Fewer troops

[Milan's Warrior]

Sometimes I have the impression that there are too many troops and that they last too little.
One troop typically shoots (i.e. meets an oppenent) once and either wins or dies. Occasionally, a troop survives the first encounter and has a second with the same opponent.

I am thinking about a model which is half way between the curreent Civ3 model and the WarCraft3 model: fewer troops that last longer than Civ3, but more troops than you have in WarCraft3

Having fewer troops would greatly simplify micromanagement.
What do you think?

 

[Haradrim]

Do you mean less unit types or less units on the field?

 

[Milan's Warrior]

Fewer units in the field

 

[KabeDerlin]

Maybe this would tie into better armies.

 

[DementedAvenger]

The problem with having fewer units on the field would be that luck would have a much bigger role in the game. If you have 10 tanks against the AI's 30 spearman, you should win every time, but if it was 1 tank against 3 spearmen you could get unlucky, and there goes your whole army.

If the combat system was changed , I think the fewer units idea would work better. For example, every unit could have a rate of fire like artillery, and could only take off that number of hit points in each battle, instead of fighting to the death.

 

[MeatWad]

All should have a rate of fire and/or firepower to determine ability to and amount of damage that can be done to any given unit, minus that unit's defensive factors (i.e. defense rating, terrain, entrenchment). For example, spearman vs. tank is only acceptable if you buy the abstract way units are represented. 1 spearman may be a thousand men, whereas 1 tank might be only 5-10 tanks. It would be pretty messy, but I think a thousand people could take out that many tanks just by getting stuck in the treads

 

[Yuri2356]

Gentlemen, this is the plan. The enemy armored collum will be moving though this valey here. We're goind to throw wave after wave of men at them untill they deplete their ammo and fuel slaughtering you off. 90% of you will die, but you can rest soundly knowin you have protected your country and earned me a shiny new medal!

 

[Red Ant]

If the combat system was changed , I think the fewer units idea would work better. For example, every unit could have a rate of fire like artillery, and could only take off that number of hit points in each battle, instead of fighting to the death.

That's a FANTASTIC idea! I hope Firaxis does it that way!

 

[Red Ant]

And I also think troops should be much more expensive than they currently are (to discourage people ... and the AI from building unrealistically HUUUUGE armies). I hate it how the AI never seems to use any semblance of strategy in its attempts to overrun me and instead just relies on sending insane amounts of units my way.

 

[douche_bag]

That's a FANTASTIC idea! I hope Firaxis does it that way!

so do you mean like every unit would have a bombard sort of ability?even non ranged sword units?

 

[Yuri2356]

I'd say giving units some kind of "skirmish" or "harrass" command, where they only fight one or two rounds of combat could add a lot to warfare.

 

[douche_bag]

yeah i like that idea better

 

[Red Ant]

so do you mean like every unit would have a bombard sort of ability?even non ranged sword units?

No, I mean that every unit can only do a certain amount of damage per turn. Say you have a war elephant that has a rate of fire of 2. So it can only subtract a maximum of 2 hitpoints per turn. That way, if the elephant engages a knight with 4 hitpoints, it may only reduce him to 2 hitpoints rather than flat out killing him in one turn.

 

[Tholish]

The only absolute about units in the current system is the maintenance cost. One unit is what it costs one gold per turn to maintain. The way to improve units is to have maintenance cost be variable in the editor by more than just government type. Government could apply a multiplier, but it should be possible to mod it to where a mercenery unit type costs more to maintain than a militia unit type, though militia units are immobile and cost pop, while merceneries cost almost no shields and are powerful, but cost extremely high maintenance--with regulars being somewhere in between. Warrior/Aristicrats like knights, who get a share of the pie for their service, would count as regulars.

The "retreat wounded" ability of fast units greatly enhances the game, and all units should have it, even slow units. Variable recovery rate and conditions (supply line to resources?) would be even better. This sort of stuff can be made more complex without making gameplay more complex. You still just pull the unit over the unit you want to attack and watch the healthbars. But if you study the minutae you can become a good micromanager and win better. Almost like its a different game just by going to higher levels of difficulty, even though the rules are the same.

 

[MeatWad]

No, I mean that every unit can only do a certain amount of damage per turn. Say you have a war elephant that has a rate of fire of 2. So it can only subtract a maximum of 2 hitpoints per turn. That way, if the elephant engages a knight with 4 hitpoints, it may only reduce him to 2 hitpoints rather than flat out killing him in one turn.

This would totally destroy any factor of chance or luck in combat, and make it more mechanical. I say no.

Not to be nit-picky here, but the health bar represents very abstractly such factors as - Health, Morale, Training, etc. When the Carthaginians first brought elephants into the fray, they TERRIFIED their enemies. That fear would allow the Elephant legion to win a one turn battle. Units should be able to be desroyed in 1 turn. Consider combat damage PER TURN - we are talking about major battles if a turn takes more than a year (usually the case!). So again I say no. Keep an element of chance in combat. Nothing makes me happier than when I'm outnumbered and outgunned, watching my defenders fall one by one but still win the day. I love hanging on the edge of my seat until then.