CHESS-like combat system eliminating luck

[inssight]

SUMMARY:
My suggestion in short: a chess-like gamemode in civ-4 where the random factor (luck) in combat is removed.


ELABORATION:
In the single player game playing at the higher levels is a big challenge. At a certain point (emperor level for me) the only way to win is by saving before each combat action you initiate, and reload as many times as it takes to win. If you can't win no matter how many times reload and no matter in what order you let your units attack, retreat one step or just wait if well defended and retry next turn.
You might say: well, don't do that, don't save & load so often. But when the competition is so hard, leaving combat to chance will decide the game in case of an unforseen loss. I think it is nicer to win purely on strategy. There must be many civ players who share my point of view. Right?

COMBAT:
The combat system i propose shouldnt take too much adaptation of the game.
We can use the power ratings of units like we do now (from the interviews posted on ign.com i undrestand there will not be offense and defense power but one unified power with bonuses against types of units).
We can use terrain defense bonuses like we do now.
We can use hitpoinst (htp) like we do now.

Example:
Two power 3 swordsmen attack one power 2 spearman fortified on hills. All have 5 htp.
Spearman gets bonus +50% for fortify and +100% for terrain = +1 and +2 = power 5.
First swordsman attacks: swordman loses all htp and dies.
First swordsman inflicts 3/5 = 60% damage to the spearman.
Spearman loses 60% so 3 out of 5 htp and is down to 2 htp.
Second swordsman attacks: [2 htp spearman / 3 power swordsman = 2/3] < [5htp swordsman / 5 power spearman = 5/5]. So swordsman kills spearman.
Spearman inflicts 2/3 x 5 power = 3 htp damage to the second swordsman.
Second swordsman survives with 2 htp left.

If you have fast units like cavalry, you can calculate so that they "fight until" they have only one hitpoint left and then retreat. If this makes fast units extra strong (since chances of losing them in combat are reduced compared to civ3) you can make them less powerfull, or only retreat when full health at start off combat, or only retreat when there is flat terrain adjacent, etcetera.

If identical units engage in combat, without any terrain / attack / defense bonuses and have the same amount of hitpoints, you could let them both be killed, or always let the attacker win (it's a rare occasion that there are no defense bonuses, let the attacker have some benefits for a change), or let luck decide in this very specific case.

OTHER RANDOM EFFECTS:
Only combat loses the random factor to decide outcome. Other events like plundering an ancient tribe should remain random (50 gold / free technology / friendly unit, etc). Also promotions of military units and the appearance of leaders are nice random effects.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:
The AI must be modified somewhat, because it can now know the outcome of battle in advance. Decisions should be made based on calculating if the cpu player wins the combat, loses but wins the next, value of units, total military strenght, nature of the civ (agressive/ militaristic vs. peaceful), etcetera. Probably implemented already for the normal combat system, so needs only adaptation.

CLOSING COMMENTS:
I think a gamemode like this will add an extra dimension to the game. Players will have the choice to play the original game, or to go completely strategic.
I hope you will consider my idea, it would be very nice to see it in civ-4. Let me know what you think about it.

 

[dalek master]

civ is realy just a larger version of chess. But sounds great

 

[sealman]

The outcome of any battle should not be known before it begins.

 

[Darwin420]

In all but a few traditional strategy games (think back to the good 'ol boardgames), rolling the dice creates the element of "luck." .. the Civ combat number generator simulates the throwing of the dice. No matter how perfect your strategy, luck is still a factor... even Sun Tzu will tell you that.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

I think having luck is a good feature of the game. It simulates the random factors in combat that are completely out of the hands of the rulers and generals (weather, moral, plain ol' chance, etc.).

Otherwise, Civ would simply be a game of math. No one would ever engage in combat that they would lose.

Rather than reloading all the time (which is itself a frowned upon practice), have you tried using (and I mean really using) artillery? I've managed 4-to-1 kill ratios, even at Deity, by simply intellegently picking my battles, using cats liberally, and accepting that I'm going to lose some units some of the time.

 

[Himalia]

The luck factor although frustrating at times (trust me have you ever had a rogue spearman slaughter your Modern Armour ? Well i have.) It is still needed simply because someone who is good at maths could work out entire battles before hand and simply only attack if they ar going to win. You can do that to a degree with Civilization as it is, but its not so predicable.

 

[GoodGame]

I'd be for this as an option.
E.g. Combat:
No Luck
Luck

 

[Avayaman]

luck makes the entire thing more dynamic!

 

[Himalia]

Prehaps again this is something that could simply be an option that you can turn on or off. The only drawback with this is if someon has a particaly powerful troop it will be unstopable due to these rules. So prehaps a mor detailed combat simulator is needed in addition.

 

[Belcarius]

I don't mind the present system, but if there was a way you could keep the uncertainty of battles without the stupid losses you sometimes suffer (eg Veteran Swordsman attacks Regular Longbowman on plains and DIES! WTH!) then I would be up for that. It looks like they are already up for that with Civ 4 though.

 

[mastertyguy]

I think the present system is bad, but luck should stay a factor. Without luck, at a point, you will just do the same always the same thing to win.

EDIT Welcome to CFC

 

[inssight]

Thank you all for your thoughts on the subject. I would like to reply to some of your points.

First let me stress that this should not replace the present system, but be a factor you can turn on and off as mentioned by GoodGame and Himalia (I called it a "game mode" in my initial post).

Second, I must admit that removing luck would not make combat more realistic, luck is an important factor in real combat. But I am interested in gameplay. And chess excels in that through the ages as anyone would admit.

Third, there's lots of luck left in. Terrain lay out, starting point, promotions, ancient tribes, bombardment could be left to luck, etc.

Fourth, you dont control everything. But you're gonna try to get a strategic advantage by doing reconnaisance. When you attack a unit and win, you are left with half your health on a new square. Perhaps the enemy has reinforcements close by to nail you.
There also is no problem with very strong units, ("powerful troop"- Himalia) you just need two or three units to take it down.

Fifth, I guess I dont use artillary enough. Have to become a better player. Anyways, I love to see the game option.

 

[DBear]

The RNG stinks, but having a mini-tactical screen for every battle would make the game take WAAAAAAAAY too long, and would make multi virtually unplayable.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

First,
LUCK is an important part of life so it should be an important part of Civ.
"I'd rather have a lucky General than a good one." (Napolean)

Second,
RANDOM events in the game are to simulate other effects not controllable. Alexandre the Great defeated Darius with much less men and against all expectations... since they are no tactics in the game, this is replaced by RANDOM factors.

My fear is that if you remove RANDOM events, then the bigger or more tech army will win. Besides, it's FUN!
Not knowing a result of a battle gives you that stress that is part of the fun. Wouldn't it be boring to know the result before hand?

Yes, sometimes it means losing a elite battleship against a regular destroyer! But isn't life like that, too?

.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

Indeed, chess is a great game... but it has very different rules.

While for the average player like you or I, terrain would still provide some randomness in combat (since sometimes you have to attack, despite a disavantage, for your overall goal), I can see the relentless MMers figuring out how to never lose a single soldier and making the whole thing entirely predicable).

That said, I believe I heard that in cIV, the team is working to prevent any silly outcomes like spearman defeats tank. So, look like they're already trying to take care of our biggest grips with RnG. That, combined with great greater combined arms will probably take care of much of this.

 

[Dudedudeyo]

I hope they also get rid of "Pikemen defeats Modern amror with out taking damage".

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

That said, I believe I heard that in cIV, the team is working to prevent any silly outcomes like spearman defeats tank.

I didn't mind the "Spearman defeated Tanks". It was VERY rare and you can imagine that even spearman could use an RPG or two in their crowd.


I still remember in Civ1 losing a battleship when attacking a warrior in a hill...

 

[Dudedudeyo]

The question is how would they really do damage. the only thing i see is shove the spear up the gun nozle.

 

[GoodGame]

This reminds me of some much older Risk-like games.

No luck---everything done by the numbers, after terrain modifiers added.

Luck (probability within the numbers)---current CIV model.

Low luck--i.e. "No luck except ties". No Luck, but if the opponents are equal, or perhaps ABOUT equal (say within 10% of each other), than luck is used.

 

[Trade-peror]

Low luck--i.e. "No luck except ties". No Luck, but if the opponents are equal, or perhaps ABOUT equal (say within 10% of each other), than luck is used.

This is an interesting option I have yet heard mentioned in threads on this topic. It could make results more moderate and reasonable overall.