I am in the process of a playing a civ3 game where I am the Egyptians, and am currently in a War with the Chinese on another continent.
I recently landed a vast host of units outside of one of their coastal cities-in hopes of establishing a 'beach head'. I landed a nice 'combined arms force of several cannon, around 4 musketmen, and around 4 units Knights and 4 units of Men-at-arms (medieval infantry)!
Anyway, during the next round I slowly got creamed by around 5-6 Chinese Longbowmen brought up in close succession-in spite of my massive numerical advantage. Now, not only was this frustrating, but it was also quite tedious to watch as he slowly whittled me down. What would have been MUCH more fun is to have seen a stack of his 5-6 longbowmen go head to head with my ENTIRE stack of mixed units! Whether this was achieved through a seperate tactical miniscreen, or simply by pairing each unit in one stack with a unit in the opposing stack, I'm really not that fussed. All I want is a form of 'simultaneous combat' where my numerical superiority and use of combined arms actually MEANS something!!
So, do you guys agree with me on this issue, or do you think I am merely whinging because I lost? ;) :D

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Oh, just an additional note: PLEASE do not think that this suggests that I am dissatisfied with Civ3-quite the contrary (hell, would I even BE on this forum if I was? ;)!)-in fact I am LOVING the game I mentioned in spite of being repulsed by the Chinese. I just would have loved the game even MORE with a stacked combat system (and I do NOT mean armies!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I'm currently trying to think out a workable system that would involve combat as seperate from movement.

it would consist of something like:

move->combat-> move?

This would slow down a sudden blitz kreg (or however its spelled. I don't know German) that could take over a whole entire nation without a chance to respond.

I'll post it once I figure out how to put the concept that's in my brain into words.

Well, another solution courtesy of 'Birth of the Federation' was to have everyone in the game do their moves. Then, if enemy units ended up sharing a square after all movement was resolved, a pop-up would appear informing the player and asking if the player wanted to 'open hailing frequencies', 'manual combat' or 'automatic resolution'. If you chose the middle option, you would go into a turn-based ship combat screen. At any time, you could exit this screen by allowing the computer to resolve the results! It was VERY effective, and didn't add ANY extra time to the game, whilst at the same time making combat VERY exciting!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I don't want popups for every combat ... sometimes I'm doing combat in 15 or 20 different tiles in a round. It would be ok for games on a smaller scale, with less area and units, no good for civ.

But I do like the idea of stacks. I think it should just be simply implemented ... a stack adds all its attack and defense scores to a single number, and damage is distributed randomly.

How about this, armies are free. Now you just click the 'form army' button and an army unit appears on the map where the unit is. Up to five units can be loaded on an army. Units can be unloaded and upgraded. Combat is how it is now between armies, but everyone uses them. It would reduce the number of combats by about 80%. Combined arms will give you a bonus versus enemies who have a weaker combination.

I'm liking the armies idea - but the stacked combat idea is also good. I'd like to see some sort of compromise, where you can stack units together to form an 'army' without the use of a Leader, howevere keep Leaders and make Armies formed by leaders superior to stacks.

Something like that. I can already spot one flaw.

@Frekk: I understand your concerns, Frekk, but part of the reason why there are currently so many battles in a given turn is BECAUSE of the lack of stacked combat. With a stacked combat system in place, players I feel will be more likely to move their units towards 'set-piece' battles, rather than random skirmishes! Also, organising battles by theatre will also make the management of combat a great deal simpler! I can assure you that the pop-up/mini-screen system worked INCREDIBLY well in BotF, largely because player and AI alike were moving their units around in groups, rather than individually!
As for 'stacks' versus 'armies', I think the easiest thing to say is that ANY group of units can fight together in a stack, but only a true 'army' gets a bonus to its attack strength/defense strength, morale, firepower, HP's etc-as a result of a centralised 'command and control' network (as defined by the leader/army unit) The bonus each unit would recieve in these areas would be defined by the values that other units possess in these areas (if that makes sense?)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

How about having different forms of combat in different ages ... so individual units in Ancient, your stack idea for medival and industrial, and then the free armies idea in modern ... there could be a tech or minor wonder you need to get this to work for you.

So, to get stacked combat, you need the tech of Military Structure or something, for free armies, you need to learn Combined Arms or something?

I don't like the way the Armies are done in Civ now. They are used as either super offensive units or super defensive units. I am like a more real-time/simultaneous combat, etc thing where multiple units work together.

Thats exactly the way I feel too, Searcheagle. Like I said though, in my model normal stacks will still fight together simultaneously, its just that if they're loaded into an 'army', they will fight in a much more 'cohesive' fashion, granting the units within the army a bonus in areas where they might be lacking. This is why putting an infantry unit with an armour unit in an army would be so good, as the infantry unit gives a DS bonus to the Armour unit, whilst the armour unit gives an AS bonus to the infantry unit.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I'm liking the idea of making armies free.

Then great leaders can be used for something else. For example, a general that boosts the defence of all units with it, or the movement, or the attack or something else.

But streamlining military into various armies would be VERY interesting. And efficient.

Also, it would ensure that SoD was less effective since all armies are roughly the same size. For my next suggestion we have to assueme you can also use 'naval' or 'air' assessts as part of an army. Since armies are free, you can form a new one with Air and Naval components within operating range of the combat.

Here is a suggestion for how combined arms could work. It is a bit simplified, but understandable. Each military piece contributes a different 'Value'. There are several comparisons of values, and the end results of these seires of comparisons result in attack/defense bonuses for the army. Imagine these are the value:

Archer = R
Spearman = D
Catapult = A
Swordsmen = H
Warrior = L
Chariot = F
Horsemen = C

An army gets an attack bonus for:

R - (F + C)
D - (H + R)
A - (F + C)
H - (F + C)
L - (F + C)
F - (D + L)
C - (D + L)


They also get defensive bonus for certain values too:

Too tired to discuss tonight.

@Sir_Schwick: I actually raised the issue of Air and Sea assets at Apolyton, but will repeat it here.
I think that, from a game-play perspective, it would be better to have each 'phase' of combat worked out independantly-and in a specific order, which I have quoted below from the Apolyton thread.

As for bomber/naval support. I think it would be easiest if there was a specific 'order' to combat. So

(1) All units are moved first.

(2) Then air-missions (and their targets) and targetting of nuclear missiles occurs.

(3) After everyone has moved and assigned missions (if any), combat is resolved between any units which end up in the same square-in the following order:

Air vs. Air (so units who 'cross paths' en-route to missions will 'slug it out' for supremacy');

then Air vs. Naval (if applicable);

then naval vs naval;

then aerial bombardment of ground units (if applicable);

then Naval bombardment of ground units (if applicable).

Then the ground units go head-to-head.

None of these combat situations would HAVE to be to the death, as either side should be able to surrender the field at any point (though this would give the enemy a 'free shot' at their backs!) Also, though, bombadment would not result in the death of a unit, merely soften them up prior to a ground assault.

So, as you can see, you have combat resolved in nice, discreet little segments, with the survivors from one 'phase' able to participate in the next-if applicable.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Creating a kind of formation, to me, would be a neat addition to armies. Add a certain x factor to army building, aside from just building "the best unit".

What about 'combined assessts' factor of Bomber vs. Fighter ratio or Archers vs. Spearman vs. Warrior vs. Swordsmen? If you add this in so effectiveness of each stage was determined that way, then this system is a winner.

I think the Aussie Lurker system could do wonders for improving multi unit combat.

In particular, in the Air system, where a single bomber can get past several several fighters. In this system, the fighters fight each other first. Then if fighters remain, they take out the bombers. Then the remaining bombers take on the combined stack of units and Anti Air systems.



Bombers in the current system are too much of a free shot, with a slight risk.

Well, keep in mind that if you enjoy the benefits of stacked combat, so will the AI. This may be one reason they decided not to go with a CTP like system, the human will always be better at creating effective combat groups than the AI will.

That said, I think implemented properly, this is a good idea. As you advance scientifically, you gain the ability to use combined arms increasingly - in the ancient ages you can build armies with say, 3-4 units in them, swordsmen in the front rank, archers in the rear. By the time you get to the modern ages, you can have armies with 8-9 units in them, tank groups accompanied by SP artillery and mech infantry. The way city defense is handled would have to changed about as well, maybe have all city defenders act in concert automatically. I also think limiting the number of units that can occupy a given tile would make for more interesting strategy, it will make bringing a sufficient number of units into attack position more of a problem.

That is the main reason I say avoid the formation idea and just compare what units are there. Armies heavy with Archers are great against foot but weaker against Cavalry. A couple spears will help reduce that, but against Cavalry heavy armies its not a huge help.

Also, they would have to change the combat system so that the attack portions of a group aren't useless on defense and vs. versa. I am thinking you compare your attack versus there defense and vice-versa, with attacker getting attacker bonus and defender a defender bonus.

[btw. I always was for 'intelligent' advisor screens: meaning, with researching tech x, you are able to do choice y in the advisor screens. Example: At the start you don't see how much a tile gives, only with the research of alphabet, the things can be written down and stored...(=you see them). Example: At the beginning, you have 0 gold. And you don't gain gold. (science is done else). Only when you have researched currency, you can handle gold (money) in a effective way, therefore writing it down and do effective scientific work. But well, that's just a wish]

@searcheagle It's called Blitzkrieg. (But I'm not German!)

@topic I really second this idea. But the solution 'everyone moves and then we press enter, and so we fight' isn't good in my opinion: Blockades aren't possible. Ok, they aren't in the current system, but well, we want to improve it, don't we?
Has anyone played LotRII (not Lord of the Ring, but Lords of the Realm 2)? It's a very good game and it uses armies. You can create armies in any city. You put as many 'farmers' (=men) into the army as you want and then give each of them a weapon. But of course you can only create an army if you have enough weapons and the city is large enough. (Otherwise you would have no more citizens in the city... :)). The created army is symbolized by one man and then can be moved on the map. I like this system very much. Of course, for Civ4 this model isn't really usable, but something alike I would really appreciate.
I have always said that we need to distinguish the units into 3(5) types: Fighting units (as above armies), civil units (settler, workers) exploration units (scouts and every other unit type possible). After the situation, we may have also naval and air unit types. The idea is to distinguish the types by number: An army unit consists of many units (men) and unit types. It therefore moves 'slow' (regarding...) and costs much (=long) to be built. An exploration type unit would consist only of few units (men). Therefore, it moves fast, is cheap (=fast), but also can be killed quite easily - also by natural catastrophes, armies would be only affected. the effect this number system would have on civil types you can imagine. :)
This system would be good in my opinion, but would it still be civ?

mfG mitsho

I liked CTP and CTP2's stacked combat system.

Keep in mind that stacked combat presents disadavntages too: with it battles will always be won by the largest army (or armies if you bring multiple stacks), this is already the case but i think stacked combat will only make matters worse; plus no more guerilla warfare with a couple of units to slowly whittle down the enemy; and more importantly less attrition from combat as large stacks would probably suffer much less than is currently the case.

This is not to say that i'm against it but these are issues that must be dealt with if group combat is implemented.

Absolutely NO stacked combat please. In CTP 1/2, this was the reason why my stealth bombers would be killed by pikemen. I hate managing stacks, as they frequently need to be modified. I think we should be able to have stack movement, like we do now, but I'd sooner play another game than to start having my planes shot down by a spearman army... again.

If you limit army stacks to a small size(3-9 units varied on era) then you maintain the need for strategy. Also, geurilla units are non-existant in civ as it is. If you wanted to add that function they would still work as single detachments with fast movement and bombard abilties.

I would also like to think that battlegroups would engage each other and combined arms have some prevalance in outcome. Also, animations would be a lot shorter so there would be plenty of damage in close battles while ones with elites versus conscripts is probably a sweep.

With stacks the MM will be the same or less then it is now, so that point seems kinda moot. The number of battles is a lot less so that reduces play time a lot. Also, aircraft and naval units can either be added in a support role to armies for a turn, or have their own battlegroups(fighter escourts with bombers). Besides, aircraft would deliver their payloads and leave.

Yeah, I think the biggest incentive is less MM.

And if they can give you limits and choices to make the assembly of armies a strategic choice (e.g.: should I put this guy "in front", should I add another attack unit, or does it need a defensive unit? maybe it's better to keep these units seperate so they can move faster than a big army) that would be an interesting new dimension to military.

I don't know what game Grav was playing, but it wasn't CtP!!! Air and naval units had a bombardment function in this game so that you didn't HAVE to use them in direct combat situations. Compared to civ2, that made the CtP series quite revolutionary, as civ2 still had that awful 'bomber wall' exploit, and the 'legion beating the battleship' :mad: !!
That said, though, I agree that certain elements of combat, as they exist in civ3, would need to be altered to make sure that stacked combat is fair-though this 'learning units' system thats been mentioned sounds like just the ticket, as then it wouldn't JUST be about the stack size, but about whats IN the stacks as well!!
Also, I am a big fan of attrition. If a unit is in enemy territory, and is injured, then it must seek some kind of repair-on the battlefield if the civ has that tech AND the units are within their operational range, or back at a fort/city that IS within operational range!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.