Combat in Civ7 (Limited Stacking options)

Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,819
Basic Premise.
What should combat controls in Civ7 be?
1. Autocombat only
2. Simplified manual control (Attack only, no 'battlefield marchings')
3. Manual control with tactical movements.
And in which style?
3.1 Simplified 1 UPT Battlefield tactical map like Heroes of Might and Magic series and Panzer General series
3.2 In dept 'Total War' tactical control

This is a gateway to the next discussion in this thread.
Q: Why choose Limted Stackings?
A:
1. Unlimited Stacking of Doom is sorely historically inaccurate
2. 1UPT is sorely off scale in global scale. Army formations and Naval Fleet always move as one. Also 'Double and Triple Combiner' 'Corps and Army' is very silly!.
 
Basic Premise.
What should combat controls in Civ7 be?
1. Autocombat only
2. Simplified manual control (Attack only, no 'battlefield marchings')
3. Manual control with tactical movements.
And in which style?
3.1 Simplified 1 UPT Battlefield tactical map like Heroes of Might and Magic series and Panzer General series
3.2 In dept 'Total War' tactical control

This is a gateway to the next discussion in this thread.
Q: Why choose Limted Stackings?
A:
1. Unlimited Stacking of Doom is sorely historically inaccurate
2. 1UPT is sorely off scale in global scale. Army formations and Naval Fleet always move as one. Also 'Double and Triple Combiner' 'Corps and Army' is very silly!.
3, 3.2, with War Time. That is my ideal
 
1. Autocombat only
2. Simplified manual control (Attack only, no 'battlefield marchings')
I don't really understand the difference between the two... I mean, Civ battles always entered kind of both of these categories... they are manual, but don't involve kinds of "combined arms", as simple as infantry, remote (archers, etc.) and cavalry in one go so that their outcomes are kind of automatically resolved by whatever systems that indicate for us players the odds (Civ4) or the possible outcomes in previews. (Civ5/6), I mean it's unit A versus unit B, and you don't have a word to say during such a battle, only do it/don't do it, and within a carpet of such units, push/retreat.
 
My ideal model:
- Militar units should be part of Armies (with a General), Garrisons (assigned to a City) or Reserves (avaible to mobilize in later game). Also Navies and AirForces. Each of these are represented on map covering a single tile.
- Only six units can be part of each group, since the hexagon would show the up to 6 units that compose it.
- The 6 slices are specific positions, so there is a central frontal, right frontal, left flank, rearguard, etc. These positions have tactic values relevant to the calculation of the battle, plus they also allow to visually recognize the army's unit composition and positions.
- The different units that compose the group add values and abilities to the total of the whole group.
- A battle formation (box, line, arrow, etc.) can be selected (and changed) for further personalization.
- Orden of actions can be assigned to each army, this consists in three moments: 1) Opening > 2) Confrontation > 3) Resolution. You can select one action for each moment for example "charge", "volley", "hold on", "chase", "fake withdrawal", etc.
- Of course the composition and formation of each group could produce different outcomes form the battle circunstances (terrain, enemy stand,etc.).Others army parameters like experience/promotions/training would be relevant also.
- Unkeep, logistics, movement, stealth and moral would be affected also by your army composition. So for example some small armies of only 2 or 3 cavalry units would be usefull for patrolling and raiding.
- Equipment (from techs) could also be included and shown in the army parameters info (spies and recon allows to see details of enemy armies).
- The player could also build and save their own army composition templates, allowing for example to name them by their function like "siege army" (a lot of artillery) or "desert army" (with camel riders and light horsemen). This "quality of life" feature could be extended even to the training of the full army in one city.
- Apart from the template groups can have their own name, by default automatically generated (First Army, Rome Garrison, etc.) but you can give them their own name like "Imperial Guard", "The Deadly Ones", or whatever you want!

So this model want to replace both the "carpets" and "stacks" of doom, with less but more significative militar groups that allow more strategic movement, more realistic scale, less managements of dozens of units each turn and faster combats resolution.

To add more info, the melee units can fight when one army move to the tile of the other, the range units can hit the bordering enemy units, while only the siege units can reach enemy buildings not directly bordering their own tile.
 
I don't really understand the difference between the two... I mean, Civ battles always entered kind of both of these categories... they are manual, but don't involve kinds of "combined arms", as simple as infantry, remote (archers, etc.) and cavalry in one go so that their outcomes are kind of automatically resolved by whatever systems that indicate for us players the odds (Civ4) or the possible outcomes in previews. (Civ5/6), I mean it's unit A versus unit B, and you don't have a word to say during such a battle, only do it/don't do it, and within a carpet of such units, push/retreat.
OK You don't understand what 'Simplified Manual Combat Control' is.

Think of Disciples (TBS Franchise released first in 2000 AD)
When I say 'simplified' it means you can only 'Attack' opponent. or order a unit to 'defend'.
 
OK You don't understand what 'Simplified Manual Combat Control' is.

Think of Disciples (TBS Franchise released first in 2000 AD)
When I say 'simplified' it means you can only 'Attack' opponent. or order a unit to 'defend'.
I just don't understand the difference between "simplified manual combat control" and "autocombat". The later must be the first one too, unless war is entirely automatic (moves, decisions) once you produce your units. (if you have to)
 
I think stacking should be based on what technologies and civics you learn.
The first time you would be able to do it is by learning something like the Military Training in the Classical Era for example. Though I would limit it to same types of units only, so no mixing with infantry and ranged yet.
Later you can learn Pike and Shot formation in the Renaissance/Early Modern Era to combine two different types of units into a formation.
In the Industrial Era you can combine Formations into specialized Corps with Military Science.
Finally in the Modern/Atomic Era two or more Corps can be turned into an Army by learning Combined Arms.
 
I think there might be a way to make a stack more interesting. Whenever you add units, the stack gets new a new attack based on the attack of the unit added. If you add siege, you get siege attacks. You can split stacks into different terrain for bonuses. Tanks are better on tank friendly land. A stack has many attacks and you don't have to attack the same hex. So if you had 5 ranged attacks, you would have a ranged symbol with a 5 next to it. The first ranged strike is the strongest.

In a stack we assume there are formations. If you attack with bombs, you damage formations. I attack the artillery directly and all artillery units could be damaged. Artillery damage all or many of whatever you attack with them. So you can attack parts of a stack. Unstacking in an evenly matched war might make it harder to destroy your units depending on how you position them.

Adding infantry and tanks together means the infantry will soak damage for the tanks, but the stack moves at infantry speed.
 
It's not that hard. Armies on the map fill one tile, with stacking limits that can be increased based on techs/presence of generals. Higher maintenance costs for standing armies and increased unhappiness for nearby cities, scaling with size of the army. These armies exert a zone of control based on size, larger the army/certain unit types increase that ZOC. Enemy armies take attrition damage in enemy territory unless they have support units or there's a special ability (Napoleon could reduce attrition, likewise Russia could have an ability that raises attrition). Ci

If any enemy army enters into another army's ZOC, it goes to a turn-based combat map like in Pirates! or Age of Wonders (really old games that got this right). Defender gets to place his units first on the hills or whatever, the attacker has a limited number of turns to rout the defensive army. Do enough damage the enemy is routed (but veteran units/generals can make units fight longer even when damaged, or unique units like Spartan Hoplites that have to be killed to a man, and a civ like the Japanese could have an ability that really lowers routing chances). Air support is something you call in if you have nearby units, they do damage to areas you attack but they take a few turns to get there. The battle goes on until the time runs out or the objective is accomplished. The surviving units can retreat if their support units/friendly terrain nearby, otherwise they are lost).

City garrisons work the same, but they are smaller and have more limited ZOC, but several defensive advantages.

Enemy armies near cities create a siege. The siege starts a countdown, and after a number of turns the city is claimed by the army. Another army can try to break the siege, but they are the attackers and the besieging army is the defenders. City Garrisons can try to join liberating armies, but start far from them on the combat map.

Every battle has an autoresolve feature that is automatic in 1P, but all parties have to choose autoresolve in multiplayer.
 
Enemy armies near cities create a siege. The siege starts a countdown, and after a number of turns the city is claimed by the army. Another army can try to break the siege, but they are the attackers and the besieging army is the defenders. City Garrisons can try to join liberating armies, but start far from them on the combat map.
I don't know if I like the idea of a countdown, and would rather cities still be claimed by sending units into the city. I think a siege could still diminish the cities health by factors such as disease/starvation, if that's the idea?
 
If Civ VII has separate-screen battle I will just not buy it. I gave that kind of system a chance many times over, and it always end up being a bore that I'm either forced to fight myself because the auto-resolve is a piece of thrash, or a quick click on auto resolve if it is at all capable of fair results.

Playing through these battles is just useless padding keeping me from the parts of the game I actually want to play, it has no value whatsoever.
 
I like the civ 6 world map is the battle map system. I think they could make it much more varied and there could be seasons. Yes, I know it is 4x, but the 4x part plays out on a different time scale with cities. I think of the unit system as on a slower scale and the two systems are linked through unit availability and upgrades. I think terrain systems could grow and shrink. Deserts and forests and things like that.

Maybe they could start civilizations much earlier so we could have some ice ages instead of "seasons". What year?
 
I like the civ 6 world map is the battle map system. I think they could make it much more varied and there could be seasons. Yes, I know it is 4x, but the 4x part plays out on a different time scale with cities. I think of the unit system as on a slower scale and the two systems are linked through unit availability and upgrades. I think terrain systems could grow and shrink. Deserts and forests and things like that.

Maybe they could start civilizations much earlier so we could have some ice ages instead of "seasons". What year?
You mean sort of like they had in civ 1? I noticed that every time I chose that, the game would start at 5000 BC every time no matter what I chose.
 
I don't know if I like the idea of a countdown, and would rather cities still be claimed by sending units into the city. I think a siege could still diminish the cities health by factors such as disease/starvation, if that's the idea?

Basically it forces there to be an actual battle. Siege weapons under this system reduce the countdown or can help overcome defenses during an assault. The idea is we need to get away from the carpet of doom phenomenon because the AI cannot handle it. Moving combat to a separate map will make it easier for AI to meaningfully manage and adapt.
 
Top Bottom