Abstract military tactics

[KrikkitTwo]

I think this it a good idea IF the different tactics Aren't an A beats B model but a model that actually effects the outcome of the combat workings

One tactic encourages Defense another Offense, one encourages Holding your ground another Hit and Run, one Hiding from the enemy another Searching for the enemy (so in one case the battle can go on for multiple turns while the units hunt each other down/fire at their fortified positions, and in another both armies rapidly kill eachother with high fast casualties)

Essentially Tactics would be like Fortify/Not fortify in Civ 1/2...It takes time to do so, but you get a defensive bonus by taking the time to adopt a defensive stance.

So using Civ3 terms.. with one tactic you get a defensive bonus, with another you get ZOC (in my ideal system it would be a Combat bonus v. Combat Range v. Hiding bonus... with another setting for Cautious ie Retreat if slightly outnumbered v. 'To the death' never retreat to do as much possible damage to the enemy no matter the odds)


Albow's Idea sounds like a good one for an addition (a way to do Overall Military Settings on a Unit by Unit basis) (although It is one that I'd want to be able to change on units..probably at a barracks for a 'Retraining' cost)

 

[crimson238]

I see a lot of promise in Commander Bello's idea. I think it is elegant in it's implementation and would help make battles more interesting without adding too much more micromanagement. Of course, I don't like the titles of it (circle, square, triangle.) but that is a trivial concern.
As far as everything being randomized and unpredicatlbe, I don't see that as that big of a problem. Civilization is a game of chance. If the game was simply 100% black and white it would be boring. If i know that my tanks will always overrun the enemy gurilla units.. whats the point?
So, within this model, I see the possibility of some surprises comming.
my two cents.

 

[Albow]

Althought the rock/paper/scissors model has some interesting aspects to it, how would it actually look in game? Would you be changing each turn, trying to twist and turn around each other, trying to get that paper when they have rock? Isn't that just another RNG, I mean, essentially, it is just random.What you pick is unrelated to what the AI picks, therefore there is no 'skill', its just random.

In my model (which is only a basic sketch), you are confronted with a real choice, each choice leading to a benefit and a penalty. Each choice gives you an advantage to use and a weakness to hide (and of course, your enemy has a weakness for you to exploit too).

What do I mean?

Well, for example, if one of the tactics your opponent has causes high war weariness per unit killed, you would want to have lots of high intensity battles, throwing your troops at the enemy to make their citizens unhappy. If, however, you have that option on, then making sure you curb unit loss will be important - making you choose carefully how to attack and defend. etc etc

 

[sir_schwick]

I like your idea Albow, but the following caveats must be included:

1) The names attributed to these strategies must not be the same from game to game. That way you have to use battle experience(over many battles) and espionage to learn what your enemies strengths/weaknesses are.
2) The qualitative portion of strategies avaliable would be affected by cultural and other developemental choices.

 

[rhialto]

@Sir Schwick

I don't thinit is necessary or even desirable for the meaning of each military stance to be hidden. This aren't battle plans so much as a general guideline from the politicians on how the soldiers should act. A kind of meta rules of engagement as it were. It's no secret today that the USA acts as "global cop", or Canada as "peacekeeper". Perhaps against a non-open society it may be necessary to spy out what stance a civ has, but the actual meaning of these stances should be transparent.

Of course, if we were talking about battle plans and tactics, I'd say the opposite. Those should be very secret.

 

[Albow]

I would invisage that the 'stance' is secret until you have a couple of engagements, from this, reports from the front would be pretty obvious about what type of army is being fielded. Of course, sending a spy mission would net you the 'stance' right away.

What I'm proposing is not ground level tactics, that is assumed (and in Civ has always been assumed) to be what the individual general of the individual units does. This is your governance of your military, orders from the very top.

This gives your generals guidelines, it sets up the 'culture' of your military organisation. Is it a bunch of yahoos where promotion is based on who is the toughest, or is a modern outfit who needs to mind what the media back home is reporting? Thats the high level stuff Civ is made of ...

 

[sir_schwick]

But particular schools of strategy necessary to whatever overall strategy is being employed would be variable. That is what I meant, that your generals would not know these schools of strategy until someone did a lot of research into it. Knowing your enemy does not believe in environmentalism does not help you win battles as much as knowing they have predominance for helicopters for difficult terrain assualts versus infantry or tanks.

 

[searcheagle]

@Sir Schwick

I don't thinit is necessary or even desirable for the meaning of each military stance to be hidden. This aren't battle plans so much as a general guideline from the politicians on how the soldiers should act. A kind of meta rules of engagement as it were. It's no secret today that the USA acts as "global cop", or Canada as "peacekeeper". Perhaps against a non-open society it may be necessary to spy out what stance a civ has, but the actual meaning of these stances should be transparent.

Of course, if we were talking about battle plans and tactics, I'd say the opposite. Those should be very secret.

I would invisage that the 'stance' is secret until you have a couple of engagements, from this, reports from the front would be pretty obvious about what type of army is being fielded. Of course, sending a spy mission would net you the 'stance' right away.

I agree with both of you guys on this issue.

I believe that a system like what rhialto suggested would work well for overall positions and stances like peacekeeping. These would be more political/cultural stances. These would be public and people would know right off the bat what their positions were.

What Albow suggested would work well for more "tactics." Do they have the tendency to fight to the last man like the Japanese? Do they set up ambushes? Do they perfer a full frontal attack? All these could be worked into a system like what Albow suggested.

 

[rhialto]

So let's see what can reveal a stance...

- Stance is always known if that civ has a free press*.
- Stance is always known if you are at peace and have an embassy in that civ.
- A spy action will reveal stance. This information should get noted together with the date.
- Fighting on two consecutive turns will reveal stance. Again, this intelligence can get dated.

*Just to highlight one point there. Having an open society should have a key weakness in leaky intelligence. A lot of intelligence that other civs would normally have to work hard for is freely available in educational materials and the press. That should be one important advantage for controlled societies in the modern age.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I agree with both of you guys on this issue.

I believe that a system like what rhialto suggested would work well for overall positions and stances like peacekeeping. These would be more political/cultural stances. These would be public and people would know right off the bat what their positions were.

What Albow suggested would work well for more "tactics." Do they have the tendency to fight to the last man like the Japanese? Do they set up ambushes? Do they perfer a full frontal attack? All these could be worked into a system like what Albow suggested.

I think those should be in the orders you give to the unit..ie do you want you stack to fight aggressively (higher losses on both sides do max damage to enemy) or cautiously (only risk our units when victory is assured).. that would be on the level of the order given to the Stack of units ie
B=Berserk Attack
A=Normal Attack
C=Cautious Attack

'Albow's settings would be more on the general status of your army as a whole [possibly changable on a unit by unit, as built, retrainable at cost, basis, but I think it would work almost as well on a 'whole army basis' like your mobilization levels]

 

[dh_epic]

I like where this discussion has gone.

- Stance is always known if that civ has a free press

Agree. This would also allow even more major differences between governments. Beyond that, this just makes sense, and also makes the game chance slightly in the modern age.

- A spy action will reveal stance. This information should get noted together with the date.

Yes, although there are some interesting discussions on overhauling the intelligence system. I think this should be largely automated, with higher probabilities the more you allocate funds and so forth. Plus other factors -- if you had a really impressive culture, or your cultures overlapped, there would be more sympathizers willing to slip you information. Also, if they're experiencing a lot of unhappy people, there's an even bigger pile of spies to take advantage of.

- Fighting on two consecutive turns will reveal stance. Again, this intelligence can get dated.

Absolutely, so long as you can change stances and there are enough different stances to change to...

- Stance is always known if you are at peace and have an embassy in that civ.

This I disagree with. You might be able to make a case that this is realistic, but I'd argue the opposite -- that not any ally can just walk by and look at army intelligence, or so on. Realism isn't even the issue, though. This is just unstrategic. This information has a lot of value, and shouldn't be given away essentially for free. Keeping this information hidden adds more value to intelligence.

Although I would also add --

Allies, or even good friends can let people in on what their stance is. That way you and an ally can have a complementary stance, and go after the same enemy, hopefully doubling your odds.

 

[Commander Bello]

Althought the rock/paper/scissors model has some interesting aspects to it, how would it actually look in game? Would you be changing each turn, trying to twist and turn around each other, trying to get that paper when they have rock? Isn't that just another RNG, I mean, essentially, it is just random.What you pick is unrelated to what the AI picks, therefore there is no 'skill', its just random.
[...]

Please refer to my post as of here: refined
in which I try to make my point more clear.

1) The names attributed to these strategies must not be the same from game to game. That way you have to use battle experience(over many battles) and espionage to learn what your enemies strengths/weaknesses are.
2) The qualitative portion of strategies avaliable would be affected by cultural and other developemental choices.

1) This is one integral part of my suggestion.
2) sir_schwick here revealed (I assume, he wasn't aware of this) how this discussion currently has turned: into a discussion of strategies.
Not that this would be bad, but strategies are the very one thing the player decides about. There is no point in chosing a "defensive" strategy if you are rolling over your opponents like hell. There is no point in chosing the "world cop strategy" if you are isolated or kind of isolate yourself by not interfering with the other's engagements.

What I'm proposing is not ground level tactics, that is assumed (and in Civ has always been assumed) to be what the individual general of the individual units does. This is your governance of your military, orders from the very top.

Exactly this is the point where my idea is hooked to. There never has been the idea of military tactics in the Civ genre. I just wanted to put a little bit of salt into that soup.

I believe that a system like what rhialto suggested would work well for overall positions and stances like peacekeeping. These would be more political/cultural stances. These would be public and people would know right off the bat what their positions were.

I agree, that this would be good for scenarios. For the standard game, unfortunately, it just wouldn't as we expect each new standard game to evolve in different directions. As I already asked above:
Where is the point in being "peacekeeping" when your strategy dictates you to go and get this large subcontinent?

I think those should be in the orders you give to the unit..ie do you want you stack to fight aggressively (higher losses on both sides do max damage to enemy) or cautiously (only risk our units when victory is assured).. that would be on the level of the order given to the Stack of units ie
B=Berserk Attack
A=Normal Attack
C=Cautious Attack

Unfortunately, up to now every attack in the civ genre has been a berserc one. In every battle you merciless fight for complete annihilation of the opponent's troops.

I like where this discussion has gone.

Yeah... it has gone into the direction of discussing strategies, not longer tactics.

Allow me to give a comment about the last quoted postings.
The idea of this thread was to discuss how and in which way tactics could be simulated in the civ franchise. I do not oppose discussing strategies, but we should be aware of what we are talking about.
Additionally, I see a weakness in strategies: in the standard game, it is the ultimate choice of the player to decide which strategy he is going to use. "Pre-defined" strategies - as stances would be - may work for a scenario, in which you have to face a given task. For the standard game, this just limits the way you are or would like to be playing.

One last word about tactics: As someone has mentioned in another thread, sometimes it is important not to simulate a feature with a high degree of realism, but to just give you a realistic feeling. That person put the example of a RTS in which a jet moves 5 times quicker than a foot soldier. Obviously, this is absolutely unrealistic.
Nevertheless, it still gives a realistic feeling.
With my proposal for tactics, I feel it is the same. Obviously, some kind of paper-scissors-stone principle is completely unrealistic. Nevertheless, I think that it could add a feeling of realism to the game.
As civ is not a tactical simulation as it has been the case with e.g. Panzer General, the abstraction level has to be high enough not to drown in too much details - this would result in another portion of tedious micro-management. Not to mention the problem of making the AI handle those details.
But even on a high abstraction level, there have to be pros and cons. The paper-scissors-stone model is the most simple one, which offers all of this: variation, benefit and malus. And it is that simple that it can be implemented into the AI algorithms with little effort as well.

 

[rhialto]

I think strategies are a worthy topic for development into the civ franchise. But tactics? I think those are a little too low level for the player to be dealing with. Deciding on tactics is the job of my little field marshals. I also feel that military stance can cover certain criticisms of the current system, such as changing from the berserker you-or-me-dies attack system. Perhaps peacekeepers have a higher chance of letting the enemy flee, or berserkers have a never gives or asks for mercy aspect thrown in.

I feel the point behind stances is that each stance gives specific bonuses and penalties (ideally none should be exclusively advantageous). Then provided you play in the manner described by the stance, you should be able to maximise your gain from those specific bonuses and penalties.

I imagine the AI could choose a stance (or government) by looking at its needs now, at its planned goals (I want an AI that looks to the future as well as calculating the here and now), and selects the best option from those available. This isn't terribly hard to implement if they are serious about making a real AI.

 

[dh_epic]

Truthfully I've never been able to wrap my head around the difference between strategy and tactics besides "one is more low level than the other". Can anyone articulate that with more depth?

And truthfully, with the direction the discussion has taken, I still see some benefit for having more than a monolithic army. Your army doesn't all embrace the same stratatactic (my new word because I don't care which is which). When you build (train) your soldiers, you train them in a certain stratatactic and send them out. And if you really want, you can bring them back to a city and switch up their stratatactic.

Another thing about the rock-paper-scissors model, though... some people say that it becomes interesting when not only the combat is asymmetrical, but the benefits are assymetrical. E.g.: you get 10 points for winning with rock, 5 for winning with paper, and 2 for winning with scissors. I guess this is to avoid a situation where the AI doesn't care which he picks.

 

[Commander Bello]

You may want to have a look over here

 

[dh_epic]

I figured as much. It really is a question of whether you think there's room for tactics in Civ.

If you cut out any feature, you make room for any other feature. The question becomes what features are worthwhile and what features aren't. Is tactics more valuable to gameplay than ... ?

 

[Commander Bello]

I figured as much. It really is a question of whether you think there's room for tactics in Civ.

If you cut out any feature, you make room for any other feature. The question becomes what features are worthwhile and what features aren't. Is tactics more valuable to gameplay than ... ?

Sorry, here - completely unrelated to the "tactics" proposal of mine - you seem to make a mistake.
I don't think that there is a list: Now, we have 109 features in Civ. If we want to add the Giant Death Robot, we have to skip another feature for it.

It is just a matter of how the combination of all those features works. If one feature would be contradictory to another, then you would have to make a decision about skipping the one or the other.
As long, as a new features doesn't contradict to the combination of the others, there is no problem in adding it.

 

[sir_schwick]

Sorry, here - completely unrelated to the "tactics" proposal of mine - you seem to make a mistake.
I don't think that there is a list: Now, we have 109 features in Civ. If we want to add the Giant Death Robot, we have to skip another feature for it.

It is just a matter of how the combination of all those features works. If one feature would be contradictory to another, then you would have to make a decision about skipping the one or the other.
As long, as a new features doesn't contradict to the combination of the others, there is no problem in adding it.

In Soren's powerpoint, Dont Screw This Up(liberal quotation), he said the complexity of Civ3 was just about right. That means any new features added must have other's taken out so complexity remains the same.

 

[Commander Bello]

In Soren's powerpoint, Dont Screw This Up(liberal quotation), he said the complexity of Civ3 was just about right. That means any new features added must have other's taken out so complexity remains the same.

In this case, I can only hope that cIV by it's announced ability to be modded will allow for adding massively new features.

But, as has been stated a lot of times, there is for sure a certain unsureness about what "complexity" and "being complicated" means. In German, "complexity" may be translated to "Komplexität" (complexity) as well as to "Kompliziertheit" (being complicated). But the meaning is completely different.

But, under the assumption that complexity means: being complicated, we almost could stop any posting in the "suggestions area" as then there wouldn't be almost any change.

I just cannot believe this. But this would be the topic of another thread.

 

[dh_epic]

I think the best way to think about complexity is two ways:

1) The ability for a new user to understand the game
2) The ability for experienced players to play the game efficiently

Because #1 tends to result in a lot of speculation, I focus on #2.

Again, think about the game in terms of gameplay time. If an epic game takes 20 hours now, they can't add a feature that will make you play an extra 4 hours unless they take out some micromanagement features that take 4 hours total.