One of the problems with the combat model in all the civs is that it doesn't incorporate one of the most basic of military strategies of all time, OUT FLANKING YOUR OPPONENT. In the real world, positioning of your troops is just as important as numbers, sure you get a def bonus for being on a mountain or hill. The main thing is that the direction of your attack doesn't matter to the combat calculations, so why bother with a beautifully planned pincer movement when you get nothing for catching your enemy in a crossfire situation. Thats why its easy for everyone to attack with one big stack of units. If you introduce attack directionality it becomes a whole new ball game as a big stack of units would become a very juicy target to pick off. I'll give you an example of how my idea would work.

First if X is your location then the eight surrounding squares are as such;
NW | N | NE
W | X | E
SW | S | SE

This means that every surrounding square has 45 degrees of separation from one another, so the first condition for an attack to get an opposing unit(s) in a crossfire situation is that the direction of the attacks would need a minimum of 90 degrees of separation, so if one attack is from the S then the other direction can be from the SW or SE.

Ok now lets say you have surround a stack of enemy unit with 2 of your own stacks, one to the south and one to the west. You attack with one unit from the south, the combat here goes just as normal. Next on the same turn you attack from the west, now the enemy is in a crossfire situation so the attacker would get a attacking bonus, say 25%, so suddenly your enemy's stack is vulnerable because you outmaneuvered it. Also if you have units to the east, the enemy is in a three way crossfire so the attack bonus would be 50%, if you have it surrounded from 4 directions, then 75%. This way the more you have your enemy surrounded the bigger the bonus for you.

I know what your about to say, What will stop me from attacking with one unit from the S, then one from the W, then have a hugh stack attack from the E and each get a 50% attacking bonus. Well you make it a one off bonus to attack from a direction, so the only way you keep the bonus is to attack from a different direction each time.
Therefore it would work like this:
Start of turn
Att from S = 0 att bonus
Att from W= 25% att bonus
Att from E= 50% att bonus
Att from S= 50% att bonus
Att from W = 50% att bonus
Att from E = 50% att bonus
End of turn
But if you only attack from multiple dir once then it would go like this
Att from S = 0 att bonus
Att from E = 25% att bonus
Att from W = 50% att bonus
Att from S = 50% att bonus
Att from S = 0 att bonus
Att from S = 0 att bonus ect.
Since the enemy is only in a crossfire situation for a part of the attack, you only get the bonus for that part.

Now one last thing comes into play here, and thats the position of other enemy units in the area, because it would be unfair to give an attacking bonus if to get it you need to put your units in a crossfire situation. I draw a simple diagram to demonstrate. Your units are Y, enemy units are X.


X | - | - | X| -
- | -| X | Y| -
- | Y| - | - | -

As you can see for both your units Y to attack the central X the the units from the east would need to put themselves in a crossfire situation of their own, so therefore their would be no attacking bonus, because how could they effectively attack when they would have enemy units behind them.

I think this model would be easy to implement and bring a lot more realism into the combat and would make it difficult just to lump all your units in one big stack.

Looks pretty complicated to me.

What would be nice would be a simpler model which merely takes into account where the defending unit just moved from (perhaps place a little arrow on the map to show it's movement) which would represent it's "facing". Then there could be attacking bonuses associated with attacking from behind (maybe 50%) or the sides (let's say, 25%).

No since in one turn they should have time to change their 'facing' so that even if the threat came from the direction they last moved, they should be able to face it.

Looks pretty complicated to me.

What would be nice would be a simpler model which merely takes into account where the defending unit just moved from (perhaps place a little arrow on the map to show it's movement) which would represent it's "facing". Then there could be attacking bonuses associated with attacking from behind (maybe 50%) or the sides (let's say, 25%).


I know there a fair bit to look at, but i didn't think it was that complicated. It is difficult to represent a real time situation in turn based game, so it does have to take a few things into account, but i would think these would be intuitive and logical.

The problem with which direction a units facing is that its not realistic, as if they are attacked from behind they would turn around to face the attacker.

Civ combat is simulated from a strategic perspective, thus tactical considerations such as this are outside the scope of the game.

Sid Meier's Pirates! had an option that let you sack towns. When you did this, you were let into a turn based combat little mini-game. Something that had was when you did flank an opponent, you got a x2 bonus on your attack. I think civ could do something like that.

Civ combat is simulated from a strategic perspective, thus tactical considerations such as this are outside the scope of the game.
Well ya know what? It can be made PART of the game if they want. Have you never played a game with both strategic and tactical elements to it? A couple examples off the top of my head: Master of Orion 2 and Imperialism. I assure you, these are two of the greatest games made if you can overlook a few minor flaws. Their main draw is the ability to build your empire, and then control the battles.

Civ could be like that too, potentially. With the way Civ is presented, you couldn't really do a MOO2 or Imperialism style system, but the system suggested by Robi D is a good start, and needs very little to make it workable.

Think about it: the current crop of no-brain Civ players will notice NO CHANGE AT ALL. You attack with your megastack, and you do pretty much what you've always done. But for the older gamers (the ones who played Civ 1 and even NON-computer games) who want to THINK just a little, this gives them the opportunity to do so AND get rewarded for it with a slightly more effective army.

Eh, I dunno. How do you determine which way an army is facing. Would an entire army face one way only? Given that one square represents a lot of terrain.

Maybe for a scenario/mod which brings the perspective down a bit, but I don't really like it for something world wide.

I thought the original poster made this fairly clear that the defending army turns to face each new attacking direction, because of the LOSS of the bonus if you continued to attack from the same direction. Once you change which way you're attacking from, you get the bonus back, but if you keep attacking from that direction, you lose it again, because now the defenders have turned to face that direction.

I have tried to keep it as simple as possible, but its difficult to truly simulate a realtime situation in a turnbased one. However i dont think the idea is extreemly complex and is fairly intuitive. Basically it mean if you attack a unit from two opposite (ie more than 90deg) directions alternately then there is an attacking bonus because the defending unit is in a crossfire. The only exception is that if you put your attacking units in a potential crossfire situation to attack a unit from two sides then there is no bonus.

Units can in the span of a turn change the direction they face, but by attacking from two directions alternately on the same turn mean they would have to divide their attention between the two attacks so the attackers get a bonus, however if the defender is on a hill they still get the def. terrian bonus.

I think the idea of robi d is quite good. But I have a better idea i think
1.one of my troop attacks an enemy and fails
2.if perform an other attack from side or back to the same defender in the same turn the attacker should have some bonus.
3.these kind of strategies will make the paratroopers much more useful.
Pics:
X: Defender Y':Attacker Y'': Paratrooper Y''': Cavalary

1. First attack

Y'--->X

2. Paradrop behind the enemy

X<---Y''

OR 2. Cavalary moving behind the enemy

X<---\
Y'''---/



Some notes:
1.After the turn the defender will re-organize and the Attacker wont get any bonus attack

2.Veteran and Elite defenders should be somewhat immune (but not completely) to these attacks coming from behind.

3. Unfortunately, these ideas can be performed by a human but for more realistic games we will need a very good AI.

I have seen it said many times in this thread that you cannot simulate a real-time situation easily in a turn based game. One way I have seen that comes closer is using a WE-GO system of combat. That means both players plan out their orders than execute simultaneously. There are some problems with this on a completely global scale, but you could do something similar for smaller operations:
__________________________________________________ _____________

Considering scale, it seems most 'attacks' represent at least battles if not operations and mini-campaigns. That means you are engaging part of the other army in combat. This did not seem intuitive before becasue armies do not duel, division by division. They are coordinated organizations that fight all at once. You should be able to coordinate attacks, especially with things such as naval bombardment and air support.

First when planning an attack, you select the unit and move them into the enemy. Instead of immediately engaging, it would let you attach any units or give other orders. This means paratroopers can be added, tanks put into position from a few stacks away, or even just move all 20 units in your expedition force in for the kill across a narrow front.

Of course defenders would then get the option of coordinating defence in the local area. THey would not know the attackers plans(without espionage at least) but would have to set up how to coordinate the defence. This may include its own air defence, or paths of retreat.

After using the very intutiive command interface(important that its fast), then orders are executed simultaneously. Maybe every 3 or 4 pulses, you could ammend some orders if things were going really badly or if a huge strategic hole was opened up.

In this case envelopment and logistic bonuses would be easier to apply. Experience of troops should also affect combat, along with promotion upgrades.

Wow, there are some great ideas in here that I totally agree with. Civ5 anyone?? :D

[QUOTE=TheDS]Well ya know what? It can be made PART of the game if they want. Have you never played a game with both strategic and tactical elements to it? A couple examples off the top of my head: Master of Orion 2 and Imperialism. I assure you, these are two of the greatest games made if you can overlook a few minor flaws. Their main draw is the ability to build your empire, and then control the battles.

Civ could be like that too, potentially. With the way Civ is presented, you couldn't really do a MOO2 or Imperialism style system, but the system suggested by Robi D is a good start, and needs very little to make it workable.>>

Don't forget Master of Magic, which later became Age of Wonders. One of big things I don't like about the combat system is that the tech difference never seems to be taken into account. ALways makes me angry when my knight gets killed by a spearman.