A Simple Combat Model

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi guys,
After much thought I've come up with a very simple simultaneous combat model which would require very little human interaction.

First of all, a battle should be broken up into combat events:
1) Engagement
2) Combat Resolution
i) Target Selection
ii) Random Number Generation
iii) Attack Resolution
iv) Damage and Damage Effects
v) Retreats and Routs
vi) Movement and Unit Detection
2a) Repeat Combat Resolution
3) Post-Battle Effects.

1) When 2 armies first engage one another, the starting battle range should be equal to the Max Sighting or Max Weapon Range. A mini-window window should also pop-up in the top corner of the screen-in this screen you will see all your units and all your enemies units (that aren't stealth rated!) arranged in a row. In this window will also appear 2 numbers, the first will be the range between your armies (in km-approx 5-200km), the second will be the computer generated Random Number for this combat phase. This is the box where you can watch your units attack and defend.
2) Combat Resolution: This phase is made up of a number of different actions. The most vital statistics for units would be Attack Strength (AS), Defense Strength (DS), Firepower (FP) and Armour (A). If a unit is out of range it can defend, but not attack.
First, all your units are paired to a target unit in the enemy army based on the formula: AS and FP = or > DS and Armour. If no free units match this fomula, then the unit will be paired to a target thats already been matched (allowing units to "gang up" on enemy units for a bonus to AS).
Next, the computer generates a random number from 1-100 (or 0.01-1.00). This number will be used in several later events.
Next the attack is resolved-basically the Success Chance (SC) is equal to (AS-DS); if SC is greater or equal to the random number, then the attack hits.
The next thing which is resolved is damage, which would be equal to ((FP*(SC-RND))-A)=Damage in Hit-points.
AS, DS, FP and Morale are then recalculated based on the units new hit points. Next you check to see if units retreat/rout:
If Morale is greater than the random number, nothing happens.
If Morale=RND, then unit retreats; unit will be removed during movement, but any enemy units which were targetting it will get a free attack.
If morale is less than RND, then the unit is routed. Same as a retreat, but any free attacks are made against 1/2 DS.
Finally, movement of armies is resolved, which is based on the slowest MP of each stack (will be between 5-50km/ turn)
Combat Resolution then continues until one side is destroyed/retreats.

3) After a battle is finished, the following post-battle events are resolved:
a) Damage to terrain and Improvements.
b) Effects of Casualties on Population and Happiness
c) For certain tiles (Resource, City/Colony, Tile Improvement), a pop-up box should appear giving the army the choice of Occupation, Razing/Pillaging or Liberating.

The Beauty of this model is that it's not just simple, it's also Dynamic (ie: Targets can radically change through the course of the battle). It's certainly a simplification, but its better than the "Jousting Model" put forward by Firaxis, and would not require much more work to implement.
So come on guys, what do you think-am I on to something. Let me know!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Grumbold]

I have a few quibbles about your model but in general I approve of any attempt to transform the current "combat queue" into something better. We have to remember that it is a conceptual resolution of a series of engagements, not just one battle so the rules can be a little abstract. Allowing retreats needs to be carefully examined to make sure it is appropriate in the overall game, not appropriate for a battlefield sim.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Again Grumbold,

Actually, the way I envisioned each repeat of step 2 was as a single minor engagement within the overall battle (ie. battles may run for months to years, but with a number of minor conflicts followed by a lull in combat). I confess though that my model is a simplification and an abstraction, but this vision is why I needed the model to be DYNAMIC! To represent the ebb and flow of battle (it should also be noted that this system would work just as well for both naval and aerial battles).

On another note, I feel that you should be able to pre-set the Stance or Orders of an army.
Basically a stance is applied on an Army to Army basis, and would be either Defensive or Offensive in nature. When this stack engages in battle, this stance will influence the tactics used for each unit by the computer (ie offensive tactics would be Assault, Encircle (Flank), Charge, Dislodge, wheras defensive tactics are Entrench, hold ground, harass and slow advance).
Orders would work on a unit to unit basis, and would involve you setting each units tactics seperately (eg. some units might be set to harass, others to assault and others to encircle)
Obviously different orders would give different bonuses to units in combat- for example
Harass: Does 1/2 FP damage, but has 2x FP effect on Morale-better chance of a rout.
Charge: 2-3x movement, melee units get 1.5x FP damage (eg lance/spear attacks), -DS.
Assault: +AS, -DS, no retreat option.
Entrench: +DS and +Armour, but stack can't move (basically you wait for enemy to come to you)
Hold Ground: -AS, +DS, no movement.
Dislodge: Counters the Entrench/hold ground maneuver.
Just to name a few.
If you don't choose orders or a stace for your army, then the computer will do it for you. Once engaged in combat, the only order you can give is a retreat (a retreat button should be available at the top of the mini-window I mentioned above!) This is a fighting retreat (not a forced retreat), before your army withdraws, it gets a final attack at 1/2 AS and 1/2 FP and can still defend against the enemies attack. At the end of that turn, the battle would be considered over.

Anyway, let me know what you think of these additional points. If you have anything specific you'd like to add, please e-mail me at: marcus.hicks@adl.clw.csiro.au

Thankyou,

The_Aussie_Lurker

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,

Firstly, terrain and leader types should also give be able to give bonuses to a units combat stats.

Secondly, in a previous thread I brought up the role of Air units in Ground and Naval Combat. I think a simple solution is that air units should act like aerial "Artillery Pieces" in that they can soften up the enemy prior to an offensive (like all other bombardment attacks, however, it should be very difficult for an air unit to detroy an enemy ground/naval unit!) The amount of damage an air unit can do would be based on its Land/Sea Rating (see Lawrence of Arabia's post under "Role of Air Units in Ground Combat") If both sides have air units backing its ground/naval forces, then the air-war should be resolved first to establish Air-Superiority. The side with surviving units in the field could utilise them for the aforementioned mission.
Another option would be, if you have an allied Airfield within 2 hexes of the battle field (or for naval combat, if you have an aircraft carrier), then it should be possible for your air-units to stay around and fight like a ground/naval unit (though still limited to softening up attacks). Air units would either join the existing stack (army), or comprise a stack of their own. Lastly, regardless of how they perform their mission, the air-units should be vulnerable to attack from certain artillery and Armour units (these units would have a seperate AS for use against air units!)

Anyway, thats the last I have to say on the matter for now, I would be glad to hear peoples thoughts-good or bad!

Thankyou,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

P.S: I'm curious to know whether a cities garrison units will fight as an army (aside from the 1 army per 4 cities that will be available). I hope so or else cities will be sitting ducks to an assault by an enemy army (possibly a simple solution is to have a rule that, any fortified units-in a fortress or a city, act as an army even if this would normally exceed the 1 army per 4 cities rule)

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Again Guys,

I was just wondering whether anyone any more opinions about the combat model I've put forward in this thread. Any ideas (good or bad) will be accepted.

Thanks,

The_Aussie_Lurker

[Rollo_CH]

P.S: I'm curious to know whether a cities garrison units will fight as an army (aside from the 1 army per 4 cities that will be available). I hope so or else cities will be sitting ducks to an assault by an enemy army (possibly a simple solution is to have a rule that, any fortified units-in a fortress or a city, act as an army even if this would normally exceed the 1 army per 4 cities rule)

I think you have to consider the defensive advantages a garrisoned unit will have: City walls, Fortresses, the Inhabitants etc.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi There,

I am aware of that, but there is a realism aspect to consider as well. I mean, would garrisoned units really fight as single units, I think that they would fight as an organised fighting force. Also remember that bombardment units in Civ III will be able to bring down things like city walls, making it all the more neccessary to allow garrisons to fight as armies!

Anyway, just a thought (or 2),

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Rollo_CH]

Yes i agree, they should be able fight as an army, or a coordinated defensive force.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

As an addendum to my above posts. I think that it should be possible to not only have bombardment units attacking units outside of general combat. I also think that you should be able to link artillary units (and other bombardment units) to an existing amry and then have a "Bombardment Phase" within normal combat. I feel that this should probably occur just prior to the "Pairing Phase", allowing artillary to soften units prior to the proper attack.

So in a nutshell bombardment would probably go like this:

vi) Movement and unit detection

i) Random Number generation
ii) Artillery bombardment
iia) Target Selection
iii) Attack Resolution

etc.

Just some new thoughts. What do people think, too unwieldy?

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker