Get rid of SODs

[deanej]

As it is now, collateral damage does not affect the unit defending agaisnt the siege unit. This means that if you're going after a city in the middle ages, for example, you're still going to face a full-strength longbowman no matter how many siege units you use unless one of them damages it in regular combat (which is rare if the longbow has CG promotions).

 

[§L¥ Gµ¥]

SoD's as stated do represent just large armies, and a single tile should be able to support them. What would be the counter to these in the real world is mobile forces harassing that stack, picking off stragglers with hit and run tactics. So, what this says to me is that mounted units and their flank attacks should have higher withdraw chances.

Another thing that could be implemented would be an 'ambush' feature to each unit, like fortify. When a unit is lying in ambush mode, they'd be invisible to enemy units potentially with a chance of discovery [not cumulative with multiple enemies present on the same tile]. Ambush would count for a few first strike chances [say 1 per turn in ambush mode to a maximum of 5, subject to play-testing and balance of course], even for units that would normally not receive any. And the number of turns in ambush mode could decrease the likelihood of being discovered. Cavalry would not be immune to the first strike of ambush.

Ambush mode would get the defensive bonuses of terrain as well, and if the SoD 'discovers' the ambush at the onset of attack, then the units lying in ambush would not gain the defensive bonuses of fortify, or the first strikes of the ambush. Furthermore, larger numbers of ambushing units in the same tile increases their chance of being discovered negating the effect of an ambush.

After a successful Ambush, the surviving Ambush units would be scattered on the adjacent tiles around where the battle occurred, subject now to movement 2 cavalry counterattack, or at the beginning of their next turn to flee and regroup using normal movement. Another thing to consider would be ambushing units attack the units in a stack they match up best against instead of worst because technically it's the attacker who's moved into them, making the ambushing units the defenders. This could prove to be absolutely devastating to a SoD if you lose 3-4 city raider units each time during a successful ambush. But the ambushing effect would be counterbalanced by the effect of multiple ambushers on a single tile decreases their chance of a successful ambush.

This to me would make several things relevant again. Scouts and freelance mounted units on the offensive would increase your chance of finding units in ambush, so it might be worthwhile to build employ them. It would make some of the most critical battle fought outside of the capture of cities. It might make feints useful and battlefield tactics useful. [hit and run cavalry to funnel a SoD into ambush for instance]. It may allow the game designers to finally tone down the ******** defensive bonuses archers get for city defense which makes a stack of doom necessary offensively in the first place!

I've been a big proponent of taking civ combat outside of the cities, and this is just an extension of that. How many ancient wars were decided on battlefields, and not on the city walls? That's the kind of warfare we should be aiming to recreate.

 

[MosheLevi]

Another thing that could be implemented would be an 'ambush' feature to each unit, like fortify. When a unit is lying in ambush mode, they'd be invisible to enemy units potentially with a chance of discovery [not cumulative with multiple enemies present on the same tile]. Ambush would count for a few first strike chances [say 1 per turn in ambush mode to a maximum of 5, subject to play-testing and balance of course], even for units that would normally not receive any. And the number of turns in ambush mode could decrease the likelihood of being discovered. Cavalry would not be immune to the first strike of ambush.

Ambush mode would get the defensive bonuses of terrain as well, and if the SoD 'discovers' the ambush at the onset of attack, then the units lying in ambush would not gain the defensive bonuses of fortify, or the first strikes of the ambush. Furthermore, larger numbers of ambushing units in the same tile increases their chance of being discovered negating the effect of an ambush.

After a successful Ambush, the surviving Ambush units would be scattered on the adjacent tiles around where the battle occurred, subject now to movement 2 cavalry counterattack, or at the beginning of their next turn to flee and regroup using normal movement. Another thing to consider would be ambushing units attack the units in a stack they match up best against instead of worst because technically it's the attacker who's moved into them, making the ambushing units the defenders. This could prove to be absolutely devastating to a SoD if you lose 3-4 city raider units each time during a successful ambush. But the ambushing effect would be counterbalanced by the effect of multiple ambushers on a single tile decreases their chance of a successful ambush.

This to me would make several things relevant again. Scouts and freelance mounted units on the offensive would increase your chance of finding units in ambush, so it might be worthwhile to build employ them. It would make some of the most critical battle fought outside of the capture of cities. It might make feints useful and battlefield tactics useful. [hit and run cavalry to funnel a SoD into ambush for instance]. It may allow the game designers to finally tone down the ******** defensive bonuses archers get for city defense which makes a stack of doom necessary offensively in the first place!

I've been a big proponent of taking civ combat outside of the cities, and this is just an extension of that. How many ancient wars were decided on battlefields, and not on the city walls? That's the kind of warfare we should be aiming to recreate.

There is a special thread for the “Ambush” idea so you may want to check it out here:
“Ambush” – New Idea for CIV 5

 

[Zeiter]

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?

No, a round of combat means a round of combat in the sense that when you look at the events window and you see "your longbowman was hit for 10 HP" or whatever. So let's say a catapult would hit a longbowman for 10 HP for one round of combat. 25% percent of that would be 2.5 HP, or 2 HP rounded down--a piddling amount, and asymptotically decreasing even further as one approaches the damage cap. That's how I'd have it work.

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.

Like I said, it would be a "fake" round of combat, so if the sortie would fail, then nothing would happen. The sortieing longbow would retreat back without any damage taken.

 

[Argetnyx]

Feigning and surrounding are good, strategic ideas for civ. But flanking, ambushing, hit and run, and hiding are all tactical and NOT for civ. Small unit tactics are not for civilization, it's in the name. If it was, the name would be something about 'warfare', not civilization. The one thing that CAN be done is stealth attack, like submarines in Civ3.

With the collateral damage: It should NOT be random, the unit with the highest defense will be hit by the main bombardment, whitl the other units with high defenses will be hit by the collateral. The weaker units will not be hit because they are smaller, which makes them less likely to be hit.

 

[MosheLevi]

Feigning and surrounding are good, strategic ideas for civ. But flanking, ambushing, hit and run, and hiding are all tactical and NOT for civ. Small unit tactics are not for civilization, it's in the name. If it was, the name would be something about 'warfare', not civilization.

Warfare is part of Civilization so why not make Warfare more tactical?

With the collateral damage: It should NOT be random, the unit with the highest defense will be hit by the main bombardment, while the other units with high defenses will be hit by the collateral.

Why units with the Highest defense?
I think it would make more sense that collateral damage affects units with the Lowest defense.

The weaker units will not be hit because they are smaller, which makes them less likely to be hit.

Weaker units are NOT always smaller.
They can be older units from previous eras or Infantry units mixed together with Modern Armor.

 

[Argetnyx]

Warfare is part of Civilization so why not make Warfare more tactical?

Warfare on the scale of civ can only be strategic. 'Capturing a city' is not considered to be tactical, it is strategic; but capturing a certain building or city block is considered tactical. Civ3 (4 too ?) represents this by terrain, city, and improvement bonuses.

Why units with the Highest defense?
I think it would make more sense that collateral damage affects units with the Lowest defense.

The ones with the highest defence are hit by the main bombardment, not the collateral. The next highest defenders will be hit by the collateral damage.

Weaker units are NOT always smaller.
They can be older units from previous eras or Infantry units mixed together with Modern Armor.

Yes, but the modern units themselves are bigger: Which is bigger, a tank, or ten spearmen? I think that the foot units should be more vulnerable to collateral damage, but the largest units are the ones that are most likely to be hit.

 

[Trias]

One idea I had to increase the importance of unit positioning is that units get a bonus in combat for each tile surrounding the defending tile that is occupied by friendly units.

One particular way this could be implemented is that each of the participants in combat gets +10% str for each tile neighboring the defending tile that is occupied by friendly units. For example, if a SoD is completely surrounded by enemy units each of the enemy units would get a +80% str when attacking the stack.

This makes single attacking stacks very vulnerable, since they are easily surrounded (and then slaughtered) by fast moving cavalry. Instead it will be much better to spread out the stack and advance as a front. This limits the number of enemy unit in neighboring tiles to 3 while also having at least 2 tiles occupied by friendly units, keeping the bonuses more or less equal.

It also introduces actual sieges of cities, where the attacker surrounds the city with troops before attacking as to gain the maximal attack bonus.

What I like about this idea is that it is very simple; the gained bonuses by attackers and defenders can easily be communicated with the rest of the bonuses for example terrain. Yet, this one simple rule adds a lot more strategical depth to unit placement in combat.

 

[Argetnyx]

I think that the units should get less attacking penalty for being surrounded than defensive penalty. Unless the unit was surrounded for more than, lets say, two turns.

 

[scothed]

I think there are several ways this problem can be dealt with.

The first thing I would do would be to introduce a movement penalty for SOD's the bigger they get; as someone else already suggested.

The second thing would be to introduce more "random events" such as breakouts of illness and disease in large-medieval SOD's. We know from history that when large armies gathered that many soldiers would get sick. How about units in a SOD operating at a lower level of HP's dependent on the size of the SOD they are in? For example 20 axemen operate at 90%, 40 at 80% and so on...

Third; for modern warfare... if you have one source of oil it doesn't make sense that you can have unlimited amounts of tanks, destroyers and planes. There should be a limit of how many units one source of oil, iron, copper, uranium can support. This would make hoarding these resources more important. If you have one oil, then you can't have more than 100 oil dependent units for example, never mind producing any more!

 

[Argetnyx]

For example 20 axemen operate at 90%, 40 at 80% and so on...can't have more than 100 oil dependent units

Can you even get the chance to build that many units in civ4 anyway?

to introduce more "random events" such as breakouts of illness and disease

Civ3 already has the disease event if any unit spends too much time in a marsh or jungle.

There should be a limit of how many units one source of oil, iron, copper, uranium can support.

I don't think iron should be a support requirement.

 

[scothed]

I regularly have SOD's in excess of 50 units so yeah... building that many units isn't a problem in Civ4.

Also, I never played Civ3; it was the only one I missed in the series. I've never had that type of even in Civ4 though.

Iron should be IMO. Swords and Axes get broken in combat and need repair!

 

[Trias]

I think that the units should get less attacking penalty for being surrounded than defensive penalty. Unless the unit was surrounded for more than, lets say, two turns.

Why?

Ofcourse, the exact value of the bonus has to be determined by playtesting, and it might very well be that the bonus needs to be different for attackers and defenders.

I wouldn't make it dependent on the number of turns though. IMO it would make a simple idea more complicated than necessary, and thus less transparant for the player.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Stop torturing yourselves with such ideas... the best way to treat with stacks are other stacks, and catapults. That works pretty well already.

As to armies, I think they should be implemented in Civ5, just like in CivRev.

 

[deanej]

Another idea would be to make defensive bonuses less potent in enemy lands. As in, if you are in a tile controlled by an enemy, you get no defensive bonus unless you've been in the tile for a turn or two and haven't moved. Then teach the AI to not huddle in its cities waiting to be conquered. The latter change would no doubt make war much harder against an AI if done well.

 

[Argetnyx]

That wouldn't even be accurate, make it a defensive bonus on your own lands (fimiliarity of terrain). When you (Trias) mentioned being surrounded, I think you remembered that it was a common goal for armies, but not the reason why. The reason is to cut off supplies from the surrounded unit, therefore the longer the unit is surrounded, the weaker it gets.

 

[Trias]

That wouldn't even be accurate, make it a defensive bonus on your own lands (fimiliarity of terrain). When you (Trias) mentioned being surrounded, I think you remembered that it was a common goal for armies, but not the reason why. The reason is to cut off supplies from the surrounded unit, therefore the longer the unit is surrounded, the weaker it gets.

Accuracy is overrated. The main issue is gameplay. In which context you should always remember KISS.

 

[Argetnyx]

Hey man, overrated?!? Gameplay? Yes, it is important, but you can only go so far untill it is so inaccurate that it is pointless in calling "Civilization". CIV4 IS OVERRATED!!! Civ3 (civ2, as well, from what I hear) is MUCH more accurate than civ4, and there are still people playing it. I have seen many threads in the Civ3 section about how people quit Civ3 to play 4, but came back because they don't like the what has been done to the game. Sure, they changed the rules to draw in more players, but the people that enjoy Civilization are put off by the stupid stuff done to it. In my opinion, civ4 doesn't deserve the title of "Civilization" at all.

 

[Trias]

Hey man, overrated?!? Gameplay? Yes, it is important, but you can only go so far untill it is so inaccurate that it is pointless in calling "Civilization". CIV4 IS OVERRATED!!! Civ3 (civ2, as well, from what I hear) is MUCH more accurate than civ4, and there are still people playing it. I have seen many threads in the Civ3 section about how people quit Civ3 to play 4, but came back because they don't like the what has been done to the game. Sure, they changed the rules to draw in more players, but the people that enjoy Civilization are put off by the stupid stuff done to it. In my opinion, civ4 doesn't deserve the title of "Civilization" at all.

You do shout a lot for someone who has next to none experience with civilization titles other than your precious, III. Gameplay wise civ4 is much more sophisticated than any of its predecessors, which featured very 1-dimensional gameplay with a single dominant strategy: expand, expand, expand and then expand some more.

 

[Hail]

You do shout a lot for someone who has next to none experience with civilization titles other than your precious, III. Gameplay wise civ4 is much more sophisticated than any of its predecessors, which featured very 1-dimensional gameplay with a single dominant strategy: expand, expand, expand and then expand some more.

can't think of 1 strategy where expansion was not crucial. civ4 is the same as all the civs before. if you don't expand you lose. as for SoD's, i thought about unorganized stacks and organized stacks. in an unorganized stack, the attack picks the defender at random, as opposed to an organized stack. maybe a stack can become organized if united under a general or something like that.