Thread Tools
Old December 3, 2000, 05:02   #1
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
RISK-II style combat - simultaneous, still not real-time
In this second incarnation of this classic boardgame the game-designers have come up with a new idea: simultaneous combat, but still not real-time.
Its not a fullprice-worthy game, but if you can get a hold of this game at reduced price, or borrow a copy to use as demo, i strongly advice you to do that - just to test out this feature, and think of how it could be used in Civ-3 as well.

Heres how a Civ-adapted variant of it could work:
------------------------------------ Edited:
The retreat-alternative should perhaps be scrapped. Only "attack" and "fortify", in order to keep things simple. Also: i never intended some dice-rolling nonsense. The RISK II "same turn" comparison only applies to some limited principal and Civ-adapted ideas from that game. Read further down, as this idea developes through each new post.
--------------------------------------------

Whenever the human player or any AI-civ wants to attack any other unit or city, a combat screen pops up automatically (only battles between human and AI, however - and even that can be bypassed through automatic combat-resolving, for the inpatient ones):

From the battle-screen, the initiating attacker have the first go. Lets say the attacker has 5 attacking-units in his stacked army - the other one has, lets say 1 defence-unit and 2 attacker.

The attacker can now choose between the following:

- Ordering all hes units to attack all enemy units - unit against unit - on broad front.
- Ordering all hes units to attack a single enemy unit, or a part of the enemy stack.
- Ordering some of hes units to single out one enemy-unit (or part of the enemy-stack), while other units takes out the other unit/other part of the stack.

If the human is the attacker, a button is pushed to confirm above choises. But before above combat its actually resolved however, the attacked army also have a go. He can choose between the following:

- Ordering all units to attack himself - same alternatives as above.
- Ordering all units to defend; fortify.
- Ordering some units to attack, while some other units should defend.
- Ordering all units to retreat: cause heavy damage and some losses, but most are still alive. Retreat only works outside cities.
- Ordering some units to hold ground (attack/defend), while others retreat: this often dooms the ground-holders, but the retreating units have less damage.

Then the attacked units have made their choices, the initiating attacker push a "resolve combat" button, and voila!

Its important in above model - if you choose manual combat resolving - that you have complete and full control how to attack/defend/retreat. You CANNOT move around units on the battle-screen, but that doesnt matter - they all act like there was first-liners, and its their orders that decides who they gonna attack - not their placements on the battle-screen.

Please, NO automatic placement/orders depending on unit-type, like in CTP-2.

In fact - just for the fun of it - you can even temporarily switch side (within combat situations only, of course) and baby-sit the AI-units: Check out what best could be done, from their point of view. The AI automatically takes back its role after such "play both sides combats". Like playing chess with oneself.
This is of course, not the default mode however, and you can forget about Hall of fame and endgame scores. (just like then you used the Cheat-meny in Civ-2).

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 11, 2000).]
Ralf is offline  
Old December 3, 2000, 06:57   #2
UltraSonix
King
 
Local Time: 10:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,728
quote:

- Ordering all hes units to attack all enemy units - unit against unit - on broad front.

Sounds very good - but just one question - how would this work? Does this have each attacking unit take on every other unit in the opposing stack, or is it each attacking unit is designated a particular unit in the other stack?

ANd this systesm allows the defenders to always respond - perhaps in some situations/terrains they can be considered to have been ambushed and should not be allowed to attack back or perhaps even fortify.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)
UltraSonix is offline  
Old December 3, 2000, 08:50   #3
CornMaster
Prince
 
CornMaster's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:05
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 501
Have you guys ever played Deadlock? It was the same their too, I think. I didn't like it though. For MP MAYBE, a big MAYBE but it's still got to be TBS for Civ 3!

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"If LESS is MORE, just think of how much MORE, MORE would be!"
I AM CANADIAN!
CornEmpire Index
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.
CornMaster is offline  
Old December 3, 2000, 10:30   #4
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
quote:

Originally posted by UltraSonix on 12-03-2000 05:57 AM
Sounds very good - but just one question - how would this work?


That option is infact a lazy-man "just mangle them" button alternative. The attack is not optimized to be the best, but sometimes it can be useful then your modern big tank-army confronts any pathetic ancient mini-army. You dont want to waste time micro-managing those attacks, because your advantage is so ridicously huge anyway.

So you just click that "just mangle them" button, and quickly move on.

quote:

Does this have each attacking unit take on every other unit in the opposing stack, or is it each attacking unit is designated a particular unit in the other stack?


Each indevidual unit can be designated to attack any particular unit in that other stack. You have complete freedom. You can designate half of your stack to simultaneously attack a singled out unit in that enemy-stack. Each of them take turns in attacking that poor single unit.
"Simultaneously" actually means one-after-the-other against that same target, within that same game-turn.

A single unit cannot however, attack simultaneously two or more units in that other stack. A single unit can only attack another single unit, regardless of that enemy-unit is alone, or within a stack.

Because no unit can both attack and fortify (or retreat) at the same time, a single unit has big disadvantage when being attacked by a stack of enemy-units. While that single unit perhaps easily can crush any picked out unit in that other stack, he cannot at the same time fortify himself against the attacks from those other units in that same enemy-stack.

(And this why it must be a significant attack/defence difference between ancient and modern units. Nobody wants that CTP problem of ancient stack of attackers killing a single modern unit, all over again. They have to be pretty plentiful if they do).

The tactical problem here (that adds to the excitment) is, that you dont know how the enemy-stack is going to use hes units to attack yours. You can never see the other sides battle-plans, if you gets attacked.
If that happens the battle-screen pops up automatically, then (after 1-5 seconds) the AI tells you that his battle-plans has now been secretly schemed out. You must now try to anticipate hes moves - come up with "educated guesses", and then design your own attacks, fortifys or retreats accordingly.

Only then you click that "Resolve battle" button, the enemy battle-plans become visible for a short while together with your own, before the battle actually resolves - and by then its to late to do anything about misjudged battle-plans, of course.

There are room for several shrewd tactical considerations here (and much room for embarrassing mistakes too - below is some of them):

- You perhaps designate many units to attack those 2-3 enemy-units, that you believed should attack you - but instead choose to retreat. At the same time; those units that you didnt believe should attack you, actually did so.

- You perhaps designate to many units to attack any single enemy unit. Then that unit gets killed long before all of your units gets a chance to attack him. The result is that these remaing units gets "unemployed" that turn - you didnt use your army effectively enough.

The whole idea with above combat-model is to try to catch some of that historical real-life battle-tactical moment of uncertainty - just before the battle actually begins - before those equally big and equally advanced armys clash together.

Too many times i have felt like USA agains Saddam then playing Civ - in theory (counting tanks) the enemy-army seemed strong enough, but in reality US/the human playerīs tactical and strategical battlefield-advantage is too big. This result is easy and foreseeable outcomes.
Well, that was perhaps a good thing then dealing with Saddam, but then dealing with the AI-armies, i want some of that uncertainty back. What do you guys think.

quote:

And this systesm allows the defenders to always respond - perhaps in some situations/terrains they can be considered to have been ambushed and should not be allowed to attack back or perhaps even fortify.


That is maybe a problem - but remember: we are not talking "skirmishes" here. Gerilla warfare is relatively new invention, and mostly a domestical third world problem. In a Civ-game, its all about real international wars isnt it? You aganst this or that empire, or vice-verse. Also: For most part of our history battles took place out in the open. Gerilla-warfare have been consided "unmanly" for long periods of time.

Besides that, the attacked army/city battle-terrain is taken into account, just as in Civ-2

-----------------------------------------------------
CORNMASTER:

Well, I have played Deadlock also. I cannot say i remember the game exactly, but it was defenitly not the same thing as the combat-model in RISK-II, and the one im trying to describe above.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 04, 2000).]
Ralf is offline  
Old December 3, 2000, 16:20   #5
Seeker
Emperor
 
Seeker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:35
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Yongsan-Gu, Seoul
Posts: 3,647
About every other month I post a suggestion to look at other games for Civ III such as Imperialism. Simultaneous combat, market-based economy, ect.

What do you think of 'strategy cards' like in Risk II??
Seeker is offline  
Old December 3, 2000, 17:19   #6
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
quote:

Originally posted by Seeker on 12-03-2000 03:20 PM
What do you think of 'strategy cards' like in Risk II??


Strategy-cards means that new fresh units pops up from nowhere, and that make sense in an extremly simplified boardgame like Risk II, there all the units are dealed out for free each turn, depending on the battle-luck.
But, in Civ-games all the units is laboriously produced - and because of this the very idea of "Civ strategy cards" is totally incompatible. How could Firaxis possible implement this without the players feeling heavily cheated, then a bunch of units suddenly is beamed down to any AI-civ (or the human player), from nowhere?

My idea is to implement certain battle resolving elements in its principal form, from Risk II, and then adjust and adapt those principal ideas to the Civ-3 enviroment. It was never to crudely "transplant" the whole Risk II game into Civ-3.

By the way: Nothing in my first and second post is "carved in stone" in any way. Maybe some of the rules can be tweaked a little better? Im open for any suggestions (although i might not agree, of course).

Also remember: In Civ-2, the player could choose "simplyfied combat" (= Civ-1 style) under the pre-game options > customized rules. I hope that Firaxis leaves a "backdoor" open in Civ-3 as well (perhaps a unit-stackable version of the Civ-2 combat rules?).

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 03, 2000).]
Ralf is offline  
Old December 3, 2000, 19:46   #7
UltraSonix
King
 
Local Time: 10:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,728
Well, the idea seems sound, except for the fact the it's a deviating a little from the usual TBS, but some people here have said that they'd like that...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)
UltraSonix is offline  
Old December 3, 2000, 20:32   #8
Seeker
Emperor
 
Seeker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:35
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Yongsan-Gu, Seoul
Posts: 3,647
No, not the reinforcement cards I meant the strategy cards. Before every battle in risk II the AI and human commanders select a strategy (ambush, attack left flank, ect.)
Seeker is offline  
Old December 4, 2000, 16:30   #9
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
quote:

Originally posted by Seeker on 12-03-2000 07:32 PM
Before every battle in risk II the AI and human commanders select a strategy (ambush, attack left flank, ect.)


Oops! My mistake, You quite right, Seeker. What i was describing was reinforcement-cards.

However, im not 100% sure what your hinting at, in above quote. I have to reinstall the game from a left-over copy, in order to check that one out. I never played "turnbased" - only "simultaneous".

Anyway, i think that i got most of the idea covered in my second post above. The only significant difference is that in Risk II any army (= unit) could split-up its attacks against many enemy-armies.
In above Civ-adaped version any single unit (wherever its alone, or within a stack) can only attack another single unit (wherever that enemy-unit is alone, or within that stack).
Ralf is offline  
Old December 5, 2000, 14:48   #10
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
More reactions needed!

Even negative ones - it doesnt matter, as long as the negative ones are seriously argumented.

I realize that im biased here, but i really think this particular idea is one of the better ones i have had lately - its simply too good to be buried just after 8-9 posts. My first and second post explains it all.

I cant help wonder if that comparison with RISK II was a mistake - people perhaps get the wrong ideas. In my Civ-adapted variant of it, the a battle between two stacked armies is over within a few of seconds, ones you hit the "Resolve battle" button. Its not intend to be near as time-consuming as the dice-rolling Risk-II variant of it. The chance-element is also excluded, or at least not more appearent then in Civ-2/SMAC-battles.

Also, an added bonus:

With this combat-model you cannot cheat as easily by just reloading the previous turn. The reason is the "uncertanty-factor", explaned in my second post.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 05, 2000).]
Ralf is offline  
Old December 7, 2000, 16:53   #11
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
quote:

Originally posted by Stuff2 on 12-07-2000 12:45 PM
1. It's hard enough getting a decent AI as it is, with this idea it's impossible to get it. (Unless the ai always does the same thing or randomly organize it's troops, but then again the idea will loose it's point.)


The BIG programming-problem revolves around how to simultaneously and succesfully guide multiple AI-units on generated unknown maps. In this respect its much better to concentrate all empire-attacking AI-units (for that indevidual AI-civ) in 1-3 unit-stacks, and then try to guide those few stacks, instead of take on the hopeless challenge of guiding 10-20+ indevidual AI-units against the same objective. The AI still uses some indevidual military units although, but mainly for simple border patrol duties.

The programmers dont have to be so nitty-gritty about how these units (from different cities within that AI-empire) should build up the stack.
They just have to choose a build-up spot directly outside a friendly city closest to the empire they want to attack. Whenever a additional "objective: empire-attack" AI-unit is produced in any city; that unit is automatically "zapped" onto that growing stack, after a couple of turns (= the delay can mimic the bird-journey between the unit-producing city and the border-city with the build-up stack). If that AI-delay is necessary, that is - i dont think so.

Once that AI unit-stack bumbs into a Human city/unit-stack it becomes easier then the Civ-2 variant. The reason for this is that the attacking stack and the attacked stack is concentrated on only two cordinates, directly next to each other (Infact, Firaxis should consider making it a global Civ-3 rule that only unit-stacks can attack city-walled cities. This way, the programmers can concentrate on how to deal with those few human player-stacks, instead of buckloads of indevidual land-units. Perhaps the same could apply to sea- and air-units, i dont know).

About the problems of which stacked AI-unit/units should attack which stacked enemy-units: well, i understand your concerns. But, also remember; the programmers knows exactly the factors here. They know exactly which units can do what - and because all human units are pinned down to the same stack, next to their own AI-stack - they also now exactly in which map-square the human player enemy is.
Also, remember that all units are considered "first-liners", which means any unit can attack any similar type unit, regardless of position in the stack. Organizing units in positions becomes totally irrelevant = easier for the AI.

Finally: this model can be simplified in order to make the whole process more AI-friendly. The retreat-alternative can be scrapped - the programmers can then concentrate on the attack and fortify-alternatives only. Its then only a matter of making (txt-file edit-able) guidelines; principal rules on how units in AI-stacks should behave then dealing with differently sized and differently comprised enemy-stacks.

Calculating complex combinations of attacking and fortifying units, and then calculating the outcomes is one thing our speedy PC-processors can do with ease.


quote:

2. Lategame will mean a heck of alot micromanagement. I personally think that civ2 have more than enough of units in the latter stages.


The micro-management becomes less with fewer big stacks instead of many indevidual units. Also; ask yourself: Which is faster?

1/ Choose and then order 8-10 units within a stack to attack 8-10 enemy-units within another stack, then look at ONE battle.

2/ Choose and then order one unit to attack one enemy-unit, then look at one battle - then choose/order the 2:nd unit to attack the 2:nd enemy-unit, then look at the 2:nd battle ... and so on, all the way up to 8-10 units and battles.


quote:

The solution is called automation.


As i wrote in one previous post: once you hit the resolve battle button, the computer quickly resolves it within 1-5 seconds depending on the size of the battle. No RISK-style dice-animations, rest assured.

Also remember (again): In Civ-2, the player could choose "simplyfied combat" (= Civ-1 style) under the pre-game options > customized rules. I hope that Firaxis leaves a "backdoor" open in Civ-3 as well (perhaps a unit-stackable version of the Civ-2 combat rules?).

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 07, 2000).]
Ralf is offline  
Old December 7, 2000, 20:27   #12
OreoFuchi
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 21
quote:

Originally posted by Ralf on 12-07-2000 03:53 PMAlso remember (again): In Civ-2, the player could choose "simplyfied combat" (= Civ-1 style) under the pre-game options > customized rules. I hope that Firaxis leaves a "backdoor" open in Civ-3 as well (perhaps a unit-stackable version of the Civ-2 combat rules?).

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 07, 2000).]


If this combat style is implemented, I'd prefer the simplied combat to be Civ2 style, which I still prefer to all the other battle proposals I've seen.
OreoFuchi is offline  
Old December 8, 2000, 00:32   #13
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Ralf,

Simultaneous combat works only if movement is also simultaneous. In Risk II, when everything is combat, it doesn't matter. However, there's a lot more to Civ than just fight, fight, fight (though some of you might disagree .

This would change the entire nature of the game. It's also hard to resolve movement this way. For example, say one of your units move out from hex H while one of my units move into it. Will there be a combat? Who gets to move first? You or I?
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited December 07, 2000).]
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old December 8, 2000, 01:16   #14
airdrik
Prince
 
airdrik's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:35
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nampa, ID, USA
Posts: 401
quote:

Originally posted by OreoFuchi on 12-07-2000 07:27 PM
If this combat style is implemented, I'd prefer the simplied combat to be Civ2 style, which I still prefer to all the other battle proposals I've seen.


I agree, I like Civ2's battle system the best, in terms of simultanious vs. non-simultanious (but ranged attacks sould be implemented: a knight would never be able to touch a museteer, simply because the musketeer would blow him off his hourse before the knight could get to him).
airdrik is offline  
Old December 8, 2000, 01:45   #15
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
In a way i like this idea, but i see two major problems with it.

1. It's hard enough getting a decent AI as it is, with this idea it's impossible to get it. (Unless the ai always does the same thing or randomly organize it's troops, but then again the idea will loose it's point.)

2. Lategame will mean a heck of alot micromanagement. I personally think that civ2 have more than enough of units in the latter stages.

The solution is called automation. Also, make it possible to retreat if a unit is doing bad in a battle.

------------------
stuff
Stuff2 is offline  
Old December 8, 2000, 16:45   #16
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 12-07-2000 11:32 PM
Ralf,

Simultaneous combat works only if movement is also simultaneous...


Sorry, my mistake. I realise that i havent been clear enough on the "re-health to full status, then switch roles" -issue:

Lets forget about stacks, and concentrate on this very simple battle-example. A single player-controlled unit attacks a single AI-controlled unit. If the defending AI-unit is fortyfied; the old Civ-2 rules applies. If the defending AI-unit is NOT fortyfied however, the following happens:

- If the defending AI-unit withstands the attack, and the attacking player-unit dies; the battle is already over.

- If the defending AI-unit instead dies, and the attacking player-unit survives, the player-unitīs wounded health-bar score is temporarily stored, by the computer.

- Both the AI-unit and the player-unit now gets automatically re-healthed to full status, and their roles are automatically switched. The AI-unit now immediately and automatically counter-attacks the now defending (but non-fortified) player-unit. If the player-unit withstands the attack, the battle is over, and the surviving player-unit gets above stored health-bar reloaded again.

- IF, however the attacking AI-unit wins, the AI-unitīs damaged healt-bar score is compared with above damaged player health-bar, and who ever has the least damage wins the overal battle.

Two stacks figthing each other works according the same principle.

Now, WHY is this approach necessary?

Beacuse the human player has an almost ridiculously huge battle-tactical advantage over the AI. Time and time again i have moved my late-game tanks and howitchers on non-movement penalty enemy-railroads, and conquered 4-5 AI-cities within a single turn - and the whole civ within just a few turns. Its too easy!!

Implementing above would give the AI a better chance to fight an invading player, and the human player would get a much more challenging game.

quote:

This would change the entire nature of the game.


Yes, and it would change it in a good way, i think.

quote:

It's also hard to resolve movement this way.


The retreat-alternative was a mistake - both the AI and the human player can only choose between attack or fortify.

quote:

For example, say one of your units move out from hex H while one of my units move into it. Will there be a combat? Who gets to move first? You or I?


All battles take place on the attacked unit/unit-stack square. Theres no need for "moving in" or "moving out" anywhere.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 11, 2000).]
Ralf is offline  
Old December 11, 2000, 06:23   #17
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
I didn't mean that it would be hard for the AI to figure out the 'best' solution for organizing the troops, the hard thing is to make the AI to adjust to the players gameplay. If the AI always does the 'best' solution it will beacome easy to predict. And if it's easy to predict it's easy to win. On the other hand, if the AI always makes the 'best' possible move under the circumstances taking your tactic into account, the player will almost all the time meet a superior army. How fun is it to loose all the time? And if it's randomized, what's the point, you could play RISK instead? The hard thing for the AI is to make an educated guess about your tactic and then adjust it's own tactic to it's guesses. That's what a real person would do.
Stuff2 is offline  
Old December 11, 2000, 14:10   #18
airdrik
Prince
 
airdrik's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:35
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nampa, ID, USA
Posts: 401
Ralf, the problem with what you propose is that the units are both attacking once and both defending once, which would eventually turn into only building units that have the highest total at and def.

You could, on the other hand, order a unit to 'ambush' any unit that comes along (as long as they have at least 1 move remaining(?)). Then they can get to attack things that would otherwise attack them first.

They could also implement surprise attacks, certain units would be more likely to surprise other units, and others would be less susceptable to surprise attacks. Also terrains would have a factor in the chances for surprise attacks. If you surprise a unit you get 1-2 free hits before he can retaliate. An ambush would also act as a surprise attack.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited December 11, 2000).]
airdrik is offline  
Old December 11, 2000, 15:45   #19
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
quote:

Originally posted by Stuff2 on 12-11-2000 05:23 AM
I didn't mean that it would be hard for the AI to figure out the 'best' solution for organizing the troops, the hard thing is to make the AI to adjust to the players gameplay. If the AI always does the 'best' solution it will beacome easy to predict. And if it's easy to predict it's easy to win.


The logic behind above quote isnt exactly crystal-clear to me. You seem to imply that the human player always knows exactly that the most effective moves really is, in such a battle-model. Is that necessarily always true?

Also, compare your statement applied on chess:

The better the Chess-AI can figure out what BEST possible moves it can make, the easier it can be predicted - and if its easy to predict, its easy to win.

Sure.

quote:

On the other hand, if the AI always makes the 'best' possible move under the circumstances taking your tactic into account, the player will almost all the time meet a superior army. How fun is it to loose all the time?


In open-field battles; that would only be true if an AI mirror-image (or bigger version) of your stack - both in terms of unit-types and number of units - would attack/defend against you.

How likely is that to happen?? In reality, its much more likely that the human player have the biggest stack, and the best units in it. So skilled human players are most likely to win, in terms of the general quality of the unit-stacks.

Also; the advantages/disadvatages with city-attacks and different battle-terrain can work for (or against) the AI, as well. And the ability to overview and predict those advantages/disadvantages is generally often stronger with veteran civ-players.

quote:

The hard thing for the AI is to make an educated guess about your tactic and then adjust it's own tactic to it's guesses. That's what a real person would do.


Once, the retreat-option is scrapped, the programmers have only "attack" and "fortify" left to deal with. They know the unit-datas and the terrain- and city-wall effects. It shouldnt be THAT hard to come up with some AI battle-screen rules.

Anyway: they can simplify above suggested model even further, if they want to.

My, MAIN point with the "attack > save damage-bar data > re-health both units > switch side > counter-attack > then compare damaged health-bar with the saved one; and the least damaged wins - all within the same turn" -idea, is that i want to do something about the turnbased "Stan & Oliver fighting-effect".

You know: Oliver puts marmalade on Finnīs head, and Stan puts an egg in his mouth - then Oliver smacks Finnīs chin, and the egg crushes. Finn, however just sits there and wait - because it isnt hes TURN to retaliate yet.
Now, i realise that Civ is a turnbased game, it it hopefully stays that way. But, at the same time, you guys must admit that because of this effect, the human player have an enormous tactical battle-field advantage (especially then most of the AI-civs are railroaded = no movement-points to take into account) that the AI simply cannot match.

All i want to do, is to even up the odds a little. Is that a bad thing? Many complain/bragg about the fact that they can conquer-the-world before 1000 AD easily, in Civ-2. Is THAT a good thing?

Its perfectly OK to be against a particular problem-solution. But, in that case: why not come up with a better solution? Sweeping non-specific statements about "a better battle-AI" isnt good enough. Give us some feasible, alternative examples. Just dont ignore the problem.
Ralf is offline  
Old December 11, 2000, 16:16   #20
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
quote:

Originally posted by airdrik on 12-11-2000 01:10 PM
Ralf, the problem with what you propose is that the units are both attacking once and both defending once, which would eventually turn into only building units that have the highest total at and def.


I have two answers to this: Is that bad? and; No, not necessarily.

Six weaker units in a stack, can take turns to attack two stronger enemy-units in another stack - and those two stronger ones can only counter-attack two of the weaker units, within that same game-turn.

Remember:

"A single unit cannot however, attack simultaneously two or more units in that other stack. A single unit can only attack another single unit, regardless of that enemy-unit is alone, or within a stack".

quote:

You could, on the other hand, order a unit to 'ambush' any unit that comes along (as long as they have at least 1 move remaining(?)). Then they can get to attack things that would otherwise attack them first.

They could also implement surprise attacks, certain units would be more likely to surprise other units, and others would be less susceptable to surprise attacks. Also terrains would have a factor in the chances for surprise attacks. If you surprise a unit you get 1-2 free hits before he can retaliate. An ambush would also act as a surprise attack.


Well, why not? Anything that makes any final Civ-3 combat-model more interesting, is welcome. I just hope the implement a battle-screen this time.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 11, 2000).]
Ralf is offline  
Old December 11, 2000, 17:56   #21
airdrik
Prince
 
airdrik's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:35
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nampa, ID, USA
Posts: 401
quote:

Originally posted by Ralf on 12-11-2000 03:16 PM
I have two answers to this: Is that bad? and; No, not necessarily.

Six weaker units in a stack, can take turns to attack two stronger enemy-units in another stack - and those two stronger ones can only counter-attack two of the weaker units, within that same game-turn.



So you're saying this only applies to stacked units? If so, then what about if one single unit attacks one single unit?

I still think that (one unit attacking one other unit) civ 2 had the best system. As for stacked units, you can stack up to x (8?) units in a stack and the at/def/fp/hp of the stack is the total of all units in the stack, and move is equal to that of the slowest unit. That stack pretty much becomes one single unit that can be divided into several smaller units. When that unit takes damage, not all units in the stack may take damage (random how much to each unit?), and if one unit in the stack is destroyed, then it is simply removed at the time that it is destroyed.

New Idea: recalculate at/def each round of combat, ie. a knight hits a musketeer, and it's hp go down to one third it's total, that round the musketeer's at and def go down to 2. Next round the musketeer (luckely) hits the knight and brings it's hp down a quarter what it's max is, the knight's at drops to 3, etc.

This would also apply to stacks of units, since in combat a stack of units is treated like one unit. Different units in the stack will take damage each round of combat, and as they loose hp, the total at/def of the stack decreaces.
airdrik is offline  
Old December 11, 2000, 18:37   #22
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:35
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
quote:

Originally posted by airdrik on 12-11-2000 04:56 PM
New Idea: recalculate at/def each round of combat, ie. a knight hits a musketeer, and it's hp go down to one third it's total, that round the musketeer's at and def go down to 2. Next round the musketeer (luckely) hits the knight and brings it's hp down a quarter what it's max is, the knight's at drops to 3, etc.

This would also apply to stacks of units, since in combat a stack of units is treated like one unit. Different units in the stack will take damage each round of combat, and as they loose hp, the total at/def of the stack decreaces.


It seems to be a good idea, to me. I have only one question: You talk about "next round the musketeer....". Should i interpret that as "the knight and the musketeer, automatically take turns in attacking each other, until one dies, all within the same game-turn"? Or does the battle span other several turns? (if its two big unit-stacks that attack each other, its OK that the battle can take 2-4 turns).

Well, perhaps we got something here. As long something is done with the "Stan & Oliver fight-syndrome", its all fine by me. That was my underlying critisism with the old Civ-2 model.
Ralf is offline  
Old December 11, 2000, 19:56   #23
airdrik
Prince
 
airdrik's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:35
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nampa, ID, USA
Posts: 401
quote:

Originally posted by Ralf on 12-11-2000 05:37 PM
It seems to be a good idea, to me. I have only one question: You talk about "next round the musketeer....". Should i interpret that as "the knight and the musketeer, automatically take turns in attacking each other, until one dies, all within the same game-turn"? Or does the battle span other several turns? (if its two big unit-stacks that attack each other, its OK that the battle can take 2-4 turns).

Well, perhaps we got something here. As long something is done with the "Stan & Oliver fight-syndrome", its all fine by me. That was my underlying critisism with the old Civ-2 model.


What I ment was that each round of battle (The computer generates a random number and compairs it to the at of the attacker and the def of the defender, whereever the number lands, that's who 'attacks' the other and does damage. That's one round of combat).

But you bring up a good point. A long enough battle could last multiple turns, like if a battle lasts for more than 8-10 combat rounds, then it is postponed until next turn. On the defending player's turn, he can have the choice to pull out with the price of the attackers get 1 free hit in before the defenders can leave. Or if the defender doesn't leave, the attacker has the choice to pull out or continue combat at the begining of his turn for the same penalty.
airdrik 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 20:35.


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 Đ The Apolyton Team