Get rid of SODs

[Argetnyx]

rysmiel: thank you, not many people realize that

The definite way to get rid of SoD's, as used in history, is:

A) Shell them with artillery
B) Bomb or strafe them using aircraft

Heavy artillery units and aircraft should be able to damage multiple units when they bomb or bombard them.

 

[MosheLevi]

B) Bomb or strafe them using aircraft

Aircraft and Bombers are not effective against SoD’s when they include Mobile SAM with intercept promotions (80% interception).

Good players will include several Mobile SAM units in their SoD’s (I know I would) that will make Aircraft and Bombers useless.

CIV 5 should remove the limit for collateral damage from artillery (just like in real life).
The more units are in one area the more units will suffer collateral damage.

 

[Argetnyx]

Aircraft and Bombers are not effective against SoD’s when they include Mobile SAM with intercept promotions (80% interception).

This is absurd, 80%?!? WHY? For dive-bombers, flak only gets them 20-30% of the time, and they get pretty close. High-altitude level bombers should not be effected by flak, and only minimally to SAM's. Civ4 seems to have degraded the importance of aircraft. I'm shocked that they did that.

 

[MosheLevi]

This is absurd, 80%?!? WHY? For dive-bombers, flak only gets them 20-30% of the time, and they get pretty close. High-altitude level bombers should not be effected by flak, and only minimally to SAM's. Civ4 seems to have degraded the importance of aircraft. I'm shocked that they did that.

You got a point there.

EDIT:

Mobile SAM comes with 50% Interception against Aircraft.
Then with Intercept I and Intercept II they get 30% more Interception (80% Total).

From your reaction I am assuming that you are NOT playing Civ 4?

 

[rysmiel]

Mobile SAM comes with 50% Interception against Aircraft.
Then with Intercept I and Intercept II they get 30% more Interception (80% Total).
From your reaction I am assuming that you are NOT playing Civ 4?

So this is yet another thing that becomes more sensible if we get rid of stupid promotions ?

 

[Zeiter]

The definite way to get rid of SoD's, as used in history, is:

A) Shell them with artillery
B) Bomb or strafe them using aircraft

Is true. Unfortunately, this is not accomplished in the game thanks to the cap of 5 units being affected by collateral damage. So, I agree with this:

CIV 5 should remove the limit for collateral damage from artillery (just like in real life).
The more units are in one area the more units will suffer collateral damage.

Here's my idea for a specific way to implement this:

Siege (and air) targets a randomized number of units in a stack, between 25% and 75%. After the targeted units have been selected, the units with immunity to siege collateral are removed from the calculation; also, units with drill II have a 20% chance of being removed from the calculation, drill III with 40% chance, drill IV with 60% chance, etc.

For the remaining targeted units, damage gets dealt to them according to the following formula:

R * (S%-((100-X)%)

Where R is the amount of damage the targeted unit would get from losing one round to the siege unit in ordinary combat, where S% is the targeted unit's current percent of its total strength (a knight at 8.0/10 would have 80% of its strength), and where X is the siege weapon's damage cap.

Let's say we are using bombers which have a damage cap of 50%. At 100% strength, a unit would get R * (100% - (100-50)%), or 50% or a round of combat in damage. A unit with 75% strength, being besieged by a bomber, would get 25% of a round of combat in damage. A unit at 60% strength would get 10% of a round of combat in damage. As units are bombed by bombers, they would asymptotically approach (but never quite arrive at) 50% damage. Towards the end (when a unit is around 70% or 60% strength) you will start getting really bad diminishing returns from bombing them further. For using a siege unit like artillery, with an 85% damage cap, you will be able to do more damage to the units before the diminishing returns really start getting noticeable.

The next part applies only to land-based siege:

To determine if the siege unit is damaged, the best defender of the defender's stack (who would normally be facing off against the siege unit) is hypothetically paired up against the corresponding best defender of the offensive stack in order to see if the best defender of the defensive stack can execute a successful sortie against the siege unit. A fake round of combat between the two best defenders is "fought" (with no damage being registered on either side). If the defender of the offensive stack wins the round, then the siege weapon gets away without any damage. If the defender of the offensive stack loses the round, the sortie goes forth and the siege unit is then paired up in normal combat with the best defender of the defensive stack, and they fight it out as normal (although with the sortie-ing defender getting a 50% bonus because the siege unit had been busy with its besieging and is getting caught by surprise by the best defender's successful sortie attempt) until either the defender reaches its damage cap and the siege unit retreats, or until the siege unit is destroyed.

So, for example:

A stack of 8 crossbowmen and 1 catapult go up against 4 longbowmen in an open field. All units are without promotions or defensive bonuses and at full health.

The catapult attacks first. It randomly selects between 25% and 75%. It selects 60%. That's how much of the stack it will target for collateral damage. This is rounded down to 50%. 2 longbowmen are targeted.

The relative strengths between it and all of the longbowmen are 5 vs. 6. So, however much damage would be done per round to the 2 longbowmen, that much is dealt * (100% - (100-75)%), so (1 round * 75%) damage is dealt to the 2 longbowmen.

Then the best defender of the defensive stack (one of the undamaged longbowmen) goes up against one of the crossbowmen for a fake round of combat to determine whether the longbowmen can sortie against the catapult. The longbowman and crossbowman are at even odds. The longbowman happens to win the fake round. It gets to sortie vs. the catapult.

The longbowmen fights against the catapult with relative strengths of 6*50% + 1 first strike vs. 5, or 9 + 1 first strike vs. 5. The longbowman takes some damage, but annihilates the catapult.

What all of this means is that:

*Dividing stacks
*Stack defense

become much more important. The SoD is no more!

 

[Naokaukodem]

I think that this thread is relevant of the way armies are managed in CivRev. I don' t know much about them, but I think most players in this thread are like me. Instead of trying to find a solution in order to disminish the impact of SODs, it would be IMO more valuable to ask oneself how to manage the different type of wars that occured in History. As I said in another topic, I think that there should be 4 types of wars throughout History:

To me, there are 4 types of battles throughout the whole History: Melee (with range and mounted units also), Ranged or "Half-Melee" or "Gunpowder"(with short range guns and cannons), Trenches (with long range guns) and Skirmish (either tank duels or covered infantry battles in cities). To each of those 4 types of battles, a particular strategy/defense: walls, tactics and number for Melee, tactics and number for Range, trenches for Trenches, and guerilla (fast and numerous attacks with constant move) for Skirmish.

That would be a good starting point to elaborate a system of realistic and enjoying battles.

 

[Argetnyx]

From your reaction I am assuming that you are NOT playing Civ 4?

No, I quit. Anyway, mobile flak/SAM units should not have so much of a chance against aircraft. Promotions, training (to be done in a barracks), should not raise the chance TOO much.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, in modern history (which is what we are talking about) aircraft are the staple of any successful army. This should definitely be reflected in Civ.

 

[Argetnyx]

Civ3 got that, whoever was the first to discover 'Flight' got a major advantage over their foes.

 

[Camikaze]

Here's my idea for a specific way to implement this:

Siege (and air) targets a randomized number of units in a stack, between 25% and 75%. After the targeted units have been selected, the units with immunity to siege collateral are removed from the calculation; also, units with drill II have a 20% chance of being removed from the calculation, drill III with 40% chance, drill IV with 60% chance, etc.

For the remaining targeted units, damage gets dealt to them according to the following formula:

R * (S%-((100-X)%)

Where R is the amount of damage the targeted unit would get from losing one round to the siege unit in ordinary combat, where S% is the targeted unit's current percent of its total strength (a knight at 8.0/10 would have 80% of its strength), and where X is the siege weapon's damage cap.

Let's say we are using bombers which have a damage cap of 50%. At 100% strength, a unit would get R * (100% - (100-50)%), or 50% or a round of combat in damage. A unit with 75% strength, being besieged by a bomber, would get 25% of a round of combat in damage. A unit at 60% strength would get 10% of a round of combat in damage. As units are bombed by bombers, they would asymptotically approach (but never quite arrive at) 50% damage. Towards the end (when a unit is around 70% or 60% strength) you will start getting really bad diminishing returns from bombing them further. For using a siege unit like artillery, with an 85% damage cap, you will be able to do more damage to the units before the diminishing returns really start getting noticeable.

That seems to work, although I would prefer it if either:
a) The limit approached, or the damage cap, was lower, i.e. 30%, or
b) The damage cap is abolished. It doesn't really make any sense.

For these to work, however, siege weapons would have to have their ability to damage reduced, per unit, to make sure balance is there, and it isn't possible to reduce a stack of 100 to 30% strength with 4 siege weapons.

Also, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by 'a round of combat in damage'. Would this mean that they would receive, say for the 75% strength unit, damage equivalent to 25% of the gap between the damage cap and their current strength, which in this case would be 6.75%? If so, wouldn't that mean that a unit of strength 100%, who receives 50% damage, would have their strength reduced to 75% after the first turn?

The next part applies only to land-based siege:

To determine if the siege unit is damaged, the best defender of the defender's stack (who would normally be facing off against the siege unit) is hypothetically paired up against the corresponding best defender of the offensive stack in order to see if the best defender of the defensive stack can execute a successful sortie against the siege unit. A fake round of combat between the two best defenders is "fought" (with no damage being registered on either side). If the defender of the offensive stack wins the round, then the siege weapon gets away without any damage. If the defender of the offensive stack loses the round, the sortie goes forth and the siege unit is then paired up in normal combat with the best defender of the defensive stack, and they fight it out as normal (although with the sortie-ing defender getting a 50% bonus because the siege unit had been busy with its besieging and is getting caught by surprise by the best defender's successful sortie attempt) until either the defender reaches its damage cap and the siege unit retreats, or until the siege unit is destroyed.

So, for example:

A stack of 8 crossbowmen and 1 catapult go up against 4 longbowmen in an open field. All units are without promotions or defensive bonuses and at full health.

The catapult attacks first. It randomly selects between 25% and 75%. It selects 60%. That's how much of the stack it will target for collateral damage. This is rounded down to 50%. 2 longbowmen are targeted.

The relative strengths between it and all of the longbowmen are 5 vs. 6. So, however much damage would be done per round to the 2 longbowmen, that much is dealt * (100% - (100-75)%), so (1 round * 75%) damage is dealt to the 2 longbowmen.

Then the best defender of the defensive stack (one of the undamaged longbowmen) goes up against one of the crossbowmen for a fake round of combat to determine whether the longbowmen can sortie against the catapult. The longbowman and crossbowman are at even odds. The longbowman happens to win the fake round. It gets to sortie vs. the catapult.

The longbowmen fights against the catapult with relative strengths of 6*50% + 1 first strike vs. 5, or 9 + 1 first strike vs. 5. The longbowman takes some damage, but annihilates the catapult.

What all of this means is that:

*Dividing stacks
*Stack defense

become much more important. The SoD is no more!

In this regards, I think it would be best to have it so that artillery bombard units, and don't have to attack them. Or, alternatively, have it so that they are attached to a unit (a standard unit, like a rifleman, infantry, etc.) that protects them when the opposition wants to perform its sortie. Also, what would happen if that sortie failed? Would the longbowman be destroyed? 'Cause that would seem to be a sort of forced combat that would have even more negative consequences for the defende, that is out of their control.

 

[Argetnyx]

Artillery should not be attached, but on their own. They should be able to bombard other units (why did they take that ability out in civ4?!?). The whole point of artillery is to stand back and give the enemy a taste of hell, not uselessly commiting suicide trying to attack the enemy.

 

[phoinix]

I suggest the following (sorry if anything has been already told):

There is a treshold of units, beyond which stacks lose movement points. In ancient era it is 11-12 units, whereas in modern era it is 7-8, mainly because modern warfare favours smaller more mobile strike forces where coordination is crucial in cotrast with the ancient era where large armies kept an advantage. Collateral damage should have no cap in stacks of units but should remain in stacks of units barricated in cities or fortresses. My 2

 

[Argetnyx]

Collateral damage should have no limit anyway, unless there is a building against it (like a bunker).

 

[Camikaze]

Perhaps a way to differentiate between penalties for modern stacks and penalties for more primitive stacks (they are designed to be in stacks more so than modern forces) would be to have penalties apply in proportion to the total health of the stack. This way, you could have a stack of 20 macemen receiving the same penalty as a stack of 5 tanks. This would be more accurate, although I fear it would not punish older stacks enough, and would punish newer stacks too much.

 

[Argetnyx]

Now it sounds like you're trying to bring back the Civ3 armies. (They took it out in 4, I think)

 

[MosheLevi]

Perhaps a way to differentiate between penalties for modern stacks and penalties for more primitive stacks (they are designed to be in stacks more so than modern forces) would be to have penalties apply in proportion to the total health of the stack. This way, you could have a stack of 20 macemen receiving the same penalty as a stack of 5 tanks. This would be more accurate, although I fear it would not punish older stacks enough, and would punish newer stacks too much.

The best way is to keep it simple.
The more units in the stack the more units are affected by collateral damage.

Units in cities and in fortify positions should have some protection against collateral damage (less damage).

Armor units should also be more immune to collateral damage but NOT 100% immune to it.

The only thing left to do is to figure out what is the percentage of units that should be affected by collateral damage.
That can only be figured out via balancing.

 

[Argetnyx]

Armored units should NOT be any more immune to aircraft bombing runs. Although they should be slightly immune to artillery shelling. The unit with the highest defense should be the one that gets damage from the main bombardment, and the weak units will be hit the hardest by the collateral damage.

 

[MosheLevi]

Armored units should NOT be any more immune to aircraft bombing runs. Although they should be slightly immune to artillery shelling.

Yes, I was referring to Artillery and forgot all about Aircraft, lol.

The unit with the highest defense should be the one that gets damage from the main bombardment,

Why is that?

and the weak units will be hit the hardest by the collateral damage.

Collateral damage in real life is random, so why not leave it the way it is in the game right now?

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, I prefer the random collateral damage thing. And, if bombardment of a tile is instituted, then I don't there should be any main bombardment itself, just collateral damage.