Thread Tools
Old May 9, 2001, 06:34   #1
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Combat model
First: Apologies for not finding the thread that undoubtedly is already around here somewhere. Instead I've taken a quote from the overfull Snapcase thread on the latest reviews as a starting point...

quote:

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker on 05-09-2001 05:41 AM
Hi Guys,
I hope this thread is still being read, as I like to know some peoples opinions concerning the suggestions I sent to Firaxis about Stacked Combat (armies)
Firstly, I should say that I had hoped that combat would be resolved on a seperate Tactical Screen (Like Birth of the Federation). Where you could move your units around, set tactics for each unit and select targets for your units attacks. With that in mind, I believe that stacked combat CAN WORK, if it's done PROPERLY!! Here were some of my suggestions:

Fisrt of all I suggested that building stacks should be tied to an earlier advance than Nationalism-I suggested Warrior Code/Iron Working or even a new advance like "Mass Combat Tactics". Of course this suggestion depends on when Nationalism will be available (is it 18th-19th centurty nationalism, or the first appearence of the "Nation-State" to which they refer?)

My second, and most important suggestion, was that units in an army stack should fight individually and all at the same time-to give greater advantage to a numerically superior army! The way this could work is that, when you engage an enemy with a stack, both sides stacks split up on the screen into seperate units (arranged in a face off similar to that on a chess board). From here you click on each unit, choose a target for their attack, and select a basic order (see below). After you've finished selecting targets for all your units you press an attack button, and combat commences and continues until one force is destroyed, routed or retreats!

My third suggestion was to take range into account during combat. This would give modern units an advantage over melee units, as they'll get several shots off without fear of retaliation! Basically, when you engage an oponent, you will face off at a default "Range" based on terrain, unit ranges and how far units can see. If a unit is out of range it moves closer each combat "Round" until it can hit its opponent, or it is defeated/destroyed. This would mean that each unit would have to have a "Tactical" movement rate to represent its movement during combat.

I also suggested that you should be able to give your units basic "Orders" before a combat starts. This would be as simple as: Assault, Defend, Harass, Supression Fire, encircle, Entrench etc. Basically, once combat begins you can't change a units orders (unless you have a leader) except to order a retreat. I also felt that units (armies) should be able to violate orders and retreat if they are badly damaged or up against a superior force (ie. units should have morale, based on combat strength and experience!) Connected to this is my belief that it should be possible to rout units-when a unit reaches the Red hit point level, they automatically retreat, but can be attacked by enemies with ranged weapons as they flee (routed units cannot defend, as they are too busy getting away!)

I also felt that turns should be broken up into a seperate Move and Attack step: ie. everyone moves their units, then everyone conducts attacks. This would allow a player to bring an army back to a key location, if an army appears that he didn't see earlier (assuming he has enough Movement left!)
It also means that, if you launch a Nuclear Weapon(s), your opponent can launch any weapons he has before you resolve the attack (anyone for MAD?!)

Last of all, I believed that most land and some sea units should have a maximum "Range". This is the range they can go, unsupported, into enemy territory. In order to go further they must either capture an enemy city, or construct "Supply Depots" (which could be attacked or Raided by the Enemy!) I felt that this would stop an enemy from simply moveing in and taking your Capital.

Anyway, sorry for the length of the post. I hope to hear some suggestions (positive and Negative) sometime in the near future.

The Aussie Lurker


In a moment I will reply with my own thoughts, but this post is already long!
Grumbold is offline  
Old May 9, 2001, 06:56   #2
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Aussie seems to be leaning toward overcomplexity IMO but I am reminded of a review of an old boardgame I used to play - War in Middle Earth. The army combat system was all about tallying up stack strengths, adding leader and terrain modifiers then referring to an odds chart and dice rolls to determine percentage casualties. Great. Then they implemented a different system for leader fights like when the Nazgul and Fellowship met each other and no troops were around. Leaders would pair off and fight one on one. At the end of every round a leader could flee or step back and allow another fresher one to fight in his place. This resulted in absurd scenarios. As the reviewer put it, the Nazgul catch up to Gandalf camping alone on Weathertop. Being evil, do they jump on him from all sides and mug him to death? No. They all line up nicely and allow him to duel them one on one until perhaps enough minor wounds have been dealt him that the Lord of the Nazgul himself reckons he has a chance of victory and steps up to the plate. This is patently nonsense and it is being continued almost identically in Civ3 if the review is accurate.

Armies have been in existence for as long as warfare has been around. One of the fundamental rules has always been that to outnumber your enemy is better. If your enemy is dug in on hard terrain or in a castle then you need even more numbers to even out the disadvantage. Darius is reputed to have had over 100,000 troops against Alexander at the battle of Arbela. The numbers only count if you use them simultaneously though. While the enemy advances against your centre, flank him and charge his rear. Cut off his supplies. Enfilade his positions. Pin him with your own troops then bombard him for a week, forcing him to endure or be the one to leave his defensive position and attack. The number of options are endless. Even in a castle assault, if you assume you cannot put more men against the walls than the defender has atop them (unlikely) you can have waves of attackers every 3 hours day and night just to stop the enemy from getting any rest. Numerical superiority must be allowed to count for something. Air and naval support is only really effective when used in conjunction with ground troops. It does not take a separate battle screen to achieve these things, nor a game within a game, but that does allow for greater visualisation of the battle.

Secondly I would like to refer briefly to this vaunted zone of control amendment. I submit that it only increases gameplay because the AI is better at attacking than forming ZoC walls. A bunch of lightly armed Guerillas might not be able to stop the 7th armoured division from advancing past their positions but they can - and will - ambush and destroy all supply convoys that attempt to keep the division fueled and combat ready (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Lawrence of Arabia etc.) With variable ZoC rules it is more vital than ever that supply considerations are accounted for otherwise the capital capture victory just gets easier then ever before.



[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited May 09, 2001).]
Grumbold is offline  
Old May 10, 2001, 07:23   #3
silburn_l
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1
quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold on 05-09-2001 06:56 AM
Armies have been in existence for as long as warfare has been around. One of the fundamental rules has always been that to outnumber your enemy is better.
[snip]
The numbers only count if you use them simultaneously though.
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited May 09, 2001).]


Disagree. Whilst envelopments and flank attacks are one way of exploiting superior numbers; echeloned attacks and the well-timed release of fresh reserves (non-simultaneous use of force superiority) can be extremely effective.

Luke
silburn_l is offline  
Old May 10, 2001, 08:35   #4
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
I mentioned that in the castle example (I'd forgotten the word "echelon" otherwise I could have saved some time ) and while I like the idea of reserves it is probably harder for a quick combat system to resolve sensibly than numerical superiority or missile support.

I would suggest that the current 'one stands up' model does not even match an echelon attack unless both sides have eschewed any attempts to broaden their line beyond a single unit. Where a defender has inferior numbers and can be outflanked I submit it is better to do so than to go for a direct frontal assault with the same numbers and hold back most of your forces in reserve.

I don't want to suggest that the CtP implementation was perfect. I do suggest that it is a better starting point for analysing how we want combat to perform in Civ III than the old system where they all queue up and fight each other individually. Units backing down when close to death in favour of a fresh unit in the stack simply is not adequate to call the combat system an improvement. The Civ system will still unfairly advantage the technologically superior but numerically inferior force and will not allow the use of combined arms. Putting spearmen, cavalry and archers in the same stack just gives you different individual attack strengths, not advantages over three identical units with the best attack strength. You will still want your armies to be as small as possible so that when one army fights and wins the next army still has all its movement remaining and can exploit the new gap.
Grumbold is offline  
Old May 10, 2001, 21:15   #5
The_Aussie_Lurker
BtS Tri-League
King
 
Local Time: 00:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 1,451
Hi Guys,

I feel that I should once again put my 2 cents worth in:

On the claims that I am leaning towards overcomplexity-I must disagree. All the suggestions I have put forward are based on my observations of games such as "Star Wars-Rebellion", "Birth of the Federation" and "Axis and Allies", as well as from reading the "Clash of Civilizations" page and I've found that none of the rules are gameplay in these examples were too complex!
Secondly, the rules for target selection and orders in my model would be strictly OPTIONAL!! If you don't want these features, you don't use them, and the computer will simply go to a "Default" mode. I often use such options in "Rebellion" and "BOTF", if I feel bored!

Thirdly, ideas such as unit range, movement then combat and Combined arms effects are neccessary, I feel, from a game balance perspective! (Combined arms is discussed in more detail on the thread I began on 10/05). After all, how would you like it if a computer player suddenly appeared with a stack of 10 armour units outside of your Capital-which you had left only lightly defended because your capital lay about 300-500km from your nearest border (just by way of an example). Using my suggestions, the enemies stack would probably contain more infantry than armour (for combined arms bonuses) and would have either had to have captured some of your smaller outlying cities, or would have had to have constructed a number of supply depots in order to reach your capital (all of which would be vulnerable to attack-unless he left some of his precious forces behind to gaurd them!) I hope this shows how, far from making the game more complex, it actually adds a much needed strategic element to the game!
Anyway, I'd be glad to hear anyones thoughts on these points I have made.

Thanks,
The_Aussie_Lurker
The_Aussie_Lurker is offline  
Old May 11, 2001, 09:35   #6
Russian King
Chieftain
 
Russian King's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: In Hell
Posts: 78
I would only agree to this pick your target system if its very FAST AND SIMPLE.
Otherwise: CTP is my choice.
Russian King is offline  
Old May 11, 2001, 17:19   #7
Mokael
Chieftain
 
Mokael's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 94
what worries me, is that we have to wait till Nationalism to build any stacks. Military units date back to the days of Greek Hoplite Communities. And probably even more further back to the days of Assyrian Empire -- today it's probably the only thing they're known for -- their military. And of course, no one (I hope) would argue the fact that Romans were one of the best tacticians. And many of you could probably give some examples and such.
So, I think there should be some sort of a new advance early in the game. Something like Military Organizaiton, or Military Drill. Or just Ancient Tactics? Whatever. It's just kind of stupid to wait till Nationalism, or till u get lucky and some Hero/Leader will pop-up.


Mokael is offline  
Old May 11, 2001, 18:07   #8
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
I absolutely agree. If armies are going to be more than linear queues then they need to be around from the advent of the legion. Later techs can gradually increase the size that can be sustained with more modern command and control methods.
Grumbold is offline  
Old May 12, 2001, 00:47   #9
Mathphysto
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: East Brunswick, NJ, USA
Posts: 41
Hey guys, there's some stuff posted about combat models on the Battles thread - basically, we like CTP, but would like to augment the notions of firepower, armor, and experience with speed, accuracy, and a finer scale of distance/range. I, personally, HATE the old one-on-one model. It's way too simple, unrealistic, and boring!!! The combat system of CTP was one of the few things I thought was an improvement over Civ2. So don't deny me, Firaxis! I've been playing Civ since 1991 on my old 8088 w/CGA graphics (hmmm, and I don't think that 7 civs taxed that old processor too much...) - so how about you show me some love?!
Mathphysto 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 20:59.


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 © The Apolyton Team