3 sets of attack and defense values

NP300

Prince
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
402
Location
North America
I think I just came up with an idea to make the combat system more flexible and realistic. Units could have 3 sets of attack and defense values. For instance, land units would have attack and defense (a/d) versus foot units, mounted units and air units. Mounted units would include both horse units and tank units. Foot units would include all infantry, including mechanized infantry. This would allow for very flexible combat by allowing tanks to have high values versus tanks but lower values versus infantry and thus make it tough for tanks to take cities by themselves. It would be possible to create an anti-tank unit with very high defense versus tanks but poor defense versus infantry, etc. Also this system would be very flexible in dealing with units with anti-aircraft capabilities.

For naval units there should also be 3 sets. A/D versus surface ships, A/D versus submarines and A/D versus aircraft. This would be very useful in simulating the flexibility of subamrine warfare and the anti-air abilities of aegies cruisers. For example a battleship would have high A/D defense versus surface units but poor values versus submarines and aircraft. Aegis cruisers could have lower values for surface ships but higher values for subs and aircraft.

I realize this may complicate the game a bit as the player may need to keep track of more A/D values but it's my idea to improve the combat system.

Also consideration should be given to bringing back firepower as in civ 2. If if doesn't make sense for the main game, it may be useful for modders and so the main game could have firepower but just give all units the same firepower.

In addition, there might be a better system for invisible units. It could be done by levels of invisibility. A unit could have invisible level 1. A submarine would be an example. Then a unit could have detect invisible level 1. So a destroyer might be able to spot a submarine. But a nuclear sub might be quieter and get invisible level 2. And a destroyer would not be able to spot a nuclear sub unless it also had detect invisible level 2. This would allow regular subs to see other regular subs but not nuclear subs, etc. I also think that detect invisbible should onllow a unit to see invisible units 1 tile away or perhaps just have a modifieable percentage probability of seeing an invisible unit.

Also it seems to me that submarines, at least nuclear subs, should be immune to bombardment by other ships, since they are underwater.

And as a final comment, I would like to see more naval units before the modern era. Before the modern era we just have transports that double as combat ships and are not very good at combat anyway, as in caravels with an attack of 1 and defense of 2 with no bombard.
 
You know, this isn't such a bad idea. I know Soren almost seemed to admire Age of Empires for employing this kind of system.

It wouldn't have to become too serious a numbers game. Just some simple gameplay facts:

mounted units experience a bonus against ...
standing units experience experience a bonus against ...
etc.

The same way people know that attacking from a mountain is very helpful.
 
gazdeluxe11 said:
I agree with you up until the last point. What about depth charges?

But depth charges are not long-range bombardment, are they? They would be represented by the regular attack and defense values when a ship tries to enter a square occupied by a sub. I may also be mistaken but I read somewhere that depth charges were not very effective anyway.
 
you have a problem with that last part about more ships the thing is that there werent that many different ones they all had different designs but alot did the same thing so it just easy to put in the broadest defination of each ship and not adding every design of the same ship
 
dh_epic said:
You know, this isn't such a bad idea. I know Soren almost seemed to admire Age of Empires for employing this kind of system.

It wouldn't have to become too serious a numbers game. Just some simple gameplay facts:

mounted units experience a bonus against ...
standing units experience experience a bonus against ...
etc.

The same way people know that attacking from a mountain is very helpful.

Your idea also seems good to me. It would have the advantage of keeping the game simple even though it may not be as flexible as my suggestion.
 
I think if there is a simple solution that gives nearly the same results gameplay-wise as a complicated system the simple one should be chosen. KISS
 
I stand behind these ideas and have been thinking along these lines too. A pikeman should obviously have a bonus against knights (like in Civ2!) but not against longbowmen. I would also like to see some kind of system to make units completely obsolete. A spearman versus a tank is an old rant, but no sane soldier in an army of spearmen would even try to stand up against a tank. And no sane leader would send spearmen in to defend against tanks, because he would only make a fool out of himself. Let's just say that certain units act like workers versus technologically ultra superior units. They just stand there holding their hand up as they are taken prisoner.
 
I LOVE this idea, along with this may quite possibly be the best idea i've seen (and as you probably know I've seen at every idea that's been floated through here (i don't always read the whole post, but you get what i mean))You have my full support for this
 
I also had another idea related to this. The main game could have 3 sets for each unit with a few categories of units: submarine, naval surface, air, foot and mounted. BUT in the editor it should be possible to ADD new categories and to then allow modders to have 10 categories if they so choose and then allow them to flag any unit they want with any category, including the ones they created. I imagine this would be a godsend to scenario creators. I've never created a scenario but I imagine this would be very useful to them.
 
It would be very useful.
 
I added this idea to the Consolidation Project.
 
Great idea NP300. Shouldn't even complicate the game too much either.
 
I like this idea greatly. It will allow units to expand on their specialties and people wouldn't be able to just horde hundreds of tanks and conquer everything (thought that might still work). I think it would be easy to implement, and make combat more enjoyable.

As mentioned before, something like the age of Empires idea would work well I think.
 
dh_epic said:
You know, this isn't such a bad idea. I know Soren almost seemed to admire Age of Empires for employing this kind of system.

It wouldn't have to become too serious a numbers game. Just some simple gameplay facts:

mounted units experience a bonus against ...
standing units experience experience a bonus against ...
etc.

The same way people know that attacking from a mountain is very helpful.

This type of simple bonus system is a nearly universal desire/request in the mod community!
 
Lennon said:
A spearman versus a tank is an old rant, but no sane soldier in an army of spearmen would even try to stand up against a tank. And no sane leader would send spearmen in to defend against tanks, because he would only make a fool out of himself

As i'm technological backwards, i have no idea about the power of such metalic beast moving around... i may think my spear could indeed go through the armor if it hit it enough times.
As a leader i may choose to retreat, surrender or stand and fight. If i don't want to be ashamed, become a war prisoner... i would choose to stand and fight.

Whenever is an non-zero chance of getting success i may actually get success.

Keep civilized

David
 
dguichar said:
As i'm technological backwards, i have no idea about the power of such metalic beast moving around... i may think my spear could indeed go through the armor if it hit it enough times.
As a leader i may choose to retreat, surrender or stand and fight. If i don't want to be ashamed, become a war prisoner... i would choose to stand and fight.

Whenever is an non-zero chance of getting success i may actually get success.

Keep civilized

David

Your are correct my chief. Our spears can piece the mighty elephant skin so it can surly piece this so called "metal" skin.


PS: I could not find the link mentioned in my previous post.
 
Lennon said:
A spearman versus a tank is an old rant, but no sane soldier in an army of spearmen would even try to stand up against a tank. And no sane leader would send spearmen in to defend against tanks, because he would only make a fool out of himself.

Ever heard of the Charge of the Light Brigade? :D Not quite as bad as this situation, but still...

And how about when Zulu warriors overran the British at Isandlwana?
 
Back
Top Bottom