Combat- Overpowering Spearman SOD

[searcheagle]

One thing that has annoyed me in Civ 3 is the relative power that primitive units have to modern units. To take the largest extreme in the game, 4 warrior units, will guarantee that a Tank will not be able to win the square, which it should be able to do, while with 2 MI, you could win the square. Of course, a single MI is significantly more powerful then 4 warrior units.

The way combat works in Civ 3, one unit attacks another unit, and the victory or defeat only affects the unit that does battle. This was not the case in Civ I and II, where if you lost a battle in a square, you lost all the units in that square(unless the square had a fortress or a city in it). I don't think we should switch to that system either.

In fact, I don't know what we should do with this problem. Its one of the few times that I have posted an idea without a possible solution. I don't want to have all my units be lost if a lose a square, yet the idea of 4 spearman being unbreakable by a unit emmensely more power isn't a good solution.

THe only possibility I can think of is to give some units the ability to take on more then one unit.

Anyone have any better ideas to this big problem in the game where junk units can significantly slow up modern units?

 

[Pentium]

You must pay the unit support. That's why it's better to have a MA then 4 warriors.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

No offence, Pentium, but that really is NO solution.
As I have said elsewhere, there are a few major problems here:

1) There is only ONE number generated when an attack is initiated. This means that, if a tank attacks a spearman, it has an (16/16+2)=88% chance of hitting the spearman each 'pulse'-which means that the spearman effectively has a 12% chance of hitting the tank-a % which really piles up in the face of FOUR spearmen. If, however, the chance of the spearman hitting was based on ITS Attack Strength, then the chance of hitting would be reduced to 11%. Although that doesn't sound like MUCH, it disconnects the FAILURE of the tank from the success of the Spearman. i.e., in the current system, if the RNG produced a .90, a .89 and a .65, then the spearman would do 2 HP's damage to the tank, whilst the spearman would only sustain 1 HP from the tank. In MY system, though, the spearman would get NO hits on the tank, whilst the tank would still get its 1 hit (as the spearman would need a .11 or less on an RNG to hit).

2) Units have no FIREPOWER, this means that a spearman ALWAYS does the same amount of damage as a tank wheras, on a successful hit, the tank should do MORE damage-on average. Increased HP's and armour rating for units would also help smooth out combat results.

3) Ultimately, the best way to improve the combat system is to change the way it is resolved. Rather than a 1-on-1 system, a simultaneous all-on-all system would work best. In such a system, though the spearmen would get a bonus to their attack strength, as a result of their numerical superiority, this would be mitigated by the tanks blitz ability AND its better firepower and defense strength rating. Of course, the trade off would be a higher maintainance cost for the tank over the individual spearmen.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Pentium]

Most of this can be solved with reducing the importance of RNG. I think It's not hard, just increase the A/D values of better units. But that would have significant effect on gamplay. An advanced Civ with a small army would beat an stronger, but less advanced army.
Or, as also discussed before, you can increase the HPs of all units.

And for the 3): How could a big SoD attack multiple smaller stacks? Or like in Risk II where you determine you many units you'll use for attack?

 

[Commander Bello]

I very much agree with the combat system proposed by Aussie_Lurker. The current system doesn't work very well and has many inherent flaws.
Of course, Pentium is right with his proposal as well, as this at least limits the effects of the current model.

Nevertheless, if we could mod in Aussie's model in Civ4, this would be fine.

 

[searcheagle]

I very much agree with the combat system proposed by Aussie_Lurker. The current system doesn't work very well and has many inherent flaws.
Of course, Pentium is right with his proposal as well, as this at least limits the effects of the current model.

Nevertheless, if we could mod in Aussie's model in Civ4, this would be fine.

Aussie's Simultaneous combat system fix this problem I believe too.

However I have concerns with it at the other end. Would this make it extremely difficult to capture cities if they have a bunch of modern units, because they would all fight together?

Petium may be right that the RNG is too random. However, do he realize what I'm complaining about? I complaining about the relative overpowering effect of a large number of units when it comes to holding ground, where 10 drafted warriors can hold of 3 tanks.

 

[Commander Bello]

[..] However, do he realize what I'm complaining about? I complaining about the relative overpowering effect of a large number of units when it comes to holding ground, where 10 drafted warriors can hold of 3 tanks.

This "problem" - to a certain degree - just cannot be solved. But, I would like to see a cap for units allowed per tile.
This doesn't solve the problem completely, but it makes it harder to have this one SOD which will "last forever". Still, you would be able to slow done strong enemies, but you couldn't hold them completely.

 

[Pentium]

Ok here is where realism is sacrificed in favor of gameplay.
If we used your system, defending would be much harder. In Civ3, when a civ attacks an equally strong civ (unless one is human), it will lose or capture a city at most.
In your proposal, you'd need slightly better army to beat the whole civ. Peace, culture, economy and other things would be lost or at least less important. If you played a cultural game and get attacked by a militaristic neighbour, you'd lose most of you land instead of a city or two before they'd make peace.
PS: @searcheagle, is my nick so hard to spell?

 

[searcheagle]

Ok here is where realism is sacrificed in favor of gameplay.
If we used your system, defending would be much harder. In Civ3, when a civ attacks an equally strong civ (unless one is human), it will lose or capture a city at most.
In your proposal, you'd need slightly better army to beat the whole civ. Peace, culture, economy and other things would be lost or at least less important. If you played a cultural game and get attacked by a militaristic neighbour, you'd lose most of you land instead of a city or two before they'd make peace.

PS: @searcheagle, is my nick so hard to spell?

Actually, I feel the current system is neither in favor of gameplay OR realism. I feel that it really interupts the flow of the game to have a stack full of weak units hold up troops. Some of the ideas I see really fix the problem quite well.

Bello@A square limitation doesn't really fix anything. Although it will make it more bearbable.

Pentium@ This Doesn't make victory or defeat any more likely. It just changes the combat system, so that inferior units can not out wait a superior force by its sheer numbers. Under civ right now, you can not do a "quality versus quantity effect, because quantity ALWAYS wins. This would merely require a different way of fighting, not more difficulty for anyone.

PS: @searcheagle, is my nick so hard to spell?

Sorry. Me being lazy and in hurry doesn't make for a good combination.

 

[Sirian]

I agree that it can take longer for armor to slaughter eight axe warriors than two or three midieval infantry, but really this is only a tactical consideration. This isn't going to turn the tide for anybody in a war. At the strategic level, it changes nothing. Players can exploit it a bit where the AI won't, but the gains aren't very big. If the player is a hair short of success and this makes the difference, then kudos to the tactician who made the most of what he had.

This can be bad during the mop-up phase, to prolong end-game drag, but I think that is better fixed at the strategic level, with improved victory conditions.

It can also be bad when you KNOW the AI will talk to you after X turns, and any time you can talk to the AI, you can get peace. This kind of thing can buy you the time you need, but again this is a strategic concern that should be addressed within the AI.

Thus in itself I wouldn't see this as a major issue.


- Sirian

 

[Idylwyld]

How hard would it be for units in a stack (or the unit "on deck") to take a point of damage when a defensive battle by the current "up" defender in the stack is lost? That way winning creates momentum. Also, if you took a point from each unit in a stack then it would logisitcally limit the optimum stack size (why have a 50 unit SOD of mixed archers and spearmen [or any other off/def mixed stack] when everybody dies after the first four or five spearmen are killed in a turn). If an aggressor unit loses the battle they don't get the momentum "bonus". To award defensive momentum would it be possible/advisable to give a promotion bonus to the defender (increase the odds of promotion)?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, to summarise my feelings on combat again:

1) For combat to ensue, two opposing units (or stacks) must occupy the same tile after their respective movements AND at least one set of units must be able to see the other.

2) Combat is Simultaneous, meaning all units in each stack fight at once-with targets of attack being decided either by the player OR automatically by the computer.

3) Combat consists of 'Pulses', with each 'pulse' consisting of each units' attack, then defense against counterattack. After each pulse is finished, damage is applied, attack/defense and morale is recalculated, and any retreats are performed. Combat continues until one stack or the other holds the tile uncontested.

4) Greater differentiation in HP's, as well as AS and DS is required to achieve smoother results. Addition of Firepower and Morale (and perhaps Stamina) would also be an important factor in this respect.

5) Numerical superiority is important, but so is technological superiority! Outnumbering an opponent reduces the DS of some, or all, of the opponents units. However, blitz and flanking flags can help to partially overcome numerical superiority.

6) Soft stack limits-according to terrain and tech-level (command and control limits)-should apply. If you exceed the stack limit, the morale, attack strength and defense strength of a unit may be reduced accordingly.

7) Fighting in a city should be bad for BOTH sides. The attacker gets a reduction to his/her defense strength, based on the number of units he has in the city. The defender gets a reduction to his attack strength based on the number of his units in the city. A city wall reduces the attack strength of BOTH sides units (except for certain unit types-which ignore this penalty) but still boosts the DS for the defenders.

8) There would still be a differentiation between an attacker and a defender-the first unit to arrive in a square-on a given turn-automatically becomes the defender (and gains a % of any terrain bonuses) whilst the latter unit to arrive becomes the attacker. If a unit has been in a square for more than a turn, then they gain both the full terrain bonus for the tile AND they gain a defense bonus for each additional turn, as the units 'Entrench' themselves.

Anyway, I hope that all makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Here is how I would see my preferred combat model:

You have Player A and Player B. Player A has no extra levels of C&C tech, so is limited in stack size by terrain alone. Player B, OTOH, has 2 extra levels of C&C tech, so gets a +2 stack size on top of the limit imposed by terrain.
Player A moves first this turn, and has 3 Longbowmen units in a forest square-set to an 'attack' stance. Player A decides not to move these units, in order to further reduce their 'profile'. When Player B moves his 5 Knight units, he fails to see the 3 LBM's 'hidden' in the forest square, and so inadvertantly moves his units onto that same square.
When all movement is done, Player A gets a pop-up asking him if he wishes to 'Confirm Attack', 'Cancel Attack', 'Contact Unit' or 'Retreat'. He selects 'Confirm Attack' and battle is joined.
Now, the 3 archers get a host of initial benefits. Firstly, they get a free attack, and the knights get a reduced DS, due to suprise. In addition, knights get a reduced AS/DS in forest terrain. After the first round, 3 of the knights get badly battered by a barrage of arrows 'pouring out from amongst the trees'. In the next round, though, things are not so good for the archers. The knights outnumber the longbowmen almost 2 to 1, meaning that 2 of the longbow units will be fighting at a penalty to their DS. In addition, knights have a flanking flag, meaning they get a bonus to their AS against non-flanking units. In addition, the knights' MP's negate the range benefit of the archers-meaning NO free shots. On the plus side, though, the Knights DO suffer the same penalty to AS and DS for forest conditions. After 1 withering round of combat, and a loss of 1 Longbow unit, Player A opts changes his stance from attack to 'fighting retreat'. In the next round of combat, the 2 remaining LBM's will make one last attack (at a reduced AS), then attempt a retreat. They succeed, but not before sustaining more damage from the knights. Plus, they end the combat only 1 tile away from the knights-a distance the latter units can easily make up. It seems the sneak attack was poorly planned-although some decent damage was done. These units would probably have been better off with a 'Hit, then fade' stance instead!

Anyway, I hope this makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Evie]

How hard would it be for units in a stack (or the unit "on deck") to take a point of damage when a defensive battle by the current "up" defender in the stack is lost? That way winning creates momentum. Also, if you took a point from each unit in a stack then it would logisitcally limit the optimum stack size (why have a 50 unit SOD of mixed archers and spearmen [or any other off/def mixed stack] when everybody dies after the first four or five spearmen are killed in a turn). If an aggressor unit loses the battle they don't get the momentum "bonus". To award defensive momentum would it be possible/advisable to give a promotion bonus to the defender (increase the odds of promotion)?

Actually, I think this is probably the one of the best ideas I've seen in this thread so far. I'd probably expand it to make it worth both way (ie, lose an attacking unit? Then all other units in the square your attacker attacked from lose 1 hp). If moral is introduced in C4, the loss could be a point of moral instead - provided that something awful (ie, running away, or being teleported to the capital, or whatever) happen to 0-moral units)

It, at once :

-Terminates stacks of doom once and for all.
-Make deployment of your attackers much more effective.
-Simulate the effect of watching your friends get killed pretty effectively (if you've just watched the best unit your army could deploy get slaughtered, you'Re likely to be very afraid when they come after you next).
-AND, MOST IMPORTANLY, retain the simplicity of the old Civilization combat system that's been in use since the start of the series, rather than introducing a new, somewhat more complex system (aka, the Aussie system).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh, come on, I know my system may SEEM complex, but I can assure you that much of it requires little or no extra player input. Additionally, I get the sense that people are craving a simultaneous combat system, as the current system is WAAAAY too time consuming.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[BkGreatWarnut]

I kind of agree more with Aussie's simultaneous battle. I know this game is looked down upon by hardcore Civvers, but in Civilization Call to Power, you could group units into and out of armies without a leader. Something that I very much like... Also, when you would attack with grouped units, all of the grouped units would attack all of the opponents grouped units. There were rules that did apply though...
1-Only one unit at a time to fire/attack/pulse
2-However, flanking units such as cavalry and tanks could fire at the same time...
3-Lastly, supporting rear units, artillery/archers/even aircraft could also fire...

So for example:

You have 1 Inf, 2 Cav and 1 Artillery attacking 1 Inf the defending Inf would receive fire from every unit, direct combat with the other Inf, Flank attacks by the Cavalry and additional support from the artillery.

I don't know how much this alleviates the Tank versus 4 warrior problem, but it does cut down on the stack of doom problem. Even if one Civ attacked by grouping a stack of doom, you would simply counter with your own stack of doom and instead of taking shots one unit at a time against each of their units which would be able to retreat, you would be taking on his whole army. Personally this is slightly more realistic as each armies units would be deployed directly against each other.

Call to Power also gave you the option of retreating if the fight looked bad. Hwoever, before retreating the enemy would be able to fire one last volley... This would be fine in Single player, but might be a problem in PBEM Multiplayer...the solution could be setting at what strength your army group would retreat compared to the other army group's strength. I. E. your army would be left with 6 units at a total of 12 HPs and the other army would be at 8 units with 24 HPs, you army would be 50% the strength of the opposing army and would then retreat if you had your army group tagged at 50%.

 

[Idylwyld]

Aussie, your system seems interesting but the revolutionary change in CiV is going to be the modability, not the in the combat system. Simultaneous combat seems more revolutionary than evolutionary. If we're making suggestions that we want to see implemented they should be the kind that the developer reads the post and automatically sees how to add the functionality that was proposed. Baby steps here...

 

[searcheagle]

Aussie, your system seems interesting but the revolutionary change in CiV is going to be the modability, not the in the combat system. Simultaneous combat seems more revolutionary than evolutionary. If we're making suggestions that we want to see implemented they should be the kind that the developer reads the post and automatically sees how to add the functionality that was proposed. Baby steps here...

Soren said Civ 4 would be 1/3 new, 1/3 adjusted, 1/3 left the same. Considering the combat system has be changed, radically, each new civ game, I see no reason to be so certain the combat system will be left untouched.

 

[searcheagle]

And I forgot this: The combat system in civ 3 is really unpopular. Why wouldn't they change it?

 

[Idylwyld]

To paraphrase Soren 1/3 Revolution, 1/3 Evolution, 1/3 Status Quo. I think changes to the combat sytem will be evolution, not revolution and certainly Status Quo won't keep anybody happy. Soren and his team have already got their revolution planned (I would hope), let's take charge of the evolution side.