Abstract military tactics

[Commander Bello]

This is an idea, I just developped. It may have to be improved, though, so I am open for suggestions.

The idea is that at the beginning of the game each player may switch to one out of three "abstract" tactical settings - abstract because they don't mean anything real - :
a) the circle tactic
b) the triangle tactic
c) the square tactic.

They would work like paper-scissors-stone. The circle gets an 10% advantage to combat stats against triangle, triangle get 10% against square, and square then gets 10% against circle.

Now, you have chosen your preferred tactics, but you don't know about the settings for the other nations. Those would be randomly determined, so that you don't know which kind of settings a given nation will have. Let's say, you play in two consecutive game against the English. They may have had circle tactics in the first game, but you will not know about their determination in the second game.

As the game goes on, you will encounter military conflicts. After 50 fights, your military advisor will pop up and tell you:
"Sir, we have fought 50 figths using circle tactics. 27 of them were against triangle tactics, 13 against cirlce tactics and 10 against square tactics.
67% of our fights have been successful. Our military command is very satisfied with this tactical setting. Keep it? Y/N"
Or, he might come up telling you:
"Sir, we have fought 50 figths using circle tactics. 27 of them were against square tactics, 13 against cirlce tactics and 10 against triangle tactics.
83% of our fights have been unsuccessful. Our military command is very unsatisfiedwith this tactical setting. Keep it? Y/N"

In case you are going to keep it, after 100 fights he might pop up again telling you:
"Sir, we have fought 100 figths using circle tactics. 57% of our fights have been successful. Our military command has identified this to be a superior tactic and our troups have reached mastership in this. Keep it? Y/N"
Again, there would be an opposing message:
"Sir, we have fought 100 figths using circle tactics. 42% of our fights have been successful. Our military command has identified this to be a inferior tactic, nevertheless our troups have reached mastership in this. Keep it? Y/N"

In case you would decide to keep it, the stat modifier would be adjusted to 15% circle vs. triangle, 5% circle vs. square and 10% circle vs. circle (in case the opponents wouldn't have reached mastership yet)

Enemy tactical settings could be determined via the results or by (expensive) espionage.
As switching would be allowed at each time manually, you could try to adjust your tactics to the enemy you are currently engaged with, but you would loose your mastership or the relative degree of experience.
As the AI would keep track on those results automatically, this would benefit their decision and give them an military advantage against the human player to balance the higher tactical skills (in terms of troop deployment and troop movement).
Furthermore, it would add a bit of surprise to the individual fighting.

Any comments?

[edit] Thanks to the input of others, I refined the model a bit:
Refined

 

[cfacosta]

I am still not too sure about your idea, though it does have merits. I did, however, want to mention that a system recording your historical combat effectiveness would be nice. I have always wanted to see a kill vs. losses tally and something to tell me my percentage of wins etc.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...] I have always wanted to see a kill vs. losses tally and something to tell me my percentage of wins etc.

This I would like to have as well, as it would help to find other victory conditions. I will come up with such a suggestion soon, but I am not finished with it yet.
For the moment, I would like to point out that my idea about the military tactics seems to solve one issue with the AI - it's limited tactical and strategical competence.
For sure, this would have to be play-tested and balanced, but as far as I see, it doesn't require much micro-management and it could easily be handled by the AI. Both being very important for any new concept to be introduced.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I suprisingly not all for this one. I can see some pros, but I tend to see more cons, but then again, I am a pessimist.

 

[Hyronymus]

I think it's a needless addition to the game. And how do you illustrate the various military tactics on the map?

 

[Commander Bello]

I think it's a needless addition to the game. And how do you illustrate the various military tactics on the map?

Depends.
Under the assumption that you cannot determine which tactics your opponent uses there just wouldn't be any display. You don't see your little soldiers hop out of the trenches either, do you?

Of course, there could be an option to see their inherent tactics. In that case you would see a little triangle, square or cirle above the health bar or whereever it may fit.

The important thing is that it would be an abstract concept (otherwise there would be complaints about why a given tactic would be superior or inferior).

So you would see your individual fights (may it be between individual units or - what I'd prefer - between CTP-like armies) and you would try to figur out, why you are successful - or, why you are not.

As soon as you think to have identified a certain pattern, it would be your decision to change and by that, to loose the experience you gathered until now, or to stay strong and to go for mastership.
As the AI keeps the numbers automatically, it could have an advantage to go for a decision.
It it were confronted with inferior or equal tactics, it would go for mastership, if it were confronted with superior tactics, it would adjust it's own tactic.

 

[searcheagle]

I don't think it would be a bad thing to keep all the concept abstract, however I think it is useless to use terms that have no value in and of themselves: circle, square, etc. Those would take longer to pick up on would be harder for begining user to "get." I think the game would do better to use real world concepts such as-Blitzkrieg, aggressive, defensive, ambush. These These are concept that a begining user would get and could have fun with. I just don't see making a "circle" attack as being fun.

 

[searcheagle]

Oh, I forgot something else.

Everyone could see and understand the advantages/disadvantages of each right away. This would not be the case with circle/square/triangle concept.

 

[Commander Bello]

Oh, I forgot something else.

Everyone could see and understand the advantages/disadvantages of each right away. This would not be the case with circle/square/triangle concept.

Exactly this is the reason, why I was going for abstract designators.
What sense is in having "blitzkrieg" tactics when you are holding a fort on a mountain? Any real-life designator could fit to a given situation, or just could not. In the later case it would even confuse the player and that for, would just not add to the fun of the game.

As indicated with the description, the concept is just an abstract one.
Because of this abstraction, it is somewhere out of reach for discussion and (mis-)interpretation.

But, of course, given that all this identifiers are promised to be editable, you would have the chance to rename them as you would like.

 

[sealman]

I am unsure on this as a portion of the game but I do think that:

1) it needs to be an abstract representation. If you don't like using circle/square/triangle lingo, through in some names like: Bello's Gambit or the Seal
Stance ect.
2) Multiple tactics for offensive and defense that you could use for each individual battle (however, this is starting to move into mico-managing so I will stop)

 

[dh_epic]

I don't think this is such a bad idea. In theory, this would allow an army with fewer and/or weaker units to beat an army with stronger and/or more units. In theory, this would be the way that a small player could mount a huge comeback against a giant.

(Paper Rock Scissors is sometimes referred to as asymmetrical combat. And despite what people say, there is a lot of strategy in of itself in getting inside your opponent's head and predicting his pick. Just imagine how much strategy would be involved if you can use your military intelligence to figure out what your enemy is working on, or bring an ally into the war to round out your paper with his rock, so you can both beat anyone.)

The question is if it leads to too much micromanagement. Then again, the choices aren't mechanical the same way as, say, doing the same thing every turn with guaranteed results.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]

The question is if it leads to too much micromanagement. Then again, the choices aren't mechanical the same way as, say, doing the same thing every turn with guaranteed results.

Therefore, I was with the 10 - 15%.
This seems to be less enough not to make you change it every turn, but seems to be enough to make a difference in the long run.
I see it result in just some changes during the whole game, maybe you would change your "tactics" 3 or 5 times. Remember, you would just have to wait until you know about:
a) what tactics your opponent seems to use (this is, when you don't know about the tactics, but you know about which is scissors and which is stone)
b) which tactic is the better in comparison (this is, when you know which one he uses but you just don't know about which is scissors and which is stone)

There could even be a turn limit until your troops have adopted the new tactics, maybe it would last for 3 turns.

As a summarisation of how I see it up to now:
1) you may know about which tactics will beat which, but you don't know about your opponent's choice
2) you may know about your opponent's choice, but you don't know about which beats which
3) in both cases, there could be a (short) turn limit until you successfully would have changed your settings
4) switching would abolish your progress in a given tactic and you would have to start all over again
5) there should be NO incentive for constant switching
6) #1 and #2 exclude each other
7) you may choose which of both will be effective, when you start the game, but not afterwards

 

[Lockesdonkey]

[edit] Thanks to the input of others, I refined the model a bit:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2626493&postcount=12

The link doesnt work!

 

[Commander Bello]

The link doesnt work!

Ooops...
Now it should do...

 

[sir_schwick]

I really like this concept. Even if it is minor bonuses and such, it makes war more fun then 'move entire army against one city' because you have tactics along the way. Makes describing it in stories more fun too. Onto business though...

Caveats Necessary to Success:

1) Tactics must have abstract names, preferably each civ had a list of its own(Patton Clutch, Majoris, etc.).
2) The RPS relationship needs to be randomized each game, to make the first war you fight more interesting.

On Tactics:

I think under the military advisor there should be a tactics button. Under it you could assign 'tactical research', which would be a function of military related stuff and a fixed constant. Each unit type would have a 'defensive', 'offensive', and relative special ability tactics('paratroop' or 'amphibious'). Different unit types(Warrior, Spearmen, Archer, Pikemen, etc.) could have different tactics. When you research, you are researching into Basic than Advanced than Master tactics. Sun Tzu could now have something to do with tactics rather than a silly 'all-barracks' ability.

 

[rhialto]

I hate teh idea. Tactics, when well designed, is a shell game at best. Openly making it a shell game won't make it any better. As as I've said before, I am not some lowly field marshal. I am the spirit of my nation, and my focus should be on bigger things than individual battles.

 

[dh_epic]

But individual battles are a part of Civ, whether you like it or not.
(Well, unless you want to get rid of individual battles.)

 

[rhialto]

Yes, individual battles are part of civ. But it should be enough for me to tell my little field marshals to attack, and they sort out the details of tactics.

 

[dh_epic]

But if you're at the "General" level, who tells the field marshalls what to do... Doesn't he sometimes advocate an overall approach, like, say -- be stealthy, be aggressive, surround them, scatter, be brutal, be careful? Doesn't he sometimes have a say in how these troops are trained? What the expectations are of them?

If you think it's too much micromanagement just say so But there's no need to argue the semantics of "who are you?" in Civ.

 

[Commander Bello]

@ Sir_Schwick:
Thanks for giving the input with Sun Tzu's. I haven't thought about it, but it could be well brought into the picture. Maybe, it could allow for easier switching or add another small modifier.
About the naming - this would be open to each and everybody. The "circle", "square", "triangle" designators were just to avoid misleading impression by a given name, as the tactics would be used on attack, assault and ambush as well as when your troops are bravely defending your home country.

@ Rhialto:
I agree with you, this concept is not meant to add another feature of micro-management each and every turn. As I tried to explain, you as supreme commander would initially decide which tactics your troops will use.
After that, your troops have to stand the test of the battlefield.
If history proves that you have chosen the right path, finally your troops will become master in that tactic and will get even stronger.
If you identify the necessity to adjust your tactics, you will be allowed to do so - but this you would do just from time to time. Maybe every 50 turns, maybe even less often.
I don't think this would really count as being micro-management.

What I see as a positive characteristic is that this concept should be rather manageable not only by the human player, but by the AI as well. And it would add another - yet small - taste of realism to the game.
History is full of examples, where armies clashed and a strategy which seemed to be good and successful proved not to fit against a new tactic. Or not to the circumstances of that particular battle.

With this concept, we could add a little bit of this to the game.