Get rid of SODs

[Argetnyx]

Definitely not what I thought when I saw 'attrition'. What I thought was more in military/historical, terms: Battles of attrition where whoever lasts the longest wins, like WWI.

Sounds like a good idea though, adding that when armies run out of food, they pillage nearby villages and farms, destroying the mines and irrigation on those tiles.

 

[Camikaze]

The simple fact of attrition is that it is deadly for yourself, and the opposition (as seen by WWI). And this is represented by reducing the power of SoDs. As you use them in increasing numbers in a war of attrition, more of them are likely to die, as in reality. Each additional unit will not damage the enemy as much as the last. This reflects reality, also. Millions of men didn't do squat to the position of the Western Front for nigh on 4 years. Reducing the power of SoDs doesn't take away attrition from the game, it makes it more realistic.

 

[MosheLevi]

I don’t think players are going to enjoy playing Civ 5 when half their army (or even a quarter) is dying from attrition.

However, if they add “Attrition” as an option that we can turn off, then sure why not.

 

[Argetnyx]

I don’t think players are going to enjoy playing Civ 5 when half their army (or even a quarter) is dying from attrition.

That's just a bit extreme, a half?!? No wonder why people are opposed to it. It shouldn't be called 'attrition' either. But, as with 'strafe', it was misused by gamers and will probably continue to be.

 

[Camikaze]

I don’t think players are going to enjoy playing Civ 5 when half their army (or even a quarter) is dying from attrition.

However, if they add “Attrition” as an option that we can turn off, then sure why not.

If people don't like it, then maybe they shouldn't use such military strategy.

 

[Zeiter]

Attrition is an interesting idea. I would make the rate of attrition small, and have it depend on the terrain and the size of the stack, with it only kicking in with stacks above like 10 units. And yes, have it be toggleable.

But let's go back to siege for a second. I've found that, by lowering the damage caps, siege warfare changes dramatically. This is what I did:

Battering rams: 10% damage cap.
Cats, trebs: 20%
Bombards: 30%
Cannons: 40%
Arty & mobile arty: 50%

(I also reduced air bombardment to a 25% damage cap).

This way, siege:
*Retreats more often (more realistic and fun)
*But is less decisive (also more realistic and fun).

You end up needing less siege because it takes less to reduce defenders to the damage cap. It also makes the other units in your stack more pivotal (since you generally fight enemies at 80% strength rather than redlined). With this setup, I find myself using only 10-25% siege in my stacks. Furthermore, I have to replace my siege less often because it dies less often. (But it still can die, and it still can be destroyed especially if it is left alone from a protecting army).

Together with increasing the number of units targeted by collateral damage and flanking, this siege modification has transformed combat in my games into something much more well-rounded and fun.

 

[Argetnyx]

Whatever happened to good ol' bombardment?

 

[Hail]

Whatever happened to good ol' bombardment?

balancing issues killed it

 

[Argetnyx]

The gamers killed it!!

 

[Zero-Sum]

I also remember how stacks in Civ 1 and 2 worked... or not worked.

I think stacks of doom are realistic, like Napoleons invasion of Russia with half a million troops, would probabbly be represented with a big stack in Civ IV, or Germanys invasion of a few million troops with a few big stacks... Then again having most of your forces in one exact location is not too realistic either.

 

[Hail]

The gamers killed it!!

no. the firaxis game dev delt the final blow and got all the loot.

i understand their position on bombardment: they could not think of a simple way to implement it, so they dropped it and replaced with collateral damage.

 

[Argetnyx]

You're all talking about gameplay, and you don't even care that a good part of it (bombardment) was completely ignored.

 

[Camikaze]

I also remember how stacks in Civ 1 and 2 worked... or not worked.

I think stacks of doom are realistic, like Napoleons invasion of Russia with half a million troops, would probabbly be represented with a big stack in Civ IV, or Germanys invasion of a few million troops with a few big stacks... Then again having most of your forces in one exact location is not too realistic either.

The thing is that both of these two examples resulted in failure- due to lack of supply ability to such a large mass. Napoleon failed in Russia due to the inability to utilise anything in winter, and Hitler failed in the East perhaps due to the concentration of their forces on one or two particular locations. Having stacks for them didn't work. So, sure, have stacks in the game, but include these disadvantages, to make it more realistic.

 

[Argetnyx]

The thing is that both of these two examples resulted in failure- due to lack of supply ability to such a large mass. Napoleon failed in Russia due to the inability to utilise anything in winter, and Hitler failed in the East perhaps due to the concentration of their forces on one or two particular locations. Having stacks for them didn't work. So, sure, have stacks in the game, but include these disadvantages, to make it more realistic.

No, no..Hitler did not concentrate his forces too much, they were well placed for the task at hand. Germany's failure was caused by a mixture of winter, too many Russians, not enough occupation forces, and bad orders by Hitler himself.

A more accurate example of SoD disadvantages would be Rommel and the Afrika Korps. Rommel had most of his forces well forward, which was not a bad move anyway. The only problem was that the British had much space in the desert to maneuver aroung the Germans and Italians and attack their supply lines, which were already straining from long distance and poor planning by the people outranking Rommel.

 

[Hail]

No, no..Hitler did not concentrate his forces too much, they were well placed for the task at hand. Germany's failure was caused by a mixture of winter, too many Russians, not enough occupation forces, and bad orders by Hitler himself.

Hitler cut off a piece of the pie he could not swallow. his chances of winning where near 0. that, however does not make him a great leader.

A more accurate example of SoD disadvantages would be Rommel and the Afrika Korps. Rommel had most of his forces well forward, which was not a bad move anyway. The only problem was that the British had much space in the desert to maneuver aroung the Germans and Italians and attack their supply lines, which were already straining from long distance and poor planning by the people outranking Rommel.

Rommel lost in Africa because Hitler considered Eastern front more important.

 

[Camikaze]

No, no..Hitler did not concentrate his forces too much, they were well placed for the task at hand. Germany's failure was caused by a mixture of winter, too many Russians, not enough occupation forces, and bad orders by Hitler himself.

Risking a divergence into a history derailment, I would say that the defeat was at least partly due to the large concentration of forces on cities such as Stalingrad and Leningrad. The sieges caused there through stacks on both sides were stupendously expensive. Germany lost because they just didn't have the manpower to replace their losses. At Stalingrad, Germany had over 1 000 000 men, of which 750 000 were killed or wounded. 725 000 were bogged down in Leningrad too, of which 125 000 were lost. Obviously this mass concentration of forces resulted in sever losses and contributed heavily to Germany's defeat, along with what you mentioned. But the important thing with regard to SoDs is that these battles show that the heavy concentration of forces (i.e. SoDs) leads to severe losses.

 

[Argetnyx]

Hitler cut off a piece of the pie he could not swallow. his chances of winning where near 0. that, however does not make him a great leader.

He had high chances of winning, but he made the wrong decisions. Many things, like capturing Stalingrad, were too political and not in the best interests of his generals.

Rommel lost in Africa because Hitler considered Eastern front more important.

True, I've read Rommel's combat diary (The Rommel Papers), and he agreed with you there.

Risking a divergence into a history derailment, I would say that the defeat was at least partly due to the large concentration of forces on cities such as Stalingrad and Leningrad. The sieges caused there through stacks on both sides were stupendously expensive. Germany lost because they just didn't have the manpower to replace their losses. At Stalingrad, Germany had over 1 000 000 men, of which 750 000 were killed or wounded. 725 000 were bogged down in Leningrad too, of which 125 000 were lost. Obviously this mass concentration of forces resulted in sever losses and contributed heavily to Germany's defeat, along with what you mentioned. But the important thing with regard to SoDs is that these battles show that the heavy concentration of forces (i.e. SoDs) leads to severe losses.

The Germans, Soviets, even British and Americans for that matter, would not have gotten as far as they did if they had not concentrated their forces.

The Soviets still managed to lose 9.5 million on the Eastern Front, while Germany lost 2.3 million total, not just the Eastern Front.

 

[MrCynical]

You're all talking about gameplay, and you don't even care that a good part of it (bombardment) was completely ignored.

Basic problem was that bombardment was so overpowered in Civ 3 - non-artillery units became little more than a formality to finish the enemy off. There needs to be a system where the artillery can't simply attack with no risk - possibly bring back the old artillery duel system from SMAC?

That and the AI was inept at using it, though that might be fixable.

 

[Argetnyx]

In Civ3, you would be stupid to build only artillery, since they are capturable.

 

[MrCynical]

Rather missing the point there. I'm not suggesting using only artillery, but you did only need a few defenders and fast units to mop up all the 1-hp units.