Civilization Tactical Combat Development Thread (Input/Suggestions Wanted)
- Thread starter LyTning94
- Start date
I'm back looking for more input 
.
If a ship in the strategic map is on a coastal tile with an adjacent enemy land unit, I'm going to enable it to fire at that land unit in the tactical map. I'm looking for input on which ships, specifically the earlier ones, should be ranged. All of them after a certain point will be, but I'm wondering if all of the earlier ones should be ranged (by having archers on board) or only some of them.
.If a ship in the strategic map is on a coastal tile with an adjacent enemy land unit, I'm going to enable it to fire at that land unit in the tactical map. I'm looking for input on which ships, specifically the earlier ones, should be ranged. All of them after a certain point will be, but I'm wondering if all of the earlier ones should be ranged (by having archers on board) or only some of them.
I think that earlier ships i.e. pre-firearms tech may or not have ranged capability depending on various factors such as size.
If the theoretical background - which I share - is them to have or not archery units, then it is logical that the ship in argument should host them to have this benefit.
I'm not sure if this was the case in history, but I suppose that it should be possibile to host a certain number of archers on a bireme too.
I'm pretty sure ancient sailships were used to carry troops to overseas targeted lands.
I think a bit of research is needed to say how many men any type of ship could carry beside the crew needed to operate the ship.
Then, we can suppose in CIV universe at least a portion of this value is used to carry archers with their number and abilities depending on ship type/size, techs, promotions and so on.
I would suggest to add a tech that both enables and regulates the matter, for the sequent advantages:
- preventing spamming of ship ranged attacks in early game by all civs.
(thus leaving intact original naval combat in such phase, avoiding unbalance and repetitivity)
- add more depth to warfare research
(you can choose if you want to specialize like that or not)
- have a solid system to regulate this delicate and promising feature.
We could in fact have a tech that has these effects - also side ones to balance (see 2nd point above)
- enables naval ranged attacks (in any age, but changing with techs)
- sacrify a portion of your cargo space to host ranged units (e.g. archers with archery)
The second effect will be negated by gunpowder thus allowing modern ships to have ranged attacks but with firearms w/out sacrifice of any cargo space.
Each achievement in the research line that involves tech related to navy, weapons and such could allow for the creation of new units/promotion older ones.
The same with successful combat that give new xp to units.
So if you start with plane archers you would then achieve such things as progressively increased range, fire arrows (ideal vs sailships) and so on.
I would not leave this exciting feature only for naval vs land units combat.
I would add it to naval combat too, thus allowing a more thrilling game and more depth.
A ship with ranged unit capability would have a big advantage vs a basic one of the same type, IF you manage to use this properly in tactical map (ie stay at a distance)
Those are advanced features however that could be done in future releases, btw.
Let me know what do you think about.
Good work as always.
Thanks for the input, as always. After brainstorming and reading the suggestions, here's what I came up with:
I looked at the tech tree and archery isn't required to build either galleys or triremes. This, combined with the fact that AFAIK nearly all of early naval combat was non-ranged, makes me think that neither galleys nor triremes should be ranged initially. After archery is researched, though, I think a promotion for triremes which would give them a low-power ranged attack might be suitable, because it would make sense that some archers would be on board.
Caravels IMO are essentially naval recon units, so I don't think a ranged attack would make sense for them either.
Galleons I think will start with a low-power ranged attack that is better than a trireme's ranged attack (with the promotion) but still relatively weak. My reason for this is that in all reality, you couldn't have a full archery unit on board that still has the maneuvering room and accuracy to have a full-power attack. A lack of maneuvering room is also why I don't think you could sacrifice cargo space for more power.
The remainder of the ships occur after (and require) gunpowder, so it makes sense that they will be ranged and have a much higher ranged attack. And, of course, the more advanced the unit is, the better its ranged attack will be and the higher range it will have.
@4lexander
Yes, ranged attacks will be available for all naval combat. As far as the other features that you suggested go, I think they might be a little too much (at least for the original version of the mod).
I looked at the tech tree and archery isn't required to build either galleys or triremes. This, combined with the fact that AFAIK nearly all of early naval combat was non-ranged, makes me think that neither galleys nor triremes should be ranged initially. After archery is researched, though, I think a promotion for triremes which would give them a low-power ranged attack might be suitable, because it would make sense that some archers would be on board.
Caravels IMO are essentially naval recon units, so I don't think a ranged attack would make sense for them either.
Galleons I think will start with a low-power ranged attack that is better than a trireme's ranged attack (with the promotion) but still relatively weak. My reason for this is that in all reality, you couldn't have a full archery unit on board that still has the maneuvering room and accuracy to have a full-power attack. A lack of maneuvering room is also why I don't think you could sacrifice cargo space for more power.
The remainder of the ships occur after (and require) gunpowder, so it makes sense that they will be ranged and have a much higher ranged attack. And, of course, the more advanced the unit is, the better its ranged attack will be and the higher range it will have.
@4lexander
Yes, ranged attacks will be available for all naval combat. As far as the other features that you suggested go, I think they might be a little too much (at least for the original version of the mod).
wibbol
Chieftain
Couldn't it also be possible to make a special cargo allowing Triremes to carry Archers, and give those Archers a ranged combat, seeing that Archers would have a ranged combat on the tactical map anyway. Galleys would have ranged combat too, because I don't think Archers inside boats would be lunching all day...
Though if you think ranged naval should be decreased, I believe that would make this idea a bit exaggerated.
Though if you think ranged naval should be decreased, I believe that would make this idea a bit exaggerated.
I just don't think a full archer unit would have room to maneuver on a galley or trireme. The ships themselves aren't that big and, if they are full of cargo, are probably pretty crowded. That's why naval transports are transports and not combat ships. I'm not a historian or anything, so maybe this is an invalid argument, but it makes sense to me.
That was the reason because I suggested to employ a cargo space sacrifice feature: it would make it more realistic and mantain balance so long you do not have overpowered ships.
Anyway I'm happy my feedback is appreciated, can't wait to play this.
Anyway I'm happy my feedback is appreciated, can't wait to play this.
This is the way I see it. Look at the current naval combat system: when a galley has units inside it it doesn't fight any better, so why would it be any different for ranged combat? I've always been of the opinion that this was the case because the units were essentially being "stored" and didn't have room to maneuver and fight. If this is the case, I would think the same would apply to ranged combat as well.
Or maybe it's just that the whole system is flawed, and galleys should fight better, both ranged and non-ranged, if they're carrying units. I think it should be consistent either way, though. Any thoughts on this?
Or maybe it's just that the whole system is flawed, and galleys should fight better, both ranged and non-ranged, if they're carrying units. I think it should be consistent either way, though. Any thoughts on this?
I think space is a critical question.
And the space needed to maneuvering can NOT be plain cargo space, but a lot fewer.
Anyway, there should be a bit of available space on the deck, maybe enough for a few men.
I think it should be variable depending on ship size/type, a lot of test for balancing will be needed.
And the space needed to maneuvering can NOT be plain cargo space, but a lot fewer.
Anyway, there should be a bit of available space on the deck, maybe enough for a few men.
I think it should be variable depending on ship size/type, a lot of test for balancing will be needed.
Androrc the Orc
Emperor
About multiple maps: it might be better (as it would be less work and would allow for multiplayer games) to, rather than have multiple maps per se, having a part of the map dedicated to tactical battles. That part would be separated from the main map by impassable, void-looking terrain, and would be reconstructed for each battle.
You wouldn't need to have two maps, but only two sets of revealed plots per team, which would be switched when changing from the main to the tactical part of the map, so that the player when in the tactical part of the map couldn't see the "main" parts of the map, and it would look as if he had been transported to a different map entirely, even though it is only a different, hidden section of the same map.
You wouldn't need to have two maps, but only two sets of revealed plots per team, which would be switched when changing from the main to the tactical part of the map, so that the player when in the tactical part of the map couldn't see the "main" parts of the map, and it would look as if he had been transported to a different map entirely, even though it is only a different, hidden section of the same map.
But when in main map, you would find such an oddity by exploration, at least with ships...
even if you cannot see it, you would find yourself facing with a inacessible black area on your map.
It is clear like the sun that two separate maps, a strategical one and a tactical one, would be the optimal solution.
Other games adopted the same solution, like the Total War series - which inspired this mod.
even if you cannot see it, you would find yourself facing with a inacessible black area on your map.
It is clear like the sun that two separate maps, a strategical one and a tactical one, would be the optimal solution.
Other games adopted the same solution, like the Total War series - which inspired this mod.
Asaf
Sleep Deprived
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 1,326
@Androrc - the problem here is with turns and time. If you use the same map and world, then each turn in the the tactical map is also a turn in the game - along with everything related: years, city growth, tech research, other units, etc.
This is why you actually need a different game, not just a map.
This is why you actually need a different game, not just a map.
Androrc the Orc
Emperor
You can make years, city growth and etc. not happen by simply putting a conditional. Say, in the case of creation of barbarian cities and units (change in red):
Code:
[COLOR="Red"] if (!isTacticalActive())
{
[/COLOR] createBarbarianCities();
createBarbarianUnits();
[COLOR="Red"] }
[/COLOR]Androrc the Orc
Emperor
I agree that it is the optimal solution. But I think having everything in a single map is an interesting idea to consider, in case there are problems with technical hurdles.
Asaf
Sleep Deprived
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 1,326
Talk about a deja-vu...
It's also the game turns which should be counted differently (it's still turn-based, only within the same game turn), the civs which are not part of the battle (and even those which are - they have no cities, for example), random events should be stopped, all accumulated things (healing units? treasury? research?) should not be counted, victory conditions are not tested, etc. etc.
.
Androrc the Orc
Emperor
The two inspirations for this mod...
About the tactical map: There are pros and cons to each side. I understand Androrc's points completely and I agree that it would be nice not to have to wait for another game to load each time you fight a battle. On the other hand, I also don't like the idea of a closed off area in the strategic map where the battles are fought, if only because it won't look as good
.The turn issue could probably be overcome as Androrc suggested, but there are other problems you could run into. Even if you made it impossible to reach this section of the map, you could still have aircraft performing recon missions over these tiles. You could set it so that these tiles couldn't be revealed in the strategic map, but it would still be a waste of a mission which the AI might attempt. There's also probably more potential problems that I can't think of right now.
With this said, is it even feasible to have it all in one map?
@Asaf and Androrc
Looking back at that thread, I'm assuming no one got anywhere with the idea of having two maps in one game, and that it's been declared impossible?
Androrc the Orc
Emperor
I think it should be possible, just that no one has managed to achieve it yet
Well, maybe I should look into that then. IMO that would be the optimal solution.
