3 sets of attack and defense values

[sealman]

The Charge of the Light Brigade was not equal to a tank-spearman battle. The English and Russian troops were equal in regards to military tech. The English Light Calvary Bridage just charged into the teeth of the Russian artillery and cannon and were justifiably mauled in the process. That was just a really bad tactical decision.

Now the Zulu's at Isandlwana is a good example, even though the brits did not have any tanks. What is really ironic about Isandlwana is that it occured a few years after the 7th Calvary and Custer were defeated at the Little Big Horn. Sometime people just don't learn that sometimes the outcome of a battle is determined by the number of your troops, and not by technology.

(note: Isandlwana is better example of the spear-tank rant than the Little Big Horn)

 

[Lennon]

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

Actually the Zulu came to mind when I wrote it. Too bad for them, Shaka even had some of them walk over a cliffside to show how disciplined they were. Again, to me they'd be nothing but insane.

Another thing I thought of was the Poles charging German panzers with pike cavalry in september 1939...

But anyways, we all know who won these battles, namely the TANKS.

 

[Matternich]

Good sensible solid idea. Adds depth and balance to combat.

Just one thing- the anti-tank unit should have a high attack against tanks not a high defense (though it would be nice to see it as a sort of modern equiviant of a pikeman vs horse unit in the way you've described) as they are not necessarily armoured, but equipped with bazooka/ rocket launcher anti-tank type thingy.

 

[luckykitkat]

I should think a spearman could beat a tank. I don't know much about them, but certainly the could pry parts off and mess it up... At the vey least he could get on top of the tank and not be hit... Til people pop up with pistols...

 

[NP300]

I've been thinking about the suggestion by dh_epic to implement this with a bonus system. Then the question is: Would the bonus be global at say 25% for all units with a bonus? This would be a bit inflexible.

So I envision it as follows: In the editor there would be a section that says "Has bonus of X versus Y". In the X field there would be a dropdown box or a plain box letting one choose from, say, -100% to +100% in increments of 10%. This would allow the setting of different bonuses per unit, including negative bonuses (penalties).

For the Y field there would be a dropdown box letting one choose the category for which the bonus appplies. It could come with 8 categories, where the game would only use 5: Air, Mounted, Foot, Naval Surface and Submarine. The three extra could be called extra 1, extra 2 and extra 3 and be there for modders. Note that one could first choose "Air" in the dropdown box and put in a bonus of 20% and then select "Mounted" and put in a bonus of 50%. This way units could have multiple bonuses versus different classes.

I was wondering if the bonus should apply for both defense and offense. For instance, an Aegis Cruiser should probably have the bonus versus subs on both attack and defense. On the other hand pikemen ought only to have the bonus on defense BUT it works fine to give them the bonus on attack too because pikemen have low attack values anyway. Therefore, the attack bonus versus knights probably wouldn't screw up the game much. This is the only problem I can think of in applying bonuses instead of 3 sets of a/d. It doesn't appear to be too serious a problem. Since pikemen have a defense of 3, a bonus of 33% would bring them up to 4 versus knights. Since their attack is only 1, a bonus of 33% would bring them up to 1.33, which could be rounded down to 1! So versus knights they could have a defense of 4 and attack of 1. Versus foot units/artillery they would still have a defense of 3.

If anyone can think of a serious problem this would cause please mention it.

Thus it seems to me a flexible bonus system could be almost as flexible as my original suggestion while maintaning much simplicty. For instance, the main game could always use a flat bonus of 33% so as not to confuse players. These units would just say "Bonus vs. Mounted units" in their stats. BUT for mods and scenarios, the bonuses could be set at specific percentages for specific units. So one could have an anti-tank unit with a bonus of 50% versus tanks, a bonus of 10% versus air and a bonus of -20% versus foot units! This is quite flexible. All that would be needed would be to introduce the concept of bonuses in the unit stats, and players would need only know versus what units there are bonuses.

It also seems to me that this system would tie in nicely with the suggestion I've seen that certain types of units have penalties in certain terrains. The same categories could be used. So if the unit is flagged "mounted" it could be given a terrain bonus in grassland/plains and terrain penalties in forests. Conversely foot units could be given bonuses in forests and cities.

 

[sir_schwick]

Here is what I know about Tanks and Knights and Cavalary, they are both considered Heavy Cavalry. Heavy Cavalry is designed to handle heavy fire for short durations and create a hole in the enemy line. They breakthrough, they don't maintain a fight. Infantry's role is to carry on the longer fight. Anti-Heavy Cavalry Troops (Polearms, Heavy Infantry) have the advantage whenever the Heavy Cavalry loses its mobile advanatage, such as when the Heavy Infantry defends. This is especially true in difficult terrain.

Onto an extension of the bonus vs. modifiers. I think it should be in units of 5 and 10 %. All units have base bonuses and penalties against certain troops. Your military, however, will adjust their unit tactics against various other types of units. If you and an opponent both used tons of Swordsmen, your army would learn to fight better and better against Swordsmen. When you wetn against an army of untested Swordsmen, you would have a significant advantage.

For these example I will use Germany, France, and England:

Germany uses a lot of Medieval Infantry and Pikemen.
France uses mostly Knights.
England uses mostly Longbowmen, and some Medieval Infantry.

France and Germany are in a war. French Knights attack a stack of German Medieval Infantry. The Knights get points toward an attack bonus vs. Med Inf. The Med Inf get points toward a defend bonus vs. Knights.
In future battles the Knights and Med Inf are still roughly even b/c they both recieve the bonuses at the same rate.
Now France also is fighting England. English Med Inf do not have any experience fighting Knights, but the French Knights have experience fighting Med Inf. Consequently, the Knights do much better in the English campaign. They also learn to fight Longbowmen, so when the Germans deploy a few, they are less effective.

Bonuses would be applied to all units in your army, to avoid a rather nuance complexity. This would also make UUs more valuable, since units that are usually experienced fighting Swordsmen, wouldn't know what to do against Immortals. It also means that you have significant advantage invading places that could not build a type of unit you are using, b/c yours will have bonuses they don't have.

 

[dh_epic]

All I know is that it should be easy to decipher my unit's strengths (and thus weaknesses), as simple as it is to look at 6/3/1 and know my unit is a better attacker than defender.

If it has an X bonus againts x, and a Y bonus against y, and a Z bonus against z, how would the user be able to see that, besides the civlopedia? Let alone, how would a user be able to know which units were x's, y's and z's?

Not to say I'm married to the idea, but 3 distinct classes solves this problem. Not only is it fewer things for the user to memorize (e.g.: mounted, mechanical, standing), but it simplifies any bonus to one "sentence". "+2 vs x". Or if you wanted to do strong against x and y, you'd say "-2 vs z".

But there's no reason for the mod community to be deprived of flexibility.

 

[warpstorm]

If it has an X bonus againts x, and a Y bonus against y, and a Z bonus against z, how would the user be able to see that, besides the civlopedia? Let alone, how would a user be able to know which units were x's, y's and z's?

And we know how up to date that was kept...

 

[NP300]

All I know is that it should be easy to decipher my unit's strengths (and thus weaknesses), as simple as it is to look at 6/3/1 and know my unit is a better attacker than defender.

If it has an X bonus againts x, and a Y bonus against y, and a Z bonus against z, how would the user be able to see that, besides the civlopedia? Let alone, how would a user be able to know which units were x's, y's and z's?

For the main game only a few units would have bonuses. The bonuses could be the same for all those units and only against a particular class. So maybe the only units with bonuses could be submarines vs surface ships, Aegis versus aircraft, and pikemen versus knights and the bonus could always be a flat 33% or +2 or whatever.

The stuff of multiple bonuses I mentioned was to allow more complicated bonuses for modders, not for the main game. It would only be an OPTION for scenario makers and modders. Allowing a bonus versus only one class would be fine. I just saw no reason to limit the options for modders.

 

[sir_schwick]

My idea for experienced based bonuses was designed so that when your military advisor advises you he could say:
"Our Swordsmen are average compared to Chinese Swordsmen."
"Our Swordsmen are excellent compared to Japanese Swordsmen."
"Our Swordsmen are poor compared to Japanese Horsemen."

The idea was simply to make certain civs that fought more, have slightly better militaries.

 

[ybbor]

i think in order for this to work it'd be best to only have 3 sets of attack values, why? because we only need to apply the bonuis to 1 unit for it to take effect. why bother having knight have a 3/2 vs. a 2/4 pikeman when you can have A 1/3 knight vs. a 3/3 pikeman? (although yes the results are probably differwent, but this will make it even less complicated)

 

[Punda The Panda]

3 sets of numbers? That sounds needlessly complex.

The Attack, Defense and Movement work fine for the time being-
Quick-attack units (like Cavalry) should have a low defense, a high attack, and a good speed..which they have. They can't hold points very well. That's what Defense units are for- they have a low attack, a high defense, and a low speed.
It's not a very complex system (Attack units and Defense units).

But that's good for 'casual' players, a group Firaxis is trying to increase.. because 'casual players' spend most of the money. It would be nice if the strategy were more tactical, but that would require more numbers, and more numbers bother the casual folk. The only solution would be to 'verbalize' the numbers, and make them visual for the more hardcore gamers. So the hardcore guy could see " 5-1-3-1-2-3-8 ", while the casual guy could see "Strong against Infantry, weak against Tanks, slow moving"...

 

[sir_schwick]

You knwo how some units have special abilites like "Amphibious Assault", add in a few specialty flags to units. They would be verbal, and not statistically complicated. Here are some examples:

x2 Defence vs. Mounted Units = Pikemen, Spearmen
+2 Attack in Open Terrain = Horse Units
+4 Attack in Open Terrain = Tanks
+1 Attack vs. Spears = Swordsmen, Medieval Infantry
+2 Defence in Foilage = all infantry including and past Riflemen, including Mech
-1 Attack in Foilage = all pre-gundpowder missle units

 

[thestonesfan]

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

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

If they British had tanks then, they've kept it a secret.

 

[dh_epic]

You knwo how some units have special abilites like "Amphibious Assault", add in a few specialty flags to units. They would be verbal, and not statistically complicated. Here are some examples:

x2 Defence vs. Mounted Units = Pikemen, Spearmen
+2 Attack in Open Terrain = Horse Units
+4 Attack in Open Terrain = Tanks
+1 Attack vs. Spears = Swordsmen, Medieval Infantry
+2 Defence in Foilage = all infantry including and past Riflemen, including Mech
-1 Attack in Foilage = all pre-gundpowder missle units

Word, if you could get the bonuses described in a short 4-word sentence, that could be more manageable.

What I like about the terrain bonuses is it would genuinely create a strategic military battlefield. As a defender, you'd have to think about putting your tanks out in the plains, or putting your archers on the mountains...

As an attacker, the battlefield would become more like an obstacle course -- I know I have the legionaires to plunge through their front lines, but what the heck are they gonna do once they get to the cities?

 

[WackenOpenAir]

Other games usually do this with attack types and/or armor types.
That way you still only need 1 value, but you could simply state that units with a spear type of attack get a 50% bonus vs mounted units.

In starcraft this is done very well with 3 types of damage and 3 types of armor that all have different bonusses against eachother. This is i think an important part of what makes starcraft the best, most played and most popular RTS game ever because it adds a lot to the strategic dept without being confusing.

ps: it being best is of course not very objective, but it being most played and most popular definately is.

 

[sir_schwick]

Here are some more flags I thought of:

+1 Bombard from Hills = Catapult
+2 Bombard from Hills = Cannon, Artillery, Radar Artillery
+2 Bombard from Mountains = Cannon
+4 Bombard from Mountains = Artillery, Radar Artillery
+2 Bombard vs. Tanks = Fighter, Stealth Fighter
+4 Bombard vs. Tanks = Bomber, Stealth Bomber
+1 Attack in Foilage = Swordsmen, Medieval Infantry
+1 Defence in Foilage = Swordsmen, Medieval Infantry
+4 Bombard vs. Docked Ships = all Air Units
+1 AA in Foilage = Flak Guns
+2 AA in Foilage = Mobile SAM
+4 Defence vs. Submarines = Destroyers, Aegis Cruisers
+2 Bombard vs. Submerged Units = Bomber
+4 Bombard vs. Submerged Units = Stealth Bomber
+2 Attack in Oceans = Submarines
+4 Attack in Oceans = Nuclear Submarines
+2 Attack in Seas = Nuclear Submarines
-2 Attack in Coastal Water = Submarines
+4 Defense in Oceans = Nuclear Submarines
+1 Defense in Oceans = Submarines
+1 Defense in Seas = Nuclear Submarines
-2 Defense in Coastal Water = Submarines, Nuclear Submarines
-2 Bombard in Foilage = all air units
-3 Bombard in Mountains = all air units
+2 Bombard in Open Terrain = all air units

That's all for now. Tell me what you think, and some of your own.

 

[NP300]

As an attacker, the battlefield would become more like an obstacle course -- I know I have the legionaires to plunge through their front lines, but what the heck are they gonna do once they get to the cities?

The question is: Will the AI be able to handle this?

 

[sir_schwick]

The question is: Will the AI be able to handle this?

I've seen other computer games try and use terrain with unit bonuses effectively, so possibly. Probably the it would not be able to though. That is unfortunate because this would lead to more interesting control of terrain features.

 

[dh_epic]

AI can handle it for sure. It takes Civ one step away from Checkers, yet without being nearly as complex as chess.

Chess, you have to break through one type of defence to get through another, and sometimes you can slip through a crack to get to your ultimate goal.

Checkers, having more pieces makes you a winner. And a king is decisively more powerful than a regular piece. The strategy is much more limited.