Least radically, utilise what little stacked combat exists to implement superficial support for military leaders. If a unit starts from one or passes one during its turn it gains combat bonuses for the rest of that turn. If it is on the same square as one during the defensive phase, it gains defensive bonuses. Any unit that wins in combat after using the leader gives the leader experience points in a SMAC/Morale-like manner (ie. Invisibly), and adds greater bonuses in combat the greater the rank. The unit is built in a normal way, and takes as many resources as a settler or two. Teh strength of this model is that no radical new concepts need to be added to the game, but it is also a weakness: this is a fundamentally unrealistic, forced and not very fun option. Another weakness is that leaders aren't really put at risk, because they are never at the front. I hope it isn't implemented.

A more complex way of doing it would be with "captains". Each unit can "carry" a leader, much in the same way a trireme carries units, with no movement penalties. The leaders are still units that can be killed in a conventional manner, but they will also die (or be captured) if the unit they are leading dies. Combat bonuses are calculated the same way as above. The advantage here is that leaders will die readily, but it is still fundamentally unrealistic in that a General never commands a single troop, and no provisions are made for large-scale warfare.

Option number three, my favoured option, works by spheres of influence. Literally. Every leader unit incurs bonus in a combat zone whose size depends on the rank of the leader e.g. a Corporal will have one square of influence in each direction, a colonel a City Radius's Worth, and a General three times that (or something). Several units of different ranks (but not of the same rank) can also be used in conjunction with each other to add additional bonuses. Units rise in ranks the conventional way with Morale points, and all start out on the lowest rank. This provides a decent way to simulate large-scale warfare leadership, and makes it worth-while to go in and assasinate, say, an enemy general. The problems usually exist when half the major and colonel team you've been using in conjunction rises in ranks, making both of them the same. Maybe you could confirm or decline rise in ranks. Another thing which this model could simulate would be the unhappiness when your great general (your Shaka Zulu or Alexander the Great or Kublai Khan) suddenly dies, producing large-scale unhappiness in all your cities for a few turns, increasing the risk of civil war...

The last two options are too far-reaching in my opinion, and are thus not very good as far as I'm concerned. Option four consists of Remote Generals. These are not units at all but far-off military leaders that sit in their cities directing distant units. They are assigned in much the same way home cities are, except each city can contain several. Any unit might switch general at any time, or elect not to have generals at all. (Generals will be expensive to build, like about half a minor wonder.) A unit without a general at all would be similar to one which has a "green" general, and would neither gain or lose morale because of it. Now, depending on how well the general acts, how much his units win or lose, he gains a reputation which modifies' his subjects morale levels. He also gains exerience which decides how many units can be attatched to him. The weaknesses of this model, that generals never die and that it adds too much micromanagement, make it a weak one.

Finally, complete implementation of stacked combat with MoM-style heroes as leaders. Rises in ranks add both bonuses and increase their holding capacity. They move at the speed of the slowest stacked unit. This will, of course, change the game completely and is an unwelcome addition to CIV.

quote: Originally posted by Snapcase on Snapcase on 01-04-2001 11:57 AM Option number three, my favoured option, works by spheres of influence. Literally. Every leader unit incurs bonus in a combat zone whose size depends on the rank of the leader e.g. a Corporal will have one square of influence in each direction, a colonel a City Radius's Worth, and a General three times that (or something).

I think option number three is the best.(but I could wish Sid could give us a hint, just so we had something more than speculations to discuss... )

All stacks of a certain size and above would automatically have a commander IF you built a special city improvement (like "military school"). These commanders would come in ranks from 1 star to 4 stars.
The commander would improve the overall strength of the stack based on the rank. The commander would rise to the next rank after a certain number of victories.
The commander would be killed or captured if the unit were destroyed.
This would give stacks with a commander a slight advantage over a similar stack without one, and would represent the ability of a commander to organize his forces. After all, I believe that there is a difference between a well trained army that has a bad general vs a poorly trained army with an excellent general. Furthermore, since a stack needs to be a certain size in order to get a commander this would encourage the player to build larger stacks instead of the 1-1 fights in civ2/smac! Battles with between larger stacks with commanders would make wars more interesting and realistic.