A proposal on a happy medium between 1upt/SoD and strategic/tactical play

[filli_noctus]

Quick disclaimer before I start, any numbers mentioned are arbitrarily chosen for the sake of example.

There are pros and cons for both 1upt and SoD which I won't go over here (they've been argued to death in GD), most solutions suggested seem to be based on either unlimited stacking in limited circumstances or imposing an arbitrary cap on stack sizes (Xupt). Important concepts are bolded there will be a summary of these concepts at the end of the post.

My solution starts in familiar territory, at the start of a game with an ancient era start 1upt applies. Once you hit the classical era the game starts to change. A new civilian unit called a 'general' can be built (this is distinct from a Great General). A general allows the player to create an army of up to three units on the same tile as him, army's move at the speed of their general. This is different from a limited Xupt because with armies come options. Combat when armies are involved will be completely automated BUT will not just be one unit fights another until one is dead and then wash, rinse and repeat until one stack is gone. It will be army versus army and consideration will be given to composition, terrain, leadership and formation.

Which brings me nicely on to the next point, formations. When an army attacks or defends you will be asked to choose a formation. To a certain extent this will be rock-paper-scissors, but other considerations such as army composition and terrain will be considered. Formations are unlocked with various technological advantages but individual generals can buy more advanced ones as promotions.

When leading an army a general gains experience like the troops he leads. These can be used to learn advanced formations, give boosts when fighting in certain terrains, increase the number of units he can lead, increase his speed or allow him to command (more) divisions.

A division is, essentially, an army attached to another army. It consists of a general and any units he is leading, but it counts as a single unit from the main army's perspective. Not all generals can include divisions in their army, regular generals must be promoted to earn that right but Great Generals can command two from the moment they spawn. The general of a division gets half the experience of the army general, cannot command subdivisions (even if he is able to command divisions in an army) and applies his bonuses only to the troops under him.

Great Generals will lose their GA and citadel abilities (I'm not to sure about this), but can command armies of five units (including two divisions) right from the off. They gain experience like normal generals.

Other changes: ranged combat is out, ranged units and gunpowder units make attacks before melee combat is calculated.
All combats are carried out simultaneously at the end of the turn, allowing you to smash multiple armies into a single target and have them fight together (probably should make this an option).

Concepts summary:
Army - a number of units and divisions led by a general.
Division - a number of units led by a general that is incorporated into an army as a unit
General - a civilian unit available from the classical era that allows the formation of armies, Great Generals spawn normally and allow the creation of larger armies incorporating divisions.
Formations - used when armies take part in combat, unlocked by technology or can be bought by the general as promotions.
Promotions - When a general earns enough experience they can be bought like a unit would, tend to enhance armies instead of the individual unit. Can also be used to buy advanced formations

Ok, there's a lot of stuff. Any questions, critisisms or ideas to improve, post away.

 

[Camikaze]

This wouldn't be functionally too different from 1upt. The '1' would simply be an army rather than an individual unit. Great Generals would provide some variation in this regard, but the only real thing this would solve would be carpets of doom (with essentially three times more space on the map for the same number of units). Introducing a more tactical approach will make the AI struggle even more (not to mention the fact that a tactical warfare approach in general is a bad thing for a civ game).

 

[filli_noctus]

The idea is to include a tactical element (for those who enjoy it, an option could be added to turn formations off) without making it too complex.
Maximum army sizes could be variable with, for example, increases from research of various technologies, UAs, certain wonders etc. and of course use of divisions (although I agree the division concept may be too complex for the AI, this can be bypassed by just using subordinate generals to increase the maximum size).
I was not entirely clear on formations, the player would not choose the exact layout (this would give too great an advantage over the AI) instead a formation (ie spearhead, line) would be chosen by both sides and the optimum layout for the terrain would be chosen by the game before combat results were calculated.

 

[pileofnuts]

I don't see why you allow the player to choose formation. The player would always choose the formation that gives the greatest bonus against the unit it is attacking. So why not simply let the game pick the best formation automatically?

 

[filli_noctus]

Because both sides choose a formation you also have to consider what formation the opponent is likely to choose and pick one that you think will most effectively counter that. Although the opponent will be doing the same. The AI will also keep track of formations you have used in similar situations and take that into account. It will take terrain, army compositions and prior engagements into account to decide the best formation.

 

[pileofnuts]

Because both sides choose a formation you also have to consider what formation the opponent is likely to choose and pick one that you think will most effectively counter that. Although the opponent will be doing the same. The AI will also keep track of formations you have used in similar situations and take that into account. It will take terrain, army compositions and prior engagements into account to decide the best formation.

It sound to me like it would in effect introduce a big random element into combat. If you look at all the battles over a game it will probably work out so that you luck out and pick the counter in 50% of the battles (and your opponent counters your pick in the other 50%). But that's not much comfort if you're really unlucky and get's countered in the first three or four battles, putting you in a bad position for the rest of the game.

The best strategy if you know that your opponent is better than you at reading which formation an opponent will pick would be to pick a formation at random. That way you would always have the same chance as your opponent even if you're facing a superb AI that analyses everything you have done previously.

 

[filli_noctus]

I feel I haven't properly explained the idea behind formations. Formations would not give a bonus per se, but would be used when the game calculates combat results by specifying which units fight each other, how many shots various ranged units would get off before melee combat begins and how well protected non-melee units are (among other things).
Poor choice of formation will not necessarily lead to your army being soundly beaten (so long as it is well composed) but it will probably lead to more damage being taken than might have otherwise occured.
And with regard to the AI having an advantage in choosing formation if it keeps track of engagements, it may have better record keeping abilities but this is countered by the human ability to try something novel.

 

[Camikaze]

The idea is to include a tactical element (for those who enjoy it, an option could be added to turn formations off) without making it too complex.

This will make me sound like a complete spoilsport, but that's not exactly an acceptable compromise. In order for the tactical elements to not be redundant, there would presumably have to be some discernible difference between the results you get for putting in the extra effort, and the results you get if you don't. That means that to get the best results in the game, tactical skill will be required. This dilutes the strategic focus of the game.

 

[filli_noctus]

This will make me sound like a complete spoilsport, but that's not exactly an acceptable compromise. In order for the tactical elements to not be redundant, there would presumably have to be some discernible difference between the results you get for putting in the extra effort, and the results you get if you don't. That means that to get the best results in the game, tactical skill will be required. This dilutes the strategic focus of the game.

I don't really see how you came to this conclusion, could you elaborate. The tactics are not particularly deep with this idea, you select the formation that you think will give you the outcome you want. A single click. The only two decisions you have to make are - what is your preferred outcome and what's the best way to get it. In most cases the first choice is a no brainer (kill the enemy army with the least damge to your own - although in some cases you may want to, for example, ensure your siege wapons survive regardless of damage to other units) so it comes down to a single choice.
When combat is intiated a dialog would pop up prompting you to choose a formation, giving you the composition of both armies, the terrain and a list of formations, including a description containing the best times to use these formations (possibly with a recommended formation on lower difficulty levels).
I would say it adds a small tactical element which also allows a furter level of strategic depth (allowing you the option to preserve important units in an army).
And anyway, plenty of people enjoy the tactical element (I realise that others do not, hence the minimal tactical element), this provides for them to a degree without the issues of 1upt and without a pop-out tactical map (which initially sounded like a good idea to me, but on reflection could get hideously tedious).

 

[Camikaze]

I just think the tactical element is too big. Formations are solely tactical. Combat this way would be very tactical. And combat and warfare are big parts of the game. Something can be said for allowing a certain amount of tactics into the game, but I think your idea stretches too far.

 

[filli_noctus]

If you're just arguing against formations then I can't really see a way to make tactics any less a part of this without removing them all together and just returning to the stack of doom. Possibly an 'approach to combat' (cautious, normal, reckless) that each stack can choose, giving a percentage modifier to damage dealt and taken, but that seems a little 1-dimensional to me.

If you're looking at the idea as a whole including armies and the changes to generals I'd argue that, other than formations, these are all strategic choices and refer you to the above argument.

We obviously have quite different thoughts on tactical elements in civ, perhaps you could tell me the particular elements that you think make the tactical portion of this idea too strong for your taste

 

[Camikaze]

Making combat the focus rather than warfare is essentially a move to tactics. The generals, the armies (composition in particular) and the formations are all part of that. The formations in particular take this idea past the line where it becomes too tactical. IMHO. It deals specifically with the minutiae of individual battles rather than with the strategy relating to warfare in general.