Combat System Suggestions

[Exel]

- Different combat animations:

A unit would have a set of different combat animations used depending on what type of an enemy the unit is fighting. For example, and infantryman could fire a rifle against other infantry, but a bazooka against armored units. Similarly, a mech infantry would fire machineguns against infantry, but missiles against tanks, whereas a destroyer would fire guns against other ships, SAMs against aircraft and depth charges against subs. The animations might also differ depending on if the unit is attacking or defending. Infantry would

Civ3 already features Attack1 and Attack2 animations for each unit - this would only be a matter of refining how they are selected. Not really a game defining factor, but definitely a great flavor.

- Separate "soft/hard" attack values:

A unit would have a set of different combat values that would apply depending of the type of the enemy unit fought. For instance, spearmen would have a relatively weak value against unmounted swordsmen, but a high value against horsemen. Or an anti-tank unit would have a high value against "hard" armored targets such as tanks, but a low value against more powerful "soft" infantry units.

We already have different attack and defence values, this is just taking it a step further and giving the combat system more diversity and flexibility for a more enjoyable combat experience.

Note: The different animations suggested above could be linked to the different combat values.

- First strike ability:

An additional combat flag for units enabling them to possess an ability to deal one blow against the enemy before going to normal combat. Legions could throw pilums at the enemy before engaging in hand-to-hand combat and infantry could soften up their enemy with a mortar barrage before attacking. Additionally guerilla units could use it as an "ambush" feature, and all ranged units could have it by default against all melee units.

Civ3 has a "defensive first strike" ability in the form of artillery-capable units firing at attackers before the actual combat begins. This is only about giving a similar ability to an attacking unit.

What comes to animations and the ability, Civ3 already features the different Attack1 and Attack2 animations. Their usage could simply be linked with the first strike flag.

 

[Haradrim]

Offensive first strike: good idea, however every unit should not be able to do this.
Various a/d values: Has been discussed, I believe. Definately in support of an improvement like this. I would like a simple RoNesque unit weak-strong system.
Different attack animations: Eye candy. It wouldn't really take THAT much time for the development team to implement a animation chooser and draw some more animations, but it would take time away from some other improvement.

 

[Exel]

Offensive first strike: good idea, however every unit should not be able to do this.

Of course not.

Different attack animations: Eye candy. It wouldn't really take THAT much time for the development team to implement a animation chooser and draw some more animations, but it would take time away from some other improvement.

It is eye candy, yes, but top of the line as such. I would personally put unit animations above any other (non-functional) graphical feature, but maybe that's just me. Anyway, I think they would be more than just a "nice little flavor", especially if combined with the two other suggestions; special animation for the first strike or different animations for different combat types.

 

[Haradrim]

True, unit animations are more important than city improvement graphics, but they are lower than leaderheads and interface graphics. If the developers are to spend time on graphics, I would like to see better animations, but not a whole lot.

 

[Exel]

I would like to see better animations, but not a whole lot.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I sure find infantry firing rifles at tanks a tad bit hilarious. Otoh there really is no way to properly simulate specialized anti-tank units, so the bazooka/at-missile animation could simply be integrated into the infantry unit animations, preferably together with the different combat values. And that's just one example; surface ships firing deck guns at subs is equally amusing.

 

[Haradrim]

I love seeing archers firing at Modern Tanks. Unless they get an arrow stuck in the turret just right, I can't see how an arrow could damage a tank...

 

[Exel]

Currently the combat system allows basically only two different (parallel) land units, one offensive and one defensive. That's not much of a variety, even if you add the cheap "discount" and special ability units. Just look at the medieval units for example; we have four parallel units, knights, pikemen, longbowmen and medieval infantry. How many of those do you actually use? That's right, two. Knights for attacking, pikemen for defending. And possibly medieval infantry as a cheap mass unit if you can't afford knights. Archers became largely useless with the inclusion of medieval infantry into the game. The same dilemma applies to tanks, mechanized infantry and tow infantry; you really need only two of those.

With the implementation of different combat values against different types of units you could easily have, say, four parallel units, all complementing each other. For example the tanks and infantry we have now could be complemented with the inclusion of machinegunners and anti-tank infantry. The former would be excellent defenders against unarmored units, but slow and weak on the offensive and totally ineffective against tanks, whereas the latter would be cheap and effective tank destroyers but without hardly any capability to fight regular infantry or machineguners.

If such a system is deemed "too complicated", at least some of it could be replaced with multiple sets of animations per unit. For example the infantry unit could use bazookas if fighting against a tank and switch to a machinegun when defending against infantry. It would not add any real variety, but would at least give some feel of it, making the current two-unit system more plausible.

Just my thoughts...