Hi guys,

I have always thought that one of the most interesting aspects of MOO2 was the unit design, fleet formation, and the tactical combat.

How do you feel about having these in Civ3? I know that in the early ages unit design will be really very limited (only things like stone/bronze/iron weapons, weapon crafts, small improvements in siege machines, etc.). The various civlilizations could retain their special abilities in some particular weapon or armor.

But I think that the combat system can gain a lot from "zooming in" the battles. We could group units together that could complement/balance themselves and we could avoid much of the frustration caused by the random-number-based outcome of the current battles.

For example, I have always resented the fact that armies (or at least the first army) can be created only by a Military Great Leader. I would much prefer to be able to create armies at my will, while the Great Leaders could simply bring benefits to the armies (just like the leaders in MOO2) -- increased attack/defense/initiative/whatever.

What do you think? Should there be tactical combat, unit design and the ability to create arbitrary armies (and upgrade them)?

ummmm........ What's moo2?

Master of Orion 2.
I've never played it or even seen it myself, so I don't know what it looks like. But it sounds like a good idea. I would make it optional, though - some people would probably rather just have combat like it is now instead of fighting every single one out in a "zoom in" style. Maybe a dialog box could come up and ask you whether you want to command the battle personally or leave it up to your generals.

Just a quick clarification:

Yes, MOO2 = Master Of Orion 2.

You could design your own ships there. There were things like weapons, armor, computers, shields, specials, etc.

You do not research *ships*, you research ship components. Like, for example, you could have researched Zortrium Armor, Disruptor Beams, Merculite Missiles, Fighters, Positronic Computers, Class III shields, Battle Pods, and the like. There are numerious different military techs. You may be very advanced in weapons, but not advanced in shields. While you advance in research, the older technologies get smaller and less expensive. So, you can put more Phasors on a ship (due to miniaturization of older techs), after you have researched several "better" techs. One more thing: you could re-design a certain ship and then upgrade the existing ships to that design.

In Civ3 terms this means that you do not research "tanks". You research weapons, armor, etc. And then you design your own tanks. You can put various weapons in a tank but you should be aware that there's only so much space in the tank. You can put a lot of small weapons or fewer bigger weapons/computers. It's up to you. Furthermore, some weapons are more "expensive" and take more time to build than others.

The added bonus is that if you have had tanks for 100 years, your tanks will certainly be better than the tanks of another civ who has just reached the point where it can build tanks too. The way we have it now is: "all tanks are equal, no matter what". In fact, in Civ3 ALL units of the same type are equal.

This whole MOO2 concept may sound complicated but in reality it's not. I remember that Alpha Centauri had something similar but not as well implemented as in MOO2. One of the things that made MOO2 a classic is exactly Unit Design & Tactical Combat. There are numerous guides on "Best Ship Design" and, of course, the designs changed considerably as the game progressed.

No, I think they tried something like that in Alpha Centauri. It was pretty cool.

I think that this is an interesting idea. I would be careful with it, though. If done properly, it could bring a whole new dimension into Civ without adding to the complexity too much. On the other hand, it could seriously ruin the game if done sloppily.

I really enjoyed the Moo-styled unit design and combat. It was fun and you had the feeling that you were in the reins. Nothing beats the sight of your newly designed Doomstar kicking the crap out of the enemy fleet! :mwaha: But I think they messed it up in Moo3 (they did that to many features of the game...:sad: ). I totally grew bored of updating all my 50 ship designs (different sizes and different purposes) as there was no automatic update whatsoever. If I didn't upgrade them myself, I would either be flying with an obsolete fleet or with an AI-designed fleet (I would rather die! :suicide: ).

If there were a working automatic update system (like: "upgrade all my phasors with tachyon beams" or "upgrade all my engines while maintaining the speed-ratio" or "add gyro destabilizers to all these designs [...]. Take the needed amount of space from weapons"), it could be fun. I would enjoy making my own designs if I could trust that they would be upgraded properly - I would not want to micromanage all my units whenever I discover something.

Another thing is how it would fit into Civ. I think that it could be done while others may disagree. You could have the normal warrior in the beginning (with sticks and rocks, I presume). By researching iron working, you could make units that have higher attack rate (3, perhaps), but not higher defence rate. By researching shields, you could add shields that would increase your defence value to two. And so on.
You could also make a combat-worker, a unit that has defence value and worker-properties. Later in the game you could make fast-moving units with high attack and low defence to swift and deadly strikes.

The problem that arises from this is the fact that Civ as it is now has very little possibilities for different units. Sure, you could make an ancient unit with 2/2/2 that is not there already, but that it not very interesting in my opinion. In Moo you had starships that you could fill with all kinds of things: direct-fire weapons, missiles, fighters, point-defence, shields, hull, engines and so on. In Civ this is severely limited as it is. And, of course, Civ is a game about the history of civilization - not all combinations would be historically acceptable.

You also had the good point about the armies, and I wholeheartedly agree. Call to power had stacks of units, but I think that they were too powerful and should be toned down a bit. But as it is now, armies are ridiculously powerful. Right now I have conquered two and a half civs almost solely with my armies. First with one, then with more when I won some elite-battles. The AI has absolutely no chance against a pair of armies. If armies were available to all, as you said, it would IMHO make the battles more realistic. The idea about military leaders giving bonuses is good, but the bonuses should be more decisive than in Moo2. The bonuses could vary from increased hps, attack, defence to movement and perhaps even enslavement...

Another idea would be to combine these two. Perhaps the units should be made into armies themselves. You could choose how many hps the unit would have (the size of it) and perhaps the amount of artillery accompanied with it, the amount of defensive and offensive units. You could have different sizes of units (as in Moo) that you could design yourself. Of course, in ancient times only smallest units would be available and later on bigger and bigger. This could even create a use for radio tech: it could allow larger units due to better communications. The cost of the units would vary according to what you put into them. Say: horses would cost less than motorized units whereas motorization would make the units move faster.

All in all, this is full of possibilities. I am afraid, though, that this will never be implemented into Civ. It would change the game perhaps too dramatically. (On the other hand, resources and luxuries were a major change compared to earlier civs). It would be good if more people would take notice of this and post their comments and suggestions. It is the only way for the game designers to see if this sort of change would be good or bad. As they are perhaps even now designing Civ4, these major changes should be brought forth right now.

So, I like it, but I have some reservations. The complexity is the greatest enemy here. Civs are simple games to learn, but (at least they should be :rolleyes: ) difficult to master. As they should be. IMHO, this would not be too complex, but I am afraid that there are many disagreeing voices about this... If they perhaps would make themselves heard? ;)

Ship design was the best part I liked about MoO2! :) The possibilities are endless. Ever tried designing "Antaran kamikazes"? If you're lucky enough to get Quantum Detonator off a scrapped Antaran ship, you could build frigates with augmented engines, defensive systems ONLY and a Quantum Detonator. In battle, zip these speedy babies right into the middle of the enemy fleet, then press the self-destruct button. :evil: Explosions all around and instant carnage. Send the rest of your fleet in afterwards for mopping up. Bwahahaha...

But I think everyone's favorite will be a Stellar Converter armed, fully upgraded Doom Star with the best armor, Class X shields and fighter-bombers. Never mind if that weapon takes up a ridiculously large amount of space, the planet-destroying animation alone makes one feel just like, well, Darth Vader. Mwahahaha... :mwaha:

It will indeed be cool to incorporate this detailed level of unit design in Civ, particularly in the later eras. However, I fear things might get too complicated and the game might get too intimidating. Besides, we know how good the AI is when it comes to designing stuff on its own. :rolleyes:

Ship design was the best part I liked about MoO2! The possibilities are endless. Ever tried designing "Antaran kamikazes"? If you're lucky enough to get Quantum Detonator off a scrapped Antaran ship, you could build frigates with augmented engines, defensive systems ONLY and a Quantum Detonator. In battle, zip these speedy babies right into the middle of the enemy fleet, then press the self-destruct button. Explosions all around and instant carnage. Send the rest of your fleet in afterwards for mopping up. Bwahahaha...

:lol: I Once got so into plasma cannons that I build a Doom Star filled with them, minituarized so that I had something like 300 of those. It was a real juggernaut of destruction that Doom Star. Nothing could stand in its path :hammer: ...not even my computer, sadly: it crashed once in three times I let fly a full load :crazyeye:

I believe the AI-problem could be dealt with by implementing ready desings that the AI could use - as well as those players who don't have the interest to design their own units. It shouldn't be too hard (...well, atleast not harder than it is now) to program the AI to make a good use of those ready designs. To let the AI really design something would be foolish and unnecessary.. The AI is stupid enough to try to settle my lands accompanied by one escort during a full scale war. Letting it design its own units would be like trusting a mischievous monkey with a M-16 :soldier: :nono:

Originally posted by Shyrramar
:lol: I Once got so into plasma cannons that I build a Doom Star filled with them, minituarized so that I had something like 300 of those. It was a real juggernaut of destruction that Doom Star. Nothing could stand in its path :hammer: ...not even my computer, sadly: it crashed once in three times I let fly a full load :crazyeye:
Hahaha... :lol:

I wouldn't say that things would become too complex by introducing unit design. They certainly haven't become complex in MOO2. On the contrary, that has greatly enriched the gameplay. Just try to imagine MOO2 *without* unit design and tactical combat.

My personal opinion is that Civ3 would gain a lot from such a system. But it's absolutely true that it should be designed well. MOO2 was near-perfect. MOO3 managed to ruin it completely. But then again, MOO3 ruined just about every good thing in MOO2. :)

Just imagine the stupid unit designs the AI would come up with and how long a game would take with tactical combats.

In MOO2 the AI was doing a very decent job with the unit design. I reckon it won't be overwhelmingly difficult to program some basic design rules. And Shyrramar suggested a very good idea: there can be some ready designs that the AI can make use of. As the developers release patches, they may include additional ready designs to counter the tricks that the humans come up with and brag about in the forums.

As for the time it would take to fight tactical combats, that won't be a problem at all. You may turn them off. That's possible in MOO2. Then the PC will calculate the outcome of the battles for you, just as it is now in Civ3. However, I don't know a single person who has turned off the tactical combat in MOO2. Sometimes, when you have an overwhelming force and you absolutely know that you will win easily, you may press the "Z" key and the rest of the battle will be automatically and instantaneously resolved.

I believe noone who has played MOO2 has had problems with unit design and combat. These were actually good things. I think they made the game all the more interesting.

And one more thing, actually: if they allow us to stack units together, we would be fighting fewer big battles, not a bazillion tiny "unit.vs.unit" ones. Throughout history empires fought mainly with armies, not with small bands of men. The latter is more suitable for guerilla-style wars, not for major conquests. In MOO2 I wouldn't send many individual single small ships to capture a planet. I would form a fleet consisting of many ships. That makes more sense. The battles (especially the early ones) didn't take that long at all. I could finish a whole MOO2 game on the impossible level in less than 10 hours.

@Warpstorm

Vesuvius_prime is correct IMO. The tactical combat can easily be made optional - but I do not know anybody who would turn the tactical battles off either. They bring a whole new dimension into the game. By my experience, the tactical combat and unit design in MOO2 was certainly something that made it more interesting and none too complicated. Anyway, your concerns can easily be addressed with two options: "turn off tactical combat" and "turn off AI unit-design". The latter one would result in the AI using predesigned units much like it is now, and as vesuvius suggested, they could make more of those.

And if you look at GalCiv you notice that they actually do listen to fans "bragging in the forums" and enhance the AI against succesful human players' tactics. It should not be too complicated to program the AI to make its own designs - they succeeded brilliantly in MOO2 many years ago.

Your concerns are well founded, but also easily avoided. With the two options you would have the same situation as in Civ3. And the players could also choose not to make their own designs (as in MOO2), although I believe they wouldn't pass that opportunity.
If the designers are familiar with MOO3, they should know practically all the ways to screw this up and are able to avoid it ;)

Oh, and about the games lasting long: the option would of course be a simple solution to this, but even without it, I find it hardly a bad thing that a game lasts long. It's not the time it takes, but how fun it is that counts. People are playing Civ3 even though it takes a whole lot more time than one game in Unreal Tournament. Personally I would like it to last long if that what makes it last long was something interesting - right now the games mostly last long because of the endless worker-herding. I have never found it tedious to fight a long war if the war itself was interesting (both sides are somewhat of even strenght or I am the underdog).

You people are all wrong or something. MOO2 is the name of a Dairy Farm Simulation where players have to successfully run a milk supply business. :confused: :p

As for custom unit making idea, didn't the AI do that in the Alpha Centari game? That was the cool thing about that game although I didn't play it much. Nice concept. I loved Master of Orion original but never played #2 yet. Stellar converter YAH!!

Shrraymar, I like underdog wars myself. Check out my story about one such battle on my thread I just started called @Chieftess (and story likers) :D

You people are all wrong or something. MOO2 is the name of a Dairy Farm Simulation where players have to successfully run a milk supply business.

:lol: I always thought that you should be able to micromanage in MOO2; I want to do the milking myself. You could point the grasping point with your mouse and do the milking by pressing two buttons in nice 'n' slow rhytmic movements - you would get extra points for being smooth, and it would also make your cows happier, so that they wouldn't revolt so easily...

Shrraymar, I like underdog wars myself. Check out my story about one such battle on my thread I just started called @Chieftess (and story likers)

Yeah. Nothing beats the satisfaction on beating the AI's stack of doom with unit ratio of 1:7 or some! I practically never have as much units as the AI, and if I do, I rarely play more than a few turns anymore, as it is all too easy. I like to do as much damage as possible with as few units as I can. In some earlier version you could transport eight mech. infs to a mountain in enemy territory and watch the AI spend all of its forces trying to kick their butts ;) That too became a bit boring, though, so now they have patched the AI not to attack without good prospects of winning; which has of course caused the unfortunate side-effect that the AI lets your armies rampage freely... Well, you can't have everything.

Got to check that thread out, thanks!

Sounds really nice for a RTS game like MoO, or RA or whatever

i know this system from Warzone 2100, so its much older then MoO but this will never work in a game like Civ, where u're army and war is not everything..and as Warpstorm said,,think about what the AI may come up with and how they must fill the Civlopedia with this crap...

And u're juz gona get the same units as now, def/atk/bom/air/naval..

but ppl will make units with 20def and 1 atk, this is impossible to play without getting really pissed at why the hell u cna't kill em...

Also to how far an u stuff units with stats? If u're a rich-basterd and have huge prod u can make a MA with 30/30/5 blitz/bom/stealth/inv etc etc So it will destabilize the entire game

@TerraHero

Good points, there. First of all, MoO is not a RTS - except MOO3's tactical battles are, but MOO3 is messed up anyway, and it's just the tactical battles. Second: there would of course be some of the same units, but if it's combined with the also wanted system of all units being armies themselves, it would create more variation. You should design artilleries and such into your armies. This of course is not necessary. What comes to those uberunits, that would of course not happen. As I stated earlier, the stats are comprised of actual weapons. i.e. ancient times units can't have more than three in attack (in the current system), as the best ancient attack units have three in attack (swordsmen). You cannot make a unit with more attack than your weapons dictate. And then there is the army-size thing. You could not make such uberunits in MoO2 either, because the sizes were limited. On the other hand, even if you did, they would cost way too much to be actually useful. And your enemies were as capable of creating its own juggernaughts of destruction.

Right now three armies in the field is enough to destabilize the game. And the enemy has only a small chance of creating its own armies. This system would allow stronger units, but with more cost. If you can have, say, three 8/5/3 units with the price of one 16/10/3 unit, there is no problem. It's all about the choices: you COULD make a strong unit which has it's uses, but most of your armies should comprise of normal units (as they did in MoO2). 16/10/3 unit is wholly destroyable with those 8/5/3 units, so a player who has only those bigger units is going to lose. Strong units should only be used to shatter enemy's defences and attacking towns with strong defenders - as atleast I use my armies now. The normal units make the bulk of your armed forces.

EDIT: Spelling

Did I play a different MoO2 than the rest of you?

Combat kill ratios of 100:1 or more were very common for me -- I essentially never lost ships, precisely because the AI was so bad at ship design. Interest in MoO2 can disappear very quickly when you realize just how overwhelming the advantage of building your own ships can be -- and just how bad the AI is at it.

It made MoO2 far too easy to dominate from nearly any position -- one planet challenges on impossible were far too easy -- the AI just is horrible at ship design and an intelligent human is just too good.

It made the whole tactical combat feel like an exploit. And since that's what 90% of the game centered around...it made MoO2 unplayable in a lot of ways.

No thanks.

Arathorn

It may be then, that I am just plain stupid? ;)
I had this effect when nearing the end of the game, but that was because every strategic game in history has had that effect (not many care to play modern times in Civ3). I did get my butt kicked around in the beginning - and mostly because the AI had better ships than I! I was young and stupid back then, though, so as I am now merely stupid, I might see things differently. Anyway, after Doom Stars, things usually got quite easy.

Well, the main concern seems to be in the AI. I think that it should be the main concern of Civ4 anyway. IF (and only if) it is enhanced, this system should be given serious thought. I do wholly agree, that human players should not get too much advance by this, as humans are clearly superior to the AI as it is.

The problem with MOO2 was not the milk... whoops... I mean not the game design, but the AI intelligence. I think the AI for that game would be relatively easy to enhance compared to civ because it just needs some code on how to build good ships with the tech it has available. The weak code in that game just put a little of every weapon on each ship instead of pumping it full of one miniturized weapon type with huge numbers of it like humans do. And then have a random generator where it sometimes uses another good build strategy for example an optimized defensive ship using alien tech or whatever so the players don't know what to expect everytime. Same for civ custom building - it just needs the good code written in.

Originally posted by Arathorn
Did I play a different MoO2 than the rest of you?

Combat kill ratios of 100:1 or more were very common for me -- I essentially never lost ships, precisely because the AI was so bad at ship design. Interest in MoO2 can disappear very quickly when you realize just how overwhelming the advantage of building your own ships can be -- and just how bad the AI is at it.

Arathorn, you played the same MOO2. But I imagine you were not an expert from the very beginning. It must've taken you some time to find out the best designs. In the early game that would undoubtedly be missile cruisers with nukes (if MIRVed, even better). That alone guaranteed the destruction of at least the nearest rival. But the real problem was that the developers of MOO2 never addressed this in subsequent patches. Players found designs that worked flawlessly. That was bound to happen. But then there had to be some reaction from the developers. We're talking here that it would be great if the Civ developers monitor closely the players' tactics and designs and then provide counter-measures in the patches and, perhaps, expansions.

Many real classics provide armies and tactical combat (Heroes of Might and Magic, for example). I much prefer that over the random-number crunching right now. But I wouldn't deny that it requires programming effort. We assume by default that the Civ developers cannot do it. We appear to have given up and to have put up with dumb AIs. Well, I haven't played GalCiv but people say that its AI is good. And now I read that its developers enhance it non-stop. Cool! Civ3 is a very popular game. And one of the most important parts of it is the AI. There must be some very big budget for it.

AFAIK, the budget for Civ3's AI covered one person part-time (he had other major duties).

(Admittedly, Soren is a good programmer)

@Warpstorm. That explains a lot. I just wished they could see that AI is the single most important aspect of the game.

oops, wrong button

I liked the system of ship design in MoO as well, but that was MoO, wasn't it?
For sure, I would not like to have to make my thoughts about to create and recreate my swordsman with a bronce knife, a bronze sword, a bronze two-hander, a bronze sword and a bronze dagger, two bronze daggers, a bronze sword and a long bronze dagger, a bronze sword and a short bronze dagger, a bronze sword and a flintstone knife, a bronze sword and a small axe .....and after I've researched shields, I'll do it all over again? You get the picture....

I agree, though, that this *could* be done with ships...

@Bello: You have a way of getting it sound like the worst idea ever! :lol: Well, luckily there is a more positive way of seeing this. Those choices you listed, well, I am with you: it would suck. The point here is simply that the choices would be something like "a sword" or "a sword and a shield", not much more. I agree that this system doesn't really make much difference in the early ages, but could be more interesting later.

And what comes to that "doing it all over again"-part: it is a valid concern. One that they didn't take to notice well enough in MoO3... It could be done so that it caused no trouble: "add shields to these and these designs, take the needed space from..." But it is a strech, I agree.

EDIT: Nice to see you back, by the way. I missed your grumpy, albeit right to the point, comments :D

I loved MoO2, also. Might have to go play a game or two, now (I think it's even still on this computer). :)

Not sure how such a system would work in Civ, though. It would be nice to be able to customize units in Civ (in the game, not just through modding), designing units that fit your play style better, etc.

@ Shyrramar: thanks for liking grumpy remarks :-P

Anyway, the system of creating own designs could be used for ships and armies, I guess.
For single units, it doesn't make much sense in my eyes.

But, if armies could be combined from single units more easily than under the current system, you might choose to have "light" armies consisting of 3 different units, "medium" armies of 4-6, and "heavy" armies of 7-x (maybe up to 10 or so) different units.
With your design, you could have offensive and defensive armies, defensive armies with good artillery support, slow but heavy offensive armies, fast offensive armies and almost everything in between.
An army would be the equivalent to a modern division then.

But still the problem would be - how to make the AI make correct use of this feature? How to make the AI counter the special designs of the bloody humans?

Some ways to alleviate the micromanagement associated with the constant need for upgrades would be:

1. Upgrade ALL units of a given type to another given type.

2. Upgrade all units *within a given city* from a given type to a given type.

3. For ALL units that have a certain weapon, upgrade that weapon to another (more advanced) weapon (bronze swords/shields to iron swords/shields, for example).

4. For ALL units that wielding a certain weapon, add an additional weapon (like the pilum (the short throwing spear) of the Roman legionaries).

5. After you research some weapon, the game may ask you whether you want to redesign some unit(s) and would automatically take you to the Unit Design screen, if you choose to do so. And after you finish a design you may immediately order an automatic upgrade.

And, yes, there don't have to be hundreds of weapons (especially in the early ages). Swords, bows/slings, body armor, shields, bronze/iron (and the associated metalworking crafts), some special techniques (civ-dependent?) for edged weapons or spears/arrows, and the like would be enough for the foot soldiers, for example. That won't increase micro-management all that much.

There may be military sciences focusing on tactics, logistics, training. That would allow advanced army formations with attack/defense bonuses (i.e. pike wall - with shields that would become a phalanx; tortoise; etc.), supply lines (bigger armies operating deeper in enemy territory), more disciplined troops with higher morale, etc. But I'm not saying that all this should necessarily go into the game, neither am I suggesting that my ideas represent the ultimate wisdom in the Universe. Things should be thought out well. I just like more flexibility in my wars. Not just stacks of 20+ swordsmen which rely almost entirely on a random number generator.

Having the stacks of units grouped into armies would be great IMHO. And I definitely believe that armies should be upgradeable and it should be possible to remove units from an army and add other units into an army (as well as disbanding an army back into its individual units). What good is an army consisting of spearmen when there's infantry available? Why shouldn't we be allowed to upgrade an army? And why should we need a Great Leader to create the army? I will point out again that Great Leaders can improve an army but they should not be mandatory for its creation. After all, we know of many Bad (i.e. not Great) Leaders who lead armies and failed.

Also, I don't remember having problems with any game which offered me tactical battles. But that's me. There will be others out there who cannot stand tactical combat and prefer the current number crunching. And perhaps they won't like even the option of tactical combat, even if it can be turned off. Who knows. The battles don't have to be Shogun-Total-War-like. While I enjoyed Shogun & Medieval very much, I'm not pressing for a super realistic combat simulator. Some system like Heroes of Might and Magic 4 (without the magic :) ) would be sufficient.

It's a valid point, though, that it will take some effort to write a good AI which would create good armies. But is that so difficult compared to an AI that must formulate a global strategy? I believe a strategic AI is even more difficult to make than a tactical AI. And we already have a strategic AI, although admittedly not a superb one. If they really focus on AI for Civ4, they may hit the mark. I believe AI should be a top priority.

(By the way, I should be allowed to enter tiles occupied by my allies. Either to protect the allies, or simply to work the tile or pass by. I cannot stand it when an ally who has Right Of Passage steps and stops on my ONLY road to a given city, for example, and I have to waste whole turns to go around his units. In the case when I'm occupying a tile together with an ally and the tile gets attacked, it would be nice if my ally's units and my units get into the battle together, although his units may have to move automatically without me having control over them.)

Good suggestions, vesuvius_prime! I think that your suggestions for upgrades are good, but may have to be tweaked a bit - there may be cases where your simple upgrades are not possible. I think you could do it quite easily, though. Just change the "upgrade all somethings to somethings", you could make it "upgrade all x:s, y:s and z:s to X:s Y:s and Z:s" or "Add x, remove y and z" or something like that, where the letters are assigned with a simple clicking system. It could be something like in the editor, where you choose the civs that the unit is available to, but without having to press down shift or ctrl, or something like that. It should be easy, IMHO.

Actually, given a big gaming community, unit design is a lot easier to handle than AI or other things like that. You don't need code--just flexible game design. This isn't like AI scripting, because once a unit is designed, it's just a set of numbers in a file.

Specifically, design the game where the AIs don't come up with their own designs. Instead, they use "unit packs". These are modular files that include good designs for each era. Make sure that the game can handle multiple packs, random or preassigned packs, maybe even changing packs (reflecting a change in the CIV's attitude). The overall efficiency of the pack gets a rating. The player can change those if he wants, or he can depend on the judgement of the community as a whole and/or the Firaxis can periodically post the pack. Perhaps getting really crushed in a war causes a CIV to randomly change packs.

Firaxis and modders produce some really tough unit packs and also some deliberately substandard ones. Maybe playing on a lower difficulty level decreases the chance that the computer will use one of the higher rated packs. Best of all, there's the mysteries "things that they player has used in the past" pack, that randomly gets added to from the player's customized set (or maybe not so random--perhaps based on winning three games with a particular unit in the set). Occasionally, a CIV "designs" such a unit.

Maybe there's an option for those that don't like to design but do like the variety to have packs assigned to them, just like the AI. So with a few extra lines of code, suddenly you have the option to not know what unit you will get until you research the technology. It brings you down to the level of the AI for a more challenging game, but gives you something in return for handicapping you.

This is all ridiculously easy to code. There's no AI design there, except for some small unit pack pick routines to keep them from being completely predictable. It'd make for a much more exciting game without having to give the AI such an edge. Is Bismark kicking your tail in the Ancient era on Monarch setting? Is it because he randomly drew a great pack? Is it because he has a skewed pack that concentrates effective designs in the ancient era? If he gets ahead, will he get cocky and switch to a less effective pack in his complacency? :lol:

Crazy Jerome, that would work well. It's a shame that the previously mentioned games haven't made use of it.

One game that had an interesting twist on this was the RTS Kohan. In that game you never controlled individual units. You designed armies out of core units and support units and controlled the armies. Something like this could work.

I still don't like it.

The claim is made that a tactical AI should be easy to program -- easier than a strategic one. I have several responses....

- The strategic AI is so bad it needs incredible help to compete -- even at 40% cost factor, it loses.
- One of the main weaknesses of the AI is its tactics. Kill ratios of 10:1 are not too uncommon.
- I've never seen a reasonable tactical AI -- from Warcraft/Starcraft to the Civ series to MoO to any other game I've played (yes, limited sample size) -- they're all miserable and depend on overwhelming odds to have a chance. Kill ratios vary from 10:1 to 100:1 or more.
- Development time spent on a tactical AI is development time not spent elsewhere (like on a strategic AI). I'd rather have a well-rounded game than a purely tactical one (for the Civ series...I can have fun with a game that's mostly tactics, too, if that's what it's designed to be). If you claim the AI is trivial (and it's not, honestly), the time to set up screens and to code the interaction of different designs is very significant.
- Adding any in-depth tactical elements to the game will take it from a 30-hour experience to a 150-hour experience and I don't think that's a good thing.
- I'd rather see the game done right than reach for pie-in-the-sky asperations that aren't achievable and end up a horrible boondoggle. Tactical combat is a game in itself and either deserves full consideration or a simplistic approach. Full consideration would completely change (dare I say destroy?) the Civ spirit. Simplistic approach is the only reasonable option. Heck, they can't even get that done very well.

All in all, I still think this is a very bad idea.

Arathorn

Originally posted by Arathorn

- Adding any in-depth tactical elements to the game will take it from a 30-hour experience to a 150-hour experience and I don't think that's a good thing.
- I'd rather see the game done right than reach for pie-in-the-sky asperations that aren't achievable and end up a horrible boondoggle. Tactical combat is a game in itself and either deserves full consideration or a simplistic approach. Full consideration would completely change (dare I say destroy?) the Civ spirit. Simplistic approach is the only reasonable option.

You hit the nail on the head as to why I am against it.

You've got it, Arathorn and warpstorm. :)

BTW, I'm moving this thread to the Civ4 ideas forum. Makes more sense there. ;)

I agree that the tactical engine, if implemented, should be a simplistic one. I already said that it wouldn't make sense for Civilization to have a super-elaborate combat engine like, say, Shogun. But what's the problem with an engine like the one in HMM4? Turn-based, tile-based, initiative-based, with both missile and hand-to-hand combat units.

Besides, it does NOT have to take the game "from a 30-hour experience to a 150-hour experience". It has already been pointed out that normally it should be possible to turn tactical combat off. If you like random number generators, then okay - just switch to that. Then the overall combat time will be just like in Civ3. And you'll have a purely strategic game without a single piece of tactics. Just suit your taste.

It has also been pointed out already that if it's so difficult for the AI to create good packs, it can pick from a set of pre-defined packs which can be supplied both by Firaxis and by modders and can be constantly updated to reflect the players' discoveries. Also, after some tweaking, the obviously unbalances units will be edited and there won't be super-units or super-packs. Just pay attention to the balancing of StarCraft. The races are totally different but nobody can say that one of them is better than the others.

Arathorn, WarCraft/StarCraft are Real-Time Simulators. The AI required to create a good RTS is much more complicated than the code that moves units in tiles turn-by-turn in a grid of, say, 16x16 tiles. There are chess programs out there that can beat the world champion. It does take them quite some time on the hard levels to make a move but we're not talking about chess here either. We are talking of simple missile units and hand-to-hand units, mounted and on foot. That's it. I'm a programmer myself and I have a very good idea how to make a chess program. The AI there simply evaluates all possible moves (several turns ahead depending on the difficulty level), through a mini-max procedure that assigns a value to each encountered position and chooses the best one. The main difficulty is to create the function that will assess every situation and will give it a value.

Furthermore, RTSs are not only tactical engines. The tactical part only refers to the individual encounters -- what enemy to shoot at, where to move to, what weapon to use, etc. But RTS are also strategic engines because they must design an overall strategy from developing the economics, through developing the industry, through creating appropriate units and to sending these units to capture beneficial terrain and to destroy enemy bases. There are layers of AI there, and that AI is distributed. The general-level AI makes the strategic decisions and then leaves it to its subordinates to refine each task it gives them. And each of these subordinates defines a general plan to fulfil the task given to it by the general and then passes it on to its own subordinates. And so on till we reach the level of the individual soldier's AI which has no idea of the strategic plans made by the upper level. It receives very basic tasks and it solves them at its own level.

When I propose tactical combat for Civilization, by no means do I mean an RTS. Although Shogun and Medieval are very good hybrids of turn-based strategic games and real-time tactical games, I do NOT propose that for Civ. I think more along the lines of HMM4 and even then that should be adapted for the specific requirements of Civ.

And mind you again that if you hate tactical combat, you can just turn it off. It will save you the time that you don't want to lose. But have you ever preferred to turn off tactical combat in MOO2? It was possible but people didn't turn it off. It was better to personally command some battles. I've skipped many battles I was certain I could win. I simply pressed the "Z" key and it all ended in a second. But there were many battles where I wanted to take the command. I decided when and where. Tactical combat and unit design were great features of MOO2. MOO2 won't be a classic without them. Just imagine sending individual ships to bump into each other and to have a random-number generator resolve the outcome.

I know I'm repeating a lot of what has already been said, but that's only because most of the arguments in the previous posts have been largely ignored and I feel I could turn your attention back to some of them. Civ3 already has armies. What I'm suggesting is to add more flexibility to the armies (and their comprising units) and to add an additional tactical feature which you will be allowed to turn off.

Well first, I mostly agree with Arathorn and Warpstorm, but I think we should distinguish the (at least) two different ideas in this thread:

1. Having customizable units -- This is worth having provided that the units can have enough variety to make customizing interesting. At a minimum, you'd have to multiply the current A/D/M values by some factor (at least 3-5) to allow some tweaking at the edges (e.g. bronze swordsman versus iron swordsman, but both clearly behind medieval equivalents). I think it would take more than that, but I also think that getting such a system correct is the main impediment to making customizable units worthwhile. IF that can be achieved, then custom units is minor and low risk--as I argued in previous post. This is a nice feature to have with tactical combat, but also useful in the strategic game. Who wouldn't want the fun of the units being slightly different each game? (And the minority that didn't could easily be accommodated by picking a "standard unit pack" that worked the same for each civ and the human.)

2. Tactical combat -- We all agree that we aren't talking RTS, or even complex/time consuming turn-based. So that leaves simple approach, probably something similar to Master of Magic had. It worked pretty well in MoM (small grid with some interesting terrains), but even that broke down against mildly competent human play, especially in the late game.

So assuming a simple tactical system is being considered, and unit customizing is in, there are two further hurdles:

A. I disagree that the tactical AI is a minor coding matter. It is doable. But it had better be a really good AI, because an 80% decent AI isn't good enough. A 80% effective strategic AI coupled with 80% effective tactical AI gets whipped every time. A 97% strategic AI is much more interesting. And we all know that last 20% takes the bulk of the work. :) Since the strategic AI can obviously be improved some more, this is not a trivial concern. Now maybe if the AI programmers think that they can provide a scripting engine such that the mod community can gradually improve the AI with player tricks, the opportunity cost is worth it. But it is still a huge risk for the developers.

B. Is a tactical side in the spirit of Civ? Or more to the point, given recent Firaxis comments about the direction of Civ4, does a tactical side enhance or detract Civ4. I'd say it detracts. They are looking to take out, what did Soren call it, "Whack a mole" pollution control and other essentially tactical concerns. They are looking to add "religion" as a first-class element, on par with government choice, culture growth, diplomacy, and trade.

Culture was a great addition to Civ3 not only because of what it was itself, but because of the way it enhanced the rest of the strategic play. It made temples and libraries less one dimensional. It affects military choices for borders/flips. I would expect "religion" to have a similar affect. Tactical combat, however, is just a "game within a game." It affects whether you win or lose, but not how you play the strategic game. :lol:

So a better question, I think, is what can be done to enhance strategic choice in combat? I'm not sure, though I think it would involve more army options, more combined arms options, and better strategic AI. I use "more" advisedly there, because a few "elegant, flexible, and reinforcing" options would be even better. Perhaps stategic battles would involve less drastic results, giving a large chance that a portion of the losing forces would gain experience and escape. Then when El Presidente of the Roman Republic makes his military choices and sends out his legions, he can live with the results of a simple clash on the strategic map. :lol: