Combat Resolution Revisited

Urban Ranger · March 1, 2001, 23:03

Here's a post I made somewhere:

quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 02-24-2001 07:24 AM

There's one thing I have always wondered: why is combat always to the death? What happened to a very basic concept named retreat? I think the possible outcome of combats should include:

[*]unit is eliminated[*]unit is damaged[*]unit is routed (retreating more than one hex)[*]unit is forced to retreat[*]nothing happens[/list]
Here "unit" can be either the attacker or defender. Results can be a mixture of these outcomes if they are not mutually exclusive. Examples:

[*]attacker damaged and forced to retreat, defender eliminated[*]attacker and defender eliminates each other[*]both units are damaged[/list]

Unfortunately nobody made any comments. So what's your opinion? Agreement? Disagreement? Contentions? Contradictions? Etc?

quinns · March 2, 2001, 17:58

Agreed. But with the engine they are using (in Civ 1,2,3 Ctp 1,2 SMAC/X), they cannot have two opposing units remain in the same square at the end of the turn (as would happen in the results: "nothing happens" or "reduction in force"). All combat is done "in the same square", not square to square. This calls for some very fancy programming that goes well beyond the scope of the basic engine that drives all these games, in my opinion.

I agree with you 100% though. "To the Death" is not, at all, realistic.

(Actually, from what I hear, CTP2 allows voluntary retreats in multiplayer and a/i games, so they, (the Civ-type game developers), have already, somewhat, addressed this. This "voluntary retreat during battle" wouldn't work in Hot Seat or PBEM CTP2 games though.)

[This message has been edited by quinns (edited March 02, 2001).]

Roman · March 2, 2001, 18:25

The new Firaxis update does state retreats from the battle will be possible.

Urban Ranger · March 3, 2001, 04:27

Hm, when nothing happens, it could simply mean that the attacker goes back to where it starts from, and the defender stays put.

colossus · March 3, 2001, 05:24

While it's fun and more realistic to have combat results other than total elimination, it may add slow down the speed of machine. More seriously, I suspect it will make ancient war long, protracted and yet indecisive. For example, combat are made to last 3 rounds. So a player needs 3 or 4 knights to take a city instead of 1 and 2. That is, the 1st knight damaged a pikeman, the 2nd kill him, and the 3rd move in to capture the city.

yin26 · March 3, 2001, 05:46

I believe you made that comment in my thread about morale. Routed units should definitely be part of the game, but it should be balanced in such a way as to not slow down the game (as has been said). My little addition to that was units would regain hitpoints if left alone, effectively making it more difficult to just run through some civ.

Of course, if combat isn't handled well in other aspects, this could just become tedious.

March 3, 2001, 17:23

quote:

Originally posted by Roman on 03-02-2001 05:25 PM
The new Firaxis update does state retreats from the battle will be possible.

Yes, but Firaxis also stated that a given unit will only have the option of retreating IF it has the movement points - which, in a way, does make sense.

Urban Ranger · March 5, 2001, 00:44

Cities are supposed to be very hard to take. This also forces the attacker to devote significant resources when attacking another civ, which should be the case. No longer would civs start wars just because you ignored their demands.