combat

m_m_x · February 8, 2001, 17:47

i have few ideas about combat, and i would like to share it with you:

1.combat system like "age of wonders"-when attacking a unit/city, all units within the tiles that surrounding the attacked unit/city, will be included in the fight.

*-my unit *
#-enemy city @ # *
@-enemy unit

suppose that an enemy city has 2 defender units in it and 1 unit outside in a tile that surrounds the city .
im attacking the city with 1 of my units.
the combat screen will show:

* * 2 of my units outside the city
@ @ @ 2 enemy units in the city+ the unit outside

2.attacking units from a back/side tile according to where they are facing/moving to, will give the attackers extra attack bonus.

3. allow bombing far more then the tile next to the attacked unit/city.

maybe those ideas have been discussed before in this forum, anyway i think that they can add lots of interest to the combat system.

Roman · February 8, 2001, 17:57

1. I like this idea and it seems new to me. However, Firaxis has said something about armies, so I suspect we will see stacking ala Ctp style instead, though they may have some new unique idea of implementing that. All of these three options seem fine by me.

2. This one I am not so sure about. How would you decide what is front and what is back? Even if you could, the scale of the map is such that it should not make a difference.

3. The idea has already been used in Ctp, Ctp2 and SMAC, so it is safe to assume it will be implemented in Civ3.

Grumbold · February 10, 2001, 01:04

It's all about scale, really. As long as you accept that you are playing a world map, not a scenario set in a small area, then each tile is hundreds of square miles. Supporting troops from adjacent tiles is impractical. Artillery is pretty dodgy too - I'm hoping that Civ 3 might allow pre-emptive counterbattery fire in the opposition turn to stop stacks of artillery being used as advance assault formations.
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited February 09, 2001).]

Theben · February 10, 2001, 01:14

Supporting units from adjacent tiles may be impractical, but it depends on what they do with ranged combat. If aircraft & ships can bombard prior to fighting then it shouldn't be a problem. Also they may wish to assume that since the combat really takes place in the defenders square, then attacking units from all adjacent squares that wish to contribute should be able to (depending on level of communications).

I'm wondering what kind of combat system they plan to use. There were several suggestions in the lists. I'm partial to LASS/CLAS-D of course. Will there even be a combat screen, or keep it strategic like in civ2?

------------------
"Just got back from the Thought Police Station. It's not as bad as you might assume;
they spend most of their time thinking about donuts."-EnochF

Roman · February 10, 2001, 07:14

What is LASS/CLAS-D?

loinburger · February 11, 2001, 00:30

quote:

Originally posted by Roman on 02-10-2001 06:14 AM
What is LASS/CLAS-D?

They were suggestions for combat systems that Theben suggested in the List v 2.0. LASS stands for Land, Air, Sea, Space; if a land unit attacked a land unit then they would both use their L value to determine combat, instead of the attacker using its ATT value and the defender using its DEF value. CLAS-D means Close, Land, Air, Sea, Defense; Close would be used for ancient units, Land, Air, and Sea would be used when bombarding those domains, and D would be number subtracted from the attacking unit's power; if a tank had a D value of 3 and was attacked by a Legion with a C value of 3, then the legion's strength would be 0 and could not possibly defeat the tank. Check the Combat section of the List for full details on the different combat systems proposed to Firaxis.

February 12, 2001, 18:22

I think we need a big library of all acronyms that are used here... there've been a lot of threads about it in the OT and other forums, but I think we need a list that is easy to make out. just like the link to the announcements, see?

Roman · February 12, 2001, 19:56

quote:

Originally posted by Chaos Warrior on 02-12-2001 05:22 PM
I think we need a big library of all acronyms that are used here...

How about my acronyms thread?

loinburger · February 12, 2001, 20:05

LASS and CLAS-D were on the acronyms thread. Their descriptions weren't fully detailed because the fully detailed versions were on the list.

Theben · February 13, 2001, 02:49

btw CLAS-D isn't my suggestion but ember's. CLAS-D builds further on the LASS idea.