Combat Bonuses

[CoconutTank]

"Enemy units hit by ~ get -1 move point for the next turn. (falls off after that turn, cannot stack)"

or

"Ranged units cannot counter attack against ~."

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's quite easy. Additional tactical elements are good if you could use them actively. If they are like "wow I've stunned them!" (a whole unit of stunned soldiers), that's for fun, not tactics. If you think "If I move this unit here, they'll be unable to attack my cannons" - that's tactics.

 

[Ryika]

It's quite easy. Additional tactical elements are good if you could use them actively. If they are like "wow I've stunned them!" (a whole unit of stunned soldiers), that's for fun, not tactics. If you think "If I move this unit here, they'll be unable to attack my cannons" - that's tactics.

That's missing the nuances of improvising. "Procs" can very well be part of tactics if they have enough influence to make you change your battle plan on the fly.

An Example:
You move your army to attack, the first attack of your melee soldier stuns that other melee soldier in front of you. You can now more aggressively move in your ranged soldiers because you know that that unit will not be able to counter-attack, and that it will block movement for other Melee Units around.

Maybe you even moved that first soldier as a gamble because you saw the potential of getting a big advantage if the stun hits, and only being in a slightly worse than normal position if it doesn't. If you ever played XCom you've probably learned to "embrace" that sort of chance-based tactical move, interpreting what possible outcomes there are, what happens in a worst case scenario and whether it's worth the risk or whether not taking the risk leaves you in a good-enough spot, etc. etc. Tons of thoughts can go into a system that has no guaranteed effects.

Of course this example is also a perfect one to show how annoying procs can be if not done right - that one stun at the very beginning may just have won you the battle because of the massive initiative that you gained on the battlefield.

But still, saying that for something to be "tactics" it has to be an active effect is just wrong. It can very well be a passive effects that translate into opportunities, or chance-based gambles.

 

[qwerty25]

That's missing the nuances of improvising. "Procs" can very well be part of tactics if they have enough influence to make you change your battle plan on the fly.

An Example:
You move your army to attack, the first attack of your melee soldier stuns that other melee soldier in front of you. You can now more aggressively move in your ranged soldiers because you know that that unit will not be able to counter-attack, and that it will block movement for other Melee Units around.

Maybe you even moved that first soldier as a gamble because you saw the potential of getting a big advantage if the stun hits, and only being in a slightly worse than normal position if it doesn't. If you ever played XCom you've probably learned to "embrace" that sort of chance-based tactical move, interpreting what possible outcomes there are, what happens in a worst case scenario and whether it's worth the risk or whether not taking the risk leaves you in a good-enough spot, etc. etc. Tons of thoughts can go into a system that has no guaranteed effects.

Of course this example is also a perfect one to show how annoying procs can be if not done right - that one stun at the very beginning may just have won you the battle because of the massive initiative that you gained on the battlefield.

But still, saying that for something to be "tactics" it has to be an active effect is just wrong. It can very well be a passive effects that translate into opportunities, or chance-based gambles.

Yay. I completely agree and you worded it way better than what I was trying to say.

And yes effects != tactics. I mean theres positioning melee units in front of ranged units and that doesnt come from a bonus near ranged or anything like that.

That being said. I while Id like more effects, I find it hard to think of status effects or other passive effects thatll work in civ(besides basic plus move/strength/range). Its has such a small map constraining movement and battles shouldnt take forever.

Like a poison thing would just be annoying. As how would you get rid of it. And stun would have to be chance based or on a charge. Itd be crazy if one could stun every turn.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Honestly it just wouldn't feel very civ like to me. I think the combat works fine...I actually like its simplicity.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[isau]

What's weird about it to me is they spent all this effort to unstack units and create a tactical system. And then left off two of the most basic features of tactical systems, AoE attacks and status effects.

Age of Wonders 3 is a very different game in some respects but does have both of these, and it makes a world of difference. (It also has spell casting, which doesn't fit with Civ, but would make for an awesome mod).

While I think the game is "okay" as if it's just a real shame. I understand why not to have many of these things in a game with stacks, but without stacks, it seems like making extra work for yourself not to include them. You end up jumping through a ton of hoops trying to justify the existence of unique units (a MAJOR problem in Civ V in particular). When additions of some AoE damage or status effects to make units stand out would have made these units special. Instead, I find it difficult to even remember most of them because they were all so similar.

 

[ajokitty]

I personally would love to see the ability to force the enemy to retreat or be weakened because of a lack of organization.

 

[Magil]

What's weird about it to me is they spent all this effort to unstack units and create a tactical system. And then left off two of the most basic features of tactical systems, AoE attacks and status effects.

Age of Wonders 3 is a very different game in some respects but does have both of these, and it makes a world of difference. (It also has spell casting, which doesn't fit with Civ, but would make for an awesome mod).

While I think the game is "okay" as if it's just a real shame. I understand why not to have many of these things in a game with stacks, but without stacks, it seems like making extra work for yourself not to include them. You end up jumping through a ton of hoops trying to justify the existence of unique units (a MAJOR problem in Civ V in particular). When additions of some AoE damage or status effects to make units stand out would have made these units special. Instead, I find it difficult to even remember most of them because they were all so similar.

I think every step Civ takes down that path moves it further away from an empire-building strategy game and more towards a tactical war-game. I would prefer if Firaxis were to tread carefully with that, though I guess my opinion there is probably worth less since I still rather strongly oppose 1UPT in general. My personal preference would be not for whoever is better at the tactical minigame (or whoever has a few good bottlenecks to use) to have the edge in combat, but rather whoever has the more robust economy and scientific prowess, as has generally been the case in past Civ titles.

I don't think it's a good move, but if they're going to keep 1UPT, I would rather they do it as simply as possible. Leave the status effect/AoE stuff to the mods. Really, I had a good time in FFH2, which had plenty of that kind of stuff and it was really fun, but I don't think it's for the base game. I mean, if you thought normal Civ IV combat was a "first strike takes all" super-high-stakes combat system, FFH2 took that to the extreme, where sprawling empires could collapse in a handful of turns due to super-fast buffed high-movement troops backed with aoe damage.

Edit: If anything, I'd suggest a compromise. Run with the corps/armies system and support units, really flesh that stuff out. We'll see how it goes in VI, but I think there's some potential there to help make combat more interesting.

 

[CoconutTank]

I personally would love to see the ability to force the enemy to retreat or be weakened because of a lack of organization.

I feel like this is already sort of represented in Civ5 at least, even if there isn't an explicit mechanic for morale. If your enemy's units are poorly positioned, you can eliminate enemies in weak points and create openings for flanking bonuses. If your enemy's units are outnumbered or outmaneuvered, they either retreat or they die. Dying isn't exactly a successful military strategy.

 

[Seek]

There is AoE, they're called nukes! Having AoE on normal units would be incredibly hard to balance - if you think ranged units are good with 1upt, AoE would put them to shame. I can't think of a single game where such units weren't op. Limiting AoE to nukes makes sense: they are late game (when civ games usually start to "bend the rules"), require a *lot* of investment, and use a resource.

I see similar issues with status effects; the Winged Hussar had a basic push ability and that was quite strong. Imagine a stun ability - either it would have such a low chance to proc that it couldn't be relied upon or it would simply be ridiculously powerful imo.

 

[CoconutTank]

Well, splash damage did show up in Civ:BE, as a perk for one of the very high level Purity units. It was something like a flat 15 damage regardless of strength and bonuses, and I don't remember the perk it was competing against nor if it inflicted friendly fire damage.

It's been a very long time since I played Civ:BE (I actually sort of want to play RT, maybe), but I do think the splash damage perk was probably the right pick in most cases.