Combat System

IncurableVirus

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
6
Hello all! IncurableVirus here. As you can see I'm a pretty new user and have only just today began to post. Anyway I have been playing the Civilization series since Civ3 and have been playing ever since! What I would like to discuss is the combat system in the Civ games. I'll start off with a brief summary and why it needs to be fixed up. After this, I'll provide me alternative!

First off. I must say that I love civilization. The only problem that I have ever had with the combat system is 1) infinite units per tile and 2) the small scale fighting.

1) The infinite units per tile. This has been fixed in the most recent game, Civilivation 5. However, I do not feel as through it has been dealt with properly. The idea of a single military unit per tile in an effort to bring fighting into the landscape and out of the cities was a quick and poor method. The major problem caused by this is that only a single military unit can guard a city. Even with a defensive bonus, a city which is surrounded on multiple sides can not defend itself through a single unit.

2) Small scale fighting. I have never been impressed with the fighting in Civilization. In 3, battles were between two units who repeated their own animation over and over until one unit died. In the following civilization games, each unit became represented by three (normally) on the unit. Units could recieve upgrades such as forest fighting and city defense. And up to three units could be grouped into a group of 9 (usually). These were improvements, but I believe much more can be done.

Here is my idea. Now I have multiple, but for a turn based game with the hexagon tile system, here is what I propose.

First, the tile size needs to be reduced. Imagine that each tile is divided into 7 new hexagons. This will change many things other then just the combat system. This is not the point so discard ideas on how it would effect the working tiles and such, look at this only in terms of the combat system.

Second, a single "Unit" is a group of soldiers whose population equal 30. Infintry units are 1 population, horsemen are 2 population, and artillary is 4 population. The player can determine what number of each type of unit they want in their unit. In addition, three units of can be combined to make an "army"

Third, each of the tiles are able to hold a single "unit," armies form in the center of a group of three tiles, keeping the one unit to one tile ratio. The only time this is changed is for cities. The city starts on a single tile and can hold 1 unit. For each of the 6 surrounding tiles that the city expands to, will reward the ability for the city to guard itself with an additional unit. Once all 6 surrounding tiles have been expanded to, the city is rewarded with the allowance of 2 more units to guard the city for a total of 9 units. This mean that the city can take up a total of 7 tiles and can hold three armies.

Fourth, when attacking, the player will be able to command their army. They can do things such as dig in infintry as artillary bombards. They can send infintry to attack and calvary to flank. They can have the units rush a target or approach cautiously. So on and so fourth. This will let the player control the attack as well as impliment strategy with their attacks.

Fifth, The helicopters and airplanes are not usually controlled directly by the player. Going back to the commands of armies or single units, as the player fights, some of the commands allow the player to call in air support. When this is done, the player will be able to see their infintry units call in the location of enemies to be hit with helicopters or bombers. Helicopters or bomber will then automatically leave the airports where they are located and enter the designated area and fight enemies.

Sixth, Possibly provide the ability for the player to contoll these helicopters and bombers. Controlling the helicopter would allow the player to fly aound and use machine guns and rockets. Wouldnt be anything super detailed, simply a nice feature for the player to get their hands dirty so to speak. Bombers would allow for the player to chose the flight path and then be the bombideer (sp) in which they could chose when each bomb is dropped along the flight path over the enemies.

Seventh, city attacking is more advanced (for single player), when the player attacks, the game changes from how civilization is normally played to a new "map" where the city can be attacked. There will be the city and the defenders on this map in addition to the attackers. The player can then use their attacking units to attack the ciy in various ways. Players can decide to send shells from their artillary, pick where to assault the city, and so on.

Eight, while attacking cities, players will be able to issue commands to their units. In addition to helicopters and bombers as mentioned earlier, the player can order in criuse missile strikes and AC-130's. (also controllable by the player). The player will be able to do this within the city, destroying buildings and such until they are able to capture the city or destroy it.

Nine, land and sea battles will not need to load a new screen, only the section where the battlefield will be magnified.

ten, at anytime, troops can be withdrawl from combat. What this means is that say a player attacked a city, the player could have broken in and destroyed a few buildings then decided to leave. After this, the city (when you go back into the normal view) will look different. It may have part of the city on fire, it may be smaller, or it may look ruined in some parts.

The basic idea behind this combat system would be to increase player involvement with combat. I personally am not satisfied with only watching my units attack cities, I think the idea of me being able to control where my units attack, how they attack, and what they attack is awesome! In all honesty, this is not drastically different from the current system, only on improvement. Out in ant terrain other then cities, the area where the battle is taking place will be effectivley "zoomed in" on to make the units more clear to the player. From here, the player can command their custom units to REALLY bring strategy into game play. Its the same for cities other then a seperate screen will need to be loaded because the player will be able to actually break into a city and begin to destroy parts of the city.

Just think, instead of you just clicking a unit to attack, you get to be the general! You can assault a city and guide a bomber to destroy enemy trenches, missiles to take out hostile buildings, and AC-103's to level entire city blocks!

Any questions of concerns, please post! I will address them as I will make them into a Q&A section that I will edit in when I get a coupld legitimate questions!

Signed,
Virus
 
Welcome to the forums, IncurableVirus. :wavey:

With 1), the idea of that was to bring the fight out of cities, where it was stuck in Civ4.

With 2), I have to seriously disagree with the first point. Civ is an empire building strategy game, not a tactical warfare game. Subdividing hexes to allow for different combat would move away from this way too far. It just wouldn't be Civ. :)
 
Welcome to the forums, IncurableVirus. :wavey:

With 1), the idea of that was to bring the fight out of cities, where it was stuck in Civ4.

With 2), I have to seriously disagree with the first point. Civ is an empire building strategy game, not a tactical warfare game. Subdividing hexes to allow for different combat would move away from this way too far. It just wouldn't be Civ. :)

Well thanks!

But anyway, I understand why they did the one unit per tile, I was only saying that they way they went about it I find to be rushed and not very well thought out.

Concerning the second point. I know that Civ has never really been a combat focused game but I think that it should be expanded. Im not saying refocus Civ on fighting, just make it more detailed. A HUGE part of history is based on how battles were fought with various types of strategy. The outcomes of wars and battles as we all know is determined by which side has the better generals and is able to impliment the best strategy. Warfare is what shaped and continues to shape the world! I just think that Civ does not really do warfare justice.

With this begin said, the new hexes I would say only reduce the scale factor within the game. One of the major problems emerging from Civ games are is that the scale factor compared to how things work in the real world and the game is WAY to high. By this I mean the game is becomming to simple! There is not much detail in how a cities location is chose nor how the surrounding tiles are developed as the city expands. In addition, the game has become much faster, it almost seems like the game rushes you through the first eras of man so that players can get the the modern era which they are familar with.

For what I am about to say, consider the tiles are broken up into two types. The first is a "major" tile. This tile is a large tile equal to that of the current tile size in Civ 5. The second is a "minor" tile. Minor tiles are each of the individual smaller tiles found in the major tiles. A major tile is made of of 7 minor hexagons, one minor tile in the middle surrounded by one minor tile on each side.

I feel like in addition to improving the combat system, it would also help with city management and empire expansion. In the first place, it allows for more drastic landscapes. There can now be 7 times as much detail in the maps! For example, origionally the tiles could only be grasslands, hills, then mountains. That was the whole transition from grasslands to mountains. With these new tiles, the maps could go from grasslands, small hills, big hills, small mountains, large mountains, and huge mountains. The later could all take place within the same if not less amount of space that the former does because the tiles are smaller.* Second, it would bring back the detail to city management. More tiles allows for more workers and more production. This in additon to more detailed tiles allows for more specialized cities in either hammer production (hilly terrain types), agriculture (grasslands), and so on.

My main concern is improving the combat system, I think that if I would have offered the divided hexagons idea and THEN talked about a new combat system, it would be more understandable. Outside the combat aspect, all this really does to the game is make it more detailed. Population will still work surrounding tiles, workers will still improve tiles and build roads, the turn system will stay, tiles stay, expansion stays the same, and so on. This, and I can not stress it enough, only improves the level of detail.

With that said, offer specific instanes where you feel that the mechanics would be drastically altered from what civilization "is." This way I can address them! This way I can edit in a Q&A to the origional post.

Signed,
Virus

*Unrelated to the origional post, this gave me the idea that you could have an elevation aspect to the game. So now you could have cliffs and plateaus in the game which would allow for players to create elevated cities which are protected on the sides by cliffs! A method which was exploited to great extent with castles. Just more examples of detail, which is very much missing in the recent Civ games.
 
You might be interested in a rather exhaustive discussion on the sub-hex idea a while ago: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=395070.

I found the idea very good: it solves problems of scale, storage, and creates better graphical blending opportunities.

Very many people, including myself, find the new tactical combat quite fun, so I don't really see the problem with keeping it.

However, I don't think it's possible now because you run into computing resourcing issues - the game already klugs on huge maps. Sub-hexes would mean that a map would be 7x "smaller" and use the same resources.
 
I don't want to come across as a jerk, but most of your ideas would lead to bloated, micromanage-happy games.

Sub-hexes has got to be the most overindulgent idea I've ever read on these forums. It's even more fun-sapping than "stacking up" resources like iron, as you suggested in another thread.

I couldn't imagine the logistical nightmare of having to decide if a unit can cross a major hex or has to cross sub-hexes, how artillery would work, etc. It's just an awful idea, and I mean that in the nicest way.
 
@IncurableVirus- I was assuming that your idea was for tiles to be subdivided into seven for combat purposes only (there have been others that have suggested as such), rather than simply changing the scale of the game. That's a different thing, I guess, and so long as you're applying the same scale to all aspects of the game, it's fine in that regard.
 
Top Bottom