iNDUSTRIALg0D
Warlord
the health of a unit should be subdivided into: % of a unit remaining (the new hit points would be the number of troops that remaine in a unit). hit points should only be refillable by recruiting in cities. a barracks would add to the proficiency of recruited troops; proficiency of troops being the overall rank of a unit(also affecting the strength and defense of unit); and morale (units winning battles would have higher morale than say sedentary units, unless a unit was nearly wiped out in numbers). morale would also affect strength and defense of unit. all these factors would then have to be taken into consideration for a very complex battle calculation. as well i think there should be the possibility of recruiting mercenariess into a unit (to replenish losses) or as a separate unit altogether (this unit would have its own ability to ignore your orders, disband, wander for a bit, or attack somebody including you if given sufficient reason).
there should be about 6 hit points to a unit (regular, starting in the ancient age) and the number of hit points in units would increase as well as decrease (for certain units) through the ages to reflect the numbers of troops used in the combat of that age. as mentioned above there would also be several factors of a unit that would affect strength and defense of the unit. after half the hit points are gone, this should drop the strength and defense of a unit 15%. and a unit with only one hp should actually regain this 15% upon troops sensing the end.
the proficiency of the unit would be decided by the average ranking of troops. for example if a conscript unit lost half its numbers and then fully recruited from a city with a barracks (now serving out regulars instead of veterans) it would then become a regular unit because half the troops are now regulars, and I'd give it to them at the halfway point. this proficiency (or rank) determines also the strength and defense of a unit (like in civ2). conscript troops drop it 15%. regular troops don't affect it. veteran troops increase it by 15%. elite troops increase it by 30%.
last but not least morale affects strength and defense of a unit but slightly less. the morale would be poor dropping it 25%, low dropping it 10%, average nada, high increasing it 10%, and "gung-ho" increasing it 25%. the morale of a unit would be based on how many successful or unsuccesful (retreat, explained 3 paragraphs down) engagements it had been in, govt. that it is currently in effect, and perhaps on the religion of that unit (if under a single religion in the civ). the polytheistic civs early on should probably have their own angle on morale of troops as well. a unit that is nearly wiped out every engagement would drop to low initially. however when the unit starts recruiting, the new recruits would then average out the morale. if this same unit recruits after many near fatal engagements, the initial morale after the fight would be poor and low with the addition of new recruits (word of mouth to the noobs). other factors affecting morale would include terrain. swamps, jungles, deserts, and tundras would drop morale a notch unless that civ is used to this kind of terrain. sedentary units in friendly (not captured) cities probably would have "gung-ho" morale unless the city has been undersiege for a while. if a city has been undersiege for a while (no enemy units have been driven away from the city's borders), morale could potentially fall to poor. bombarders would have a big factor in this as well. units in forts and outposts who go many turns without seeing enemy or any movement will sometimes drop into low morale. and as i said above govt. and religion would also affect morale. i am no entirely sure how this would play out but i believe democracies and republics would gain morale here and there while communism and fascism probably would lose morale here and there. this could negated or reversed as well. republics and democracies who are behind and not ahead in any categories (power, culture, science, etc.) should lose this bonus, while communisms and fascisms who are ahead should actually negate the effects of their govt type and increase morale (in a show of fanatical patriotism).
there should also be the ability to order the attack of multiple units simultaneously. essentially each attacking unit would be assigned a defender based on a "military strategy" selected by the defending civ. if no more defenders could be found, one or more defending units would be double or tripleganged at least by the combined attack strength of both or more attacking units and dealing damage back to the attacking units chosen by the "military strategy" of that civ. i think this should apply to bombarders as well so far in that the bombardment hit ratio is increased thus causing better chance of damage on a unit(s) by 1 or more hps. i don't believe bombarders should be totally free from taking damage. if defending tile has a bombarder as well, i think there should be a chance that the defending bombarder could inflict damage on a bombarder. i think archers should be bombarder only units with better chance of defending themselves if unescorted (wouldn't be captured) than say catapults which would still be captured (but have a chance of self-destructed)
as well, i don't think there should not just be battle created leaders to create armies. i think after a certain advancement in the ancient ages (perhaps calling it leadership) cities should be able to build military leaders (very expensive though) if there is a barracks in that city. the armies should be up to 4 units (increasing over the ages) and only one can be built for every 5 cities. essentially they would replace the role of stacks. they should move as slow as the slowest unit and you should be able to specify what units attack in an army as if it were a stack but sharing the hps. to combat the usefulness of stacks i think any stack of more than 3 or 4 units would incur a hitpoint loss of 1 on an additional random unit per successful attack to simulate the disorganization of a stack of units unlead. the only way to counter this would be to station a military leader within that stack in a city or fortress. as a rule of thumb you could only produce a certain number of military leaders based on the number of cities (not related to number of armies allowed). in addition i think attacking stacks of greater than 3 or 4 should incur the same kind of hitpoint loss on an additional random unit per unsuccessful attack.
another thing. the ability to retreat should be an option most of the time whether defending or attacking. the retreat option should present itself to attacking units after losing half or close but not more than half of its hit points. the retreat would also only be contained to the tile the unit attacked from unless the unit still has movement points (would require at least 3 depending on terrain). the retreat option of defenders presents itself the same as above except the defending unit retreats into a selected one of three tiles (if poss.) away from the attacker. this unit does not get to move the next turn because it essentially used its movement points already. if a defending unit had just moved into that tile the last turn it would not be eligible for retreat.
with these changes in mind i think civ4 combat would be a lot more strategy based and cause people to consume a lot more time pondering moves in turns and throw out the old "rush" technique that many are so fond of. not to say civ3 has oversimplified combat strategies, but i see way too many stacks, especially in multiplayer. i too am guilty of stack abuse but it seems the only and crudest way to play. with the addition of simultaneous attacks, players could no longer rely on superior or even average defensive units to hold a position at a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 disadvantage in numbers. now a player would have to learn to anticipate the attack and position troops accordingly or else face a crushing defeat.
there should be about 6 hit points to a unit (regular, starting in the ancient age) and the number of hit points in units would increase as well as decrease (for certain units) through the ages to reflect the numbers of troops used in the combat of that age. as mentioned above there would also be several factors of a unit that would affect strength and defense of the unit. after half the hit points are gone, this should drop the strength and defense of a unit 15%. and a unit with only one hp should actually regain this 15% upon troops sensing the end.
the proficiency of the unit would be decided by the average ranking of troops. for example if a conscript unit lost half its numbers and then fully recruited from a city with a barracks (now serving out regulars instead of veterans) it would then become a regular unit because half the troops are now regulars, and I'd give it to them at the halfway point. this proficiency (or rank) determines also the strength and defense of a unit (like in civ2). conscript troops drop it 15%. regular troops don't affect it. veteran troops increase it by 15%. elite troops increase it by 30%.
last but not least morale affects strength and defense of a unit but slightly less. the morale would be poor dropping it 25%, low dropping it 10%, average nada, high increasing it 10%, and "gung-ho" increasing it 25%. the morale of a unit would be based on how many successful or unsuccesful (retreat, explained 3 paragraphs down) engagements it had been in, govt. that it is currently in effect, and perhaps on the religion of that unit (if under a single religion in the civ). the polytheistic civs early on should probably have their own angle on morale of troops as well. a unit that is nearly wiped out every engagement would drop to low initially. however when the unit starts recruiting, the new recruits would then average out the morale. if this same unit recruits after many near fatal engagements, the initial morale after the fight would be poor and low with the addition of new recruits (word of mouth to the noobs). other factors affecting morale would include terrain. swamps, jungles, deserts, and tundras would drop morale a notch unless that civ is used to this kind of terrain. sedentary units in friendly (not captured) cities probably would have "gung-ho" morale unless the city has been undersiege for a while. if a city has been undersiege for a while (no enemy units have been driven away from the city's borders), morale could potentially fall to poor. bombarders would have a big factor in this as well. units in forts and outposts who go many turns without seeing enemy or any movement will sometimes drop into low morale. and as i said above govt. and religion would also affect morale. i am no entirely sure how this would play out but i believe democracies and republics would gain morale here and there while communism and fascism probably would lose morale here and there. this could negated or reversed as well. republics and democracies who are behind and not ahead in any categories (power, culture, science, etc.) should lose this bonus, while communisms and fascisms who are ahead should actually negate the effects of their govt type and increase morale (in a show of fanatical patriotism).
there should also be the ability to order the attack of multiple units simultaneously. essentially each attacking unit would be assigned a defender based on a "military strategy" selected by the defending civ. if no more defenders could be found, one or more defending units would be double or tripleganged at least by the combined attack strength of both or more attacking units and dealing damage back to the attacking units chosen by the "military strategy" of that civ. i think this should apply to bombarders as well so far in that the bombardment hit ratio is increased thus causing better chance of damage on a unit(s) by 1 or more hps. i don't believe bombarders should be totally free from taking damage. if defending tile has a bombarder as well, i think there should be a chance that the defending bombarder could inflict damage on a bombarder. i think archers should be bombarder only units with better chance of defending themselves if unescorted (wouldn't be captured) than say catapults which would still be captured (but have a chance of self-destructed)
as well, i don't think there should not just be battle created leaders to create armies. i think after a certain advancement in the ancient ages (perhaps calling it leadership) cities should be able to build military leaders (very expensive though) if there is a barracks in that city. the armies should be up to 4 units (increasing over the ages) and only one can be built for every 5 cities. essentially they would replace the role of stacks. they should move as slow as the slowest unit and you should be able to specify what units attack in an army as if it were a stack but sharing the hps. to combat the usefulness of stacks i think any stack of more than 3 or 4 units would incur a hitpoint loss of 1 on an additional random unit per successful attack to simulate the disorganization of a stack of units unlead. the only way to counter this would be to station a military leader within that stack in a city or fortress. as a rule of thumb you could only produce a certain number of military leaders based on the number of cities (not related to number of armies allowed). in addition i think attacking stacks of greater than 3 or 4 should incur the same kind of hitpoint loss on an additional random unit per unsuccessful attack.
another thing. the ability to retreat should be an option most of the time whether defending or attacking. the retreat option should present itself to attacking units after losing half or close but not more than half of its hit points. the retreat would also only be contained to the tile the unit attacked from unless the unit still has movement points (would require at least 3 depending on terrain). the retreat option of defenders presents itself the same as above except the defending unit retreats into a selected one of three tiles (if poss.) away from the attacker. this unit does not get to move the next turn because it essentially used its movement points already. if a defending unit had just moved into that tile the last turn it would not be eligible for retreat.
with these changes in mind i think civ4 combat would be a lot more strategy based and cause people to consume a lot more time pondering moves in turns and throw out the old "rush" technique that many are so fond of. not to say civ3 has oversimplified combat strategies, but i see way too many stacks, especially in multiplayer. i too am guilty of stack abuse but it seems the only and crudest way to play. with the addition of simultaneous attacks, players could no longer rely on superior or even average defensive units to hold a position at a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 disadvantage in numbers. now a player would have to learn to anticipate the attack and position troops accordingly or else face a crushing defeat.
!
