1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Full Battle (not Unit vs Unit combat)

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Matty R, Aug 27, 2007.

  1. Matty R

    Matty R Veteran Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Messages:
    416
    Location:
    Bolton, England
    Something I'd like to see in future games is full battles taking place. Not individual units fighting each other, but stacks attacking each other together.

    I played a game called Dynasty Tactics a few years ago. It was similar to Civ combat in that a single character on the battlefield represented an officer and a large number of units. There were Archers, Cavalry, Spearmen, Pikemen etc. Each type of unit was effective against a certain type of unit. When battles took place, the screen would change from the grid layout showing the characters into a cut-scene of the units attacking each. I think something like this could make combat much more interesting and more tactical.

    For example, lets take a stack of early game units attacking an early game city.

    The city itself would have walls with Archers on the walls. A single Archer unit could maybe represent 3000 Archers. Inside the city could be Spearmen.

    So the stack defending the city could be :

    3 Archer units (9000 Archers)
    3 Spearmen Units (9000 Spearmen)

    So what do we need to attack the city?

    We need something to deal with defending Archers, so lets say we get a couple of Archer units ourselves. Then we'll need something to deal with the Wall defences. So thats a few Catapult units. Maybe a Catapult unit could represent 10 Catapults. Then we'll need something to deal with the Spearmen.

    This is something else I think could do with an overhaul. Instead of the "strength" of units being the only thing taken into account, I think Defence should also be taken into account. Spearmen carry shields, which could protect them from archers. Axemen don't have shields. So if we sent in Axemen to attack the defending Spearmen, the Archers would most likely kill many of them before they got anyway near their targets.

    So how about ordering units with shields to help protect those without? The Spearmen and Axemen could move together, with the shields of the Spearmen acting as an umbrella from the defending Archers. Then when the attacking units get close to the city walls, possibly triggering the defending Spearmen to attack, the Axemen can seperate and use the superior attacking power to carve through the defending Spearmen.

    So lets have a look at the attacking stack.

    2 Archer units (6000 Archers)
    3 Spearmen Units (9000 Spearmen)
    1 Axeman Unit (3000 Axemen)
    2 Catapult Units (20 Catapults)

    Right then! Lets go into battle.

    We tell our units to attack, and instead of seeing a unit attacking another unit, the screen changes to the battlefield.

    We see the thousands of Spearmen and Axemen advancing on the city, our Catapults at the edge of the battlefield periodically lobbing rocks at the city wall with each impact accurately depicting the damage.

    We see our Archers firing volleys of Arrows over our advancing melee fighters and striking defending Archers, while the defending Archers split their fire between our Archers and melee fighters.

    Arrows bounce of the Spearmen's shields as the Axemen shelter underneath. Some of the fighters occasionally fall as arrows find their way through gaps in the umbrella.

    Then as the melee fighters approach the city gates, the gates swing open and waves of Spearmen flood out.

    The umbrella lifts and our Axemen charge forward to meet the Spearmen. Arrows continue to rain down, striking some charging Axemen.

    And then we see the outcome. Maybe our Axemen defeat the defending spearmen, with whatever survivors their are surrendering.

    Maybe the Spearmen were less in numbers but had more experience, defeated our Axemen and moved to attack the Spearmen.

    Eventually the battle would be over. Whats left of the defenders could surrender the city and (if allowed by us) leave to join another of their cities.

    Or our forces could be decimated, surrender and then be executed. Release, imprisonment or execution could depend on the leaders, possibly with some of the more spiritual leaders like Monty using our captured soldiers as sacrifices to their gods.

    The ends of the battles, and using siege weapons to attack civilians in cities instead of outer walls, could change global views of us. If we indiscriminately attack innocent people in cities, we could be seen as a tyrant and get others civs temporarily working together to try to destroy us. Or we could be merciful and be seen as ambitious, leading to more peaceful leaders making extra efforts to negotiate.

    Maybe leaders could have agressive and passive ratings, with passive leaders more likely to defend rather than attack. So attacking one of their cities would be more difficult as instead of sending Spearmen out, they would focus on defences. In that case, using something like battering rams could be used. The more aggressive leaders could ignore defensive units altogether and send out large numbers of attackers.

    Sorry if this is really long. I got a bit carried away. :mischief:

    I hope someone likes it. :blush:
     
  2. Diamondeye

    Diamondeye So Happy I Could Die

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,527
    Location:
    Dancing in the Dark
    I like it alot. I think the combat system has improved since Civ1, but is still lacking behind compared to the graphics and strategical gameplay.
     
  3. bob bobato

    bob bobato L'imparfait

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,015
    Location:
    Montreal
    The designers mentioned it in a booklet that came with civ Chronicles. They said it was a bad idea, because it would break the 'balance' between peace and war.
     
  4. GuitarHero

    GuitarHero Caligula II

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,486
    It's just simpler to have unit-on-unit combat, but it is one of the better useless ideas.
     
  5. 777

    777 King

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fin
    What about North & South style fights? :D
     
  6. Matty R

    Matty R Veteran Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Messages:
    416
    Location:
    Bolton, England
    LOL :lol:

    I thought of it because I find the combat part of the game to be incredibly boring. I recently completed a Conquest game where I got so bored after destroying the first civ that I stockpiled nukes, used them to cleanse cities of their defenders then sent units in to capture and raze the cities without any opposition. :(
     
  7. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,612
    Location:
    Scotland
    Stack-on-stack battles is a good idea, but I don't think it needs this sort of complexity. That sort of thing works in games like Total War because they were designed with that sort of battle in mind, but trying to implement it in Civ would just slow the game down and shift the focus from empire-building to to battle tactics.
     
  8. SCCciv

    SCCciv Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3
    Location:
    Iowa
    what about just like ground&air or Navy&air attacking at the sametime, you know like ground troups with airsupport? or mech infantry devisions- its supposed to be an armored vehicle with a infantry devison allong with it, you know?
     
  9. daking

    daking Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    i think that this is a great idea, however it seems a little complex. i think that the idea of units being represented as more than just one thing is a good one thou. considering it takes so long to create units, maybe instead of creating one, you should create many all at once. say a regement in napoleonic times, or a division in modern times. composing of a percentage of each infantry type units, artillary, cavalry etc. and this could also be done for naval units and air units. instead of a single battleship, it could be a bb task force, comprisrising of 50% battleships 20% cruisers, and 30%destroyers. and the task force would travel as fast as its slowest memeber. the same could happen with air units, bombers comprising a fighter escort for example. this would justify the very long time it takes to create the units.
     
  10. daking

    daking Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    i think that this is a great idea, however it seems a little complex. i think that the idea of units being represented as more than just one thing is a good one thou. considering it takes so long to create units, maybe instead of creating one, you should create many all at once. say a regement in napoleonic times, or a division in modern times. composing of a percentage of each infantry type units, artillary, cavalry etc. and this could also be done for naval units and air units. instead of a single battleship, it could be a bb task force, comprisrising of 50% battleships 20% cruisers, and 30%destroyers. and the task force would travel as fast as its slowest memeber. the same could happen with air units, bombers comprising a fighter escort for example. this would justify the very long time it takes to create the units. this same principle could be used at all times in the game. just fiffrent types of units put into the one task group. the units would also be larger and much harder to kill completely. usually unless the unit is surrounded, it will retreat after it has been defeated, the attacker being able to persue the defeated foe, and attack again if moves permit.
     
  11. daking

    daking Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    i think that this is a great idea, however it seems a little complex. i think that the idea of units being represented as more than just one thing is a good one thou. considering it takes so long to create units, maybe instead of creating one, you should create many all at once. say a regement in napoleonic times, or a division in modern times. composing of a percentage of each infantry type units, artillary, cavalry etc. and this could also be done for naval units and air units. instead of a single battleship, it could be a bb task force, comprisrising of 50% battleships 20% cruisers, and 30%destroyers. and the task force would travel as fast as its slowest memeber. the same could happen with air units, bombers comprising a fighter escort for example. this would justify the very long time it takes to create the units.
     
  12. Atreyu

    Atreyu Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Location:
    Sweden
    Maybe we'll see this with civ 7 or 8?
     
  13. gamedude107

    gamedude107 Permanoob(i play settler)

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    96
    just wanna say that i have Dynasty Tactics :)

    good game :)
     
  14. Dale

    Dale Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,031
  15. CivFan87

    CivFan87 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    39
    I don't think graphically represented, full 3D battles are necessary, especially when it is unlikely you will be doing anything other than watching them.

    What would be nice though, is to be able to combine units again like in HOI 2(or armies from civ3).
     
  16. dh_epic

    dh_epic Cold War Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,627
    Location:
    Seasonal Residences
    I'd love to see some kind of full screen battle system. But I doubt Firaxis will ever do it, because it would be a huge addition. It would increase their development costs, and make battles last a lot longer -- ultimately making multiplayer games take too long to be popular.

    Let's say that choosing the units in your stack and making a smart attack order takes about 30 seconds, currently. I suspect throwing two stacks into a battle screen to duke it out would make the same battle take about 1 minute. By conservative estimates, I think "full battles" would double the length of a war. It's just not going to fly for MP games, which are already 4 or 5 hours.

    The only way I could see them doing it is if they cut out another aspect of the game. Cut down the 20 seconds you take to manage your workers, for example, by having a simpler tile-improvement system.
     

Share This Page