Abstracting unit movement

[Lockesdonkey]

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.

Like this?

 

[Commander Bello]

Exactly!
Don't we all know the occasions, when a regular unit takes three hits in a row until redlined only to suddenly awake, mobilize their last powers and then fight like hell? Killing the attacker, getting awarded and holding their little tile against anyone who is queuing up?
It would give a more realistic feeling if a redlined unit would try to escape....

And don't get me wrong: I even don't like this happen if it was my unit. It just feels wrong. A unit smashed so much SHOULD retreat - in a meaningful manner, that is, in the direction of their own troops, not somewhere else.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, like I said above, an 'attack-counterattack' system would also help to allieviate, if not stop altogether, the 'tank vs. spearman' scenario! Of course, as you know, I ALSO support retreating as well.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

Aussie_Lurker, I am pretty sure that I have read your suggestions and I liked them. Unfortunately, I haven't found it right now.
Do you have a link?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

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.

Good point there are very few TB games that are simultaneous move, but for one that is really good..Diplomacy, a board game, almost impossible to get through because of the fact that back stabbing is required by the games system, but close to the way I think combat should be (in Some respects) basically the WEGO and abstracted combat that goes with it...a Civ system could be slightly more complex because you would have a computer running the numbers instead of a person looking at a rule book.

The reason behind the 'Abstracted combat' is best in an example from that game. Onething a unit (only one unit per territory) can do is 'support' a unit in a nearby territory, but if that unit's territory is attacked, it can no longer support the other unit, but is forced to defend its own area (essentially, its 'movement' is changed based on a reaction to the other teams orders)..

That is how the ally backstabbing would be handled, they wouldn't Tell you that they backstabbed you so you would give your orders, and they would give their backstabbing orders...and since your "back" had very few units in 'reaction range' to defend it, they gained an advantage and possibly took a few of your cities. On the Next Turn (1 yr later) it seems quite reasonable with Railroads that you might relocate your forces to the new border and then give them orders for the next Year's worth of combat. (essentially I'm looking at maybe 1-2 city 'depth' that a tank army could take in one year assuming drastic force advantage.. so a backstab-even with infinite move would not give you as much time to react) [reaction range might be 'improved' by railroads, but not as much as Strategic Re-basing ie movement actually would]


Also the idea of having units of different empires occupy the same square is a Very Good one (one of a units ability settings could be its ability to 'Hide'..ie a Tank can retreat, but a Guerilla can simply hide..so each turn you Might be able to get a chance to shoot at him...or not.. would also have effects from Terrain)