Well I must admit I did overreact when I saw what you typed the first time, but now that you have made it more clear what you were thinking of i kinda like it, though i prefer SilenceotClams's idea. I do have 1 question though. When do new vanguards get reassigned after the death of the first ones? Because it would be highly unrealistic that after his guard units die a general is just simply continuing to walk his army around with no protection at all. What I was thinking of was like if he uses his vanguards to attack and they die (or get injured if you wanna go the way Civ V did) he can choose new vanguards on HIS next turn. I would also make it a pop-up like build orders or techs are aswell as centering on the stack he is choosing vanguards too. Feel free do (dis)agree and post suggestions.
A WIP Essay: Refining ideas in CiV
- Thread starter Isikien
- Start date
SpearMan153
Prince
Not sure about Casus Belli may work, may cause unnessary clutter in a civ game - would have to try and see. Same goes for stability - which is really a more nuanced happiness system with a better name so I think this is more likely to work.
Civ has always been more on the simple side compared to other titles (hearts of iron springs to mind).
I prefer the horizontal style of combat that 1upt gives as opposed to the vertical stack style. But agree that forced unit restrictions are bad.
So a combat system that allowed stacking but also made this non-optimal without hard limits of xupt and insta kills like in civ1 days is what I would prefer. This would fit the civ way of combat more than a separate tactical combat mode imo.
Some thoughts: I like the GG bonuses, I like the flanking bonuses, maybe add an extra defensive penalty to the defender on each successive attack from a DIFFERENT hex on the same turn. Stacked archers on a city would be scary... colataral damage to ALL units (not just 5) on ranged fire to counter (maybe) strongest defender on melee attack. horses/tanks do flanking damage on ranged units.
hmmm... its alot of work to get right and would need heaps of testing/tweaking to get right.
Civ has always been more on the simple side compared to other titles (hearts of iron springs to mind).
I prefer the horizontal style of combat that 1upt gives as opposed to the vertical stack style. But agree that forced unit restrictions are bad.
So a combat system that allowed stacking but also made this non-optimal without hard limits of xupt and insta kills like in civ1 days is what I would prefer. This would fit the civ way of combat more than a separate tactical combat mode imo.
Some thoughts: I like the GG bonuses, I like the flanking bonuses, maybe add an extra defensive penalty to the defender on each successive attack from a DIFFERENT hex on the same turn. Stacked archers on a city would be scary... colataral damage to ALL units (not just 5) on ranged fire to counter (maybe) strongest defender on melee attack. horses/tanks do flanking damage on ranged units.
hmmm... its alot of work to get right and would need heaps of testing/tweaking to get right.
No stack would ever be without a vanguard (I still prefer the term escort, but whatever) unless it is killed in the turn of an opponent, in which case the opponent gets a shot at the convoy. If a player loses his vanguard unit in his turn in a failed attack a new one would be automatically assigned. Here's my general idea for how the mechanic could work:
1. Player turn - player creates a stack of units to move to the front. The player may designate one unit as the vanguard. Alternatively, if the player forgets, the computer will automatically choose the strongest defender as the vanguard unit.
2. AI turn - suppose the AI attacks and kills the vanguard unit. Depending on how many attacks this takes, it may also get an attack off on the convoy. This would injure all of the units in the convoy, and possibly be sufficient to kill the convoy (this is why I like the CiV survival mechanic - the convoy can take some heavy losses, but not be wiped out in one turn).
3. Player turn - the player may choose any unit in the stack to attack with (remember that attacks per tile are limited to 1). The player may also designate a new vanguard unit, which is not necessarily the same as the attacking unit. Automatic designation of vanguard units (in cases where the player forgets) would be determined at the end of the player's turn in order to make sure that the strongest defender is always the vanguard.
Basically, what I'm imagining in respect of the vanguard is something similar to the old stack defence mechanic where the best defender in the stack would be chosen. The difference is that that defender would then be required to defend against any subsequent attacks by the opponent during that opponent's turn until it is defeated. Afterwards, remaining units on that tile would be treated as the "convoy" and be effectively treated as one unit for the remainder of the opponent's turn (similar in some respects to the transport ship where X units on the transport were effectively 1 ship for combat purposes). Once the opponent's turn is over a new vanguard would be chosen.
madtemplar0
The Prosecutor
Great stuff. Waiting on part 3! 
Shirley you're not suggesting that scientists don't need a little entertainment once in a while?
Anyway...
I've been thinking about the cassus belli idea a little. If I understand correctly, having CB against another civ would effectively reduce war weariness or even, in fact, incite a kind of bloodlust. I like it, it would be an interesting way to nuance the happiness mechanic (which some people have taken to thinking of as a stability anyway) as well as creating some interesting possibilities for diplomacy (CBs against a common foe being grounds for alliances, for example).
It's been brought up in this thread that, whereas it may be possible to implement this on the part of the AI, it would be difficult in the case of the player since we have no "official" position/attitude vis-a-vis the AI. (That's actually an interesting discussion in and of itself which should maybe be discussed in its own thread.) In a sense, though, a cassus bellie system would to a degree simulate an official stance towards the AI. Generally, an AI having cassus belli against you would be somewhere on the hostile side of neutral. Similarly, holding CB against AI would make you more likely to war with them than those against whom you do not have CB. This idea needs some refinement, but I'm just putting it out there for people to think about.
I'd like to address the establishment of cassuc bellie. I think it's possible to generate some objective criteria that could be used to establish cassus belli. These would be measurable and, therefore, could be applied equally to the player as to the AI making it a balanced mechanic.
Examples of objective grounds for CB (by no means a complete list, please suggest other objective grounds as well):
- You have taken one of my cities (major)
- You have attacked my trading partner (minor)
- You have attacked my ally (major)
- You worship a heathen god (only for theocracy - major)
- Your culture encroaches on our land (minor)
- Our people are miserable and you have refused to help (e.g. for refusal to trade luxuries if you are in negative happiness) (minor)
I've appended "major/minor" since different actions are clearly of different gravity. I think the way to implement this might be similar to golden ages in that there could be a counter with threshold values for different degrees of CB. I know that not all of the items listed (e.g. theocracy one) are be relevant to CiV but since we're kicking around ideas here, I decided not to limit it to existing CiV mechanics.
Note also, that some of them are only possible if civilizations have previously warred. This acknowledges the fact that some wars may be fought without cassus belli and simply due to the whims and greed of leaders. A desire to get that iron tile, for example.
Half fleshed out ideas, I know, but this is a forum for discussion after all!
