Simple Combat Modifier System

Combat Modifiers form a crucial part of of most recent RTS games and are an easy way of distiguishing between unit roles.


As I understand it, the AI can easily be set to take A/D modification into account.

Would indisputably be a huge asset to combat in Civ3 and there are virtually no downsides, so playtesting would simply be a matter of balancing out the relative values.

***If you approve, then show your support in the poll.***



This is an example of the proposed Combat Modifier section of the Editor's 'Units' window for the Pikeman unit. Civ3's Pikeman unit has an Attack of 1 and a Defence of 3. In this case, the unit affected by the Pikeman's Combat Modifier is the Knight unit.

The selection of the 'Affected Unit' works exactly the same way the Unit type list (top of 'Units' window) works; i.e. the Attack/Defence Bonus values are those of the unit in the caption.

Example:

I suggested something similar to this to Firaxis before, so I am all for it. About the only difference was that I suggested add some extra flags that you could give to units. You would then give the bonus against all units with that flag rather than a specific unit.

This probably could be done in a few weeks (not that it would happen in the release version of Conquests, it's too late for that).

--------------------------------------------------------------
Just to finish clarifying my first post:

This means that if the Pikeman attacks a Knight, he will attack at 3 instead of 1. If the Pikeman is being attacked by a Knight, he will defend at 6 instead of 3.

In other words:

Pikeman's A/D = 1/3
Pikemans A/D (w/CM) = 3/6 (vs Knights)
(HP taken into account after CM)

Therefore, the AI would see Pikeman units as having an A/D of 3/6 in relation to Knight units thus would use Pikeman units in that context.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I suggested add some extra flags that you could give to units.

Click to expand...

You're right. There should also be flags I think I mentioned something concerning flags elsewhere.

The gist of it is:

- 'Foot' units get an 'Ignore City Defense' flag that allows them to ignore the defense bonus given by city size to units defending in a city (beefs up Infantry a bit --simulates the use of Infantry in sieges and street fighting).

- Cavalry and Mechanized units get a 'Double Attack in Field' flag that gives them an A/D bonus vs all units when on flat terrain (Plains, Grassland, Desert).

- A 'Double Defense vs Bombard' flag would decrease the damage done to the unit if bombarded.

Aside:
If you're interested, a similar 'Terrain Combat Modifier' section could also be added in the Editor's 'Units' window with just as much ease. A/D of unit would vary according to terrain type. Certain unit would have advantages and others would have disadvantages. I've mentioned this before (as have others) and people seem to like the idea.

It would probably look very similar to the 'Combat Modifier.'

Example:

The example of the 'Terrain Combat Modifier' in above post could be for the Guerilla unit for instance. This means that it would have its attack increased by 3 and defense by 4 when on Forest tiles.

Additionally,negative integers would mean that the unit has less A/D when on the specified terrain. This represents how certain units are actually at a disadvantage when on certain terrain.

You should be able to do multiple selection, for example, you can let some unit having defense bonus on hills, mountains and forest. Pikeman can have attack bonus vs. knight, horseman, and cavalry.

That is exactly what these modifiers do.

Unit Combat Modifier alters a unit's base A/D values vs the 'Affected Unit.' So if you wanted the Pikeman unit to have 999 attack vs Knights, you could.

Terrain Combat Modifier alters a unit's base A/D values when on that terrain. So if you wanted Guerillas to have 999 defense while on Forest tiles then you could also do that.

Both would be great for the core game but absolutely awsome in scenarios (think what all those great modders could do with something like this --I know I would be more than willing to overlook things like the lack of Events and the very long turns for this)!

Here's both so you can compare (I could've changed the attack and defense values to 999, but you should be able to picture it):

Indeed this is VERY important and needed to enhance the strategic part of the game and to use special troops. If you think you can do it (as it seems you think) then indeed everybody would be extremely thankful since it was one of the top items on the wish list. The only drwaback (could be the reason why Firaxis did not implement it) would be the AI might be puzzled by the use of this !

Otherwise just GREAT !
But I totally agree with Warpstorm that flags for unit types would be extremely useful though in some cases unit to unit modifiers could be real useful too.

Questions :
- could there be a way of having a flag for unit transported in assault/siege units (siege tower, siege quiquereme) vs city defenses ? I know this one actually incorporates lots of different modifs.
- do you really think you could implement that, how and WHEN ?

I'm all for this as well. I'm not sure whether I think a unit should have modifiers for each different unit as yoshi suggests, or vs unit groups as warpstorm suggests. The former is gives most freedom, but the latter will make it a bit easier in use: It's easier to remember that a pikeman has double defense against mounted units than remembering that it has triple defense against knights and and horsemen but double against knights, not to speak of all the knight based UUs.

So I think I prefer to have modifiers vs unit groups, but there must be enough different groups, and a way of selecting which group (maybe more than one) a unit belongs to.

To make this all perfect however, there should be 3, not 2 terrain modifiers. In addition to the two suggested, there should be a terrain modifier that modifies attacker's attack factor based on the terrain it attacks from. This will (IMHO) mean wonders for the combat strategy. With this, hills surrounding a city will become as important as in real life, since the bombardment units will have an increased attack factor due to attacking from hills. And similarily, an infantry unit attacking from plains would be much more vulnerable than an infantry unit attacking from woods or hills.

BTW, for some reason I think the bonuses should be expressed in percentage of the A/D factor instead of absolute values. It will then fit in better with all other combat modifiers that are percentage values. Your example would then change to the pikeman having attack 300% and defense 200% vs knights.

With this, you get more flexibility (a spearman can have an attack factor of 150% (=1.5) vs horsmen, and you don't get the confusion of whether this bonus is applied before or after the percentage bonuses (as for being fortified).

The system will work almost the same though.

Okay. I see there is some confusion concerning some aspects of this. Sorry. I shuld have elaborated more. I'll get to that.

The only drwaback (could be the reason why Firaxis did not implement it)would be the AI might be puzzled by the use of this !

Click to expand...

AS I understand it, the AI first 'reads' the base values of of each unit in 1:1 combat. By adding in the 'Unit Combat Modifier,' the AI would read the modifier right after the A/D. Then the Terrain modifier. And lastly would take any other tile bonuses into account. Once its counts up all the values, modifiers and tile bonuses, of each unit/tile it will commence the combat sequence.
The AI should have no problem with this since it already takes unit values into account. The trick is to take get it to see the units in relation to their modified values to the 'Affected Units' (i.e. Pikeman used against Knights but not against other units with the same ADM as Knights). I'm pretty sure that would be a walk in the park for programmers.
To get an idea of how AI handles this, check out the 'Total War' series --you will see Yari Samurai (essentially Pikemen) going out of their way to intercept mounted units. Although combat plays on a real-time battlefield with realistic numbers, the AI's ability to take 'modifiers' into account is a good example nonetheless.

As for Firaxis' reasoning for not including this (or even Microprose's in Civ2 for that matter), all I can say is that budget may have something to do with it --although Microprose wasn't as restricted in this sense and they didn't add it. This is a good question. I suggest you ask warpstorm what the response was when he brought it up.
I personally think that it's because developers know that it won't affect sales much and although most players would propbably appreciate at least having this as an option in the Editor, they don't really care either way because Civ3 is good enough as it is. Another probable reason why players haven't asked for this is is because they haven't considered it or simply don't know the option exists. That's part of the reason why I opened this thread and links to it in other forums.
At the same time, the actual reason(s) for not adding this in may in fact have nothing to do with any of this.

Questions :
- could there be a way of having a flag for unit transported in assault/siege units (siege tower, siege quiquereme) vs city defenses ? I know this one actually incorporates lots of different modifs.
- do you really think you could implement that, how and WHEN ?

Click to expand...

I was going to say that if it can be done for Marines attacking from ships then a similar flag would apply here, but on second thought the Marine's 'Amphibious Assault' flag probably just means that it gets a bonus when attacking from water (hardcoaded terrain domain type) --the fact that it must do so from a ship unit is not the modifying factor.

The images I attached are just mock-ups that I based around the Editor's format. Designers and programmers would determine exactly how to implement it. My point is that it would give a ot to the game (in terms of combat) for the limited effort of implementing it into the program.

The former is gives most freedom, but the latter will make it a bit easier in use: It's easier to remember that a pikeman has double defense against mounted units than remembering that it has triple defense against knights and and horsemen but double against knights, not to speak of all the knight based UUs.

Click to expand...

The example of the Pikeman unit vs the Knight unit could be applied to all mounted units. So just give the Horesman, Chariot, Cavalry, and UUs the same values as those for the Knight. This will give the Pikeman unit the same A/D (3/6) vs all mounted units. It would have exactly the same effect as a general flag and almost as simple, but allow for a high degree of depth. The reason why I settled for this sytem and not flags is because it just happens to be simpler and at the same time more flexible than having a whole bunch of 'x' and 2vs x' flags. It would take you just as long to change the mofier values for each unit as it would to select new flags --especially if you give the same values to unit general types as stated above. And at no extra cost, you would have an excellent scenario tool at your disposal.

I reserve flags for the more generalized rules that apply to specific circumstances, like attacking Cities for instance.

To make this all perfect however, there should be 3, not 2 terrain modifiers. In addition to the two suggested, there should be a terrain modifier that modifies attacker's attack factor based on the terrain it attacks from.

Click to expand...

Civ3 terrain already does that. My Terrain modifier system just allows you to determine the attack bonus for individual units.

One thing I was thinking of adding though is new 'Double Defence vs Bombard' and 'Double Bombard Effect' flags for Terrain (i.e. in the Editor's 'Terrain window).

TW, for some reason I think the bonuses should be expressed in percentage of the A/D factor instead of absolute values.

Click to expand...

Percentage modifiers would have the same effect but as I said, I would reserve that for generalized flags.


I think that should clear up any confusion concerning my proposed Combat Modifier system.

Originally posted by yoshi
Civ3 terrain already does that. My Terrain modifier system just allows you to determine the attack bonus for individual units.

Click to expand...

(This was in response to my suggestion of having attack modifier based on the terrain you attack from as well.)
No, CIV3 terrain has nothing like this at all. In CIV3, the terrain you attack from means absolutely nothing for the outcome.
An artillery has exactly the same Attack factor regardless of whether it is attacking from hills (where it should be very effective) or from plains.
Also, if swordmen are going to attack knights on grassland, they have exactly the same success rate regardless of whether their attack came from grassland or woods, but with my suggestion, attacking from woods would be much better.

I think this added terrain bonus would change the war strategy a lot. Today (and even with your added midifiers) a hill adjacent to a city is unimportant. The only reason for the attacker to occupy it is to have a relatively safe place to stand if being attacked before attacking the city, but if not very afraid of being attacked, I would just move my attack force to any square adjacent to the city before attacking it.

In real life, and with my suggestion, the hill would actually be a key to the city. If you first took the hill, your chance of capturing the city would increase, since the units attacking from the hill would get an attack bonus. So the hill would be important for both sides, not just an uninteresting obstacle as it is now.

As I understand it, the AI can easily be set to take A/D modification into account.

Click to expand...

Yes, the AI takes A/D into account when actually attacking with the units.

However, they wouldn't necessarily take that into account when building the units. They would build the best units available (overall A/D depending if they need defensive units or offensive units).

So you'd just have to make sure there are no silly situations where a particular unit is available that is the best 'overall' unit, but is actually the worst for them to build due to what type of units you are throwing at them.

No, CIV3 terrain has nothing like this at all. In CIV3, the terrain you attack from means absolutely nothing for the outcome.

Click to expand...

Civ3 incorperates a hardcoded terrain flag for hills and Mountains that gives a unit Attacking (NOT to be confused with Bombarding) an attack bonus. I'm pretty sure of this, but I'm sure you can check out the liturature on the subject to be sure.

Today (and even with your added midifiers) a hill adjacent to a city is unimportant.

Click to expand...

If what I said above stands (and I'm pretty sure it does), then building cities next to Hills is very dangerous. The AI will intentionally attack from these squares so although this may be for the Defence factor, the Attack bonus may also be the reason.
But it may just be my imagination --doesn't really matter.

However, they wouldn't necessarily take that into account when building the units. They would build the best units available (overall A/D depending if they need defensive units or offensive units).

So you'd just have to make sure there are no silly situations where a particular unit is available that is the best 'overall' unit, but is actually the worst for them to build due to what type of units you are throwing at them.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I was referring to earlier. Getting the AI to take unit-specific CM into account would require a bit of creativity on the part of programmers, but that's about it.

If you first took the hill, your chance of capturing the city would increase, since the units attacking from the hill would get an attack bonus.

Click to expand...

You're right about that but I should admit that personally I dislike depending too much on terrain because it unbalances things a bit in terms of gameplay because then 'taking to the hills' becomes a must. If this were to be applied to the core game, designers would be wise to keep the 'Attack Bonus' of Hills/Mountains reasonably low for most units.


I was thinking of adding a 'Movement Bonus' value into the 'Terrain Modifier' section so that certain units would have advantages in speed when on certain terrain. Negative integers mean that the unit travels slower than its actual speed. Typing 'x' as the value would prevent that unit from moving into that square at all (this would be better than the 'Wheeled' unit flag because it has the same effect but is more unit/terrain-specific; Tanks, for instance, would be able to enter Forest square, but have a severe movement penalty --whereas they can' enter Mountain squares at all). This isn't essential, but it would add a nice touch.
(A possibe use for the 'Wheeled' flag would be to prevent units with this flag to cross Rivers without the Road improvement.)

Of course, in just adding new modifier fields I should take Bamspeedy's AI comment into account, as it would defeat the simplicity of incorperating CMs into Civ3 if it took too much work to get the AI to adapt to and use all these additions.

BTW, thus far the vote is 16 to 5 in favor of this 'Combat Modifier' system, with 2 people wanting CMs but using a different system.

If you're interested, thus far 13 people have replied to the thread (including 6 by me) and 167 people have viewed it (just give me the benefit of the doubt that a haven't just been repeatedly viewing my own thread ).

Civ3 incorperates a hardcoded terrain flag for hills and Mountains that gives a unit Attacking (NOT to be confused with Bombarding) an attack bonus. I'm pretty sure of this, but I'm sure you can check out the liturature on the subject to be sure.

Click to expand...

Not that I've ever heard or seen of. I would like to know where you got this information from.

There is a defensive bonus for mountains and hills (which you can change in the editor), but there is no attack bonus no matter what terrain you are attacking from. Going onto a mountain/hill in order to attack from there is only good for giving your units extra defense for when you face a counter-attack.

Initially I was sure that this was a feature in Civ3 but I may be confusing it with another game (Total War has a feature like that). Sorry about that...I tend to get caught up in Total War's realistic and in-depth battle tactics.


Either way, there is one aspect of the terrain modifier that I haven't covered which relates to TheNiceOne's comment concerning attack bonus in a way: what about the effect of terrain on units ATTACKING that sqaure? For example, in Total War Archers have little effect when firing off vollies at groups in wooded areas and mounted units have similar difficulty attacking units in woods.
I was thinking of adding another value to the Terrain Modifier section that would determine the Defence value of units on x terrain vs x unit.

Example:

Originally posted by yoshi
Civ3 incorperates a hardcoded terrain flag for hills and Mountains that gives a unit Attacking (NOT to be confused with Bombarding) an attack bonus. I'm pretty sure of this, but I'm sure you can check out the liturature on the subject to be sure.

Click to expand...

As Bamspeedy answered, there has never been any imformation about this, so no such bonus exists.

If what I said above stands (and I'm pretty sure it does), then building cities next to Hills is very dangerous. The AI will intentionally attack from these squares so although this may be for the Defence factor, the Attack bonus may also be the reason.
But it may just be my imagination --doesn't really matter.

Click to expand...

It must be your imagination. But in real life, hills around cities is very important, and often more of a fighting spot than the city itself. Now, real life isn't the most important in CIV3, a good gaming experience is far more important, but still, it bothes me that the surrounding terrain is so totally unimportant in this game.

You're right about that but I should admit that personally I dislike depending too much on terrain because it unbalances things a bit in terms of gameplay because then 'taking to the hills' becomes a must. If this were to be applied to the core game, designers would be wise to keep the 'Attack Bonus' of Hills/Mountains reasonably low for most units.

Click to expand...

I agree here. My wish is that such attack bonus should be balanced so that taking the hills first should be a viable, but not always the best strategy. In other words, I want more interesting choises. The defender would need to divide his defense between the city and the hills, and the attacker would have to decide whether to risk casualties and time by taking the hills first, or go directly for the city but the loosing the hill advantage. This is the kind of interesting choises the combat should have IMHO.

I was thinking of adding a 'Movement Bonus' value into the 'Terrain Modifier' section so that certain units would have advantages in speed when on certain terrain. Negative integers mean that the unit travels slower than its actual speed. Typing 'x' as the value would prevent that unit from moving into that square at all (this would be better than the 'Wheeled' unit flag because it has the same effect but is more unit/terrain-specific; Tanks, for instance, would be able to enter Forest square, but have a severe movement penalty --whereas they can' enter Mountain squares at all). This isn't essential, but it would add a nice touch.

Click to expand...

I agree with this as well, I have actually suggested it myself a year or so ago

Anyway, the big problem is to get the AI to take advantage of it. One thing is to get it to attack and defend with the right unit. Another is to get it to produce the right mix, or to use the terrain smart. It would need to consider that knights sucks in woods and should be kept more in the open, while the opposite is true for the infantry.

This is the kind of interesting choises the combat should have IMHO.

Click to expand...

Advantages given by terrain should definitely be a factor in CIV combat strategy. It would increase the strategic depth of unit strategy which is somewhat dull as it is. I just want to stress that although terrain should play a bigger part in combat, values should not be so extreme as to skew combat in favor of terrain.

About the AI. If it did turn out that programmers had trouble getting the AI to use these bonuses properly, just having the option in the game would at least make it useful in Multiplayer and further fixes to the AI wuld come later in a patch(s).


In justifying the Movement Bonus before, I forgot to mention that what makes it better than the 'Wheeled' flag is that the Tank may enter Forest but Catapult may not --the 'Wheeled' flag means that if the Tank has it, it can't enter Forest at all and if it doesn't it can enter any land square, including Mountains. Thus the new system distinguishes between unit/terrain relationships.

An example of a positive integer effect would be for the Guerilla unit that is able to move just as fast in Forest as it does on Plains. The reason why this is better than giving it the 'All Road' flag is because Roads applies to ALL land squares --in other words, with the flag system the Guerilla would be just as fast on Glacier squares as on Jungle.

This would also be useful in distiguishing UU abilities: the early Inca UU could have extra movement points when on Jungle squares whereas the Spanish Conquistador would lose MPs.


I added the 'Movement Bonus' to the 'Terrain Modifier':

Of course I support such a thing!