Battles

[Sava]

Battles need to be redone as well. CTP was on the right track with the idea of ranged attacks, etc. But it needs to be taken to another level. Distance is a factor in battle. When two armies engage each other, they should do damage based on the range of their weapons and the damage at that specific range. If musketeers were to engage a group of soldiers with bolt action rifles, the musketeers would not be able to do damage past 50 yards. The rifles, on the other hand, could be effective up to 300 yards. Then breakthroughs in weapon design would make a unit's attack power greater at a certain range.

This would allow for better defensive strategy based on high ground, because troops on high ground with a defensive position would have a greater range of attack. Then the battle model would work like this. Attack power determines the potential for damage, and the defense power would determine amount of damage taken.

Far-ranged attacks such as cannons and artillery would have two factors. Attack power and accuracy. Mortars of the 1400's were less accurate than the howitzers of WWII (DUH!) they should inflict damage accordingly. Also when a unit "bombards" another unit, damage would also be inflicted accordingly.

Defensive fortifications. When a ranged attacker bombards a unit that is in a fortification, the fortification's defensive bonus should be lowered according to the amount of damage. And sometimes, the fortification could be destroyed, but the unit could survive. Also, I think a retreat factor should be put in. An army of 1000 people isn't going to stand by and be annihilated by bombardment. After the unit gets down to about 200 people, don't you think the unit would retreat? Then the player could put the remainder of the troops back into another regiment. Very rarely is an army completely wiped out. Most often, they are routed and sent into retreat, then later thrown back into service.

[dennis_caver]

I agree with most of the improvements above. I can beat the AI
in Civ 2 every time because of my use of modern strategies and
tactics with modern weapons. I've not seen an military AI that
understands and uses the concepts of air power.

I think the most needed changes in the military AI is when the
modern era is entered.

Cavin forever,

Dennis

[Mathphysto]

One of the most disappointing purported features of Civ3, besides the 7 civ limit, is the method of combat. I agree that CTP did a much better job than Civ2 at creating interesting, balanced, and realistic armies/battles. I also like your ideas about accuracy, and making distance a larger factor. Often, attacks have been aborted before they've really started, due to ranged defensive units - just think of what the English longbow did to the French, or what modern artillery would do to an approaching unarmored infantry group.

Speed should factor just as importantly as distance. Afterall, it doesn't matter if you're far away, so long as you can get there quickly. An approaching infantryman will have to endure many more mortar rounds than a tank. Also, mobility is one of the traditional keys to battlefield success. Whether it's used to get to the flank or the rear, or to feint and surprise, or to overrun unprepared defenders, speed is just as essential to success as firepower, armor, range, accuracy, experience, and leadership.

With all the effort supposedly being put into upgrading the diplomatic models, I don't understand why Firaxis insists on using a childish combat model. Perhaps they think that this "classic" touch will make the game more accessible to soft-core civers. For me, at least, I only tolerated the "classic" combat model because I had to - I enjoyed the game in spite of the combat, not because of it. And, honestly, would it be so hard for soft-core civers to pick up this slightly more complicated combat system? Would it be any more difficult than learning the diplomatic model, or the tech tree, or the wonders, or cultural points? And it certainly wouldn't tax a computer's power to any great degree, nor would it be that hard to code in.

Also, about the armies being contingent upon discovering Nationalism - what the frag? Coordination of forces has always been important to warfare - just look at how Alexander had to use phalanx and chariots in a coordinated plan using the speed of the chariots to encircle his enemy, while the phalanx dominated the enemy's attention (speed again!) Nationalism has NOTHING to do with warfare - it's a state of mind of the general populace, a philosophy of cultural/national preservation and dominance. And while the nationalistic spirit may help conscription rates, it has nothing to do with how a general organizes his forces or plans an attack!!!

I think the Firaxis crew has really missed the boat on some fundamental aspects of the game. Of course, they can get away with it and still sell a ton of copies, since there isn't any serious challenger putting out a Civ-style game. But the second that happens, Firaxis better watch out...

[Mathphysto]

Another thing - when will somebody incorporate the concept of SURRENDER?! It's one of THE most common resolutions to combat. Whether it's the Gulf War, World War II (the nazis & soviets each encircle and forced the surrendor of hundreds of 1000s of soldiers), World War I (the german surrender to end the war), the Crusades (when fortresses were under siege), or the Mongol hordes (when soldiers peed their pants at the sight of the enemy), mass surrender has been at least as common in warfare as victory by annihilation, or retreat.

Of course, if I'm the almighty ruler of a Civ, I'm not going to give any quarter, nor demand any. I'm going to let my army fight to the death - because I don't want to lose! Sadaam Hussein sure didn't want his troops to surrender in the Gulf War, nor were Hitler and Stalin pleased with the surrendering of troops. However, the morale of the soldiers and the compassion of the on-site commanders often made surrender inevitable. Maybe soldier morale would be dependent on cultural points, the diplomatic relationship between the two enemies, and the balance of forces on the battlefield (if I'm hopelessly outnumbered, I'm not going to fight to the death - because it'll likely be my death)?

Another thing about combat - I hate how the size of one's army is only directly dependent upon production, not population. If I have a small civ that happens to own mineral-rich land, then I can build a huge army - but where did all the soldiers come from? It's much easier for China to field an army of 10 million than for France to. People are just as critical a resource for war as the metal used to fashion the guns.

I think that there should be a "cap" on the number of units a civ can build, determined by the civ's population, some sort of "threat factor" (determined by how much other civs dislike you, and how powerful those civs are), and cultural points (if this is my motherland, I'm going to defend it!). Maybe one could also factor in propaganda, or religious fanaticism. This, along with the production limitations of a civ, would determine how large an army the civ could field.

[Sava]

I agree with the surrender and the speed thing, I actually forgot to include mobility in my long post.

I had ideas for air combat. In my other post about time increments I touched on an idea of setting orders for your units then starting the turn in which all of the Civs units moved at the same time. During the age of Flight, when enemy planes/jets are detected, sentried planes would automatically scramble and engage in air combat. The level of detection would depend on how fast the fighters got scrambled; i.e. Pearl Harbor. And when two squadrons already airborne meet, they would engage each other.

Anti-Air Defense. Anti-Aircraft guns could be an improvement placed in a tile or a city. Anti-Aircraft guns, historically, have just been machine guns welded together on a turret with 360 degress of lateral movement and 90 degrees of vertical movement. Later SAM silos could be built, up the discover of Basic Rocketry and Radar, and they would automatically attack incoming aircraft.

[Pedrun]

Have you Guys Ever Played Caesar. I Think the combat model is the best ever created. And could be add in civIII
In this model when you send unit to combat it appears a screen with a battlefield. Each unit becomes a army (with about 100 or less people) and you can organize the many armies (one for each unit). There is the option (like caesar) of organize each army as colum, as wall or maybe other options. You would make strategies like put the range and bombard units behind infatary and when you finish organizing you start the combat where you have full control over your units - you could send some to atack in the flanks, other to walk around to attack the back or when the things get ugly you could retreat some units while others are fighting.
Air units were going to still be controlled by the AI, but you could organize their attack priorities - Firsrt attack the walls, Second the enemies air units, Third the ground units, Fourth ...
Wall are there to separate the defenders from the attackers while the attackers have to destroy the walls first to atack the enemy- bombard units will help a lot - The defenders can atack their enemy with range and bombard units behind the walls or send all to attack outside of it. The Defenders can even make improvments to help then destroy the attackers(like the Ballistica Tower of CTP2)
The stats bars intead of health they show the number of people to combat
This option would fit quite fine with SoulAssassin's idea of alocated Population - Just that every soldier from the army represents 10 from the city (it is quite dificult to controll 1,000 people per unit)

[dennis_caver]

Lets talk about the tactics of air powers major component, the concept
of air superiority.

The first thing an enemy will see before ground attack is large squadrons
of fighters. These fighters will initially take on anything that flies.
To entice the air force of the opponent to respond they attack any
ground units. Once the air is ours the bombers concentrate on large armies
and the fighters start taking out infrastructure, especially transportation
improvements and support the bombers. Once the key targets other then the
cities are neutralized you turn the bombers on the cities as you invade
the enemy territory with the ground units. As these ground units approach
the cities they are supported by the fighters. If ground units have
bombard capabilities they will be first to reach the cities.

Also before this starts Intel is collected about the capabities of the
opposing forces.

This is one example how the Military AI should attack a human opponent.

Just think, here's the media preview for CIV 3 intro.

"AI kicks human butt all the way to Alpha Centauri."

Cavin forever,

Dennis

[Mathphysto]

Don't even get me started on the AI and its feeble attempts at warfare. As much as I crave realism, I would go all the way back to playing Civ1 if it had a great AI.

[Russian King]

I agree: The battle combat should be COMPLETELY revised and altered!

[Cyberbugs]

I must say I am worried about the combat system in Civ3. From what I have heard from Firaxis the units should "replace eachother after dying when stacked in an army". I really hope that this doesn't mean taking no notice to ranged units such as archers, making them simple replacements to other infantry units! Archers and cannons for instance should fight from behind the lines, supporing the infantry units.
I mean, this was one of the most important things that I wanted changed in Civ 3. CTP2 acctually did a good job with their stacked units system. An improved version of armies that fight like REAL armies is simply a must!

[Zanzin]

I share everyones sentiments here. Firaxis have said how important combat is...but still it seems they insist on 1 unit vs. 1 unit system - this is utterly stupid.

Is it a case of Firaxis being to proud to admit that Activision did a better combat system than they did (in Civ2), and they couldn't possibly borrow anything from Activision? C'mon guys!!! CTP got combat right for civ! Regocnise this, and implement it...alas though, I fear it's too late in development.

[ancient]

civ was never meant to be a war game! war is only a part of it and was never supposed to be taken to the levels of civ2.. i think all combat should be resolved automatically! civ is not an rts game...

[Gammaray fan]

There are two critical things that MUST be in civ3.
A surrender option from the diplomatic screen - winning power could demand reperations etc.
Retreat command for the army after x number of battle rounds.
These two concepts will FUNDAMENTALLY change the nature of battle and war in CIV from 'win or lose battle, conquer enemy or fail to conquer enemy' to 'been pushed back by the enemy, win war lose war (as distinct from conquer). Thus Firaxis could make limited war a viable option in the game for conflict over resources, land etc. but make total war VERY risky. This further adds to the rise and fall of civs because even if a civ loses wars and land in one era, they may bounce back (with unique units) in another era, whereas if they had been completely wiped out they could not bounce back!

[senowen]

quote: Originally posted by Gammaray fan on 05-17-2001 09:35 PM There are two critical things that MUST be in civ3. A surrender option from the diplomatic screen - winning power could demand reperations etc.

There IS going to be something like this in the Dip. Screen, if someone whom you are crushing wants a peace treaty you can demand all types of different things from them.

quote: Originally posted by Gammaray fan on 05-17-2001 09:35 PMRetreat command for the army after x number of battle rounds. These two concepts will FUNDAMENTALLY change the nature of battle and war in CIV from 'win or lose battle, conquer enemy or fail to conquer enemy' to 'been pushed back by the enemy, win war lose war (as distinct from conquer). Thus Firaxis could make limited war a viable option in the game for conflict over resources, land etc. but make total war VERY risky. This further adds to the rise and fall of civs because even if a civ loses wars and land in one era, they may bounce back (with unique units) in another era, whereas if they had been completely wiped out they could not bounce back!

This is a good idea, but only with armies. With a 1 x 1 system there could be an AI on both sides. Kind of a demoralization meter where after you (or an opponent) loses too many units the army becomes demoralized and retreats. If the losing army was an attacker it is stopped in the square it attacked from. If the losing side was the defender the army retreats to the easiest to get to adjacent square (i.e. [in order] rails, roads, plains, hills, swamps, mountains).

[Mathphysto]

Yes, the combat system is really worrying me too. I cannot believe that they would implement so ridiculous a system. With all the effort being put into diplomacy and culture, how could they totally ignore combat? This is, afterall, the heart of the game (for me at least, since I love to conquer the world, being the megalomaniac that I am... ). More generally, it should be at least as important to the game as diplomacy and culture. So get it right!! Don't let me down, Firaxis!