posted July 08, 1999 12:04            

COMBAT
Summary of v. 1.2

STACKING

Limit size of stacks, to 5? Stacks must be in the same square at the
beginning of a turn to combine, outside enemy ZOC's unless in a city.

Units move together but attack individually. Bonuses for certain combinations of unit types (air, ground, and artillery)? All, some, or none of the stacked units may attack.

No more than 2-3 units in a stack can defend. Will not necessarily be the strongest units. Stack "breaks" if the 2-3 killed. Rest of stack must then retreat (see below). If cannot, destroyed. May retreat onto transports (Dunkirk). This will reduce transports MP's next turn.
(Francis)

Liked CtP stacked combat.
(Mr. Bigglesworth)

Max in stack should be 9, not 5. All units in stack should fight, but agrees that losing
key units could cause retreat.
(Eggman)

Varying stack size:
Supply rules would help limit stack size. Organizational advances in the Tech Tree could also limit size until late game.

Initial stack is approx. 4-5 units. Other things to increase size:
Generalship tech, or a general unit.
Units that require an internal organization, like Phalanx or Legion.
Bureaucracy/Centralization Social Engineering or tech.
Military advances of Conscription, General Staff, Divisional Organization, Military
Academy, etc., would greatly increase stack size.

Also:
Macadamizing (cheaper all-weather hard-surface roads, better supply)
Canned Food (better storage of bulk food for depots and transport)
Railroads (allowed million-man armies of WWI to be deployed and supplied)

In game terms, perhaps an initial limit of 6 or 8 by Medieval or early Gunpowder
times, rising to 40 before radio & telephones raise it again in the 20th century. Suggested limiting max to 30 by modern times.

Reasoning: No matter how big the ancient armies got, w/o a chain of command most of them were just on the battlefield as spectators.
(Diodorus Sicilus)

Who attacks whom in stack is random. Ranged units only ranged vs. their era & older.
Give a bonus for having infantry / mobile / ranged units stacked together.
(Ember)

Stacks should be able to have more than 9.

Have the primary attacker + half #2 + 1/3 #3 + 1/4 #4 (etc.) strengths added together;
also for defender. This would represent that while you can always draw support,
sometimes that support is effectively non-existent; also you can only focus your attack
on a few defenders/attackers.

Collateral damage (SMAC style) would then be limited proportionally to the amount
of support that unit could provide to the combat.
(Darkstarr)

RETREAT

Vets may retreat after taking >50% damage. Less experienced units
may fail to retreat. Player option when to retreat. Player chooses where to retreat to,
with the MP's used deducted from next turn. If cannot retreat, must stay & fight to
death. May retreat into squares held by friendly units, even if in enemy ZOC.
Attackers may also retreat; mobile units can retreat even if greater damage taken.

Units in square not in combat:
There's a chance the rest of the units will scatter (retreat) when stack loses units. Approx. 25% after 1st unit defeated, 50% after 2nd, 75% after 3rd, 100% after 4th.
(Francis)

Stalemates. Both sides can be damaged but neither is destroyed.
(Mo)

Retreat by routing sounds good, but questions if is too complex. The computer, not the
player, should decide who retreats.
(Eggman)

Routing/retreating could be interesting, but it would lengthen the game.
(Darkstarr)

Only attackers should be able to retreat.
(Mr. Bigglesworth)

Retreat option is a good idea because few battles resulted in the complete
annihilation of either side. Using a well-made battle screen; if 1 side reaches a # of
casualties it starts to retreat. If enemy has a mobile unit w/same or better MOVE than
retreating unit & hasn't been damaged, that unit can pursue. If unopposed by a fresh
enemy mobile unit, it will inflict damage beyond it's normal ability to do damage.
This keeps combat a gamble: There's no easy out if something goes wrong.
(Diodorus Sicilus)

OTHER

If units survive battles often (due to retreat) there will be problems if repairs stay free. Suggests having to pay for repairs on x# of gold à x# of shields repaired. If retreats/stalemates allowed then city sieges become pointless as units will be repaired by next turn (barracks, etc.); units will rarely be destroyed.
(Ember)

Agreed that Ember's idea will make siege warfare possible.
(Flavor Dave)

Better AI to take advantage of terrain in siege warfare: knowing how, when where to
build defenses near an enemy city, with roads connecting to defenses.
Bombers should be able to target specific city improvements.
(AXM)

Supports specific targeting by bombers, suggests weapons to attack only populace.
(NotLikeTea)

Bombers should have poor chance of success with specific targeting until laser
targeting available. Suggested air missions to attack populace instead.
(Theben)

Bombarding & ranged combat:
The # of rounds of bombard should be = current HP's of attacker. Air units can only
bombard.
(Ember)

Scrap att/def values, replace with LASS (land/air/sea/space):

The player could buy STR points for each category when the appropriate
technology is gained.
Ancient (land) units would have approx. 1-5 STR for land, 0 air/sea/space.
Renaissance (land) units would have approx. 4-7 STR land, 0 air. 1-2 sea, 0 space.
Modern (land) units approx. 7-12 land, 0-6 air, 2-7 sea, 0-? space.
Graphics would change radically when STR's, HP's, options, changed in workshop.

Combat between different domains is always treated as bombard. Bombards cannot
destroy a unit, but may disable a 'unit option' (i.e. "carry air"; sinks carriers but not fleet). Not all unit options can be disabled, just certain ones.

Modifiers between like units:
-Terrain. Some applies to both attacker & defender (infantry in cities, mobile units in
open, special option units [alpine, marines] in their specialized terrain), while other
terrain only applies to defender.
-Military morale, happiness, & tech bonuses (techs that would give a minor advantage
to combat that are otherwise too small for the workshop; i.e. writing, telegraph,
satellite mapping).
-Random Combat Events: % results; 1=disaster for attacker, 100=same for
defender. Most results have no effect, but applied each time combat occurs.

Reasons:
-Combat in CIV is strategic, attacker & defender change often during battles.
-SMAC combat doesn't take attacker's armor & defender's weapons in account
-Would work well with modified workshop
(Theben)

Liked LASS, suggested adding Range to units.
(Eggman)

Military units cannot take advantage of spy/partisan immunities to ZOC.
(AXM, Francis)

Recon: The ability for a unit to see what another army's size &/or unit composition is.
Similar to the "variable vision" in CtP.
(Diodorus Sicilus)

Diplomatic random events [w/ effects on combat?].
(NotLikeTea)

posted July 08, 1999 22:57            

Enable the Air force (others?) to destroy city improvements. This would simulate a campagin against the cities infrastructure, such as industry, transportation, population, etc... Give targeted buildings Hit points and then bombing attacks would damage (and reduce the ability and effects of) improvements. Also add a degree of randomness in bombing so that the target is not nessecarily what is hit. Perhaps a targeted factory is missed and a population center is hit instead. Give diplomatic or happiness penalties to more enligtened govermnets for bombing population. Increase the morale (will to fight, hatred of the bomber) of the city whose population has been bombed.

AXM, Theben, Eggman

random Diplomatic events comes up agian...

NotLikeTea

Remove the ability of non-combatant units (like the spy or caravan types to bypass ZOC.

Flavor Dave

Give the ability to fight with allied armies and help them directly
Keep information on the original owner of a city so the city can be returned to its owner after liberation. Allow the player and the AI to surrender or return a city that originally was owned by another nation.
Limit the amount of units that fight in a stack per round, without limiting the maximum size of the stack.

Agent 000

Allow unlimited stacking, but limit the combatants per round of combat to four

Ember

Lost computer time - will continue

------------------
Redleg

posted July 09, 1999 17:53            

look at my long thread posted may 23 in combat (ver 1.0): hosted by redleg

my first idea I know longer like very well and my third idea needs more thought but I would like to expound upon my second idea

please go look up the thread it is on the third page, if you would like I could repost it

I still support(or at least think the idea should be considered) that in battle both sides should make a battle choice reflecting organization and style and army make up

(each large army should be made up of several other units ala CTP)

like once you have learned legion organization and your army has the proper make up you should be able to attack as a legion would with the corresponding bonuses towards some enemies and minuses towards others

which way and all that tactical stuff would be figured out by the game as your army generals, each battle choice will have information about when to retreat and the like

these battle choices would be preset by firaxis and you can give up to like 5 of them to every unit type you design to be built (if we have anything like smacs workshop) or will be ingrained in the units if we have preset units

examples of offensive battle choices would be frontal assualt, delaying retreat, flank assault

something like delaying retreat would fight until you lost just a little amount of hp and then the unit would retreat, but it would take the proper amount of moral or training to do

some battle options would be like this defensive one (if the unit had artillary and infantry): infantry line up before artillary and then artillary shells enemy, then if the enemy chose frontal assault the defender would have a plus but if they had calvary and chose a mobile unit flank attack then if the chance was right the offender would have a plus

some battle options might have a certain number of MPs prerequisite (like the calvary one)

each battle would only have one choice and if the sides withdrew before one side was destroyed so be it, the next person to move can fight another battle (and would be the attacker)

the available defenders and attackers battle plans would be identicle and the army would have the same five to choose from (the number 5 could be changed) this will allow more realism

adding different tactics to your unit would add cost to it (for the training)

thats enough on that for now, I don't know if it would be practical to implement but it would be better than battles like in :Lords of" or "Master of" serieses

one thing I think should be changed is that airplanes should not attack enemy units the way they do in smac or civ2

against enemy armies or units they should mostly be used as a means of support, by themselves fighters should be useless in covered terrain vrs enemy units and bombers should have limited use

in open terrain the airplanes should have more use

also it should be very hard to hurt planes and except with other planes (and sams and aa), the planes should usually not get injured at all

in a supporting role planes of all types should be very benificial, having high attack when used in concert with ground troops

they should also play a role in defensive combat, maybe they could be placed on some sort of alert and jump to defend any units in range (maybe even an auto where you can pick wich units to support and then the planes will do so

in my battle plan idea there would be plans with planes in them

planes should also be very good at attacking vehicled units on roads and railways and infantry on railways

infantry in cover should be near impossible for any plane to injure

planes should also be good at attacking infrastructure, especially bombers

aa should do little to bombers and sam sites should not times the infantries defense by two but instead should be a constant, like CTP's city walls, fighters like they are now should be the only true defense against bombers

posted July 12, 1999 23:23            

Because we have reached an age where we try to keep everyone alive, enemy or not.

We could have POW, and maybe interrorgate them? Maybe thats a bit much...but I highly suggest an option to try and capture an army.

Oh! And how about the spy unit or another unit, named "Assassin" who's job is entirely to assassinate the leader or one of the leaders advisors, (whom you get to pick).
This won't kill the whole civilization, it will just put it into complete misery for a couple of years (turns) untill a new leader takes its place, and that new leader may be a worse leader than the previous one, or maybe he's even better! >

posted July 13, 1999 04:56         

- Air units (icons) are only allowed to exist in base squares (specifically built airbases or cities). They create an "effect zone" (EZ) around them, which includes all squares within the unit's operational radius. Player can move air units from base to base by selecting the unit, clicking on the new base and watching a nice little animation of planes taking off, flying and landing.

- Automatic Recon Flights: If an enemy land/sea unit is inside friendly EZ, there is a chance per turn that it will be spotted. This chance increases the closer the enemy unit is to the base square. The spotting would be re-evaluated every turn.

- Bombing Runs: Player selects a bomber air unit, clicks on the target enemy unit (can also be air unit) and again watches a neat animation of bombers doing an attack run and returning to base. If the bombers fly through an enemy fighter EZ, there is a check whether they are spotted by the enemy. If spotted, enemy fighter interception is very likely. There can be multiple interceptions if flying through multiple/overlapping enemy EZs. If the bombers take too much damage, the mission is aborted and they (try to) return to base.

- Automatic Fighter Escort: If a moving/attacking bomber unit is within friendly fighter EZ, it has fighter escort. Possible enemy interception then first engages the fighters, and if sufficient strength remains then the bombers.

- Automatic Air Superiority: If friendly and enemy fighter EZs overlap, there is a chance of air superiority combat between the fighter units (much like artillery duel in SMAC). The chance increases the more EZs overlap. Enemy bombers entering friendly fighter EZ are intercepted, if spotted.

posted July 13, 1999 11:20            

Jon Miller,
Many have suggested for or against tactical combat in civ. It's really a question of preference: realism or strategy? Perhaps a game option will allow you to choose between the two, but now every time people can't decide which to use, an "option" is suggested instead, leading to an option glut.

Your ideas regarding air combat have also been discussed, with the exception of terrain severely hampering air operations. Thank you for pointing this out. As for bombers I have argued that they should have very limited success bombing specific targets until the advent of laser-targeting, for historical reasons.

Icedan,
I like the idea of capturing armies, but under limited situations. Perhaps thru leader/general units; also depending on the happiness of the civs in question (the capturing civ would have a greater chance of capture if it's HAPPINESS was higher than the enemy's, lower or non-existent if otherwise), any diplomatic bonuses/penalties/atrocities/generous gifts, and if the civ has the "nationalism" tech. No POW interrogation, IMHO.

Also no assassin unit, but spy MISSIONS that include assassination, from a espionage screen.

posted July 13, 1999 14:10         

I'm a sort of newcomer here (look junior civer ), I registered in mid June. I haven't read the old thread versions. Actually, I haven't read even the current MOVEMENT thread. There's so much stuff on this site... Ember already commented in combat v1.1 that many of those ideas I proposed have been brought up earlier by him and other people. But I did think them out myself. Trust me.

posted July 14, 1999 12:43            

I agree that repairs should cost money. Perhaps when a unit reaches a critical level of damage (25% HP remaining) then the unit can only be repaired if you spend some cashola. This is because if a tank doesn't have a gun turret anymore it's probably gonna cost a lot to fix up, but if the tread's fallen off than the driver/commander/cook can just glue it back on for free.

In another thread, Fuji was suggesting, among other things, that a completely 3D rendering of the world be used, complete with spherical shape. I believe that this can indeed be done--you zoom in on a sphere far enough and the thing looks more or less flat, and if you are given the option of changing the viewing angle than there won't be any problems of a tank platoon hiding behind the Himalayas (not that you should have to look behind every mountain, that would be a waste of everyone's time). Not only would this provide some excellent eye candy, but it could also be used as a grand new combat system (I think someone else may have mentioned this, but not in any thread that I've read, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone else). Not only would there be a 2D position but there would also be an altitude (or depth!) involved with the game. I don't know how far Firaxis is planning on having the tech tree go, but this could allow for a space combat system as well (everything above altitude 10, for example, would be "in space", and satellites would be at altitude 15 or so). It would allow for a better combat bonus system in regards to height (attacking Nepal from India is a little different than attacking North Carolina from Tennessee, even though you cross the "mountains" both ways). Airplanes could fly at different altitudes (a bomber flying at altitude 6 wouldn't have a chance of getting shot down by SAM's, but a bomber at altitude 1 or 2 had better be good at evasive maneuvers), and subs could dive to different depths (you're NEVER going to detect a sub at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, but of course you'd have to pay an arm and a leg to be able to get a sub down that low). The North and South poles would actually exist, and you could cross the Arctic Ocean as a shorter way around the world than through the Strait of Magellan. And finally, this would add a whole new element to city building (Fugi's cities as well as the traditional Civ cities, although a traditional city would work better): not only would you be able to glean resources from the land, but you could also take resources from the sky and underground! Deep core mining operations, floating farms--cities in the sky that are more than just cities taking their supplies from the surrounding land (no, cities in the sky would take their supplies from DOWN and UP as well as OUT, just like a normal city, and the ground might not even be in their production spheres). This would mean that your high altitude bombers would never have to land on the ground at all. But I digress. The combat system suggestion is in there, I was merely touting other features albeit on the wrong thread.

LASS, not ATT/DEF. It doesn't matter that you're on the offense and you've got a singularity laser (or whatever they'll have in CivIII), all the other guy needs is a big stick to kill you. Assuming, of course, that he can reach you--warriors should not be able to destroy airplanes (unless the aircraft are on the ground, of course). Armor upgrades should increase hit points and should perhaps increase the unit's heal rate (an energy shield, for instance, would repair faster than a ten-ton block of steel--just add energy), but should not otherwise aid in attack.

posted July 14, 1999 03:28         

IMO, land units should never be completely destroyed by air strikes (although a tank unit can drop to say 5% hit points after several attacks). No matter how much you do conventional bombing there are always survivors. This is actually the experience of real-life militaries. You have to send in the ground troops to finish up and secure territory.

posted July 14, 1999 11:46            

Do you mean here the 10 shield warrior unit, or do you mean ground troops? If the former, well, it's pretty near a statistical impossibility anyway. If you mean the latter, have you heard of those shoulder launched missiles? Give enough of them to some riflemen or MIs, and they could wipe out quite a few planes.

"IMO, land units should never be completely destroyed by air strikes (although a tank
unit can drop to say 5% hit points after several attacks). No matter how much you do
conventional bombing there are always survivors."

This isn't only true of bombers, of course, but every unit. Since one of my biggest complaints about Civ2 is that you can't really use the full triad, I could not be more opposed to any idea that singles out and weakens bombers.

posted July 14, 1999 14:57            

As for Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) and Infantry ADA weapons like the Stinger and (the latest) the Javelin are primarily for infantry units interdicting enemy close air support (like helicopters, HINDs) not for bombers. Bombers have too high of an altitude and since bombers tend not to engage infantry units (to small and dispersed) it is usually the role of fighters or ADA units (like the patriot which was originaly intended to intercept aircraft) to destroy enemy bombers and protect strategic assets.

posted July 14, 1999 16:19            

So why in the hell would you want to take away the only purpose for a bomber, limited tho it is???

posted July 14, 1999 17:16            

A destroyed unit does not mean that every guy is dead, it means that the division ceases to be a cohesive fighting unit. It is to badly demoralized / to many casualties.
A bomeber wing that drops a whole bunch of gas-fuel bombs on an infatry unit will destroy their fighting ability. The survivors will be put in other units and mental hospitals.
I see the unit HP representing the % fighting effectiveness remaining, NOT the number of soldiers left. A destroyed divison might have half it's troops left , but they are too scatered.

I fell repairs from the brink of death should cost ~1/2 to 1/3 the price of a new unit.

It is possable to balnce free repairs with bombards that destroy, or bombards that don't destroy with costly repairs, but it is not possable to have usefull bombard units if repairs are free.

posted July 14, 1999 19:14            

I am vocalizing my concerns for Civ3. I agree with you that combined arms (even though triad isn't the term for it) is not replicated too well in civ2 and thats why I advocate a more tactical or operational level (as an option).

At the strategic levels it is Army and Corps sized-elements (divisions tend to be at the operational level). Artillery doesn't fight alone nor do tanks (they can at their own folly). I too would like to fight a better combined arms fight (AoE will do for now), but its better at the operational level or if they make the game real-time instead of turn based you could probably synchronize fire and maneuver better.

Oh and two turns and die doesn't apply when you play scenarios ...me and a lot of other players what a more realistic simulation for the challenge.

------------------
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
- Jim Morrison

posted July 14, 1999 20:13            

No, it isn't very likely that artillery would be able to wipe out a unit, but that's why the amount of damage dealt and the chance of causing damage would decrease with every shot. Yes, there will be some people/tanks/whatever left alive when the unit is destroyed, but they will be so bruised and battered that they'll be useless and must disband. And when you bring something like napalm into the equation, then your chances of killing something with bombardment would increase.

posted July 15, 1999 12:55            

In a Harry Turtledove book I read (something about aliens invading during WW II), the aliens used these fantastic artillery shells that fragmented into several hundred/dozen explosive 'mini-mines' (the number depending on the target's size: tanks or people?). Suddenly finding themselves surrounded by hunks of explosive that wanted to blow them up, the humans had no choice but to stay put or get blown up. Problem is, then came the airforce--the humans couldn't get to cover and were massacred.

Upset that your bombers are going to become 'artillery' pieces that won't be able to destroy an enemy unit worth a darn? Well, either the bombers can drop these fragmentation shells in a target square, or friendly artillery can shell the square. The actual dropping of the fragmentation devices would do little to no damage, but any bombing run thereafter would do something like double or triple damage (and, if they make bombers artillery and insist that artillery not be allowed to destroy an enemy unit, then perhaps there could be an exception that a bomber can destroy a unit if the unit is in a square with fragmentation mines).

Moving into a square with fragmentation mines will do damage to a ground unit, moving OUT of a squre with frag mines will do even more damage. This goes for your guys also, so attacking people in a frag mine square will do automatic damage to your ground forces. Engineers (or whatever the proper unit is) would be able to move into a frag mine square and suffer no damage, and could remove the mines in one turn. Regular ground forces could remove the mines in either two or three turns. After damaging three units, the mines are automatically removed (they've all been detonated, presumably).

These frag mines wouldn't be true mines in the sense that they don't actually do a whole lot of damage (they're sort of a nuisance for an attacker, though, and he will have to waste time removing them while you make reinforcements or else he'll come in with his troops bleeding a little)--the main purpose of them is to help bombing runs. If a unit can float in mid-air (again, I don't know how far they're planning on taking tech), then obviously such units should not be affected by these things.

posted July 15, 1999 18:08            

Bomber, in enough concentration, can do this.
A bombaer attack is not a single raid, but a series of sustained attacks. Kosovo might have been a bomber and 5 fighter units attacking once.

posted July 18, 1999 03:16            

A Raid is characterized by a battle that the attacker is expecting to lose, and so he picks his retreat prior to attacking. Once he is about to be routed, he makes his getaway with his smaller, more mobile army, to live to fight another day. A Raiding army would receive a -25% attack penalty (from morale, if anything--they know they're going to lose) and a 50% retreat bonus. Once the attacking army dips below 50% health it tries to make its getaway. If the defender is quick enough and the retreat fails, then the attacker gets a -50% attack penalty for the remainder of the battle (his plans went wrong).
-A Raid would just be used to weaken a slow but powerful enemy army. The faster Raiding army could retreat to a base for repairs and perhaps launch another Raid before the invading army reaches the Raiding army's city.

posted July 18, 1999 22:51            

On the kosovo situation. Yes there was a partisan unit involved, but the air strikes lasted less than 1/6th of a 'turn'. I was pointing out that air can kill things and cause damage. It is more reasonable to assume that three units that take 33% damage each are combined into 2 units (loss of one unit) than they get fully repaired without a factory having to produce a single extra gun for the divisions.... If you pay to bring the units back to full strength there is no contradiction, but if repairs are free there always will be a contradiction. Repairs should be cheaper than buying a new unit, because there is always a significant amount of salvagable equipment.

One other note. An armor unit with 10% damage does not have all the treads nocked off. These are minor damages that would be repaired many times over in the course of day to day opperations. The only damge that should show up in the civ model is permanent losses where re-enforcments have to be sent to 'repair'[replace] the losses.

The repair unit is a good idea, it would simulate a forward supply and staging area where new men and equipment could be integrated into exising units.
I think that you should not normally be able to repair at all within an enemy's borders, to simulate supply lines. (you have to take the soldiers off the front lines before you can effectivly add new troops)

posted July 20, 1999 06:00            

I see three different very usable solutions to how combat should be handled

we all know that smac went wrong in that it considered the unit the actual vehicle and that civ2 has grown outdated

most have agreed that civ3 should not be tactical (and I agree that it should not be to the level of moo2 or mom), it would leave too much to do, the AI could never handle it and it would disturb multi play (which is where civ is going with the new cable lines and all; funnest experience with civ type game: smac 3 player on lan simultaneous play) (by the way, I think my idea would be feasible for tactics but it might make it too complicated)

by the way, one of the charms of civ is its simplicity, I and many others in this forum enjoy complex games but this game needs to be for the average gamer like past civs, it can not be as compplicated as ASL, this should be considered in how intricate the combat rules are and how historically accurate

some of this maybe should be in units (I'll post this there too, maybe)

One solution, Theben's, is the lass idea (from units thread)

(by the way I think these two topics should be joined since it is hard to talk general idea about the one without the other)

This is realestic in that it shows army combat, you are in fact so out of the tactical view point that it does not matter even who attacks who (in land to land or air to air or sea to sea or space to space (do we really need space as a seperate setting)) (plus)

it is very simplistic, there are only four numbers to compare with the other unit(s) in the fight (plus)

could it be implemented in a way that would leave gameplay ballanced between attacker and defender?

would there be terrain modifiers (whose to say who is attacking who)?

ortresses and fortifying (and maybe others) would affect the defender. would it be to biased against the attacker?

I have an idea to add to it (I think) make movement related to a general increase in the land modifier of the attacker (for land based attacks) sort of like the 1/3, 2/3 thing in smac and civ2 but with pluses for like going into battle with two movements left (the attacking army would better able to maneuver against the defender and so would have a one up on a defender in a otherwise neutral situation)

this would be if movement rates are increased, different numbers if they are not but same general idea could be used, this is for land

maybe you would have a choice what sort of attack you wanted to do? or maybe that would be too tactical

maybe if a unit used 4 mp in an attack it would have higher rating then a similar unit that used 2 mp, but the one that attacked with 2 mp would still be above land strength, maybe the 2 mp attack would be +50% and the 4 mp attack +150% (if infantry had 2 mp) or maybe instead of % it would be a base number showing that more maneuverbility was needed in the modern era (or maybe still use % but just find the useful attackers mp by subtracting the defenders minus 2 or something like that)

the infantry attacking could do the 4 mp attack but it would have to await next turn in preparational maneuvering since it does not have the points to do it all at once

one of the reasons horses were so useful in ancient war is that they allowed more maneuverbility (and thus attacking the enemy from a better position) so they would of course be better at attacking

this also makes sense since legions were more maneuverable since they had better organization and thus would beat a similar armed less organized group, of course there defense was better too......

an added idea to this is that it would end the catulpult and seige engine question and abuse (admit it, we abused them in civ2 and did not use them (or modern artillary) realistically) instead it would just be like a 6 mp choice for infantry, of course since they were sitting for so long it would be useless against a troop that would be moved (the choice would become available when mathmatics, following the old civ2 tech
tree, was researched)

an air unit just attacking (the same with horse unit and artillary) would take away some of the defenders mp making it easier for an attacking infantry unit to outmaneuver them (this is realistic)

this would also make a needed use of the plane and artillary uniits without the current (civ2) abuses, they would be support units: making a unit with similar land numbers attackable for another unit

of course all the different rules (mostly just the movement modifiers, planes would of course have higher movement and lower % increases for only a 2 mp lead on the defender) would need to be figured out, air, sea, and space would be similar

something similar to this movement idea could be used in any combat setup

enough on that combat setup, more later on it

the second feasible choice would be something like the armies in civ2

this would be more tactical but (obviously) would not be too much so

what is considered is that the defender sort of waits around on the battlefeild for the attacker, who attacks

the attack strength is made up of things that would help in attacking (swords, horses, bows) while the defense strength is made up with things that help with defense (swords, armor, bows)

notice I did not add armor in the attacking strength makeup (these are just a few possible factors, there are tons more), this is because armor is heavy and while it protects you it also hinders maneuverbility so the attacking strength is changed 0 (numbers subject to change), for defending strength however, since this is such a simplified combat model, the armor adds strength because the defender does not need maneuverbility

of course this combat choice is a very simple one, maybe too simple

it is also less realistic then the other two choices

however it has worked in the past, should it be changed?

third setup:

this is by far the most complicated of the three (I probably won't get finished explaining) and that is one mark against it

in this idea the attack and defense come ala smac but instead of just one side attacking and the other defending the attacker would go first and then the defender, each putting their attack vrs the others defense to see how badly they damage the other

defense would be figured from the units armor and maneuverbility (ability to dodge
)

this idea would work well with armies (grouping units together ala ctp)

there would also be initiative (from maneuverbility?) and if a unit got an extra one (from comparing all units' initative rating and then putting some random chance in) the unit that is losing may then retreat away if it is significantly below that of the attacking unit(s) (or its side is) or get in an additional attack the same with one that's side is winning

initiative would have to be a different stat than the maneuverbility that is used to dodge (I think, I may be wrong), it could also depend on the mps each unit has left

I have a lot more on this third idea but I am tired

posted July 20, 1999 15:49            

I'm not that upset about how bombers are used in Civ2. At the least, I wish I could change bombers so that they have unlimited movement, as long as they don't attack on that turn. Better might be a return and attack.

But remember, we're talking about what Civ3 should be like. I am making the case for certain things, so that IMO Civ3 would be better. You think your changes would make Civ3 better (actually, not better, but more realistic.) That's what this board is for.

"Flavor Dave: Yes, I am saying that the 10 shield warriors should not be able to destroy
an air unit--the statistical possibility should not even exist."

The statistical probability far that humble warrior is the same that a reallife group of 50 bombers would go out on a mission against a primitive fighting force, and most of them crash. So, a 10 shield warrior winning is realistic.;-)

"Ambushes: Attacker gets +1 firepower, defender STR is halved if ambush successful.
Also pre-emptive strikes by defender; same effects as above. Can only be done from attacks launched from concealment (see below) and as random combat effects. -Concealment: A command given to units. Unit becomes concealed at same rate as fortifying."

You didn't say WHY this was a good idea; I'm assuming the purpose is realism. If that's the case, that is alot of the defensive bonus from forest, mountains, fortresses, etc.--concealment. So what you are suggesting is kinda already in the game. It is the cumulative concealment of all the little parts (centurions) of the big part (legion).

Also, you're talking how easy it is to conceal a squad or some small unit. But these are "armies," of varying large sizes. A squad from Napoleon's army might have been surprised by concealment, but Napoleon knew there was an army opposing him at Waterloo. So your suggestion isn't realistic.

posted July 20, 1999 20:25            

attackers take adavantage of combined arms.
If stacked with a ranged unit, the ranged unit makes 1/4 of the rounds in a regular bombard against the defender/attacker
Having infantry combined with mobile troops gives a 0.5x the combat rating of the unit not dirreectly involved in the attack as a bonus.

posted July 21, 1999 15:00            

AN ABSOLUTE MUST FOR CIV3--all sea units act like they're in a fortress (die one at a time). This will end the tyranny of the cruise missiles, which I HATE!!! It will make a navy worth building, since you wouldn't have the constant threat of losing a battleship, a transport, an aircraft carrier, and all the poor soldiers on the transport, due to a barrage of 5 cruise missiles.

About concealment--let me make an alternative suggestion. Firaxis has another game called Gettysburg! You can put your units in one of 3 formations--line (for combat), column (for movement) and skirmish (for delaying the enemy.) You put units in skirmish formation in front of your troops, hopefully in woods, or behind rocks. They cover a broad front, and basically take one or two shots at the approaching enemy before turning and running. They do alot more damage than they suffer, and can really slow down the enemy. I suggest adding skirmish to fortify and sleep, available with leadership or something. Only one unit in skirmish formation per tile. It gets a big combat bonus, maybe triple defense (limit other bonuses, or else it's too powerful, IMO--perhaps terrain but not fortress, for example) with this provision--once it gets to 70% strength, it stops fighting. The unit in skirmish is ALWAYS the first to fight.

This would go a long way to slowing howies, at least if the AI is improved as far as its use of terrain and fortresses. Even a humble rifleman will likely give some damage to a howie, and it will still be there. At worst, it will take the howie two attacks to wipe out one unit.

posted July 21, 1999 20:54            

BUT: there was another reason that I liked the idea of an Ambush unit, and that was to provide a "sensor array" (or whatever) before that tech became available. With the addition of Skirmish then Ambush would no longer be necessary, in fact it would be almost pointless, but I would still like a special ability or basic ability to be Conceal or Scout (probably Scout, I suppose), which would provide a sight bonus (unit can see farther) and provides concealment, but provides no other combat bonuses (in face it may provide a combat penalty, especially when attacking from a Scout stance) and can only be performed by certain specialized units. Just a unit to be your eyes and ears without the Sensor Array (or whatever) tech.

posted July 21, 1999 21:04            

close: is for non-ranged, within domain fighting (two legions fighting)
land \ air \ sea (LAS) : is for ranged combat against each domain. all combat between units from different domains or between air units is considered ranged.
defense: is the amount the opponents combat rating is reduced by. This makes certain modern units involnerable to weaker ancient units, like a tank vs. a phalanx in the open.

The rating used in a battle is called the combat rating.

The combat system:
Each round a number between 1 and 100 is picked for each combatant. If it is equal to or less than their modified combat rating the other takes damage equal to the units FP.
close combat proccedes to the death of one unit.

Ranged combat runs for a number of rounds equal to the percentage of max HP the attacker had at the start of combat.

Attackers get a + to attack due to them having initiative. Rough terrain takes away some or all of this bonus, but can never give a net penalty.

Infantry get +25% normally and +50% vs. cities and forts.
mobile units get +50%.
River, hills forest, etc. take away -25%
mountains, galciers, etc take away -50%

Fortifying and forts and city walls gives +50%.

Stacking.
The main attacker is the unit used to launch an attack, and the main defender is the one with the higest combat rating (or designated for it).
If the main unit is an infantry type the auxillary unit is a mobile type, and vice-versa if the main unit is mobile. For naval combat most ships qualify as both.
The ranged unit on each side is the one with the best applicable LAS rating.

The attacker initiates combat and uses 1 MP. The auxillary unit adds 0.5x times it's close rating to the main unit (for both sides). Every 4th turn any damage taken goes to the auxillary unit instead of the main unit. The ranged unit makes an attack every 3rd round. The auxillary and ranged units for the attacker use 1/3 or 1/2 MP.
This allows a simple way of giving benifits to a combined arms strategy. Some units can be used in more than one roll. Mech inf count as both infantry or mobile. Armour are mobile or ranged. The attacker can choose which units act as auxillary and ranged combatnts, nearby aircraft can be used as ranged units also.

Bombards
bombards are ranged combats without the close fighters involved.
Not all units that have a combat rating vs. a domain can bombard it.
cannons can only bombard land, even though they have a relativly good rating vs. sea. If a ship bombards a square with a cannon in it the cannnon shoots back. (it has to wiat for the ships to get in range, even if they are trying to hit the temple, the cannons still shoot back)
In a bombard the defender is the unit with the best LAS rating. The target is what takes damage, not neccisarily the same thing. For older tech units this is random for every round, as tech gets better the target can be chosen, and hit, with more presision.

Raids
Raids are similiar to bombards, except they are conducted by mobile units, with both using their close combat rating. After the number of rounds given by HP is finsihed they automatically retreat. Ships can also conduct raids.

Defense:
dragoons, riflemen, ship of the line are the first units to recieve any defense rating, with 1-2. Stealth-fighters have a small amount also.
Mech inf. cruiseres, carriers, marines, etc have a miedium amount, 2-3.
and Armour, battleships, subs, stealth bombers. have the most.
These are all units that are very hard to damage with even WWII weapons, or in the case of subs/stealth bombers, you need modern weapons to hit at all.

Air combat. Air units are based in cities, airbases/forts, and carriers. They can only be moved between cities by deploying them. All air units have 1MP, with which they can launch an assult (normal ranged combat) or assist in 2-3 ground/naval assults anywhere within their range, or they can re-deploy. Fighters can intercept one incoming assult per turn, and bombers can intercept one naval unit per turn if they have MP left (even a fraction).
Air units do not have a close combat rating, all air combat is considered ranged.
When a fighter intercepts an incoming unit it does a normal ranged attack against it. If the incoming unit survives, it continues to it's taraget, but attacks for fewer rounds do to lost HP.
Helicopters take 2x damge in air combat. They can transport 1 infantry unit into a battle, and act as the ranged unit. They can spot submarines (% chance every turn, higher the nearedr to the sub). AIr units in a city or carrier will intercept land/naval/air units attacking that square even if they have no HP left. Only helicopters can intercept subs this way.

Terrain gives a penalty to air units attack ratings.
-25% for hils, forest, etc. and -50% for mountains, etc.
Infantry give air units an aditional -25% penalty. (infantry on mountans are very hard to kill with planes). Spies cannot be attacked with ranged combat.

All buildings have HP. They are reduced in effectiveness by damage. Both units and building require money to repair. Units cannot be repaired in enemy territory. Population can be bombarded also, at ~10-20 HP per pop point, with fractional amounts lost. TI's ahve a ~2x land or Sea rating of being destroyed.

Nuclear weapons:
Count as a stealth bomber attack against every unit, structure, TI and population in the target zone, as a regular bomber in the surrounding squares, and a Fighter in the 2 square radius (shpaed like a city radius).

posted July 23, 1999 15:22            

1. Makes defense easier late in the game, once skirmish is available.
2. It is realistic. In skirmish position, your guys are spread out. Some will be out in front, and see the enemy coming early.

posted July 23, 1999 19:00            

ember,
Somebody suggested a bonus to the attacker for initative. I guess it was you . I'll have to get back to you on the CLAS-D system, but it looks good. One thing I was working on was incorporating range into the LASS system; range would be a factor between units of the same domain, giving extra shots &/or STR per range difference. Range and bombard would be different; bombard would be an option chosen in the unit workshop (attacks between different domains would still be considered bombardment). If you have any comments on this I'd be very glad to see them.
What does the "defense" do in this case? What is the definition of an "aux" unit here? How does it perform?
Bombards: Another option that would be required is that land-based "bombard" units need to specify what domains they can bombard into.

Jon Miller,
Terrain bonuses, as I see them, would be tailored to the different unit chassises, since both attacker & defender fight in the same terrain. Certain things (forts & fortifying, FE) would be defender only. And as for the space domain, that'll only be used in futuristic eras. I'd rather do without it, but people want space-based weapons. Where else could we put them?

posted July 23, 1999 20:35            

there are three basic types of land unit (for this systems purposes)
Infantry, Mobile and ranged. Many units can be counted in two catergories.
An infantry or mobile unit can iniate combat. (primary combatant) You can also include an auxillary attacker, which is the other type of ground unit (if primary is infantry, mobile is auxillary), You can alos have a ranged unit. The ranged unit can be in a differet square if it is a air or sea bombard capable unit, but all land units have to be in the same square. All sea combatants count as both Prim. and Aux., most ranged as well.

Obviosly we need 4 flags for each unit,
They are attack using rating (C\L\A\S),
a bomber might be able to attack land and sea, but not close or air (air units don't fight close anyways) Units may still have a rating in a catergory, but not be able to initate contact. Usually this air can iniate the easyest, then sea, and only a few ground units can start a fight out of domain.

Defense should apply inranged situations. Bombers for instance will tend to never be engaged in close combat.

posted July 27, 1999 12:45            

Reference Skirmishers. Skirmishers as screens and scouts is a limited and specific term: as used in 'Gettysburg', it relates to the system of the Napoleonic Wars through the Civil War: 1800 to about 1870. After that, almost all infantry was in some kind of skirmish formation, especially after the machinegun made its appearance.
Better: give certain units a Reconnaissance/Scouting ability, which includes the ability to screen an army or other units as related in the Skirmish posts. Scouts would also include the 2-tile 'look'. This could be applied to units in all periods without being anachronistic as the term Skirmishers would.
Ferinstance: the Scout Special Capability would go to:
Ancient:
All barbarian or Nomad units
Light Cavalry
Horse Archers
Medieval:
Unarmored Cavalry (called Hobilars, or Turcopoles among other things, in Civ terms, don't require Upgrading to Knights of your ancient Light Cav)
Early Modern:
Hussars, Dragoons, Lancers, Uhlans - all representing Light Cavalry with gunpowder weapons
Jagers, Light Infantry, Tirailleurs, etc: basically ordinary Musketeers with Special Training (cost for Special Capability) to get the Scout abilities.
Modern:
Reconnaissance or Armored Cavalry units, either on foot, motorized or armored. Again, could be 'ordinary' combat units paying extra costs for the Reconnaissance Special Capability.

The Recon Capability would be automatic for air units, but with the development of Camouflage and/or Maskirovka (Advances) an enemy could reduce the 2-tile Look to 1-tile and the screening ability would be cut in some substantial way. Adding (as a result of another set of Tech Advances) Infrared, Night Vision, or Spy Satellites would return the 2-tile vision and the max screening capability.

posted July 27, 1999 14:08            

My reasons are:
-I've always viewed a Fortified army as an army ordered to "hold down the fort", aka NEVER retreat. A fortified army would receive a huge defense bonus but would be incapable of retreating and could not move/attack until the turn after becoming reactivated. A Fortified army would also not become fortified until the turn after the Fortify command was issued. This is to simulate entrenchment etc.
-A Sentried or Normal army would be one that has no orders, and so is not prepared to attack nor defend. It is prepared for both. As such, this army receives no bonuses or penalties.
-This leaves the Skirmish (name change?) army, which is the delayed retreat army. It receives a defense bonus (it is always prepared for an enemy attack) and a retreat bonus (its formation and its preparedness). While the Fortified army could be wiped out in one attack (it is almost incapable of retreating due to its formation), the Skirmishing army would almost always require at least two attacks to destroy (due to its defensive stance and retreating nature). However, you cannot put an army into Skirmish position unless you have the proper tech advance(s), and it may be that your Skirmishers would have to have sufficient morale in order to stay in formation (they'd have to be veterans or whatever).

I don't know, you're the historian, I'm just a Physics student. What do you say?

posted August 01, 1999 06:26            

One possible solution could be to introduce bonuses to infantry defending against tanks.

Rifleman (strenght 5, defending: +100%) : 10
Tank (strenght 10, no bonus) : 10

Another solution could be that only infantry gained terrain, city wall, and fortress bonuses. Or maybe tanks just got smaller bonuses. I think this is the most realistic solution, since I can hardly imagine tanks fighting any better when behind city walls. And infantry should be the units defending the cities, just like Civ II.

This way infantry would be butchered on plains, give a good fight in forests, and really kick ass when dug in on a mountain side or behind city walls.

This system would have the strenghts of the LASS system (musketeers can't kill planes) and the civ II system, where you used tanks for attack and infantry for defense which is, in my opinion, very realistic.