Which combat system do you prefer?

Since I'm working on a kinda of game project, I would like to know which combat system among the Civilization franchise you prefer.

It can be about:
* 1UPT vs "stack of doom"
* Odds
* Damages computation
* and more!

Thanks for your feedback.

1upt is a huge improvement over stacks of doom. You can sweep in on a moments notice, and take the world over within ten turns with no strategy required when using the stack method.

JimBobV said:

1upt is a huge improvement over stacks of doom. You can sweep in on a moments notice, and take the world over within ten turns with no strategy required when using the stack method.

Click to expand...

This is the common argument. However, stack of doom could also be seen as more realistic in some way couldn't it?

Also, I would like to know if you are ok with the odd and damage computation in CivV or if you prefer some previous ways.

Stacks sucked (IMO), but 1UPT will only work if there are severe limitations on number of units.

As it is, 1UPT is bad enough to merit returning to stacks.

The challenge failed in civ5 and its expansions is that they never developed an interesting mechanic for implementing unit caps. Gold is terrible, especially with the building maintenance changes.

I actually believe that at the end of Civ4 there was balance in stack of doom. Having only 1 stuck was a bit too risky because of splash damage(cats. cannons). Often best strategy was to have groups of about 6 units.

1. An interesting approach would be "1 limited stack per tile".

A limited stack would be a combined arms military formation like a division, e.g. an Infantry Division usually includes lots of Infantry with Support Units as Artillery, Anti-Air, Anti-Tank, Reconaissence, ... (see Hearts of Iron 3 for example.)

The player would be allowed to combine his own stacks from atomic units.

2. Very important are also rules for flanking / encircling units and supply. If a unit/stack is attacked from more than 1 side, it should get a combat malus. If a unit/stack is encircled / cut off from supplies it should get an even bigger malus. The player is so forced to use more than 1 stack to protect his flanks and keep closed frontlines.

Flanking bonuses are already in the game (bonus to attacker, rather than malus to defender).

Pandora first contact solves this problem pretty well, better than any civilization game in my opinion.

The game have stacking system and its combat mean in most case death for a unit however its is far less random than civ 4, a noticable stronger unit will always survive however it will be damaged with around the other units strength.
Basically this mean that 100 strength 1 units can very well beat a single 100 strength unit.
first unit attacks now it got 99 strength left vs 99 one strength units, repeat 99 times and you got 3 cases, two about one of the units survives, on about that both units kill eachother (which can happen in pandora).
This system makes quantity far better than in any civ game however pandora production costs are proportional to their strength so 100 units are not cheaper than 1 unit that have the same strength as the 100 units together.

Pandora has flanking like civ 5 which are rather powerful, it also give units terrain bonuses in both attacking and defending.
However stacking can be rather dangerous, artillery and operations will damage all units in the stack they attack, artillery work like the ranged units in civ 5 so its not one use either like in civ 4 making it very cost effective against large stacks.

I liked how combat worked in SMAC. Melee attacks (not just ranged, as with Civ4) resulted in splash damage. So stacking was technically unlimited, but a very bad risk. Seemed like a nice balance.

I prefer 1UPT over SOD any day.

Civ5 combat system is not perfect, with AI limitations being the most severe issue. Some sort of cap on unit numbers - which works more effectively than maintenance cost - might help with this problem.

Limited stacking where units of different types can be stacked will completely kill the purpose of having different types of units. The Civ5 unit system is centered around each unit having some weaknesses and some strengths - for instance, mounted units are fast but weak against cities, ranged units are good to counter units but weak on defence - but if we can stack different types of units we will just get mono-type units that are good at everything, so that for me is a no-go.

I don't think you should consider pieces in isolation. If you go back and play Panzer General - the inspiration for Civ 5's 1upt - you'll notice two things. First, the density of forces is much lower in PG. There's space for flanking, or alternate routes. You need to concentrate your forces instead of a broad front. Second, you aren't actually playing against the AI. The AI is bone stupid, and it's obvious when you switch sides and make it attack you. You're playing against the scenario designer, who set up a tactical situation that the AI can handle - to a certain degree.

These are the two core changes that make Panzer General a classic, and Civ 5's combat forgettable. 1upt is a red herring without the supporting changes that make it a compelling experience.

One of the most important characteristics to me is a consistent scale. Civ 5 drives me crazy in that regard. During the 100 years war, English longbowmen did not support the fighting in France from Dover. Keshiks that had been hoarded for centuries were not critical in breaking the lines in WW1. Modern rifles do not have a shorter range than cross bows.

Hexes are enormous outside combat - taking decades to put a road in, providing enough food for thousands, etc. - but small enough that an 'army' is a single type, and battleships can reach across them. Shoot, the maximum range for an Iowa class battleship is 24 miles! It's this weird mis-mash where isolated pieces make sense, but if you step back it's a lunatic asylum where no two systems agree. That's what I'd like to see fixed.

1upt can be better because the other odds systems sometimes fail nasty. Highly promoted units at 99% odds of winning still have a chance of losing with all its hard earned promotions..

Winsling said:

I don't think you should consider pieces in isolation. If you go back and play Panzer General - the inspiration for Civ 5's 1upt - you'll notice two things. First, the density of forces is much lower in PG. There's space for flanking, or alternate routes. You need to concentrate your forces instead of a broad front. Second, you aren't actually playing against the AI. The AI is bone stupid, and it's obvious when you switch sides and make it attack you. You're playing against the scenario designer, who set up a tactical situation that the AI can handle - to a certain degree.

These are the two core changes that make Panzer General a classic, and Civ 5's combat forgettable. 1upt is a red herring without the supporting changes that make it a compelling experience.

One of the most important characteristics to me is a consistent scale. Civ 5 drives me crazy in that regard. During the 100 years war, English longbowmen did not support the fighting in France from Dover. Keshiks that had been hoarded for centuries were not critical in breaking the lines in WW1. Modern rifles do not have a shorter range than cross bows.

Hexes are enormous outside combat - taking decades to put a road in, providing enough food for thousands, etc. - but small enough that an 'army' is a single type, and battleships can reach across them. Shoot, the maximum range for an Iowa class battleship is 24 miles! It's this weird mis-mash where isolated pieces make sense, but if you step back it's a lunatic asylum where no two systems agree. That's what I'd like to see fixed.

Click to expand...

The way I view it, is that 1up works at 2 scales. While moving through the terrain, you view it a little more realistic in terms of distances, once combat begins, then it's like a zoomed in fight at the scale of fights were at their given time. Battlefields in the ancient days were much smaller than today, so crossbows and bowmen are fire over distances in comparison to melee. But in modern times, riflemen are the melee of the ancient era, and rocket artillery are the distant units. And let's be real, it's just a game, to give you the feel or war, not to mimic it exactly.

I prefer 1up for sure. It gives far more tactical options. The only real problem with this is that it is harder for the AI to compete with the human. This is mostly because your actions mean more with 1up. The stacks of doom takes far less skill, which is why the AI can compete better.

1 upt provides for a richer tactical game. This is desirable.

Winsling said:

...

Click to expand...

The whole realism thing of scales doesn't really concern me that much. If you want, you can imagine we live in a 150+ civ world, which would correspond to an enourmously gigantic huge epic-size map where 3 tiles will be a very small distance.

Personally, I'm more concerned with how it plays out in terms of gameplay, and here I agree with notalent, the deaper tactical aspects for me are desirable. I see people sugesting things like an alternative combat map opening when armies engage in combat (think Heroes of Might and Magic style) but the problem for me is that this freezes combat in time making it end only when one part has lost the battle, which takes away the aspect of bringing in reenforcements, producing new units, etc. Not that I don't love HoMaM, but I think the latter is an important aspect of Civ that that game never really handled well.

On the current scope limited stacking, like "1 army per tile", would be the best solution inbetween the two. Limit the number of units per square to 3 or 4 and let them fight together, just like in Call to Power.

1UPT works well if the map is bigger and leaves room for maneuver - like in the ACW scenario. That one shows that the system can actually work quite well if used on an appropriate scale. Also shows that the AI can actually perform quite well it has some room to setup and move its units.

From a strategy perspective, I quite enjoy 1upt, hex grids and the current system of ranged and melee attacks. Its fun from a gaming perspective, and if the computer AI was a little better, it'd present interesting challenges too.

From a versimillitude perspective, the stack makes a lot more sense. However Civ 4's execution of how stacks worked made little sense, with suicide catapults damaging 20 units, and a cavalry charge against a stack of twenty archers always hitting the 1 unit of spearmen present.

I think Civ 6 needs a new approach, which combines the best of both worlds. Personally, I'd like to see:

- Hex grid, for sure.
- Stacked units on a tile, but a penalty for doing so in terms of maintenance. That is, logistics wise up to 3 units could "live off the land" but anything beyond that would cost gpt to maintain. An army garrisoned in the city could/should be able to support a larger number of units for free.
- Tied into the above, the idea of supply chains: if you cant draw a clear path from a stack back to a city, maintenance costs increase. Techs and buildings would play around with this, of course.
- A stack is treated as a single army, with stat values dependent on its component. Ranged units would add to its first strike for example, cavalry to its shock value, infantry to its resilience, siege units to its siege. Morale would be vitally important, affecting up to +/- 50% strength.
- No healing in the field, and healing would cost gpt or other resources to carry out to represent new recruiting costs.
- An option to merge units of the same type for virtual healing.

Hand in hand with this, I'd like a proper casus belli system, with strong justifications for war improving morale, economic hardship and war fatigue weakening it, and diplomatic consequences for war appropriate to strength of casus belli and current diplomatic relationships. I'd like to see the range of excuses for war develop through the eras, but this to be matched by an increase in the default level of distaste for war.

Winsling said:

Hexes are enormous outside combat - taking decades to put a road in, providing enough food for thousands, etc. - but small enough that an 'army' is a single type, and battleships can reach across them. Shoot, the maximum range for an Iowa class battleship is 24 miles! It's this weird mis-mash where isolated pieces make sense, but if you step back it's a lunatic asylum where no two systems agree. That's what I'd like to see fixed.

Click to expand...

Interesting observation, but it helps me appreciate how remarkably well the pieces end up fitting together. Maybe not PG, but most other board games have similar fiats with the scale. Ever play Ogre/GEV?

The problem with penalizing large stacks and stacks without a logistics line solely through enhanced gpt maintenance is that it rewards the rich. A more relevant penalty would be HP decay and combat penalties -- large stacks incur HP penalties (on a per unit per turn basis), with a similar penalty for stacks without a logistics line, and the penalties can't be overcome by March (or its equivalent) or just sitting and healing. Attrition and impairing the combat effectiveness of these sorts of stacks are the only ways to deter their overuse.

I personally like "turn based wargames/tactics" (xcom/advance wars) much more than 5x games (Though lack of AI in said games keeps returning me to 5x games).

So good unit manoeuvrings is something I really prefer. As such I really am opposed to "stack of doom" type of gaming - it removes all the fun I have. Of course in a game like total wars this is negated by having a separate battlefield, but even there I often feel it kind of removes the fun.

The problem is best shown in (I think) heroes of might and magic series. There a single stack can simply move around and KO anything it meets. The tactical game (deciding how to fight the battle) is really removed in favour of strategic game (deciding when and with what to fight).