Abstracting unit movement

[dh_epic]

Wrong, Idylwyld. While this is definitely the most contraversial suggestion, the goal is to eliminate mechanical, repetitive actions. I'm not sure if this is a good solution, I'll be 100% honest. But there is a problem in the late game where war becomes mindless.

Step 1: produce more units
Step 2: send them over to the enemy with instant railroad movement in a huge stack
Step 3: go berserk on one enemy city
Step 4: if you discover a new tech, do some upgrades
Step 5: go back to step one

There are lots of ways to make these 5 steps more interesting. This is only one suggestion. It might not be the right solution. Still, the goal is NOT to automate the entire game but keep the player focused on strategic decisions instead of repetitive actions. When there's no decision, there's no point.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, though I am somewhat attached to the current movement system, I would not be opposed to an abstract movement system, based around a system of 'operational range' and decent 'Zone of Control' and 'Interception' systems. The great thing is that it would STILL work with my Capacity Points system ! Anyway, though, I doubt that such a system will be implemented in this iteration of Civ, though there is still no harm in floating the idea.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

What the hell is wrong with you people? Abstract military movement? Why even play the game. Why not just have a setting on the game options screen that allows the entire thing to play out automatically like the league season settings in baseball games.[...] Just leave me a game to play.

I agree! Well, almost to a certain extent.

By dh_epic:

Wrong, Idylwyld. While this is definitely the most contraversial suggestion, the goal is to eliminate mechanical, repetitive actions. I'm not sure if this is a good solution, I'll be 100% honest. But there is a problem in the late game where war becomes mindless.
Step 1: produce more units
Step 2: send them over to the enemy with instant railroad movement in a huge stack
Step 3: go berserk on one enemy city
Step 4: if you discover a new tech, do some upgrades
Step 5: go back to step one

I think, dh_epic put the finger on the wound (steps 2 and 3):
What makes things boring at least when you are in the mid-game (and later on it becomes worse and worse) is the "unlimited stackability" of units.
As you can almost be sure of your success when you have a stack of 25 artilleries, 10 infantry and 36 tanks, all you have to do is just to wait until you gathered those numbers and then - voila!
This is fun when you do it for the first time. It becomes tedious and boring, if you do it all over again and again and again.

A stack limitation would improve the gameplay in two kinds:
a) you could not be sure that a given stack would really reach it's target
b) bottlenecks would become much more interesting
c) limited stacks would at least open the chance for allowing the AI to measure it's chances against such a stack, since there would only be a limited - predictable - number of calculations be needed
d) limited stacks would make it more interesting whether you really can hold that newly taken city against enemy counter-attacks

While in principle, a) - d) could be implemented with abstract movement as well, there is something which counts against it:
Abstract movement either means unlimited movement to be included automatically, or it severly limits your chances to react to new tactical conditions.
Let's say you have given your orders to 25 of your units. Out of a sudden at the other edge of your continent, a long time ally switches sides and now threatens your territory.
If unlimited movement is in the concept of abstract movement, you just have to re-order your forces. But, as the discussion about unlimited railroad movement drastically displays, at least a huge number of players misses the feeling of realism in unlimited movement.
On the other hand, if there would be no unlimited movement, in the above case you would be sitting there and have to check for each unit about it's current state of orders.
This for sure would add another tedious part of clicking and circling through your units.

Because of all this, my conclusion is:
a) no abstract movement for sea and ground troops
b) a limitation for stacks

 

[Darwin420]

Make Armies easier to get once you research Military Tactics. In fact, make it almost necessary to use armies. Also, make armies larger under the discovery of Military Tactics (4 instead of 3), and then again with the discovery of Modern Warfare (5 instead of 4), plus bonuses for whatever small wonders you have. Make it so armies can be upgraded, and you can shuffle units around, and bango! you have useful army stacks.

Take it one step further, and allow a "Division" unit, which would allow you to stack 3 or 4 armies together, and it would be great. As long as each army attacked as an individual, and could potentially be wiped out of the division from taking too many casualties.

This will reduce the number of unit moves you have to do in the later game, and provide an avenue where Combined Arms is actually kinda of useful and important. Hard-code the AI to use armies, and bango! you've got less hassle for more usefulness.

I also agree with the line of supply school of thought. Perhaps when units are not in your territory, they have a finite range (say 2 or 3 tiles into another civ's territory, and perhaps 10-15 tiles in unclaimed land.. maybe have scouting units that have a "forage" option that gives them double the operational range?. This can be alleviated with a worker unit that has a "Maintain Supply Line" function, which extends the operational range of your unit.

I think these ideas compromise for both sides. You have the option of using effective army stacks (if you want to), which reduces unit movement MM in the later stage of the game; the operational range is taken into account when your units are OUTSIDE your territory, and it can be extended by worker supply line functions.

I'm still fleshing out the idea, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Idylwyld]

Damn I was in a pissy mood last night. I still think though that unit movement cannot be abstracted in the basic game without removing most of the interactivity. Effective Zone of Control is a valuable idea. Especially with fast moving and modern units there should be more control of your surroundings than just taking potshots at passing enemies. Stack size limits are another legitimate idea. By limiting the number of military units that may occupy the same tile at any particular time you do make the tactical side of the game more involving. Both of these ideas have merit, maintain the interactivity of the game, and address real issues seen in Civ III. The idea of abstracting military movement to "rebasing" is still without merit to my opinion and should be avoided in the core game.

 

[sir_schwick]

Let's say you have given your orders to 25 of your units. Out of a sudden at the other edge of your continent, a long time ally switches sides and now threatens your territory.
If unlimited movement is in the concept of abstract movement, you just have to re-order your forces. But, as the discussion about unlimited railroad movement drastically displays, at least a huge number of players misses the feeling of realism in unlimited movement.
On the other hand, if there would be no unlimited movement, in the above case you would be sitting there and have to check for each unit about it's current state of orders.
This for sure would add another tedious part of clicking and circling through your units.

I understand your concerns about MM and tedious strategic shifts. I highly recommend you try the demo for Combat Mission(avaliable at www.battlefront.com). You'll see that a WE-GO system does not have to be a huge headache. Also, if we get rid of this 'army' BS and just allow battlegroups, then the number of strategic detachments you deal with is way less than in civ of CM. Also, that scenario you describe would be the perfect reason for WE-GO, so you would have to be prepared. With a good(not Civ3) ZOC system, then delaying or counter-offensive actions are not that hard.

Another huge advantage of a WE-GO system where movmeent is limited(your range of 'rebase' would be the MPs of Civ3), is the fact that strategy is more important. Any wargamer knows that trying to make too many shifts and adjustments can often lead to trouble, especially if you chose a strategy that requires time to work. Superior strategy would now have a chance of defeating superior forces.

Under a CM inspired WE-GO system, units and movement are still there, they are just put into a frame that makes sense. Also, war would feel like chess rather than checkers.

 

[Hyronymus]

But war IS checkers. If you move an army here you create a whole there where your enemy will move his army.

 

[sir_schwick]

But both armies are moving at the same time. This means that real squad-level combat is closer to Ghost Recon than X-COM. WE-GO is more intuitive and might even require less time because you plan overall strategy.

Also, opposing generals do not call each other and say, "I moved my army, your turn sir." So your statement that war is Checkers is illogical.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to say that while I'm not opposed to abstracting movement in some way, it might not be necessary. You can probably accomplish a lot just by fine tuning some aspects of the military.

Stack limits, operational ranges, no more infinite movement on rails -- etc.

Maybe we shouldn't be looking for a magic bullet.

 

[Darwin420]

But Civilization is TURN-BASED strategy. One of the last few standing from the bygone days of GOOD computer strategy games. You move your 'pieces' and wait for your opponents to do the same. In that sense, yes it is like checkers, although it's more like a highly-advance, graphical game of Chess.

Putting in simultaneous army movement just doesn't make sense for the type and genre game that Civ is. You want simultaneous play, go find a real-time game.

Disclaimer: not trying to put anyone down. just stating my opinion.

 

[Hyronymus]

But both armies are moving at the same time.

There wasn't much movement in WW1 and yet it were different armies opposing eachother.

Also, opposing generals do not call each other and say, "I moved my army, your turn sir." So your statement that war is Checkers is illogical.

So you claim that generals need to inform their enemy they are moving? You don't think tanks, artillery and infantry going the opposite direction gives the enemy the idea that someone might be bailing out? You don't have much faith in generals then.

 

[cfacosta]

People seem to have problem with the abstracting of combat in that they want to move units around and have specified attack and defend roles. This doesn't have to be negatively impacted by abstracting combat. The primary purpose, at least as I see it, of abstracting combat is to provide for operational range of the designated unit. Seriously, clicking on bombard and selecting a target is the same thing as moving the plane x spaces and into the target units square...sans annoying arrow keys or goto lines. If you enjoy actually moving the unit icon around the screen, then that is a valid position. However, to say that an abstract model takes away "elements of turn based games" or gameplay is unfounded....unless the said "gameplay" involves repetitive arrow key use or "g" left click work.

I will say, though, that the suggestion of increasing the importance of armies carries weight. (By the way, a division is much smaller than an army so the division would have to be the smaller unit) Having a unit stack limit does not appeal to me as much if simply due to the scale of civ games. A square represents the size of a whole city... most reasonable military formations in existence can fit in the space New York City takes up.

But here is what I came up with by combining a lot of good ideas and comments people had and by trying to not alter the game too much.
1.) increase the importance of "armies" by increasing their allowed size...varying this with tech or age is a great idea
2.) give armies an "operational radius"...not with rebasing options or anything, armies are still units you move normally...what I mean is that within this radius the army will take on the role of defender in any attack issued by the enemy. In other words, the army is defending the region...and has the resources and reach to intercept enemies.
3.) give the army the ability (maybe with a percent chance) to intercept enemy forces moving through its operational radius. At the point of intercepting...either combat can ensue or the enemy unit can be halted...hadn't thought about it

What do you guys think?

 

[sir_schwick]

But Civilization is TURN-BASED strategy. One of the last few standing from the bygone days of GOOD computer strategy games. You move your 'pieces' and wait for your opponents to do the same. In that sense, yes it is like checkers, although it's more like a highly-advance, graphical game of Chess.

Putting in simultaneous army movement just doesn't make sense for the type and genre game that Civ is. You want simultaneous play, go find a real-time game.

I find your claim that TB games have to be IGO-UGO to maintain purity spurious. Master of Orion, arguably another game that upholds TBS integrity, used the WE-GO system. Ships and colony actions were executed simeoultaneously. WE-GO does not mean REAL-TIME, because actions are executed in TURNS.

There wasn't much movement in WW1 and yet it were different armies opposing eachother.

I have trouble finding the relevancy of this comment.

So you claim that generals need to inform their enemy they are moving? You don't think tanks, artillery and infantry going the opposite direction gives the enemy the idea that someone might be bailing out? You don't have much faith in generals then.

If generals saw such a flank or hole avaliable, they would take it immediately. Under checkers they are restrained by the 'Turn Dieties'. I was saying that no one takes neat little turns, not comparing generals to trees.

But here is what I came up with by combining a lot of good ideas and comments people had and by trying to not alter the game too much.
1.) increase the importance of "armies" by increasing their allowed size...varying this with tech or age is a great idea
2.) give armies an "operational radius"...not with rebasing options or anything, armies are still units you move normally...what I mean is that within this radius the army will take on the role of defender in any attack issued by the enemy. In other words, the army is defending the region...and has the resources and reach to intercept enemies.
3.) give the army the ability (maybe with a percent chance) to intercept enemy forces moving through its operational radius. At the point of intercepting...either combat can ensue or the enemy unit can be halted...hadn't thought about it

If you change 'army' to 'battlegroup', and let battlegroups be formed by any five units at any time, then this is a good compromise. I would still prefer WE-GO dynamics, but this would not make me unhappy. It gets my thumbs up.

 

[Commander Bello]

I find your claim that TB games have to be IGO-UGO to maintain purity spurious. Master of Orion, arguably another game that upholds TBS integrity, used the WE-GO system. Ships and colony actions were executed simeoultaneously. WE-GO does not mean REAL-TIME, because actions are executed in TURNS.
[...]

This is a valid point.
Nevertheless, I still see a problem. What, if the WE-GO leads to a sudden encounter of different units?
Let me give you an example:
You order three of your units to that little hill next to an enemy's town. Unfortunately, he has just relocated some of his troops towards the same strategical important point.
Now, your three and his four units encounter each other. Who will be the attacker, who will be the defender? Who will get the defensive bonus of that hill? Will your three troops fight in combined manner against his joint forces of four? I could live with this aspect, but are we sure that this is in the military concept? If it were not, then how to decice which unit would be the first to engage / to be engaged?

What I want to make clear:
Under certain circumstances, WE-GO may lead to real-time warfare. At least, the same problems as under real-time conditions would have to be solved by the engine.
After all we know, currently there is no provision made for this (which is the least of a problem, as I admit, as then those provisions just would have to be made). But then, please advise how to do.

 

[Evie]

I'd say that if both units move into the squares at the same time, and no one already occupied the square, then the units use the average of their attack an defense, and gets no terrain bonus.

 

[Commander Bello]

I'd say that if both units move into the squares at the same time, and no one already occupied the square, then the units use the average of their attack an defense, and gets no terrain bonus.

Yeah, but this would require some kind of exception handling.
Easier (from a programming point of view) it would be if the IGO-UGO-pattern wouldn't change.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, Commander Bello, I have already put forward a solution to this problem in other threads. Actually, it deals with another BIGGER problem, but it would solve this one as well.

In my preferred model, ALL nations move their units (and have their overall turn) first. Then, when all movement is done, all enemy units occupying the same square engage in combat-or retreat. If the former occurs, then each unit fights 'simultaneously', using it attack strength for its strike, whilst at the same time using its defense strength against the enemy's attack. What this will also help to do is allow for what I call 'indecisive' rounds of combat, where neither side actually lands a hit. In other rounds, BOTH units might score a hit on each-other. My primary reason for supporting this model, though, is that it may help 'iron-out' the kinks in the current combat system, and make 'spearman vs tank' a thing of the past-FOREVER!!! Namely because, in my system, though the tank may be unable to HIT the spearman very often(because he is fortified in mountains, say) the spearman will have virtually NO CHANCE of hitting the tank!! As for WHO gets the terrain bonus, that would be a question of WHO get there first, though its possible that BOTH units could get the terrain bonus to the appropriate stat (AS or DS). Either way, though, a unit would only get a FULL terrain bonus if it has occupied that square for at LEAST the last turn.
Anyway, just a thought!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[sir_schwick]

A few notes:

1) Preferably units would not need to be in the same square to interact(fight, etc.) with each other. Battlegroups would exert some sphere of influence upon which they can interact with other units.
2) Battlegroups are the order of the day. This means combined arms combat and such will make sense. Plenty of threads on battlegroup design.
3) Which unit had time to prepare for defense first could be calculated through a combination of iniative, speed getting into position, logistical considerations, etc. Home field advantage and being based in the local town usually help.
4) Not all combat would have to be to the death, but that is another thread.
5) Aussie's idea would work if the battlegroup and SOI ideas are not adopted.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Key issues:

1) Movement is based on an 'initiative' system, based around empire size, # of units and tech level (+ a RNG).

2) Units which end the turn in the same square either fight or retreat (but not ALWAYS to the death).

3) Units which end the turn a square away from each other exert Zone of Control effects-either like Civ3, or Civ2 if the unit is fortified.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

The option to retreat for sure is something I would like to find in cIV. It is just an insane concept, that all fights have to have a lethal result, as this is something which (sometimes) causes the strangest results.