Attack? Defense? Strength?

[Argetnyx]

What I want to know is which combat type will work best, in your opinions:

Seperate attack, defense, and health stats (Civ3 style)

Single strength factor (civ4 style)

Something else (something else)

I don't really care (you don't really care)

I'm personally a supporter of the seperation of attacking, defensive, and health values.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Single strenght sounds good. I like the bonuses for certain conditions. Like archers on the hills. But I am definitely for some combat or warfare improvement....
I was just thinking if I had found myself without iron or coper I would like to have chance to researche something like archersII. strght. 4

 

[rysmiel]

I was just thinking if I had found myself without iron or coper I would like to have chance to researche something like archersII. strght. 4

If you find yourself without iron or copper, trade for them.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If you find yourself without iron or copper, trade for them.

That as u know can be sometimes über difficult....

 

[Argetnyx]

Single strenght sounds good. I like the bonuses for certain conditions. Like archers on the hills. But I am definitely for some combat or warfare improvement....

Just because there are seperate combat values doesn't mean that you can't still have the combat bonuses. I was actually thinking of mixing the Civ3 and 4 combat methods together: the 3 values from Civ3, and the combat bonuses from civ4.

 

[Ramesses]

I voted for separate attacking, defensive, and health values, but upon further consideration I regret not voting for "Something else."

My idea is as follows:
Basically each unit would have multiple combat stats (Strength, Armor, Range, Speed, Agility, etc.).
Most unit types specialize in one or two combat stats while being weak in one or two others, thus allowing rock-paper-scissors type combat.
Additionally, each unit receives tactical bonuses from terrain features (Cover, Height Advantage, Fortification, etc.) which can alter the combat stats for either or both units in the upcoming battle.
As a rule of thumb, the unit that leads in the most combat stats (after adjusting for tactical bonuses) wins the battle. Of course, a large enough advantage in any one stat (like Strength) can be enough to make up for disadvantages in all other stats, but this sort of situation is reserved for battles between Tanks vs. Spearmen.

 

[Kenjister]

I voted for a single strength value, though I would support a bonus for some units that gives +X% strength on attack.
Personally I love how Civ4 merged the combat strength and health of a unit. Before it was just plain wierd that a severly weakened unit would still have the same strength as a fully healed one, but would just die easier.

 

[Camikaze]

I voted for 'something else', which really means that I'm sitting on the fence. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, so I don't really mind which one is used (although I'm slightly leaning towards separate values).

 

[CivMyWay]

Not that I'm biased, but I voted for mine

 

[Naokaukodem]

I am for a single value like it is in Civ4, but without anymore defense bonuses.

I am for organized armies. You can form armies with different type of units, like axemen on the front, archers on the rear, artillery on the end (or maybe on the front with cannons).

And I am for a system that allows to simulate the different ways or warring in History. Melee battles in Antiquity, ranged battles with gunpowder, skirmishes and covered battles in modern.

 

[Hail]

=== Initiative: Who gets to attack? ===

the [original] attacker.

Attacker chance = a.combatExp / (a.combatExp + d.combatExp)
Defender chance = defender.combatExp / (attacker.combatExp + defender.combatExp)

what happens if attack.combatExp = defender.combatExp = 0 ?

Total manpower = number of healthy units + (number of sick units / 2)

wounded do not participate?

The attackers manpower is then:
Attacker Manpower = attacker.totalManpower * (movement points remaining in current turn / total movement points)

you are trying to factor in maneuverability of the units involved? then you should include the difference of movement points (attacker's - defender's). if such difference is +, then the attacker receives + damage bonus, if -, then the damage bonus should be -.

damage = (a.attackValue * a.manpower * (a.morale / 2) + 40) / (d.defenceValue * d.manpower * (d.discipline / 2) + 40))

1) so damage will scale linearly with manpower(health)? maybe it should be that way, but only for infantry type units. e.g. a damaged tank may still be able to fire, but not move, for example.
2) replace discipline with morale. and if morale [and discipline] are int values that are bound 0..100 : e.g. being a percentage value, then it should be a.morale / (double)100.

numEffected = d.totalMen * damage

A unit with Prisoners of War in their "item" slot can only fight @ 25% normal attack/defence values.

then no sane unit will take PoW's.

Units can also merge on-the-field

 

[Gamemaster77]

We already have a thread for this but with less poll options

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=331931

 

[Argetnyx]

so? Why not keep this one then?

 

[rysmiel]

Personally I love how Civ4 merged the combat strength and health of a unit. Before it was just plain wierd that a severly weakened unit would still have the same strength as a fully healed one, but would just die easier.

Depending on which version of Civ 3 you play, sometimes a unit loses strength as it is injured and sometimes not; this is not a mechanic that there is a problem with implementing in a separate attack/defence model if you want it implemented.

 

[Argetnyx]

OK, for those in favor of single-strength values:

Tanks, for example, are- and were designed to be- offensive machines. Thanks to their offensive capabilities: speed, armor, size, and firepower, tanks are essential in almost any 20-21st century military.

For defensive war, tanks are unsuited: they are sitting ducks to any attacking artillery or aircraft. The Germans, before and during WWII, perfected a formula for tank combat, and for defence, the tank is used only to wear down and delay the enemy until a counterattack is ordered.

It is not possible to include this factor into combat using a single strength combat value.

 

[Kenjister]

OK, for those in favor of single-strength values:

Tanks, for example, are- and were designed to be- offensive machines. Thanks to their offensive capabilities: speed, armor, size, and firepower, tanks are essential in almost any 20-21st century military.

For defensive war, tanks are unsuited: they are sitting ducks to any attacking artillery or aircraft. The Germans, before and during WWII, perfected a formula for tank combat, and for defence, the tank is used only to wear down and delay the enemy until a counterattack is ordered.

It is not possible to include this factor into combat using a single strength combat value.

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement here. A single square in CIV is a vast amount of space, and it is perfectly feasible that tanks can conduct a fluid defence along the area they are ordered to guard. And yes you're right, tanks are not best suited for defence, but I find that sufficiently modeled by the way they don't get a defence bonus. On the other hand, a tank defending a position is no weaker than a tank attacking any fortification. They are offensive machines in game too, since they recieve City Raider promotions and barrage to relect the devestation they can wreak upon fortified positions. I can still find no reason that a tank should be consistantly weaker on defence than offence, a perfectly good example of this being tank vs. tank combat. If in WWII somewhere, Soviet T34 tanks were attacking a location where a few Panthers were to be found, the T34's would by no means have the advantage simply because they are attacking. Sure, tanks may be weak against Artillery and Aircraft on the defence, but I see that more of a testament to the offensive capabilites of said weaponry.

It IS possible to model an inherent boost to attacking in a single strength system though. Look at History of the Three Kingdoms, where the makers gave Cavalry a +X% bonus to strength only while attacking. I would prefer that system much more to a split strength system as for the vast majority of units there is no pressing need to split the values. Units such as Machine Guns can have thier inability to attack effectively modeled the way it is now, or with a negative strength modifier to defence.

 

[Camikaze]

OK, for those in favor of single-strength values:

Tanks, for example, are- and were designed to be- offensive machines. Thanks to their offensive capabilities: speed, armor, size, and firepower, tanks are essential in almost any 20-21st century military.

For defensive war, tanks are unsuited: they are sitting ducks to any attacking artillery or aircraft. The Germans, before and during WWII, perfected a formula for tank combat, and for defence, the tank is used only to wear down and delay the enemy until a counterattack is ordered.

It is not possible to include this factor into combat using a single strength combat value.

That's assuming that a tank unit in civ purely consists of tanks. In reality, a tank unit would include artillery and infantry also, for defensive support. You could say that this is already incorporated into civ to prevent the need for unnecessary unit spamming.

 

[kiwitt]

Since a battle in Civ4 is usually over either, decades, years, months or weeks a single strength value reflects this. i.e. it's battle endurance.

 

[Trias]

OK, for those in favor of single-strength values:

Tanks, for example, are- and were designed to be- offensive machines. Thanks to their offensive capabilities: speed, armor, size, and firepower, tanks are essential in almost any 20-21st century military.

For defensive war, tanks are unsuited: they are sitting ducks to any attacking artillery or aircraft. The Germans, before and during WWII, perfected a formula for tank combat, and for defence, the tank is used only to wear down and delay the enemy until a counterattack is ordered.

It is not possible to include this factor into combat using a single strength combat value.

And that's why tanks don't get defensive bonusses in civ4

 

[Naokaukodem]

OK, for those in favor of single-strength values:

Tanks, for example, are- and were designed to be- offensive machines. Thanks to their offensive capabilities: speed, armor, size, and firepower, tanks are essential in almost any 20-21st century military.

For defensive war, tanks are unsuited: they are sitting ducks to any attacking artillery or aircraft. The Germans, before and during WWII, perfected a formula for tank combat, and for defence, the tank is used only to wear down and delay the enemy until a counterattack is ordered.

It is not possible to include this factor into combat using a single strength combat value.

Defense wars are pretty mystery for me, except when the defenders are inside walls, like in cities or forts. On the field, there is no defender or attacker, both move in the same time. Antic wars was like that (except for sieges), Napoleonic wars was like that (although a good protection was very efficient, the time cannons do not show their noses).

So it would be wiser, IMHO, to reflect that in the game. Give more emphasis on field battle (like in the thread I created not very far of this one), and add an option to break/bypass walls with artillery. (like the howitzer in Civ2, but not automatic: we would have to effectively destroy the walls)