Civilization Tactical Combat Development Thread (Input/Suggestions Wanted)

[LyTning94]

CIVILIZATION TACTICAL COMBAT​

Based on RevDCM​

Overview

This is a modpack I am currently working on which makes several revolutionary changes to the combat system, including:

• Tactical Battle Map
• UPT Limit
• Ranged Combat
• General Unit
• Unit Morale
• Unit Fatigue
• Field Air Patrol Mission

Tactical Battle Map

This feature is the most revolutionary, allowing you to fight stack-vs-stack battles on a tactical battle map. The battles will occur on a 30x30 map (the defender's plot and the surrounding plots) and will include strategic maneouvers such as flanking or (in the case of a city of fort) actually defending behind walls. You will also have the option of calling in reinforcements to the battle map from adjacent tiles. These reinforcements will take a certain number of battle map turns (which all happen within one game turn) to arrive, at which point they can join your forces against the enemy. Attacking forces and reinforcements will be able to retreat from battle.

UPT Limit

In the real game, each plot will have a specific space value dependant on the plot's terrain and/or improvements. Each unit will also have a space value which will add up, allowing only a certain amount of units on each tile. In the battle map there will be a 1UPT limit, but units with larger space values will be split into mini-units, each occupying one tile in the battle map.

Ranged Combat

The battle map will also allow for ranged and seige combat over multiple tiles. For example, an archer will be able to fire over a swordsman to hit an attacking axeman two tiles away. As the distance between the archer and the unit being fired on increases, the effectiveness and damage of the attack will go down. A ranged unit will also be able to fire from the top of a wall if defending a city or a fort.

General Unit

This will be a new unit added to the game which functions similar to a warlord. It will be able to give promotions to the stack it is leading, as well as boosting morale. Unlike the warlord, however, it will be detachable from a stack. As a general wins more and more battles, it will gain experience which will in turn give the units it leads more promotions and morale.

Unit Morale

Unit morale will affect how both military units and workers perform. The more morale a unit has, the better they will fight or the quicker they will build improvements. Low morale leads to slower work (for workers) or a decrease in combat effectiveness (for military units). Workers with no morale will refuse to work, and military units with no morale will either refuse to fight or, if they are in the middle of a battle, will rout, making them an easy target for the enemy.

Unit Fatigue

Fatigue will take the place of a unit's moves in the battle map. Instead of having X amount of tiles they can move per turn, fatigue will limit their activity on the battlefield based on both movement and fighting. Fighting a battle will take more fatigue than simply moving to another tile, and when a unit's fatigue is drained, it will not be able to fight as well. This will effectively limit the length of the battles, since the units will be too fatigued to continue. When no more units can fight on either side, both sides are forced to retreat.

Field Air Patrol Mission

I'm adding a unit mission which will effectively be the same as the air patrol mission except that the aircraft will fly to a specific plot, patrol there for as long as possible, and then return to their base. This will allow for aerial combat over the battle map (automated though, sorry ) and then, when the airspace is clear of enemy aircraft, for raids on the land units, sea units, improvements, fortifications, buildings, etc.

Suggestions, Input, and Help Wanted

These are the ideas I have currently, but I'm open to suggestions on how to expand or improve these ideas. This is the main reason I'm putting this thread out here, so don't hesitate to critique the ideas or provide suggestions.

The ideas themselves are (obviously) subject to change, and I'm not even sure if all of them are possible. The main obstacle right now is that I need someone to do the graphics for all of this. I need everything from buttons to building models for use in the battle map (I'm not sure if I can use the existing models or not...). If anyone's able to help out with any of this I'd appreciate it.

Current Status

All the land units, players, and plots info is now ready to be loaded into the battle map. I still have to work on air and sea units.

Morale is close to being fully functional outside of the battle map. I still have to work on it inside the map.

I started the Field Air Patrol mission, but still have a lot to do.

The mod has three configuration options so far: whether to use the battle map, whether to use morale, and whether to ask before using the battle map. The last option will let the user decide if he wants to bother fighting small-scale battles on the battle map or just to resolve them in the strategic map.

 

[vincentz]

I'll be happy to help with 2d graphics.

and some old ideas :

Spoiler :

Attacking a city :


on tactical map:

So basically the central tile will be with the surrounding tiles and units.

 

[4lexander]

Excellent ideas

I've always thought Civ lack a lot in combat realism and I think this is a step in the right direction.

About help, I *COULD* eventually be able to learn how to make same basic graphics, but I cannot promise.

 

[The_J]

Would be awesome if it worked.

What comes to my mind...what if attackers + defenders together exceed 100 units (10*10 map)?

 

[LyTning94]

I'll be happy to help with 2d graphics.

Thanks! I'm not far enought along to need anything right now, but when I do I'll let you know.

and some old ideas :

Spoiler :

Attacking a city :


on tactical map:

So basically the central tile will be with the surrounding tiles and units.

Actually I hadn't thought of this before. Instead of having just the one tile zoomed up in the tactical map, I could have the ring of tiles around it like you showed (which would make it a 30x30 map). This way the reinforcements would already be in the map, it would just be a matter of moving them to the battle itself. You could also then use scouts to scout out the enemy reinforcements.

Excellent ideas

I've always thought Civ lack a lot in combat realism and I think this is a step in the right direction.

I agree. I originally got the tactical map idea from Rome: Total War, which IMO has a much better combat system.

Would be awesome if it worked.

What comes to my mind...what if attackers + defenders together exceed 100 units (10*10 map)?

This is where the UPT limit in the normal map comes into play. The combined units' space value would exceed the tile's space value before the entire tile filled up.

 

[Asaf]

Excellent!
I remember a discussion thread here about creating a tactical map. I'd be interested to see how you do it

Another suggestion: The movement value of each unit in the tactical map should be different than the one in the strategic map - Either a constant multiple of it, or an XML-configurable value. Otherwise tactical battle will take a long time.

And what are you going to do about the AI? Because as I understand it, Firaxis failed with writing an AI to support this kind of scheme (Only from reading about it. I haven't really played Civ 5), so it must not be an easy task...

 

[Pickly]

Nice to see this is still being developed. How far along is it?


Am curious in more detail about the combat system you are adding/plan to add. How would things like morale/endurance/etc. actually work?


Do you plan to have each "world map" unit spawn just one "battle map" unit, or in some situations would multiples appear? (I could see something like this being useful, for example, where overland maps represent small groups of elite units or powerful machines vs. large horde, although if production costs of overland units were adjusted, this might not be necessary)

How do you plan to have air units interact with this combat system?

I'm assuming that units will no longer fight to the death when an attack occurs, if so, how does this change effect the rest of the combat stats on units?


It's very nice to see this coming along, would not have imagined this being possible in the system, so hopefully it works out well.

 

[LyTning94]

Excellent!
I remember a discussion thread here about creating a tactical map. I'd be interested to see how you do it

This is the drawback. Since (from what I've read) it's impossible to have multiple maps in one game, I'm in a sense creating an entirely new game for the battle. When one stack attacks, the game will save, following which the game will load the tactical map as a new game. It will then reconstruct the attacking and defending units, as well as the correct terrain/improvements, etc. from a file where the game will have saved the necessary info. After the battle, the normal game will again load, and the results from the battle (once again written/read from a file) will take effect.

Another suggestion: The movement value of each unit in the tactical map should be different than the one in the strategic map - Either a constant multiple of it, or an XML-configurable value. Otherwise tactical battle will take a long time.

Hmm... I do agree that the initial approach of the attacker would be tedious, but I also want to have enough realism that a melee unit can't move and attack another halfway across the map. Perhaps 2x the movement would be good?

And what are you going to do about the AI? Because as I understand it, Firaxis failed with writing an AI to support this kind of scheme (Only from reading about it. I haven't really played Civ 5), so it must not be an easy task...

I really have no idea how the AI will respond to it at this point. I'll obviously have to make some changes for the ranged combat and such, but I'm hoping I won't have to do too much. As for right now, I'll just wait and see how the AI responds to the changes.

 

[LyTning94]

Nice to see this is still being developed. How far along is it?

Unfortunately, not very far. However, I'm hoping that things will start to pick up here soon.

Am curious in more detail about the combat system you are adding/plan to add. How would things like morale/endurance/etc. actually work?

Since I'm not to the stage of actually adding these particular features yet, I haven't given a ton of thought to them. Actually these particular ideas are quite recent, so I'm not entirely sure yet how they'll work (more room for suggestions ).

Do you plan to have each "world map" unit spawn just one "battle map" unit, or in some situations would multiples appear? (I could see something like this being useful, for example, where overland maps represent small groups of elite units or powerful machines vs. large horde, although if production costs of overland units were adjusted, this might not be necessary)

Depending on the "space" value of each unit, many of them will spawn several units in the tactical map. It just makes sense that a tank unit isn't the same size as a warrior. I'm thinking just keep the production costs the same.

How do you plan to have air units interact with this combat system?

Another idea I'm still working on. Some form of air strike would seem the most realistic to me. I think DCM has some sort of air strike feature (then again I may be wrong), so I could possibly do something with that. Hopefully soon I can play a game of RevDCM with this feature enabled, so I can get some idea of what it's like. Again, suggestions wanted!

I'm assuming that units will no longer fight to the death when an attack occurs, if so, how does this change effect the rest of the combat stats on units?

I'm thinking that each attack in the battle map will only be able to last so many "rounds" of combat (instead of just fighting till the death or retreat). This will then determine the damage the attacking and defending units take. Keep in mind also that many real-game units will be several units in the battle map, each taking its own damage.

It's very nice to see this coming along, would not have imagined this being possible in the system, so hopefully it works out well.

Well, as I explained in my last post, I sort of tweaked the system a little bit .

 

[LyTning94]

I though a little bit more about how morale could work, and here's what I came up with. Each unit will start with a base morale value which will be modified at the beginning of battle by the following:

• A high-level general (+)
• Happiness/unhappiness in the unit's home city (+/-)
• Anarchy (-)
• Winning/losing the current war (+/-)
• Fighting a civ of the same religion/civics (-)
• Fighting a civ who has a significant nationality % in the unit's home city (-)
• A bad foreign reputation (-)
• Possible penalty for a civ with Pacifism (-)
• Possible boost for a civ with Theocracy and a different religion than the enemy (+)

Then, as the battle is taking place, the value will be further modified by:

• Winning/losing the battle (+/-)
• The unit's individual success/failure (+/-)
• The general wounded or dead (-)
• Being close to the general (+)

Morale will affect how each unit fights overall to the point where, if a unit's morale is low enough, it may rout. If a unit routs it will basically wildly retreat away from the battle where it will stay until its morale is high enough to return. When a unit is routing, or if a unit is unable to rout because it is surrounded, its strength will drop to nearly 0 and will thus be an easy target for the enemy.

 

[4lexander]

It is an excellent morale system in my modest opinion.


May I suggest some more ideas?


I would add some values depending on political context beyond the current military situation.

I.e. unhappiness from war, civic systems, religions, nationality %, even related to enemy's one.

E.g. if you shame same religion with your enemy or the same civics, other nationality % etc you would not "see" him as an enemy like if he has totally different political systems, state religions etc.


A basically pacifist civ is not so cline to take arms, while a warrior civ sure has a boost.


I would also add foreign reputation, i.e. how others see us and our reasons and methods:

if all other civs are enemy of ours or mostly are and we fight alone, doubt arises.

Expecially if using civs that encourage free thought such as democracy, free speach, tolerance, ambientalism etc.


If we get that message in strategic map about abusing of nuclear weapons that is basically annoying in diplomatic relations (countless if you're enemy of anyone)

and your soldiers could see the effects of such methods in battlefield (-x for each fallout tile?)

and how everyone hate us and they freely speak about in cities with protests etc...


all of this Matters in troops' morale.


Let mer know what do you think about.

 

[LyTning94]

I.e. unhappiness from war, civic systems, religions, nationality %, even related to enemy's one.

E.g. if you shame same religion with your enemy or the same civics, other nationality % etc you would not "see" him as an enemy like if he has totally different political systems, state religions etc.


A basically pacifist civ is not so cline to take arms, while a warrior civ sure has a boost.

War unhappiness in cities is already taken into consideration by the unhappiness/happiness factor in a unit's home city. I can see what you mean by both sides having the same or different civics/religion and how that would affect each side's willingness to fight.

My only question is: does war unhappiness occur faster already between two civs with the same civics/religion? (I should know, but I don't actually play civ4 enough to pay attention to things like this). Anyway, if war unhappiness already takes this into consideration, I don't think I need to. If it doesn't however, I probably could.

I would also add foreign reputation, i.e. how others see us and our reasons and methods:

if all other civs are enemy of ours or mostly are and we fight alone, doubt arises.

Expecially if using civs that encourage free thought such as democracy, free speach, tolerance, ambientalism etc.


If we get that message in strategic map about abusing of nuclear weapons that is basically annoying in diplomatic relations (countless if you're enemy of anyone)

and your soldiers could see the effects of such methods in battlefield (-x for each fallout tile?)

and how everyone hate us and they freely speak about in cities with protests etc...

All this could probably be reduced to the unhappiness factor (you know, the world considers you a villain). I think unhappiness should take pretty much all this into consideration.

They're great ideas, don't get me wrong, I just don't want to make it super complicated at this point.

 

[4lexander]

War unhappiness in cities is already taken into consideration by the unhappiness/happiness factor in a unit's home city. I can see what you mean by both sides having the same or different civics/religion and how that would affect each side's willingness to fight.

My only question is: does war unhappiness occur faster already between two civs with the same civics/religion? (I should know, but I don't actually play civ4 enough to pay attention to things like this). Anyway, if war unhappiness already takes this into consideration, I don't think I need to. If it doesn't however, I probably could.



All this could probably be reduced to the unhappiness factor (you know, the world considers you a villain). I think unhappiness should take pretty much all this into consideration.

They're great ideas, don't get me wrong, I just don't want to make it super complicated at this point.

I agree.

I didn't play Civ4 so much to know it too.

IF all of these factors are included within happiness, it's enough.


I only have a doubt about how much they weight.

All in one means that if you manage to keep unhappiness low (e.g. luxury resources) then all of these factors simply could disappear.

And they have a primary importance beside simple happiness/unhappiness of your citizens.


I meant, take the case of a rival civ asking you to convert to their religion (diplomatic window) and if you refuse, they declare war on you.

Take instead the case of two civs sharing the same civics or whatever but are rival in e.g. controlling an important resource, the tile is next to both, they start waging war.

Are the soldiers of the 2nd civ be motivated how much the first ones? I doubt.


It is to take on count in first case you have one civ defending itself from invasion, people are angry, they _want_ to stop them by all means and the above soldiers, who came from your cities, are supposed to have an high morale.

On the other side you may have a civ with State religion and other civics, etc, which make them willing to convert the others by all means... the fact they refused to convert should give them a morale bonus independent from happiness/unhappiness.

In 2nd case, immagine the two civs having both free speach and freely and loudly speaking about how much a shame it is that their civ are at war for economic means only. They're both supposed to have their soldiers forcely send to frontline without too much conviction... and morale.


So I ask IF the solely happiness factor, sufficient in strategic map, is enough to give proper weight to these factors on morale in tactical map.

 

[LyTning94]

I guess if you look at it that way, it does make a lot more sense to make another morale factor independent of war unhappiness for civs of the same religions/civics. I'll add it to the list.

 

[4lexander]

I've enlisted many more factors to count, like foreign relationship status, an addition or two is the best solution imo.

 

[LyTning94]

I agree that foreign reputation could also matter apart from the unhappiness factor, so I'll add that.

I'll also add a possible possible morale drop for pacifist civs and a possible morale boost for theocractic civs who aren't your religion.

 

[4lexander]

Excellent, this is what I meant. And also militaristic civs btw.

 

[4lexander]

Any news? This is kinda a very promising project

 

[LyTning94]

Any news? This is kinda a very promising project

No, I haven't gotten much done lately. Honestly, I can't promise this will be done anytime soon because it's a fairly large project and I don't have that much time to devote to it.

I'll keep this thread updated as I progress.

 

[4lexander]

OK, thanks for answering. I wish you to complete this awesome project, one day.