pillaging is still preferable because raids cause some damage to the raiding unit, even in unoccupied territory (farmers will guard their farms, and you're going through too fast to properly deal with them, so you suffer a few casualties). But, in occupied squares, raiding is the only way to destroy a TI. But, there is no real point to raids if there isn't a supply bar on the units.

[Theben]

Jon M,
Yeah, I always thought it would have been a great place to move to after the war...

I'm not familiar w/your ideas on generals/leaders, so you may wish to post them here again. But they really should go into UNITS. My ideas for them simply add +1 experience to units grouped with it, reduce any negative effects of Random Combat Effects (described elsewhere), can buy military units as diplomats, or pay them to disband, and enemy units about to die may switch to your side. Of course Nationalism tech or certain SEs may not permit the last 2.

I like your 'manpower bin' idea, but it has one major flaw: those soldiers didn't spend all their time campaigning or training away from home. The vast majority of their lives were spent living as civilians. So their impact on their city's production is negligible. Now if it's a scenario, say the WWII Pacific theatre, I can see this being a valid idea. Maybe it should be allowed as a scenario tool, but I don't think it should be in the game proper.

Technophile,
Someone suggested a difference between corruption & efficiency somewhere else; I guess it was you. I can see how that would work. Based on what I know (not much) that 20% efficiency would be the minimum any supply network could reach and not be raided. Most figures (that I've seen) say that logistic crews equalled about x2 the actual military soldiers.
Aside from my aversion to specialists in general, the main reason I don't like them is Korn 469's -2 Econ with them. Doesn't taking them out of the field constitute enough of a penalty? As far as the nuts n' bolts of efficiency, the distance mods, the supply TI's, that's all good. I'd include tech as a factor in efficiency. But I'm lost as to why we need soldier specialists.

Fortify: Isn't +50% a big bonus?
Hold: Green troops that can't retreat and want to would probably break and be routed. This not only would remove any bonus for defense but would give a penalty. Again I must point out the game is strategic in scale; the bonus for defense & maybe the route effectively cancel each other for game purposes.

Ambush: I read it wrong. Sorry.

Raids: I see no need for a supply bar. Unsupplied units take damage and this is realistic. Using supplies could cause a minimal amount of "damage", which can be "repaired" by resupply. Raids are a good idea, but I like my version.

[marc420]

My apologies if this has already been discussed. But how about looking at how fighting in and around a city affects the structures and improvements of the city.

Currently, you lose population in a city when you lose a battle there, but frequently the structures of the city are untouched. What I'm thinking of is having the a possibility that any improvements in a square where a battle takes place be destroyed.

In the open areas around a city, this could result in farms, mines, railroads being destroyed by combat. And more importantly, when fighting takes place in a city, the improvements of that city should be at risk. This could include Wonders.

Two other options this opens up.....
Both the Attacker and the Defender could have an option of going to "Unlimited War" during a battle. This option would raise combat values, but also increase the destruction caused by a battle.

Also, this could open up the idea of Strategic Bombing. Air and Missile attacks on a city could have an option of attacking improvements or units in the city. Or maybe they should have to eliminate the defenders before getting to the improvements.

I believe either would be an enhancement to the strategy of Civ because they would raise the cost of warfare. A military attacker may conquer cities, but the cities he conquers may be a blasted ruin. An a stalemate war could be costly for both sides by devastating a border region.

By increasing the destruction of war, you raise the price of war in game terms.

[loinburger]

Marc: The building + TI destruction resulting from war has been discussed (the version I like best is that every building gets hit points, and battle reduces hit points), but I do not believe that anybody has yet discussed an "unlimited warfare" option. I personally like this idea, and think that it can be applied as another order:

Devastate Order: Shift + D (denoted by a small 'd' in the lower right corner of unit). The way I see this working, it would benefit the defender more than the attacker (the defender already occupies the farms/houses), so I would give +1% x (number of city improvements) +1% x (population of city) + 10% to DEF. This means that if a city has a population of 10 and 5 city improvements, the defenders would get +25% to DEF. However, this would result in more civilian casualties than usual, and would also damage the buildings more than usual. In non-city fighting, the defender would get +10% +2% x (number of terrain improvements in square) to DEF, but the terrain would be severely damaged and several improvements may be destroyed. The attacker does not occupy the city's houses, but can level them to the ground in an "unlimited war." This, however, is not as powerful as the defender's advantage, and so an invading army on Devastate would get +10% to ATT and nothing else, although it would cause much more damage to TI's, CI's, and population.

Back to Theben:
Soldier Specialists + Supplies Redux: It doesn't seem fair that Podunk Arkansas should have to supply its own garrison in Civ III, but Montezuma is trying to capture the city that is likely how it is going to turn out--you build a garrison, the garrison's home city is Podunk, and so Podunk has to dedicate its industry towards supplying its soldiers and can't build libraries etc. If there are Soldier Specialists, however, then New York can build the supplies (turn Workers into Soldier Specialists) and ship them to Podunk, at the cost of fuel and such (Efficiency). It would be more efficient if Podunk supplied its own soldiers, but then it couldn't build jack squat with all its resources dedicated to holding off Montezuma. THAT is why I like Soldier Specialists so much--it lets the frontier cities expand faster, and allows for larger modern armies (assuming your supply lines haven't been cut). It also adds the element of "what if the enemy paradrops into the heart of my country and rips up my railroads. Sure, I can kill the paratroopers easily enough, but my supply lines are going to be shot to hell." You've got to watch your back or your front suffers.

Holding + Fortifying: Holding is what an army does when it knows it's going to get attacked but doesn't have time to fortify (or has to stay mobile and cannot fortify). It has always angered me that my riflemen cannot be told "hey guys, there are a bunch of tanks coming your way, better get ready because you're about to die." No, they just stand there, saying "what, defend ourselves? But we're not fortified." Hence, the two different orders.

[Theben]

If support is the problem then how about simply letting a unit switch it's city of support at any time, any place?

It would be like the "find city" command, and then supply is drawn from the chosen city, New York in this case, with all the distance supply factors you mentioned in the above.

As for hold, it could be assumed in the defense.

[loinburger]

Support: Yup, that would work too. If that system were used, then you wouldn't need to have Soldier Specialists. The population loss could be simulated some other way just as easily.

Blitzing: It looks like I'm making things too complicated, but at the same time you're making things too simplified for my tastes. Having a unit automatically move into a conquered square if the battle was a pushover and calling it "blitzing" doesn't satisfy me, because:
-blitzing should decrease the defender's chances of retreat,
-blitzing should give an attack bonus, because of the element of surprise, AND
-blitzing should require additional supplies, since not enough time is being taken to set up the supply lines (tremendous inefficiencies will take place on the first turn since the tanks (or whatever) have left their support staff eating dust).
These are my reasons for having a Blitz order which can be given to fast units (tanks etc.). Blitzing unit gets +25% to ATT, no scout, and no conceal, and defending unit gets -75% to retreat.
So the benefits of your system over mine, as I see them, are: it's simple (this is a big one, though) but the benefits of my system are: you can trap units which might otherwise retreat and repair, you get an attack bonus, you FORCE the extra move (it isn't a possibility, it's a "do or die" attack), and your unit suffers accordingly from loss of supplies.

Hold + Fortify: I suppose that the Hold command is implicit in defending, but I've never thought of it that way. I've always figured that my riflemen aren't doing anything but standing around picking their noses until I issue them an order. Perhaps a distinction can be made, however, if:
-Fortify cannot be performed until Construction, and it takes TWO turns to put a unit into a Fortify position (although only one to break it). Fortify units never retreat, get +50% to DEF (+75% after Engineering, +100% after Modern Warfare), and get +150% (instead of +100%) from Fortresses. Fortified units also receive +50% to Scouting.
-Hold can be performed whenever, and gives the unit +25% to DEF (+50% after Modern Warfare), but also gives -25% to ATT (units have to regroup, get out of their trenches, cross their minefields, whatever--they're less maneuverable, let's say). Hold units make full use out of Fortresses. Hold units also receive +25% to Scouting (I'm pulling the Scout numbers out of nowhere, just note that Fortified units get more Scouting ability).

So there's the way to settle it: my Riflemen aren't picking their noses anymore but are creating makeshift breastworks and digging trenches, and the units are earning their Fortify bonuses with the two turn penalty and the required tech advances. I hope I've convinced you that a Hold command is not frivolous.

Last but not least...
Delay: Sometimes you know you're going to lose, but you want your enemy to attack anyway so that he'll be slowed down (or maybe you want to lead him into a trap). It is for these times that I would want a Delay command. I like your idea of being able to issue Retreat orders in the middle of combat, but I still like the idea of being able to tell my riflemen that they're going to get slaughtered and that they should be ready to pull out. Maybe they'd get a +50% bonus to retreat or something, and this could be balanced by a penalty of some sort.

[ember]

Here's my take on the last few posts, trying to fit them in with CLAS-D.

Fortify. Only available to infantry type units. Adds bonuses as stated.

Hold. Available to both infantry and mobile types. Bonuses as stated.

Raid. Available only to mobile units. Acts as a bombard, except both units use their (C) rating, instead of the apropraite (LAS) rating as in a bombard. Good for harrasing arty or TI's.

Bombard. as is.

I don't feel that ambush fits on the scale of a CIV battle. It is included tactically with the bonuses to hold and fortify, as are minefields....

Delay is good. available to all units. When a delaying unit retreats it attempts to destroy the road/RR/base/fort as it goes (Scorthed earth).

Scouting is impicit in units with the scouting ability, like horsmen, calvary, alpine troops, spies, submarines, etc.
Scouting gives a unit 2 vision range. The second square sees as normal, and the first one can determne stack composition. (% chance)

Conceal: Available onle to Disiplined or better troops. (vets). It makes the unit look like something else (Riflemen as tanks, or modern tanks as WWII style, Horsmen like knights. In a square with multiple units, can change the number of units by double or half. scouts have a chance of detecting this. You select wether to conceal or bluff, the AI does the rest. Usefull to hide your disposition of forces.

Attacking pop/structures is already included in CLAS-D.

Intercept. For ships, planes and mobile/bombard units. Launches a raid when the enemy comes in range. Could be combined with sentry.

Sentry. +% to scouting, better chance to retreat, but not as good as delay, and without scorched earth.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[ember]

"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by ember (edited August 10, 1999).]</font>

[Theben]

Technophile,
You're right that I do try to simplify things, and perhaps I oversimplify. But that's because micromanagement is a major concern for me. When I post I always try to ask myself, "Is there a way to make this concpet easier to use and for others to understand?" Personally I wish that everyone asked themselves this before posting.

[Jon Miller]

hi all

Theben, the manpower pool is an ever shifting group of the civil service age

they are in the cities and then are moved into the pool (when an equal number are moved out, have served their term) where they then serve their term (and perhaps die in combat) whereupon they go back to the work force and are replaced by younger people

that is what I assyme, does that fix it for you?

please address

Jon Miller

[Theben]

Let me see if I got it.

1) An age group assumes military duties, whereupon it enters the pool, leaving civilian life temporarily behind
2) After a given amount of time, it leaves the pool, to be replaced by another, likely younger group. It now re-enters the civilian populace.

Is your point that over time there is a constant amount of people assuming military duty, and not performing civilian tasks?

If so, I get it now. If not, please explain further. Also if so, you'll need to go into A LOT more detail (more work for me *grumble*)
[*]How many standard sized units=a pop point?[*]Hp's should not=troop mass alone. It's also a reflection of newer equipment, training, etc.[*]Then there are tech & SE modifiers[*]Is an actual "bin" necessary? Maybe as you build units a counter in the city screen notes how many people are serving in the military? (this should be in the SUPPORT box)

Others?

[Theben]

Okay, here's the deal. I will be interpreting everyone's suggestions, so if there's something here you aren't sure you've explained well, or feel needs further updating now's the time to do it.
The deadline is the end of August. I will be aiming to finish the summary by Aug. 23rd.
Please e-mail me with any concerns you have. BTW, I will go back to include all the old COMBAT suggestions.

[Maniac]

The problem with renaming Morale to Experience is that in my SE model Morale doesn't only affect your troops but also how warlike your senate is.

[Jon Miller]

hi all

Theben, yes 1 & 2 are right

what I was thinking is that it would be population as in if you send 1 pop pt from a two pt city to the bin you get 20000 people in civ 2

A settler will take 10000 people (somewere arround there)

other units will continue growing in size (with a minimum of 100) as you try to get more hp than your enemies with technological limitations (before certain techs you can handle only so many troops)

in modern times troops would be division size

(I favor my combat system best but lass is fine, I do not like range combat instead I assume units fight using all there abilities and range is either added into the attack/defense factors, in my system, or is added to the unit as a modifier as in smacs discarded projectile/energy rules or is given modifiers ala pikemen, if something similar to the discarded rules are used it would be close/ancient ranged/modern ranged)

hp's are modified as I stated before= technological level, terrain, (desease rate), organizational level, ect. (I don't remember them all, they were back aways but not in the previous list)

the higher the technology the more effiecent the use of people are same with organization level

the modifiers are precentage lost so that bigger armies lose a lot more manpower factor

hp's would then be gotten by comparing the armies final strength factors in each battle

the city support box sounds all right but it would make population lost for each city and wasted population in the bin that is not being used

the cities spend production to equip and train the men but the men do not have to come from that city

thank you for giving me a chance to clear that up

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Theben:

First off, I detract everything I've said about Soldier Specialists--you've convinced me. The supply changes can be done much better just by allowing units to change "home cities" anytime. So long as there is some way to simulate population loss due to warfare, I'm more than content not having Soldier Specialists. So there's no need to put them in the summary on my account.

As for the Unit Orders, it looks like we're at an impasse. I want things too complicated for your tastes, and vise versa. Oh well. Until somebody comes with new suggestions/complaints, I'll leave it be. All I ask is that you find room in the summary for the orders. Particularly Devastate.


And finally, I suppose this is the correct place to post this:

ORDERS TO BE ISSUED UPON CONQUERING A CITY:
I don't like the fact that conquering a city means that you must gain control of it. I would prefer it if there were different options which your victorius army could be issued other than "Occupy." This wouldn't slow down the gameplay overmuch, I don't think, since a window pops up every time you conquer a city anyhow--might as well put a few orders in that window.

-Occupy: Same as what happens when you conquer a city now.
-Raze: Burn the city to the ground! Doesn't cause as much unhappiness + diplomatic problems as it would if you occupied the city and then razed it. Here, you just firebomb the place, and say "whoops" later on.
-Plunder: Resupply your army using the city's resources (assuming that a supply bar is used, otherwise this would plundering would slighty increase your army's health). More civilians killed, more buildings destroyed and damaged. Partisans less likely to appear (they've been killed off in the plunder, or they can't be supplied from their ruined city).
-Sack: Same as Plunder, but liberates the useless city later. See Liberate.
-Liberate: Same as Occupy, except that the city is now run by a puppet government and will not interfere with your foreign policies nor will it be any concern of yours (if the city goes into civil unrest, who cares? it isn't yours). Partisans less likely to appear. City will take care of defending itself from enemies--will essentially become a barbarian city which is initially friendly to you.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by technophile (edited August 13, 1999).]</font>

[loinburger]

One last thing:
Bombardment should be able to destroy units, although the chances of it doing so are very slim (as the unit(s) lose health they become more difficult to hit, since there's less to blow up). If Mines (as TI's--the explosive kind) and Cluster Bombs are used, these should double or triple the damage caused by bombardment.

[Mo]

I would like to have a form of researves. You would have to pay a yearly sum to supply/train them(The more you allocate the more units you'll be able to call up). When the units are on duty they require normal support. The units will probably have to be limited in some ways to balance the game. I would suggest time limits on how long a period of time you can have them deployed and resterictions to basic types of units(ie no stealth bomber).

[ember]

Does my 'deployment' system work for you?
In it units can be moved by placing them in a reserve list. These units have no absolute physical location, and do not help defend any square. They cost less to maintain. Engineers in teh reserves act as auto-setlers. You can then deploy these troops anyehre on the map where you ahve a friendly city/base/carrier, with restrictions on number per turn in isolated bases. It takes one full turn before they arrive, in which they offer no defense, and can be easily destroyed if attacked.

This allows for easier accros empire movement without sending each induvidual unit through your rail net.

For aircraft this is the only way to relocate them, because they act as long range artillery.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[raingoon]

Reading through the discussions, did I miss anybody suggesting a model for "surrender"?

I'd like to see a combat rule whereby if you surrounded a unit, or effectively cut off its supply line (if such a thing is modeled), you could capture it. I know they did something like this in Civil War Generals 2, and it was fairly effective. In this case, I'd like to see the captured war material represented by the unit becoming available to you, minus any bonuses (veteran, etc.) it previously had.

Apologies if this has already been suggested.

[Mo]

Yes, your deployment system would probably work great with the concept.

[loinburger]

I know, I know, I've already given too many orders suggestions as it is. But here's my thinking: there's no way that all (if any) of my orders suggestions are going to make it into the final product, but if I give enough suggestions then SOMEBODY might notice them. So without further apology:

PUSH ORDER: shift + P. Increases movement of unit. Damages unit. Lowers DEF and ATT.

This order is like a forced march, for those times when you absolutely HAVE to get to where you're going. -75% to Scout, -75% to Conceal, Ambushers deal +50% damage cumulative to other Ambush bonuses if a Pushing army stumbles into an Ambush. -25% to DEF, -50% to ATT. -25% to CURRENT HEALTH (not total health--Pushing cannot kill a unit, but if your unit is doing that badly, then pushing won't do it much good--see below). This damage is effected only once per turn. PUSH order must be issued at beginning of turn. Each move that unit PUSHES will cost it 40 supplies. Note that using my supply system that this will completely drain most units of supplies. MOST IMPORTANTLY, PUSHING gives +60% to current MP's (current MP's are determined by base MP's, supplies at beginning of turn, and unit health at beginning of turn). This bonus is rounded to the nearest whole number.

This is the order to issue when you HAVE to get a unit moved. Maybe there's a nuke coming. Maybe you have to fill a gap. Maybe you just want to clear a mine field (the hard way).

Oh, and one more thing--you cannot DEVASTATE and PUSH at the same time. This is just kinda common sense--how fast can you march if you're constantly ripping up railroad tracks and twisting them around trees? That type of business takes time!


THEBEN: If you want me to make your life easier for the summary I can arrange my orders suggestions in a more orderly fashion. Let me know.

[Mo]

The push command should be limited to non-mechanical units since the mechanical units have a set speed which they can't exceed because the engine isn't powerful enough.

[loinburger]

MO:

I disagree. The PUSH order simulates one of two things--a forced march (non-mechanized units) or a haphazard drive (mechanized units). When moving through terrain there are many small hazards that a unit must avoid--just one example is that in a Grassland square there are many small rivers that are not on the scale of the map but nevertheless must be crossed by the unit (see Terrain for the argument that grassland should always be irrigable regardless of whether there's a river next to it). Normally these small obstacles are insignificant--rafts are built, mountain passes are located or the mountains are circumvented, invisible partisans are easily avoided, etc. HOWEVER, if a mechanized unit is haphazardly making its way through a tile, it throws caution to the wind in order to make better time. Or maybe the tanks are low on fuel, and instead of waiting for the fuel trucks the commanders brew up grain alcohol and run the tanks on that (messing up the engines and causing damage to the unit, but saving time in the short-run). So essentially I'm assuming that all Civ units have a greater movement range than they employ (with the exception of aircraft), but that they sacrifice some of this movement in order to move without damage.

Thinking about this, I've decided that ships should also be allowed to PUSH, although I don't think they should receive as much of a movement bonus as land units (no real reason, it's just that ships already have a lot of movement compared to land units). This would be like a ship unit sailing through storms and having some of the crew blown overboard, cruising straight into reefs and shoals, and blundering into numerous other obstacles which are normally avoided.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

All military units can exceed their 'normal' movement when they really, really try. Trying is a product of the training and experience of the unit and the force of the commander. Suggest that the actual speed that the PUSH generates be linked to the General's abilities if he's with them (Units Thread on the General as an additional unit/capability) and the Experience/Morale level of the unit: veterans can go faster with less damage than raw, untrained, or green outfits.
One additional thing: if the end of the PUSH move brings you into contact/combat with an enemy unit and it's beyond the normal move distance, there should be a 'surprise' factor in any attac you make that turn. In fact, you could justify having the Attack Factor be unchanged in such a case, and only the Defense Factor reduced by the attrition of the march. This amounts to a 'blitz' effect, and we could use it to simulate not only the modern 'blitzkrieg' by mechanized/motorized forces, but also older cavalry raids and strikes by mounted troops or the kind of lightning strikes by fast moving forces lke Stonewall Jackson's 'Foot Cavalry' or Napoleon's Corps deployments.
I would exempt air units from PUSH commands. Unfortunately, there is only so much you can do to make a plane go faster, and none of them work for long or fail to do serious damage to the aircraft (overheating the engine, shallow dives, special fuels, etc). Everything else, includng sailig, oared and steam/nuclear ships, mechanized or motorized, horse or foot units, can all be pushed for varying lengths of time. Of course yu know that all of this is warping the time scale, because no unit can be pushed for an entire year!

[Maniac]

Hi, I was thinking yesterday about migration of peoples. After a while, I came up with this. I posted it in more than one thread –sorry if it annoys you- cause it covers a lot of areas.

Colonization/Migration

“How to simulate the migration of the ‘barbarian’ people at the end of the Roman Empire?” I asked myself. Cause they were in Civ2 terms some kind of settlers with a big attack and defense.
There should be a unit that represents some migrating people. Good, simply 4-2-1, settlers, one could say. But that would be an expensive unit. But the fact is that migration was unorganized and didn’t require 40 shields. It was instantaneous. In fact, there was never an organized migration of 10000 people, or just 10000 people saying “let’s found another city”.
So I began thinking about something else…

In Civ3 the Terrain Improver/Former could be deleted, well, now I suggest the City Founder unit would also loose much of it’s use until late in the game when planned colonization exists.
I am against automatic city building by the AI as some people suggest. What I suggest is you can point a tile where people may found a city. It may be any square 1) on a continent where there is already a city of yours and 2) not next to another city. All the rest is automatic with a migration system. People will move to that spot gradually if conditions are good.

I think there isn’t a migration system yet, except one based on happiness. I would let it play a much larger part in the game.
The automatic migration system would try to find a balance between labor and resources in a city.
This is to represent unemployment. If there is more labor(people) than resources(work) there is unemployment. And no work means that people migrate to parts where there is more work to do.
If there are more resources(work) than labor(people) there is work available and people migrate to other already existing cities with more resources or they will move to a spot you chose as a new city.
So cities built in large grasslands tracks will not be big cities since there would be large emigration out of the agricultural area without work.
Small cities will always have more resources than labor since they always have N+1 worked squares, where N is the size of the city. But to both solve the ICS problem AND the possible problem that large cities would not be possible since ALL the people would go to new cities, I came up with this.
The city square normally produces the amount of food if the square is irrigated, the amount of minerals with a limit of at least one and one trade if a road would normally produce trade.
I would add the following. If a city reaches two population, it gets for free 20 labor and 20 trade (don’t forget I use the x10 system). If a city reaches size 3, it produces an extra 30 labor and 30 trade in the city square. And so on… The extra bonuses are because in Civ2 a city with size 1 had 10000 people, a city with size 2 30000 and 3 60000… So of course the second population ‘unit’ produces double as much as the first, the thirth triple… or otherwise told the second pop unit produces 20 labor, the thirth 30. And of course a large city means more trade for the same reason; there are more people.
This would solve the ICS problem, since large cities are MUCH bigger production and trade centers as many small ones. I hope I have persuaded guys who would want to reduce the city square production to 0 food, shields and trade. I think my solution solves the ICS problem better since 0-0-0 city square production makes small cities produce too less trade and resources in the beginning and therefore seriously reduces migration to the newly built city.
And because the extra labor is balanced with the extra trade, automatic migration out of a city because there is a large population (much labor in my system) and too less resources compared with the population is impossible. So migration would be totally dependent of the resources of the surrounding terrain, as in reality.
This will represent more accurately the flow of people and the growth of cities in history. In CivX that was represented totally wrong with excess food since most big cities now and in the old days were mostly the big trade cities and some/most of them are were in half desert like terrain.
That would mean a lot more trade, so the game economical system could need some rebalancing. But don’t forget that people have suggested much more uses for gold eg troop support, religion, and if you read on, I suggest gold I also needed for colonization/migration.
So, let me define resources. Although in the Economy/Trade thread it is usually referred to as the replacement of shields, for this case I also count trade as resources.
So the biggest cities will be as in reality the economical cities.
But if you would some trade cities on a Civ2 map, they would have a lack of food eg Palmyra, Petra, Bokhara… So there is need for a general ‘food box’ for the entire empire. I don’t know sure, but I thought it existed in CTP. After all the food is ‘collected’, it becomes distributed over the empire as needed. Perhaps the efficiency of food transport (your SE Corruption/Bureaucracy rate)would also have to do something with how well food is distributed.
For example in a Federal structure with a Bureaucracy bonus food transport would be better than in the Confederate structure. Or if the above isn’t accepted, I insist that food trade routes are automatic and unlimited, so you don’t have to build a 50 shield caravan.

But of course the state has to say something too in migration. However before people are willing to move, they have to be paid a lot. So if you would want to speed up the growth of new cities or if you would want to move people to a food producing area with no other resources (eg a large Grassland track) you would have to pay them. I suggest per population unit 400 (x10!) gold (the price of a settlers in shields).

Population also x10?

I have a suggestion. It isn’t necessary for my migration model to work, but it would make it more precise since migration per 10000 is kinda rude and sudden. If population is also multiplied by 10, the migration model could be more precise. Migration could be more slowly, which is better.
Then you would have to pay only 40 gold for one pop unit.
Popx10 would make it impossible to have a population box as in all civlike games.
I suggest a simple box with the following information.
Happy : 20
Content : 70 + -
Unhappy : 10
Taxmen : 0 + -
Scientists : 0 +-
Entertainers : 0 + -
Rest : 0
So you would have a simple box showing the amount of people that have which happiness level or job.
The +’s and –’s are to switch eg a normal content citizen to an entertainer. For example if you would want to switch a content citizen (you can only make content citizens a special citizen (= taxmen, scientists, entertainers) and only happy citizens special if there aren’t any content ones. Unhappy people you could never makes special) to an entertainer, you click the minus of content. Then there appears automatically 1 (or perhaps 10?) in the Rest. Then click the +.of entertainer.

Recuitment

Doing pop x10 would also make a recruitment system possible, since if you keep the normal pop system, the mobilization of even one pop unit would mean a lot of Riflemen units = unbalancing and unrealistic. If it’s used, then you should not build Musketeers or Riflemen, but Muskets, Spears, Bows or Rifles. They could be stored and don’t require support. Then, in times of war, people could be mobilized, = one population unit disappears from the cities. You could mobilize people as far as you have guns, spears or any weapon in stock. Of course, if the units are killed, they can’t return to the normal city population after the war. This would simulate the loss of population in wars. However conscripted units would have the worst possible morale/experience. If you have Draft or Civil Duty as your SE Army choice, the experience could be a bit higher.

Settlers/Unit Workshop

Settlers should still exist, but they shouldn’t have the same use. First of all, you shouldn’t able to build them for reasons I have already explained. You could only get them if you click the “Migrate” button. Then your city would disband and in that process all buildings in the city would of course also be disbanded. Per 10 population units in the popx10 system, you should get one settlers. You should also be able to give the settlers any weapons you have in stock, eg spears, guns… basically creating something like armed nomads, as Diodorus wants to represents with his Tribe/Nomad ideas he presented several times in the Civilizations thread I think. That Settlers units would follow the same rules as Diodorus presented in his Nomad posts.
So the German population migration can be represented. If horses can also be built on the same way as spears and guns, you could even simulate people like the Huns or Mongols.
What I am suggesting is that in a city every item can be built: shields, chain mail, swords, guns, horses, or in later areas tanks. Then in the unit workshop you could create your army with the available weapons. So in a city you only built equipment, but to form a real army, you have to mobilize a population unit.
That means in peace time you can maintain a small army and in war recruit more units in a short time.
As I said before, mobilized units would have a bad experience/morale level.
To give them better experience, they should stay 3 turns in a city with a Barracks and then they would get 2 experience upgrades. Later in the game there could be a similar building, called Military Academy.

Oversea Colonization

Colonization oversea should require a unit I think. Some Sea Unit looking like a boat of Colombus. It should have a large movement range. And it should be able to move on land. If it moves on land it founds a coastal city. That way you expand oversea. More realistic.

Upgrading units

Upgrading units would be simplier. Just move them in a city, go to the unit workshop and change the item, you would want to change. Upgrading reduces the experience level with one.

Population Growth

As you might have guessed, I totally disagree food production has anything to do with pop growth. Food only is needed to feed the people.
Came up with the following. Not worked out in details, since I am no social historian.
But everybody can guess that population growth is dependent of two factors : the # children a family has and how long people live.
The # of children would be dependent on how many food there are produced since in earlier times children were assumed as working forces(child labor). So the more children a farmer has, the easier for him, the more free working forces he has and the less people he has to employ and pay.
So pop growth still has to do something with food, but indirectly. It should also be affected by your SE Growth or Urbanization factor. The eg Socialism Value would increase the number of children.

With the techology advance of Industrialization also the # of shields/resources would affect your pop growth. Means that suddenly two factors affect pop growth. That could simulate the fast pop growth around the same time of the Industrial Revolution.

The second thing affecting pop growth is how long people live. That should be affected by some techs like Medicine. In general the life expectancy would increase over time if medicine betters. It should also be determined by your SE Environment factor. Living in a polluted country should decrease your life expectancy.

Wow, are you still reading this? As you have read, what I am suggesting solves some problems like ICS plus it also includes some ideas of others like recruitment, nomads, migration…
It could be a real improvement for Civ3.

Goodbye
M@ni@c

[ember]

M@ni@c:

A few points.
Hitorically all major cities are on major rivers or the ocean. Or both.

The village system allows you to have early cities only on these squares and have all the food and resources brought in from the inland and fishing villages.

Happyness can be seen as how much people want to live in a city... In this case it is the biggest factor in immegration/emmigration. Up unitl recently unemployment has not been an issue. Everyone could have some work, even if that was as a labourer or in the fields.

A river/costal city square would give a bonsu to trade and a bonsu to growth, making these very attractive spots for cities.
No food or resources are gathered from theses squares so the resouce formula is N + M, where N is the labour/trade from N city pop, and M is the food/resources from M village pop.

One unit of labour does not neccisarily 'work one unit of resources' It depends on what you are building.
Ancient units are an even mix, modern units require more labour than ancient.
NAval units require more resources than land.
Improvments require lot's of resources.
Spy's, etc. require only labour.

I have proposed 'fractional pop points'.
These would allow a city to grow and recruit as you describe, but keep the simplicity of having less than 200 specialists to keep track of...

I believe that a straight recruitment system is needlesly complicated, but if you build units as normal and if the unit is killed have a certain amount of pop removed from it's home city. The nation as a whole should provide for the support, but the home city would take the pop hit. Max units suppoted = 2-5 x pop. Play balance decides this.

To upraged units I agree, move them in a city, say upgrade, x gold and y turns later They are the next class of unit better.



------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Theben]

My Combat, with LASS Final version


1) 1st off I need to point out how the unit workshop idea should be:

• L/A/S/S running down the left side;
  
• The unit picture in middle;
  
• Hit Points, Firepower, Range, and Movement on the middle right side;
  
• All unit OPTIONS on the far right. A single unit can have many options, much more than 2 as in SMAC.

1a) How they work:

• L/A/S/S has been discussed before. Each represents the strength of the unit in that domain.
  
• Click on the unit picture and a picture list (like SMAC) will show all the possible chassis types to change the unit to. I prefer this because you'd be able to see what the other factors are of the unit while changing the chassis, with unit costs. In SMAC one has to go back & forth between the unit screen & chassis screen, which is a pain with slower machines.
  
• These are set when the OPTIONS & chassis, strengths of unit are chosen, but it is possible that minor changes could be made to the unit here. Chassis types are:
  
  Land Sea Air Space
  Infantry-------- Wooden hull-----------Plane------------Satellite
  Mounted------- Iron hull----------------Airship----------Spacecraft?
  Motorized------Steel hull?-------------Helicopter
  Mechanized------------------------------Missile
  
  Note- Dashes are for spacing purposes only.
  
  
• This is the heart & soul of unit design. See below.

1b) Unit OPTIONS list:

• Anti-Personnel, or AP
• Brigade
• Heavy
• Cavalry contingent
• Nomadic
• Settler
• Engineer
• Immune to Terrain- list types
• No support needed
• Artillery
• Camouflage
• Partisan
• Nuke
• Single shot
• Nuke DEF
• Scouting
• May engage domain L/A/S/S

Plus various other options found in Civ2 & SMAC (CtP?). Note that with LASS many options aren't needed ( attack air, x2 air, etc.) but some may still be necessary(x2 horse).

1c) Definitions:

• AP- This adds =100% to land STR vs. infantry & mounted units. Refers to machine guns, and is available around the same time. Land, Air chassis only.
• Brigade- Reduces the total hp's of a unit by 1/3rd, and may drop it's STR by -1 in all domains (never less than 0). Also substantially reduces the unit cost, and opens up several Options to the unit in workshop. After Guerilla Warfare like brigades may combine into a division (3 brigadesà 1 division, or regular unit) or a division may break down into 3 brigades. This is based on Mao Tse Tsung's 3-tiered doctrine of guerrilla warfare. Available to all chassis.
• Heavy- Gives various bonuses/penalties to each unit type. Note that a unit may be both 'brigade' and 'heavy' at the same time:
  
• -Inf/Mount/Motor/Mech receive +1 to all domains they affect & +20% hp's. This also increases the size of the unit for transport purposes.
• -Wooden hull receives bonuses as above to sea, land also if it can affect it. Also +50% cargo capacity.
• - Iron/Steel hulls receive +2 STR to land & sea, +1 to air (if applicable), and +1 HP (i.e. 10 points). Also +50% cargo.
• - Planes become heavy bombers, and may not engage air (they can have air STR for defense). They get all benefits of heavy bombers as described by me elsewhere, and all penalties. Non-heavy bombers that do not engage air are strike bombers (though most of these had minimal fighter capability). In addition, heavy allows planes to be transports with a minimal cargo capacity (1 in civ2/SMAC). They also get a larger operational area than non-heavy planes (x2 distance). Heavy bombers may not land on carriers.
• - Airships & Heli's get increased range and the cargo capacity of heavy bombers (airships get x3 distance). Increased space on carriers.
• - Missiles become intercontinental, and/or receive +50% STR to its domain. They also take up more space in transports.
• - Satellites, spacecraft, who knows? Bonus to STR?
  
• Cavalry contingent- This negates or decreases the bonus of mounted units in open terrain vs. infantry, and gives slight bonus vs. infantry w/o cavalry. In modern times refers to a helicopter contingent, which gives a bonus/ decreases penalty vs. all fast land units. Early version infantry only, modern version avail. w/ all land.
• Nomadic/Settler/Engineer- I think these should be Options to allow them to have combat STR. Nomads are as other have suggested: mobile cities of sorts with land STR. Settlers and engineers are separate, but this allows for them to have combat STR which is reasonable especially considering army engineer corps could fight if needed. Infantry/ mounted/Motorized only (unless sea/ space cities allowed).
• Immune to terrain is based off of the idea that some terrain causes damage to some units. This option would allow the unit to ignore the movement restrictions & resulting damage from the hostile terrain. Each type of terrain is individually chosen. All units may choose from these lists; units are assumed to have certain immunities built-in (air units are immune to mountains & swamps but not necessarily glaciers).
• No support- This is available to all chassis BUT the unit MUST have the 'brigade' option, or have been found as an NON-homed unit.
• Artillery- Has special abilities as described elsewhere (throw plague, poison bombs, tact nuke, plus attacks walls). Also uses its range as its bombard strength, and land STR vs. all other, non-artillery/bombard attacks.
• Camouflage- Again, all chassis may conceal, but only 'brigade' land units may conceal away from a hidden base. Hidden bases can conceal any unit, depending on type (hidden air bases conceal air, hidden naval bases conceal ships, etc.)
• Partisan- Inf/Mount/Motor 'brigade' only. Partisans have several modifiers: They cost no support, they may conceal, they are immune to terrain, and they can ign. ZOC's if undetected. However, the 'immune to terrain' only work in the owner's own territory & in territory previously owned. Therefore partisans can operate in the city squares of a city they used to own, but if they venture into true enemy territory they lose this bonus.
• Nuke- Since any chassis can really deploy a nuke, a unit Option makes it available to all. Also all nukes should be built (ex. Tactical nukes?) so no spy/ bomber missions to send in cheap nukes. Nukes are automatically single shot units.
• Single shot- All missiles & nukes are automatically single shot. Other units may be single shot weapons if the players decides to make them so (scenarios?).
• Nuke DEF- All units may carry nuke DEF option once the appropriate tech is researched. Aids game play as players likely to use nukes on targets other than cities. Maintenance of such DEF should be high, similar to SDI in cities, or not as effective.
• All units have basic scouting. This option increases the unit's recon ability (replaces see 2) by a percentage. See COMBAT for how I think scouting should work on strategic scale.
• May engage LASS: All units have certain domains that they may engage automatically. Land->land; Sea->sea; Air->land, sea; Space->space. When a unit buys points in a domain not of the it's own, this indicates the difficulty other units, from that domain, have damaging this unit. If the 'engage' option is chosen, the unit may now attack units operating in that domain. Units may also delete a free 'engage domain' option, useful for settlers/engineers/transports in reducing their costs.

2) LASS as before, but with range. There is a small bonus to the attacker because he initially controls the terms of engagement (about +10% STR). There are 2 methods of using range:

2a) Range is a function of the unit's domain (it's operating domain, not the one[s] it affects). Each difference between the ranges of the fighting units adds +1 to the STR of the higher unit. I prefer this method as it is simpler to understand and for reasons below;

2b) Range is a function of the unit's domain. Each difference allows one "free attack" by the higher unit. I don't like this version because it assumes too much on the part of the lower side: that it will charge from a distance and allow the other side these free opportunity shots. That it won't try to flank the other unit and destroy it supply lines, surprise it with a night raid, etc. IMO this would require a battle screen and many do not want this (though I think one would be helpful). Mainly it assumes the lesser unit might not try something tricky; that the unit might not have some method of hurting it not found in the normal doctrines of warfare.

3) Stacked combat w/ LASS:

3a) Command & Control: I'm using Diodorus Sicilius's ideas regarding min/maximums and overstacking. C&C starts at 4 units max in a stack w/o penalty, up to 30 units by game end. Any unit over this number faces a penalty to it's STR; I'll use a slightly different set of numbers ¾, ½, ¼, 1/8th, etc. What happens in this case is that the extra unit(s) face a to hit penalty: a unit w/ a ¾ modifier will successfully hit a target 75% of the time. A unit at 1/8th will hit it's target 12.5% of the time. FE, 6 units are attacking 3 units. The 1st four attackers get 100% chance of hitting their targets on a successful round of combat. The 6th unit has only a 50% chance of damaging it's target if it hits; if unsuccessful no damage is taken by either unit that round. These mods apply to both sides if over their C&C.

3b) Terrain: Modifies the max C&C in a tile.

• Grassland, Plains, Tundra = 100% C&C
• Desert = 75% C&C
• Hills, Swamp, Jungle = 50% C&C
• Mountains w/ pass = 25% C&C
• Mountains, Glacier = 20% C&C

Roads increase terrain by one category, up to 100%.
Thus a stack of 8 units in a mountain pass w/ a C&C normally equal to 8 would have a C&C of 2.

3c) Forts, keeps, castles, have a max # of units allowed inside. City walls are unlimited, but all C&C's are limited by terrain type even in forts, etc.

4) Types of combat:

4a) Close combat: Compares the 2 units domain STRs vs. each other. Close combat can only be done by units operating in the same domain. Applies to all units. Units with a higher range than the enemy add +1 STR per point difference to their STR.

4b) Ranged units: Units with range may attack as artillery if they have an intervening barrier between them and their target (walls or friendly screening units). In this case they use their range as STR, and cannot be damaged by other units unless those units also have range. In this case the ranges are compared to each other as per normal civ2/SMAC rules for damage. Units may not fire at units engaged in combat with friendly units or your may hit your own troops; in any event your troops morale will decrease each time you fire into melee. City walls, forts may be used as a barrier for units using range.

4c) Artillery: As ranged except they always use their range for STR, unless attacked in close combat. Their range tends to be high as compared to normal land units. Artillery attacks can only be countered by other artillery; compare range vs. range as above to see who takes damage. Face the same restrictions on firing into melee.

4d) Units attacking another domain always attack as artillery but use their LASS factors for comparison.

5) Misc:

5a) Units from other squares can be included in a combat. Click on other squares before launching battle.

5b) After Combined Arms, units can use their special abilities to cover weaknesses of 2 other units. FE, helicopters may give their bonus vs. tanks to 2 other units in a stack.

5c) After combat, like units that are damaged combine. FE, 2 units with 20 hp's have each taken 10 damage. They will combine into 1 undamaged unit after combat is over.

[Theben]

Last thing; air units and sea units, if they are the only units remaining in city when attacked by ground forces, do not defend. They bombard for 1 round and then are pushed out of the city. Air units and ships have a % chance of escape, if they do then they retreat to the nearest friendly city if air, ships are placed 1-2 tiles out on ocean. the ground unit may capture some air/sea units.

[SWPIGWANG]

My ider
slight mod from Victor Galis's iders
a.

1.total damage taken
in one turn of combat
=atkpower(of atker)-defpower * attack able power(HP)of attacker * terren effect * Moral effect * training * evad effect * stack effect

which makes armour make sense

(unfinished)total disable power=
Attack power+disable power(of atker)-defpower * total power of(HP) attacker * evad * terren * training * Moral * stack effect / 10

explain later
2.fast units charge faster then slower units

3.impaired(disable)
When a unit is doing any thing it temporarily disable it's HP(power)in attacking.That including moving fighting or basicly anything. The effect last till the next turn.

Why would you need this kind of temporarily disableing in planted in to CIV3?Because this solves the Air/artillery problem.They usually impair the unit's fighting power and not kill it.

4.stacks
Stacked unit don't attack together but defend together

in order to make many unit together
a combat group or fleet and the group move
at the rate of the slowest unit in the group.they move,attack and defend to gether.

Stacking units should cause a small pennoty

4.Turns

The Attacker usualy gets to attack first
or even get a free turn or two if the unit is lucky.

The Defender gets first turn or a few free turns if the defended ambush the Attacker
or the Attacker is hasty(moved)

5. Defender gets bigger Terrain Bounse

Here is a Battle between three units

Attacker
Tank
HP 50- 10(disabled)
Attack power 20
Defence power 10
Mov 3
Range 5
Evd 1

VS
Defender

Maries
HP 30
Attack power 15
Defence power 15
Mov 2
Range 2
Evd 2
Mov 1
Field Gun
HP 20
Attack power 5
Disable power 15
Defence power 5
Range 5
Evd 0
Mov 1

Re no moral/terran/training effects counted

Turn 1
*surprise attack tank get a free turn*
tank fires at marines at range 5
marines HP=HP-((20-15)*(50-10)*(10-1/10)
atk-def*Hp-disable *evad
=30-18=12
Tank disable out unit of marines
marines HP=12 -1
Turn 2
marines out of range to attack.It moves forward 2 tiles now tanks are 3 tiles away

Field gun fires at tank Does no damage to
tank. disables ((5+15-10)*20*(10-1/10)/10=18
So now the Tank's HP=50 -28

..................etc etc
Sorry for ALL my english Errors. English is my second langage