What IS First Strike exactly?

[Thunderbrd]

I'd like to initiate this discussion in light of some recent pondering.

I think we need to come to a consensus on what exactly first strike represents.

Before going into any detail, lets take a quick look at its game effect.

Battles are divided into turns, each being an opportunity for the units in combat to harm each other. Originally, either one unit or the other would harm his opponent each round. It was basically a straight contest and only one would come out on top each round. When units were damaged, they did not grow weaker in response but maintained the fighting capacity of the strength they started the fight with and only if attacked while weakened would this injured state affect their ability to fight. In this original form, each first strike was a free attack and might've made the battle a little closer to a conclusion in favor of the first striker if it managed to succeed in these 'free attacks'.

Upon Combat Mod adjustments, units now weaken DURING the battle, thus first strike has become notably stronger. Now, these free attacks can reduce the fighting effectiveness of the enemy before the enemy can even attack back. Each round now gives each opponent an independant opportunity to hit and potentially damage the other. (It's not just one wins the round or the other wins the round, now both can win, one can win, or neither succeeds. That won't change things greatly until we see the effects of Precision, Dodge, Armor and Puncture coming more into play.) But during rounds where one opponent has first strikes remaining and the other does not, only the opponent with first strike is actually attacking and thus having the opportunity to weaken the enemy.

The point being, first strike is still basically the same thing in effect, just a bit more meaningful now as it can weaken the opponent before the real fight really gets underway.

But what is actually happening on the battlefield? Why is the unit with first strike given to strike at the opponent so many times before the opponent may also have a chance to get some shots in? What then does it mean to be 'immune to first strikes'?

In Vanilla Civ4, First Strike was already weakly defined. On one hand, it was given to Archers, presumably to indicate their range - but then it wasn't given to Gunpowder units despite rifles and such having even greater 'range'. It was generally denied to melee units though so perhaps that was part of its intention, but then you had Samurai who gained a huge amount of first strikes - why? To represent an amount of stealth to sneak up on and surprise the enemy? Or celerity in battle? If that's what it's supposed to mean then why give it to Archers? Bows aren't exactly a FAST weapon to use in comparison to some others (unless you have a very highly trained bowman which could then be said about units like swords and such as well.)

It appears we've adopted an acceptance of First Strike as an amalgamation of Range, Rate of Fire, Speed of Attack, and an assumed ability to get the jump on units (even ones that can see you coming!) Makes sense its evolved this way as all of those concepts are probably generically potentially valid for First Strike.

But then how do you define what it means to be immune to first strike? Is it a great big shield? Makes sense for the Range and Rate of Fire (for arrows anyhow) but not much for speed of attack or stealth! Is it a matter of riding a fast horse or hiding behind a wall? Again... nothing really applies to ALL of the definitions that brings first strike to a unit in the first place.


At this point you're probably wondering where I'm going with this...

I've been pondering ways to work with Equipment and this issue keeps niggling at the back of my head every time I look at some spots. Particularly, it would be nice to be able to define if a unit is IN a melee hand-to-hand range fight or if its fighting at a distance.

Consider a Bayonette for example. It's useful once the range of battle has closed to hand to hand. But useless to the unit that's fighting from afar.

And should an Archer be as strong in a hand-to-hand range fight as it is at a distance? What weapon does it start using when the enemy is too close in to fire arrows at the guy? Our combat graphics display suggests a long knife or a short sword perhaps. But what defines this difference in battle currently?

You guessed it - its whether the Archer still has remaining first strikes or not (and whether the opponent unit is also a distance fighter.) So here again it's being suggested by the original designers that the first strike means the attacks that take place at a range as the opponent approaches.

Effect-wise, if both units have first strikes, those first strikes negate each other and both units, although fighting at a distance perhaps, are taking those first strike turns as if neither had a first strike to spend that turn.

Again, though, that suggests that the OTHER definitions of first strike really don't apply do they? Not universally anyhow.


Ok, so in light of all these things, my suggestion on how we begin to view and adopt first strike is as follows:

1) We start considering first strike to ONLY be a representation of distance fighting. I think it would be safe to consider it an amalgamation of range and speed of fire.

This means we review all units and promos and adjust with that in mind. Units with distance weaponry have that reflected in the number of first strikes they gain. Promotions that give first strike should only be applicable for units with distance weaponry and it represents an ability to either fire faster or at greater range.

Not an easy review task, I know, but it would set us up for a lot of improvements to come.

2) Codewise, we differentiate the Distance Strength of a unit from the H2H (Hand to Hand) strength of a unit. Distance Strength is what is applied during first strikes (and more... will discuss in pt 3.) And H2H Strength is applied once all first strikes are exhausted.

3) For distance Units fighting distance Units, we negate all first strikes from the beginning of the battle and add another tag for 'Ammo'. Each round decreases each combatant's ammo by one and when one runs out of Ammo that unit must try to charge in and fight the other in H2H fighting. At that point, the first strikes of the other unit kick in (as long as it can maintain its ammo as well during those rounds) as it gets its customary free attacks at the approaching enemy.

4) Rather than using 'Immunity to First Strike' prolifically as we do now, we would create a Rush ability that defines how fast the unit can move and thus reduce the opponent's number of potential first strikes against it. Therefore, if your unit is REALLY fast, it can close the gap and 'get out of the rain' faster as it were, closing the gap and engaging the enemy with enough haste to limit the amount of attacks it suffers on the way.

5) THEN when we go to develop the equipments we can adjust more things that would make those equipments make more sense. Some special Horses can be faster than others and thus increase the rider's Rush ability more than the norm. Heavy armor can be so cumbersome as to decrease the Rush ability. Longer range on a weapon means it gives the units more first strikes. The raw power of a distance weapon really effects only the unit's Distance Strength while it may also carry a Melee weapon that impacts its H2H Strength.

6) As recently discussed, buildings can increase or reduce the amount of first strikes a unit receives when defending or invading a city. In fact, the dynamics of city battles might differ quite a bit too. The buildings in the city may provide more ammo on hand thus the defenders at the wall may get huge bonus first strikes as the walls vastly decrease the attacker's ability to Rush (And we can then implement ways to get around that effect the walls are inflicting on the attacker such as Ladder equipments and special actions by siege towers...)

This would be the most advanced stage of setting things up and adjusting our First Strike outlook.


The BIG impact we'd have to consider NOW would be to take OUT the considerations of stealth and speed of attack in melee wherever those seem to be the cause for adding first strikes. And coming up with an appropriate representation of base first strike values on our existing units (Biggest example being most gunpowder units would have first strikes!)

Then the added tags would be developed for units and promos to adapt our differentiated Strength values and Ammo considerations as well as some (surprisingly minor) adjustments to the combat mechanism itself. The tough part would be the odds, to which I'd ask Koshling to give consideration on how to calculate properly as I'm obviously less than well skilled in that regard.

Ok, from what y'all understand of this grand suggestion, what do you think?

 

[DRJ]

I'd like to initiate this discussion in light of some recent pondering.

(...) excellent analysis

Ok, from what y'all understand of this grand suggestion, what do you think?

100%

I like the way you argue. While enhancing the realism you balance wisely.

One thing I would like to suggest is that some units could have a secoundary weaponry, meaning not only archers could have h2h values but also melee troops could have some sort of light bow or something if they would have the special ability of a secound weapon slot or something.
The promos for the secoundary weapons would only apply for this mechanic, of course.

What comes in mind is a rifleman that has a "can carry a bayonet" ability (better h2h values) as compared to a rifleman without a bayonet but with a longer range/better reload & accuracy (like a Military Repeating Air Rifle [called "Windbüchse" in austrian army during napoleonic times]

 

[Thunderbrd]

One thing I would like to suggest is that some units could have a secoundary weaponry, meaning not only archers could have h2h values but also melee troops could have some sort of light bow or something if they would have the special ability of a secound weapon slot or something.
The promos for the secoundary weapons would only apply for this mechanic, of course.

This would be possible by giving melee units a skill promo that allows them to learn how to also be, say, an archery unit (adds the SubCombat class to the unit.) Then they could gain access to the Archery equipments and by picking those up they can then start their fights in distance combat as Archers usually do. They'd be pushing it uphill to develop this ability anywhere near what an archer could of course and to do so they'd lose a lot of ability to play to their strengths but it could and probably should be made possible.

 

[civfan613]

Can't tell how proud I am of you MODDERS.

 

[Nimek]

But then how do you define what it means to be immune to first strike?

For me it means that you are good fortified and cautious so nobody can sneak you.

Exampla when you are inside city walls you should be immunue for first attack because always you first see your enemy and you have time to get prepared.

 

[SargontheGreat2]

Some really great ideas!

I think battle should be divided into 4 different phases, where different units dominate the phase

Skirmishing Phase-Artillery and Light Cav
Ranged Phase- Archers, Gunners, and Artillery
Melee Phase- Hand to hand, so, Melee, Cav, Bayonet troops
Retreat Phase- One side gets free hits on the other is the other retreats, due to lower health of health. What I'm saying is all units should withdraw, but the enemy gets a bunch of first strikes on them while they are running.

 

[civfan613]

^^^ehem, 4?

 

[Koshling]

Hmmm.

Couple of things strike me (in regard to the difficulty of this, not the in-principal desirability):

1) First strike promotions on Great Commanders. Would you disallow them? If not how would you make them only apply to appropriate distance-fighting units?

2) The code for calculating odds would get a lot harder - do you know how to do this? Note - you absolutely cannot run the combat rounds in simulation - the performance overhead is WAY too high to take that approach. As such you MUST come up with a mathematical model, which is solvable rapidly that gives a good approximation of the result odds. I can see this being quite hard for what you are proposing.

 

[ls612]

When balancing things I've always thought First Strikes as being equivalent to +5-10% Combat strength. So please don't change it's effect too much otherwise combat could be seriously unbalanced.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Ok, some great responses here, some of which highlight the very need for this discussion in the first place!

For me it means that you are good fortified and cautious so nobody can sneak you.

Exampla when you are inside city walls you should be immunue for first attack because always you first see your enemy and you have time to get prepared.

So to you, first strikes mean stealth and the ability to get a jump on the opponent?

What I'm proposing takes this element completely OUT of the first strike definition and perhaps paves the road for a dynamic that, while possibly similar to first strike, means specifically just that. I'd love to include a stealth factor, particularly since Criminal units are now such a big part of C2C. But to continue to allow the one First Strike to be a blend of both distance attack and stealth is something I see as a serious flaw in our ability to determine what effects mean what.

Therefore, if First Strike were to be taken to mean distance combat only, we'd have to really rethink what it means to be immune (basically it would mean making sure you could always be up and at your opponent in hand to hand combat before the opponent could ever take a distance shot at you.) And the ability would then become as rare as it should be - limited to teleportation really. Or a CHANCE to ignore first strikes due to the ability to sneak up on your opponent.

Some really great ideas!

I think battle should be divided into 5 different phases, where different units dominate the phase

Skirmishing Phase-Artillery and Light Cav
Ranged Phase- Archers, Gunners, and Artillery
Melee Phase- Hand to hand, so, Melee, Cav, Bayonet troops
Retreat Phase- One side gets free hits on the other is the other retreats, due to lower health of health. What I'm saying is all units should withdraw, but the enemy gets a bunch of first strikes on them while they are running.

Not sure where the skirmishing phase would fall into this but in some ways, the suggestion I'm giving on how we work with first strikes would somewhat achieve a Ranged Phase then a Melee Phase. I, too had considered a Retreat phase however and in some ways, this discussion was intending to build to that as a conclusion.

That would involve remaining 'ammo' allowing for strikes against withdrawing units equal to the amount of first strikes they had when the units approached. There'd have to be some more thought put into that... but this would pave the way for such a dynamic.

Hmmm.

Couple of things strike me (in regard to the difficulty of this, not the in-principal desirability):

1) First strike promotions on Great Commanders. Would you disallow them? If not how would you make them only apply to appropriate distance-fighting units?

2) The code for calculating odds would get a lot harder - do you know how to do this? Note - you absolutely cannot run the combat rounds in simulation - the performance overhead is WAY too high to take that approach. As such you MUST come up with a mathematical model, which is solvable rapidly that gives a good approximation of the result odds. I can see this being quite hard for what you are proposing.

Some very good observations I think.

The first one could be very easily addressed by having units carry a boolean isDistance definition if they have any distance fighting capacity. Then we tweak the code where it gives the commander's added benefits to the unit so that it doesn't give it IF the unit is NOT a distance unit. Rather easily done really.

The second is where I know it will be tough to work out... not just properly but at all.

We'd really have to break down the way we come up with the odds now to evaluate how we can tweak things like this (and other issues already needing addressed) into the odds calculations. If you're willing to engage in that discussion, I think its already high time we did. I can start a thread on that later where we really take a look at the mathematical processes involved in generating the 'odds'. I have a number of questions for you as it is.

I very strongly believe that, although difficult, we very well could tweak things to work. We're both very creative and you're... well... genius when it comes to mathematical analysis. You'll most likely be able to spot the right way to address things before I will but perhaps with discussion it might make it easier for us both.

On the basics, odds aren't all that tough... with each thing added it becomes more and more important to add it to the mathematical model carefully and with full understanding. I reached that point of complexity and made mistakes attempting to pass it already. But that doesn't mean its something we'd be incapable of resolving.

Some of the things I've suggested here are a really rough example of the dynamic that I'm sure would emerge upon closer evaluation so as we go with adapting the odds model we'd need to get more clear on how this distance vs melee model would work.

When balancing things I've always thought First Strikes as being equivalent to +5-10% Combat strength. So please don't change it's effect too much otherwise combat could be seriously unbalanced.

I don't think that's ever really been a very accurate assessment of first strike's strength. It's always been relative to the power of the unit with first strike compared to the power of the unit it fights. A stronger unit will make better use of first strike than a weaker one. All that's changed up to now is that it intensifies that effect. My point being its impossible, and always has been, to really put it into % combat strength terms. It's not just apples and oranges its dependencies on situational factors. But if you want an average consideration, each first strike would be more like 10%-20% the way it is now - perhaps a bit less considering the vast proliferation of immunity to first strikes making it useless to have any first strikes at all in more fights than not. (becomes a greater factor later in the game)

 

[Nimek]

Yes first strike means who start the battle and have suprise elemen on his side.

Ranged units have first strike because enemy dont suspect that arrows/ammo Can reach that far or dont suspect that commander will move them closer to attack.
Fast units have first strike because they Can attack in diffrent formation or side than enemy suspect
Ambush promotion have first strike because enemy dont suspect attack at all

 

[strategyonly]

first strike

Here is the Wiki for Civ IV for First Strikes"

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/First_strike

 

[ls612]

Here is the Wiki for Civ IV for First Strikes"

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/First_strike

They don't work that way anymore, that is the point of this thread. The whole combat model has been redone so that internally it works differently but still gives more or less the same results.

 

[MagnusIlluminus]

The primary reason that I can see for being 'Immune to First Strikes' is Stealth, otherwise known as not letting your enemy know you are coming. To my mind, this is the only reason that fits all types of First Strikes. This can be achieved via camouflage, hiding, masquerading as the enemy, etc. There is currently a promotion called Camouflage that gives a 5% bonus to defense in just about every terrain. Perhaps instead it should give resistance to First Strikes. Perhaps even break it up into say three promotions giving 25%, 50%, and 100% chance to avoid First Strikes. Potentially, a small amount (say 5% or 10%) could be added to level three of the Forest and Hill fighting promotions (don't remember their names offhand).

In a similar vein, I think that Stealth units should have First Strikes, as that represents damaging the opponent before they realize there is danger. If you still want a tight definition for First Strikes, then perhaps rename the ability for Stealth units to be Sneak Attack or something similar. It should probably only happen if the opponent cannot see the attacking unit with Sneak Attack for whatever reason, which generally means there is no dog nearby.

As to Samurai having First Strikes, it's not because of stealth. Their honor would forbid them sneaking around. However, it's my understanding that they were generally skilled with bows as well as with their Katana, so having distance attack based First Strikes makes some sense as they are elite warriors.

As to Archers having it but gunpowder not, that makes sense to me, at least for early gunpowder units as they took quite a bit of time to reload whereas Archers reload quite quickly. Once the repeating firearm is developed, they should be able to begin having First Strike and this is something that was apparently overlooked that can now be fixed.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Thunderbrd

I think we should consider using a D&D style if "Initiative" the higher ones "Initiative" the sooner they can attack.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Initiative

Thus we could apply things like "Flatfooted" and "Sneak Attack". We should also consider having hidden units like rogues to have levels of stealthiness. Thus a unit with good listen or spot could counter their hide and move silently.

Overall the D&D system is perfect for what we need to do in the Combat mod.

EDIT: In fact we may want to consider giving units more stats beyond just Strength. Possibly Constitution and Dexterity or even Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Having suc could bring a much more deeper game play beyond just which unit has the best strength.

 

[Taxman66]

I think the bigger issue is that 'first strike' is actually reflecting multiple different properties.
The first, though probably most extrapolated, is simply raw range. A throwing unit (Atlatl, javlineer, etc...) has range on a pure melee unit, an slinger would have better range than a thrower, an archer the next up and so on. The unit with the best range should have first strike advantage over a shorter ranged unit.

Second, an initiative bonus and/or rate of fire should be factored in as well, particularly if the range of the units are similar. Light crossbows might out range archer units and Heavy Xbows might out range longbows, but the bows are going to provide higher rate of fire. This is one of the reasons British WWI bolt action rifles were superior to the German mouser rifles, even though the mouser had better range and accuracy.

Third, and perhaps the closest/least extrapolated idea, is that of stealth attack. Submarines, assassins, camouflage skill (which generally favor or are easier for preset defensive positions), and so on.

To be honest I'm not a big fan of much of the combat mod ideas I've heard (lingering effects {e.g. wounds, diseases, excessive classification details and so forth)... But my suggestion would be to remove 'first strike' and replace it with 2 or 3 separate factors: Range, Rate of Fire (though you could argue that this should simply be a factored into ranged strength), and Stealth. A unit would begin firing at its maximum range and get shots in before the other unit can close. However, a stealthy/well hidden unit should be able to close (or indirectly force the enemy to close to it) until either the stealthy unit attacks with surprise (a true first strike probably with bonus strength/damage) or until it is discovered at which point the other unit would engage the range it found them.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Here is the Wiki for Civ IV for First Strikes"

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/First_strike

Interestingly enough, it is no less vague in terms of trying to explain what exactly a first strike represents. It does a good job of explaining the game mechanic though.

They don't work that way anymore, that is the point of this thread. The whole combat model has been redone so that internally it works differently but still gives more or less the same results.

Actually, what they wrote there still applies to First Strike 100%. The only difference that makes it any stronger is not a change to the First Strike mechanism but the change to combat itself that makes the initial rounds of battle the most critical. Now, as units are damaged, their strengths are reduced in turn, rather than the old method of maintaining the same strength value they began the fight with all the way through. This does make a lot more sense as well. If in the fight I've injured you, you are going to be weaker for the rest of the fight.

The side-effect is the enhancing of the value of first strike since first strikes give the first striker an opportunity to wound the opponent before it is attacked itself.

The primary reason that I can see for being 'Immune to First Strikes' is Stealth, otherwise known as not letting your enemy know you are coming. To my mind, this is the only reason that fits all types of First Strikes. This can be achieved via camouflage, hiding, masquerading as the enemy, etc. There is currently a promotion called Camouflage that gives a 5% bonus to defense in just about every terrain. Perhaps instead it should give resistance to First Strikes. Perhaps even break it up into say three promotions giving 25%, 50%, and 100% chance to avoid First Strikes. Potentially, a small amount (say 5% or 10%) could be added to level three of the Forest and Hill fighting promotions (don't remember their names offhand).

I'm liking this thinking. But I'd also like to give a more indepth mechanism. Some units will know you're there no matter how 'good' you are at stealth. Poor example for the game: A bat, with its echolocation, is not going to be fooled by you hiding in the bushes. A better example: An archer on a tower watching the grounds outside the city that have been deforested and cleared so that there are no good hiding spots will be far more likely to see you coming despite your best efforts at stealth. An even better example: A robotic motion sensor coupled with infrared display, x-ray monitoring and 360 degree vision will see you coming no matter what you try to do to remain stealthy (except perhaps matching it with even better invisibility technologies.)

My point is it should be a contested check for this sort of stealth vs detection on approach. Make it one sided for the stealthy unit to reduce the amount of first strikes it receives and we will fail to provide a good model. But you're suggestion is pretty close to right on imo. This is a BIG part of why in a more developed form of the Combat Mod I wanted to work a lot on stealth issues... make units independantly check against whether they see other units or not rather than having it so that either all units see a unit or no units do based on a status of the visibility you have on the plot itself. THEN work in modifiers to the same kind of dynamic you're talking about as a unit goes to attack - already then there's a degree of how much it can or cannot see the attacker and that would play a big role in how effectively you can 'sneak up on the enemy' and thus reduce his ability to attack by distance.

I'd also think you could get an initial surprise attack if your opponent is unaware of your approach entirely - be able to have units strengthen their combat strengths during these surprise attacks, and if you couple THAT with a stunning attack... you start getting the picture.

In a similar vein, I think that Stealth units should have First Strikes, as that represents damaging the opponent before they realize there is danger. If you still want a tight definition for First Strikes, then perhaps rename the ability for Stealth units to be Sneak Attack or something similar. It should probably only happen if the opponent cannot see the attacking unit with Sneak Attack for whatever reason, which generally means there is no dog nearby.

See my last few paragraphs above.

As to Samurai having First Strikes, it's not because of stealth. Their honor would forbid them sneaking around. However, it's my understanding that they were generally skilled with bows as well as with their Katana, so having distance attack based First Strikes makes some sense as they are elite warriors.

hmm... also bow wielders... ok. So that makes sense in keeping with the 'distance is first strike' concept.

As to Archers having it but gunpowder not, that makes sense to me, at least for early gunpowder units as they took quite a bit of time to reload whereas Archers reload quite quickly. Once the repeating firearm is developed, they should be able to begin having First Strike and this is something that was apparently overlooked that can now be fixed.

Ok, so your saying that the amalgamation of Rate of Fire and Distance = First Strikes is maintained here by understanding that the slower early gunpowder units may have had some limited distance but took forever to load. (I would think they'd still start loaded so would at least have one...)

Otherwise this makes sense.

But I've also begun to consider that first strikes perhaps should not be given to units directly but rather are generated on units as a result of a mathematical equation that compiles their Rate of Fire and Distance factors. That way we may program units and added effects from promos with those direct thoughts in mind and let the chips fall where the calculation takes them. Doesn't take away first strikes from the unit... just defines how they get them a bit less directly.

@Thunderbrd

I think we should consider using a D&D style if "Initiative" the higher ones "Initiative" the sooner they can attack.

Initiative, if we're comparing the game combat models, is really impossible to replicate in the Civ combat engine. It indicates, in D&D, which combatant goes in which order during a given round. (depending on the system or house rule it may or may not be rolled each round) In Civ combat, each round, each unit makes their attack against the other simultaneously. You don't take turns striking one another, you both attack at once then the results of those attacks are recompiled at the end of the round. So who goes first is not an issue. First Strikes don't really relate to that either in that First Strikes are really a units ability to attack at the beginning of the fight when the other opponent, for whatever reason, cannot counterattack.

A change to a mechanism where each opponent takes turns attacking each other separately, thus giving one an ability to go first and wound the other before the other has a chance to attack back in a potentially weakened state from your attack, would be possible but would also enhance the complexity of a battle by quite a bit. It would end up being a minor effect... I dunno... I'll think more on that. It might be that we could start every battle with an initiative check and always give one free first strike round (as they are defined now - probably call it something else though to differentiate the effect like an Initiative Attack) to the winner of that check. That would have much the same effect overall and would not greatly impact the odds mechanism - much less then my current suggestion on distance fighting anyhow. But then again, that's a whole separate issue. Would be kinda fun to have that effect though.

Thus we could apply things like "Flatfooted" and "Sneak Attack". We should also consider having hidden units like rogues to have levels of stealthiness. Thus a unit with good listen or spot could counter their hide and move silently.

So in otherwords you could enable units to gain combat adjustments when attacking (or even when defending) during Initiative Attacks, and work in ways to increase the amount of Initiative Attacks possible by successfully implementing attacks under the element of surprise? Could all work in nicely together I think.

Overall the D&D system is perfect for what we need to do in the Combat mod.

I agree that a lot of inspiration should be taken from that system but we should be creative in how to apply it to the Civ combat model lest we may start wanting to rewrite the whole basis of it! (and perhaps enter into some intellectual property entanglements if not careful)

EDIT: In fact we may want to consider giving units more stats beyond just Strength. Possibly Constitution and Dexterity or even Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Having suc could bring a much more deeper game play beyond just which unit has the best strength.

Keep in mind that Civ Strength is NOT D&D Strength. Not by any means. Civ Strength is an overall combat summarization. It means, all at once, Damage of your Strikes, Accuracy of your Attacks and the Ability to Minimize and avoid Damage from your opponents. These four will be given individual toggles with Puncture (Damage of your Strikes), Precision (Accuracy of your Attacks), Armor (Ability to Minimize Damage received) and Dodge (Ability to Avoid Enemy Attacks entirely). Strength will also remain as the All Four in One value.

In further consideration of dividing Distance Strength and H2H Strength, I've realized that units should have a base strength still and simply carry modifiers to one strength type or the other.

As for the rest? Constitution will be represented by Stamina and Endurance unit features. Dexterity is pretty much in D&D an amalgamation of Precision and Dodge, and Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma COULD become factors for determining non-combat skill sets but we'll have to see if it really would help to implement them in any form as at the moment those skills and abilities seem more directly related to the unit type and its Outcome mission settings.

I think the bigger issue is that 'first strike' is actually reflecting multiple different properties.

There you go... that's exactly what I'm trying to say in this thread all in a nutshell.

The first, though probably most extrapolated, is simply raw range. A throwing unit (Atlatl, javlineer, etc...) has range on a pure melee unit, an slinger would have better range than a thrower, an archer the next up and so on. The unit with the best range should have first strike advantage over a shorter ranged unit.

Second, an initiative bonus and/or rate of fire should be factored in as well, particularly if the range of the units are similar. Light crossbows might out range archer units and Heavy Xbows might out range longbows, but the bows are going to provide higher rate of fire. This is one of the reasons British WWI bolt action rifles were superior to the German mouser rifles, even though the mouser had better range and accuracy.

Third, and perhaps the closest/least extrapolated idea, is that of stealth attack. Submarines, assassins, camouflage skill (which generally favor or are easier for preset defensive positions), and so on.

Ok, sounds like we're on the same page so far.

To be honest I'm not a big fan of much of the combat mod ideas I've heard (lingering effects {e.g. wounds, diseases, excessive classification details and so forth)...

You'll probably like them more in play than you think... it's going to give healer units a lot more value and diversity. And you'll be able to develop units to resist and overcome those kinds of effects. The classifications may seem unimportant but what you see it enable will be pretty cool I think. But I'm happy to implement things with a sense of gradualness enough that each step is evaluated as it goes into play. I don't mind the challenge of having to 'win' you and others over to these visions.

But my suggestion would be to remove 'first strike' and replace it with 2 or 3 separate factors: Range, Rate of Fire (though you could argue that this should simply be a factored into ranged strength), and Stealth. A unit would begin firing at its maximum range and get shots in before the other unit can close. However, a stealthy/well hidden unit should be able to close (or indirectly force the enemy to close to it) until either the stealthy unit attacks with surprise (a true first strike probably with bonus strength/damage) or until it is discovered at which point the other unit would engage the range it found them.

I think we're REALLY getting on the same page here with the exception of how I'd like to divide out Stealth factors from first strike entirely. It would not harm us to have multiple 'types' of first strike-like effects and have differing models directing how they come into effect. Trying to tie the two together into the same thing is going to make things problematic, even if the effects end up being very similar in the end result.

Particularly, while I can see Stealth interacting with first strikes (to deny the opponent the opportunity to make them as you sneak up unseen for example) I can see how First Strikes would be basically a fixed number for the most part, whereas Stealth would have a lot more detail into how it gets resolved. I can see a check for stealth when attacking having an impact on the first strike of the opponent... and can see it even earning something LIKE first strikes (though differing because it gets modified differently by other skills and abilities... a Fast Mounted unit would not minimize the amount of Stealth Strikes it receives from a unit that snuck up on it but it would certainly minimize the amount of First Strikes when it charges an Archer unit. A Rogue could gain an ability to greatly enhance its strength when attacking in a Stealth Attack but that should not give him any greater strength when he throws his dagger at a foe who knows he's there. Etc...)

Otherwise I think we're gelling quite bit here.



The big thing that's niggling at me in ALL of this is what Koshling brought up... the odds evaluation mechanism finds these kinds of complexities to be a living hell to compute (or rather I find it a living hell trying to figure out how to apply my minimal knowledge of statistical mathematics to creating these statistical models!)

 

[God-Emperor]

There is also a completely different explanation for the Samurai first strikes: iaido (a modern term for something they've been specifically practicing for near half a millennium) and other such techniques.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Thunderbrd

1. Yeah I realize that the D&D fighting system is not totally compatible with Civ's combat system. Especially when it comes to who goes first. However I think some ideas from it could be merged into your combat system.

2. Yes both elements of surprise and stealth. I wonder also for how far a unit would be from another unit. Such as a Mounted unit rides in from across the map. That would seem to be some sort of flatfooted situation. I suppose even a level of unit awareness should be considered. Especially if the unit came out from behind the fog of war.

3. Yeah we don't wan to step on anyone toes when it comes to intellectual property. However there are so many similar systems out there both trademarked and open source I don't think we will have a problem if we make our own system. Not to mention ours is not for profit either.

4a. Yeah after posting I realized that C2C Strength is not the same as D&D strength. Also other factors we may want to consider from D&D are Will, Fortitude and Reflexes. If I am not mistaken I think some of these are already covered in your combat mod plans, no?

4b. Yeah I think Intelligence, Charisma and Wisdom would be good things to consider. Especially if we are going to have diplomatic units. Wisdom could also come in handy for Hunting units.

5. We also might want to consider treating some Promotions like D&D feats where unit attributes could become requirements for promotions. Such as Rapid Shot (req 13 Dexterity and Point Blank Shot promotion).

Here is an earlier conversation we had about D&D feats.

 

[Thunderbrd]

1. Well, as you can see, just the mention did generate some ideas.

2. I'll have to come up with some mathematical formulas to really encapsulate the plans that appear to be coming together from this discussion but definitely one thing that has arisen here is a lot more discussion on distance and stealth for sure. I have some ideas culminating into mathematical processes so watch this space for more of a concrete concept (or set of concepts.)

3. True but we also don't want it to LOOK like we're taking such direct inspiration. It's like naming your wizard Raistlin... just lacks for ingenuity to 'copy' where we could attempt to push the envelope with something better, even if it is inspired by earlier sources.

And if we go tooooo far into a complete and total restructure of all combat rules in civ, on one hand the odds mechanism might be made more capable of adaptation while on the other there's SO much that would need to be rewritten. Perhaps for the AXXXE project we could look at building a new combat system from the ground up that involves the deepest of strategic considerations.

4. In various dynamics I would think all of those mentioned will be considered in their own way.

4b. It appears as if you're suggesting some underlying baseline 'stats' that would influence the missions and abilities and access to them. Makes sense... I'll have to consider that all much more though as to go about things in this way would take a lot of restructuring of elements that already exist - not that this is an intimidating factor, just that if one of those kinds of 'stats' were included in the game, we'd have to give full consideration to the whole structure of the game and everywhere where it would have an effect. Each would be a very big evaluation to determine that.

5. Interesting... very interesting. Underlying prereqs on such 'stats'... hmm... Again though, probably something to implement at a later time than to weave into immediate plans that are already forming on the basis of the structure that currently exists.

6. I've not forgotten that discussion Not in the least. Some of what I'm suggesting here in this re-evaluation of the First Strike mechanism and its meaning is building to things like that. And a lot of great ideas from the group have surfaced as a result - and I think has already brought us closer to some great new mechanics concepts.