Combat Modifiers in Civ4?

[yoshi]

This is something that features in many strategy games to (usually) good effect.

This can really mean anything from the ‘x2 versus units with a movement of 2’ unit flag in Civ2 (that never really worked ) to separate stats for each unit versus each other unit type.

The other type of modifier is that of terrain:
Terrain in Civ3 and Civ2 already use a simple system of giving defence bonuses to units on those squares. Players have expressed interest in terrain that gives different bonuses for different unit types. Civ3 has a feature that allows the selected unit to ignore movement cost (above 1 MP) on selected terrain. That is a good example of a movement modifier. The idea is to elaborate on that and extend it to combat.

Ideally, the two types pf modifier would compensate each other (i.e. x unit has x stats vs. x unit while on x terrain).

The advantages of adding modifiers are clear: certain units have clear advantages under certain conditions. The cons are that new modders might be overwhelmed by too complex a system and that it *could* require a slightly more complex combat system in order to prevent exploits.


Some commentary on the subject from another thread on the same subject only applied to Civ3:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65557


Please comment and post your ideas.

 

[Gainy]

I'm undecided on this. It would make the game quite interesting, and maybe more tactical. But it could also make it too complicated.
In Civ3, alot of units are developed in a linear sense.
Ie, you've got the basic Defender(s) -- Spearmen, Pikemen, Musketmen etc.
Mounted attackers -- Chariots, Horsemen, Knights, Cavalry.

It goes on.

If you introduced the idea you're giving, building particular types of units would no longer be about just getting the best ones available, it would be more strategic. For example you might not want to upgrade to musketmen, because your enemies are using mounted units (pikemen would be more beneficial)

This is assuming that Civ 4 is going to be using the same basic system as Civ 3, so what I said probably wont be applicable.
Units may no longer be 'linear'.

I really don't know, i'm undecided on this. Interesting to discuss/think about though (normally i'm synical about the topics on this forum)

 

[yoshi]

Based on what has been said thus far by Firaxis personnel concerning possible Civ4 features, I’m guessing that Civ4 will resemble Civ3 in terms of general play (no need to mess with a good thing) only significantly enhanced in terms of graphics, unit abilities, terrain applications (i.e. cities, improvements, pollution, disasters, etc.), diplomacy and so on with revamped AI and engine (i.e. better program performance).

One of the arguments against CMs in Civ3 was that this feature (among other unit/terrain features) would cost too much in terms of CPU time. This may in fact be the reason why Firaxis didn’t opt for CMs, I don’t know. Most likely it presented a significant amount of work (i.e. getting the AI to take modified stats for x unit and the balancing in the vanilla game alone would use up quite a lot of resources) for something that would not affect sales, or even significantly improve the modding experience for that matter (in their opinion, not mine).

Something I forgot to mention is that this could potentially have a second “feature:” by setting a unit’s attack factor versus a specific unit to zero it would mean that the unit could not attack that defending unit type. So, if you wanted to prevent non-ASW units from being able to attack submarines—something I have frequently mentioned in these forums but to no avail –you could set the attack factor for all units but Destroyers and Submarines (for instance) to zero. Or, if you were to want to prevent a Sniper unit from attacking non-foot units, you could just give the unit zero attack versus Tanks and other non-foot units. Obviously, this would have literally millions of applications for modders but, if properly balanced, would enhance unit combat in the vanilla game by clearly defining unit roles –just think, no more Galleons attacking revealed submarines!

Something that I think many players would appreciate would be to distinguish between air unit stats versus land and sea units. For instance, in the vanilla game, this would allow for a generic naval aircraft that would have advantages vs. sea units thus adding a new role to the game without complicating things too much for the average player.
And in scenarios…whoa…the sky’s the limit!

It is true that Civ3’s (and Civ1 and 2’s) units are linear in nature but CMs will not necessarily change this as long as the modified stats remain proportionally the same versus specific units (e.g. Spearman: 1/3/1 vs. mounted; Pikeman: 1/4/1 vs. mounted; stats are the same vs. foot).

This is assuming a complex system is used, like the one I posted in the link. It could just as well be the more conventional, “x% defense/attack versus x” format. In Civ3, the latter CM format would be something like, “50% defense versus Mounted” (Pikeman).

But, as I said above, the unit/terrain-specific CM format in the link would offer far greater possibilities and potentially more features. As I think I said in the linked thread, for simplicity and player comfort the stats could just be the equivalent of the conventional format: Pikeman: Defense 4 versus Knight on Grassland; TOW Infantry: Defense 20/Attack 16 versus Modern Armor on Desert.

The real advantage—and this is the selling point—is the possibility for modifying terrain combat; as I said in the previous post, players express more of an interest in terrain-based CM than unit-based. So, using a conventional format you’d get something like, “Double Defense versus Bombardment” (Forest).

Using the unconventional system, you could determine which units are affected and how. For instance, you’ve probably played one of the Total War installments at some point (you may even be an addict like some ). You could simulate the game’s effect of cavalry having lower attack versus foot units in wooded areas of the map.

Personally, I would want a combination of specific CMs and generic CMs. For instance, adding a CM flag that gives the unit an advantage (or disadvantage) when attacking cities would distinguish between general unit roles (e.g. Infantry have an advantage over Tanks when attacking units in a city).

Let it be known that if Firaxis were to go with a more complex CM system similar to that mentioned—assuming they go for any kind of CM at all—it would probably be a key feature in the game (i.e. a big selling point) and would most certainly determine the overall nature of combat. At the same time, it wouldn’t deviate from Sid’s concept while substantially enhancing play (at least where combat is concerned).

I guess comparing CM systems in other games would be a good place to start (i.e. how would they play without CMs --note that almost of them are in real-time, for combat at least).


...Hope that helps you decide G.


I can’t think what else to say about it. Perhaps someone would care to add to this?

 

[socralynnek]

I like having CMs, but I see two negative aspects:

1. The AI will have problems dealing with that.
2. It might be too complex for casual players.

Solution proposals:
Don't do many CMs in the normal game, but give the modders the possibility to do it as complex as they wish.
And maybe CMs would only be turned on at higher difficulty levels.
So casual players at lower levels wouldn't have to deal with that!

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Combat modifiers would add allot to the games strategic and tactical aspect, though we have to understand the fundamental differences between war in different times, and the importance of terrain and battles.

We must also imagine a unit of warriors actually being a small fighting army that consist primarily of a certain type of warriors.

For example, a roman Legion would consist of light troops, a few cavalry, archers and catapults, though the main body would be heavy infantry with swords and spears. They would probably be represented as a swordsman unit in Civ. A Catapult unit should be viewed as large quantity of siege equipment etc, etc…

Each unit should have a general strength, the same number, and a separate value for their number of hit points depending on its combat resilience and numbers.
This general strength should then be modified with terrain, what type of unit it is fighting… there should also be a factor for leadership and experience and weather you are defending or it is a regular battle. There should not always be an attacker and a defender.
When an enemy unit enters the square of a friendly unit you should get a dialog box weather you want to defend attack or retreat from combat. Then, depending on experience leadership and speed of both units (armies) the computer calculates weather it is a battle, attack on a defensive position, fighting retreat, ambush or retreat.
This would not take much processing power to calculate since the computer should mostly have to do them once a battle occurs.

General leader values could be either a leader in the game a specific technology, unit experience and army composition.

Though, the system should not seem all to complicate to the player. It must be intuitive and easy to adapt and understand, and most of all, easy to manage for the player.

The biggest problem with lots of combat modifiers are the way you are going to display them to the player. He must know in a blink of an eye the strength values against a certain unit. Perhaps you could have a button where you may compare one of your units with any other unit you point at, and get an instant report on your attack and defence values against that unit in its current position.

Just my little thought on this particular problem!!!

 

[yoshi]

If we were talking Civ3, I would agree with socralynnek that that there should be limited use of CMs (e.g. only for units with a definite advantage like Pikemen or TOW Inf.). But, Civ4 will no doubt be significantly different from Civ3 --marketing would accept nothing less .

I personally prefer Jorgen_CAB's idea of making it easy for players to identify stats --this would be VERY helpul where terrain is concerned (technically, you can already R-click on a tile and get info on it so this would essentially be an elaboration on that. The impler the better.

Then again, Firaxis may opt for some basic CMs and nothing more. Not my preferred solution but would simplify things (i.e. 2 vs. x CM flags).

A more complex CM system would definitely be more interesting...but just how feasible is it?

About limited use of CM: if not used to a substantial degree in the vanilla game, CMs probably won't be in the game at all --developers don't tend to add features just for the sake of modders (much to my dismay) because it just isn't profitable, as far as the numbers show; there just aren't enough people modding. So, how user-friendly the Civ4 interface is will in some part determine whether features like CMs see the light of day. (Civ3's Editor is quite user-friendly but still not enough so for many potential modders.)

In fact, the only reason why I'm even proposing CMs is only because it seems like a logical next step (i.e. is just an elaboration on the CIV format --adds depth to the civ-experience but nothing more).

 

[Red Ant]

I haven't read all the threads on this topic but I have something I'd like to add. With the 'new' combat system in CivII and CivIII, phalanxes killing an Abrams MBT have become less frequent but it still happens occasionally (a little too often for my liking). Here's what I would do to fix that. If two units from more or less the same epoche (say a 17th century musketeer and 19th century rifleman) engage in combat, the normal combat system is used. Of course the musketeer should stand no chance against the rifleman, but he might inflict a few casualties on the other side. This can be reflected by giving the rifleman much higher defense and attack stats than the musketeer. Nothing new so far. But when two units from totally different epoches (say an 18th century frigate and a 20th/21st century Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruiser) mix it up, than the normal combat system is ... totally ignored and the technologically superior unit just obliterates the obsolete one without taking so much as a scratch.

 

[judgement]

I haven't read all the threads on this topic but I have something I'd like to add. With the 'new' combat system in CivII and CivIII, phalanxes killing an Abrams MBT have become less frequent but it still happens occasionally (a little too often for my liking). Here's what I would do to fix that. If two units from more or less the same epoche (say a 17th century musketeer and 19th century rifleman) engage in combat, the normal combat system is used. Of course the musketeer should stand no chance against the rifleman, but he might inflict a few casualties on the other side. This can be reflected by giving the rifleman much higher defense and attack stats than the musketeer. Nothing new so far. But when two units from totally different epoches (say an 18th century frigate and a 20th/21st century Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruiser) mix it up, than the normal combat system is ... totally ignored and the technologically superior unit just obliterates the obsolete one without taking so much as a scratch.

This might make the game more realistic but does it really make the game more fun? It would mean that civs that felll too far behind in tech would have no chance whatsoever of catching up.

 

[Hunter Noventa]

I haven't read all the threads on this topic but I have something I'd like to add. With the 'new' combat system in CivII and CivIII, phalanxes killing an Abrams MBT have become less frequent but it still happens occasionally (a little too often for my liking). Here's what I would do to fix that. If two units from more or less the same epoche (say a 17th century musketeer and 19th century rifleman) engage in combat, the normal combat system is used. Of course the musketeer should stand no chance against the rifleman, but he might inflict a few casualties on the other side. This can be reflected by giving the rifleman much higher defense and attack stats than the musketeer. Nothing new so far. But when two units from totally different epoches (say an 18th century frigate and a 20th/21st century Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruiser) mix it up, than the normal combat system is ... totally ignored and the technologically superior unit just obliterates the obsolete one without taking so much as a scratch.

I agree with judgement, someone could fall behind and be wiped out by a single Modern Armor, which just doesn't make sense.

Personally, I think era differences would be better expressed with HP Bonuses. Your Frigate gets it's 5hp as an elite, but the AEGIS Cruiser has 10. Sure the frigate might hurt it, but not nearly as much as the Cruiser is hurting it. You dig?

 

[Red Ant]

This might make the game more realistic but does it really make the game more fun? It would mean that civs that felll too far behind in tech would have no chance whatsoever of catching up.

An bunch of spearmen don't stand a chance against an armored assault as it is now anyway. They might kill an MBT or two but in the end the tank-equipped force will still wipe the floor with them. My suggestion wouldn't really change much in that regard. So the end result is the same, but the player doesn't have to put up with the totally annoying and stupid loss of an Abrams to an ancient spearman. IMHO.

 

[socralynnek]

Call it friendly fire...