Get rid of SODs

[exhile]

Since civ 4 was designed from scratch technically nothing was removed (just not implemented). Bombardment was likely not included so that collateral damage could be implemented. Far from making seige useless, this likely made seige overpowered; suicide catapults became a defacto strategy.

The flanking referred to is not the promotion but rather the ability introduced in Beyond the Sword for mounted units to damage seige units in a stack. So if you had a stack of catapults and other assorted units, and a horse archer attacked you (with a non-catapult defending), and the horse archer won (I think even if it withdrew), your catapults would be damaged. Personally I hate this mechanic, but it was part of the siege nerf in BtS (the other part was not allowing them to kill units). IMO, the latter change actually makes seige more powerful, not less, because this means that many seige units that would have died withdraw before they can get killed. The flanking promotions lie anyways, 20% withdrawl chance is only 20% if combat odds are 0% (withdrawl odds and odds to win are inversely related).

Promotions and experience are civ 4's way of making veteran units stronger than rookie units (in theory; there are factors such as free promotions, experience, etc. that complicate this).

I like how siege units are currently than how it was in Civ3. It didn't make sense to me that a bombard could miss and therefore waste the attack capability for 1 turn. Even taking over a siege unit or letting it be destroyed was a misnomer to me. Differentiating between a trebuchet and a catapult brought an interesting twist on how bombardment plays on a stack of units and a city. BTS even capped the bombard damage on SOD units which effectively limited the SOD.

Once the SOD gets to like 300 units, then its ridiculous to fight.

 

[rysmiel]

That's the point! You're not supposed to build artillery SoD's. You're supposed to mix your artillery in with other units in a SoD. That way, when it is attacked, the other units defend and your artillery is free to fight another day (unless the whole stack is destroyed, then you're screwed)

I think we're in violent agreement here. I'm not saying anyone would build an all-artillery SoD; I am saying that if an SoD can be turned against you you would sensibly give it more defenders than otherwise.

 

[Highwayhoss]

OK after reading this thread I've got to speak my mind...
I too get annoyed at huge stacks running around the world and defenders just holing up in cities, so I would like to make a couple of suggestions:

1. Law of Diminishing Returns:Stacks above a certain number of units get penalties to their unit strengths, movement and first strike capability; the more units the less effective each one is.

2. Health and Happiness Penalties in Cities. If you stick 20,000 troops in a city with a population of 30,000, the city's infrastructure will feel the strain; therefore, have large stacks in cities count as population for health,happiness and food consumption. A city with a large number of troops will quickly become unhealthy and unhappy in a hurry.

 

[Camikaze]

Number 1 is pretty much what we've been getting at, just with specifics. 'Law of Diminishing Returns' is a nice way of summarising it.

Number 2 could be a good idea. IIRC, it hasn't been mentioned yet. Perhaps a one unhappiness penalty for every 5 units above double the city size, but only for more than ten units (so you don't get penalised for having 9 units in a size 2 city). Health could be similar.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The thing is, I don't like suicidal units. They just aren't worth my time. And I do know civ4 combat, just not BtS combat.

This is not a rational argument. Every unit in every civ game is potential suicidal. You might as well not like units.

The returns on civ IV siege are so high that only a few competent strategies exist that ignore it. You might not like the system (and seem to have perfectly legit reasons as to why), but calling the siege units themselves useless is flagrantly false.

 

[Highwayhoss]

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.

I like your idea, Trias..this would force players to spread out to cover their flanks rather than grouping units in huge stacks that could be easily surrounded...this would make war more realistic with units constantly having to screen each other against flanking and encirclement. Cavalry units would gain more importance as a means of screening or flanking units. Combine this with increased lethality of artillery plus health and happiness penalties for garrisoning large stacks in cities and oversize stacks will become a liability.

 

[Camikaze]

But at the same time, it would mean that ten tanks on a tile would be highly susceptible to an attack from, say, a rifleman, if they are surrounded by warriors, perhaps. This would make no sense. Just because a stack of ten units is surrounded, doesn't mean that they are going to be susceptible to flanking attacks or encirclement, if the units are inferior. And even if the units are of the same strength, what about being in the next tile would realistically make a unit attacking from another tile more powerful? Perhaps the defending unit may have their supplies cut or something, but this would not be the way to implement that.

 

[Highwayhoss]

But at the same time, it would mean that ten tanks on a tile would be highly susceptible to an attack from, say, a rifleman, if they are surrounded by warriors, perhaps. This would make no sense. Just because a stack of ten units is surrounded, doesn't mean that they are going to be susceptible to flanking attacks or encirclement, if the units are inferior. And even if the units are of the same strength, what about being in the next tile would realistically make a unit attacking from another tile more powerful? Perhaps the defending unit may have their supplies cut or something, but this would not be the way to implement that.

You the make some good points, Camikaze; certainly, a unit or unit stack with superior movement would be more difficult to flank or encircle. Anyway, from my experience of modding Civ4, such a change in the game mechanics would require some SDK work, so it would be difficult to implement, especially taking into account the various factors like movement capabilities or terrain.

 

[rysmiel]

1. Law of Diminishing Returns:Stacks above a certain number of units get penalties to their unit strengths, movement and first strike capability; the more units the less effective each one is.

I am disinclined to this one. Make stacks more expensive, make them more vulnerable, strengthen other ways of fighting, sure; but none of this should make SoDs impossible.

2. Health and Happiness Penalties in Cities. If you stick 20,000 troops in a city with a population of 30,000, the city's infrastructure will feel the strain; therefore, have large stacks in cities count as population for health,happiness and food consumption. A city with a large number of troops will quickly become unhealthy and unhappy in a hurry.

But city size does not scale linearly, no ? How many troops does a unit actually represent ? A city of a million people should be able to host twenty thousand troops without noticing.

 

[Camikaze]

I am disinclined to this one. Make stacks more expensive, make them more vulnerable, strengthen other ways of fighting, sure; but none of this should make SoDs impossible.

Isn't that what the law of diminishing returns specifies? The more units in a stack, the more expensive it it? The more units in a stack, the more vulnerable it is? The more units in a stack, the weaker their attack abilities are?

 

[rysmiel]

Isn't that what the law of diminishing returns specifies? The more units in a stack, the more expensive it it? The more units in a stack, the more vulnerable it is? The more units in a stack, the weaker their attack abilities are?

The difference here is that Highwayhoss' proposal is a function imposed artificially on a stack, that is penalising people for the very act of building a big SoD. Whereas making units more expensive, or changing the way defence works as I suggested earlier, or (my preference) making other ways of competing enough more important that military as a whole becomes a lot less useful, are things from which fewer SoDs arise as a consequence. It's addressing it at the problem level rather than the symptom level.

If you have a Civ game with a dozen different ways to win a war, one of which is SoDs, and SoDs are hard to do, someone who puts enough logistical effort into building an SoD anyway should not IMO be penalised for that.

 

[Camikaze]

Oh, I see. I completely agree. I was just thinking that Highwayhoss was giving a general explanation of how such penalties would essentially apply, when factored in.

 

[Trias]

But at the same time, it would mean that ten tanks on a tile would be highly susceptible to an attack from, say, a rifleman, if they are surrounded by warriors, perhaps. This would make no sense. Just because a stack of ten units is surrounded, doesn't mean that they are going to be susceptible to flanking attacks or encirclement, if the units are inferior. And even if the units are of the same strength, what about being in the next tile would realistically make a unit attacking from another tile more powerful? Perhaps the defending unit may have their supplies cut or something, but this would not be the way to implement that.

About your realism point. The main point is that having units in the neighbouring tiles would increase your combat odds (and the conventional way to represent that is through combat bonuses, you could also turn it around and make it penalties which might be a bit more realistic but also harder to make scale properly.) This can be rationalized through arguments that involve reduced mobility of the surrounded troops/larger front to cover.

That being said. I slightly modified idea is to have the strongest unit in each of the neighboring squares have 10% (for example) of their power added to the fight. This would solve the tank surrounded by warriors problem. It also allows more flexibility to the again as you could give certain units abilities that make them better (or worse) at projecting their power in neighbouring squares. This could for example allow the game designers to shift balance from concentrated SoDs to spread out armies throughout the different eras.

(SoD are actually a pretty accurate way of depicting medieval warfare. You would have a giant army roaming the country side and the defenders either riding to face them in single deciding battle, or more frequently hole up in walled cities waiting for the attacking army to lay siege.)

 

[MosheLevi]

(SoD are actually a pretty accurate way of depicting medieval warfare. You would have a giant army roaming the country side and the defenders either riding to face them in single deciding battle, or more frequently hole up in walled cities waiting for the attacking army to lay siege.)

True.
However, SoD is NOT the only factor in winning a battle.

A small force can decimate a much larger force via effective Ambush and inflict massive casualties.
The only problem is that Civ 4 doesn’t have a true “Ambush” feature.

So there is more to war than SoD, but in Civ 4 all we have is SoD.

Another important factor in war is the army’s position (location).
Hills, Mountains, Forests, and Jungles can give forces advantages.
Civ 4 gives armies that are stationed in such locations a Defensive bonus but NOT Attack bonus.
So force on a hill/mountain gets a bonus only when it is on the defensive, but not when it is attacking from that advantage position.
That doesn’t reflect reality.

Also Collateral damage is NOT reflected accurately in Civ 4.
In reality the more forces are packed in the same area the more they will suffer collateral damage.
Civ 4 puts hard limit on the number of units that suffer collateral damage, and that doesn’t reflect reality.
That also promotes SoD’s even more.

 

[Highwayhoss]

I am disinclined to this one. Make stacks more expensive, make them more vulnerable, strengthen other ways of fighting, sure; but none of this should make SoDs impossible.

I don't want to make SoDs impossible, I'm trying to reflect a limitation of having large numbers of troops in a single tile; namely Command and Control. Yes you can assemble a large army in a single tile, but controlling it effectively is another matter; after a certain point the troops will start getting in each others' way.

But city size does not scale linearly, no ? How many troops does a unit actually represent ? A city of a million people should be able to host twenty thousand troops without noticing.

True; if the city has the proper facilities that would not be a problem....what I'm talking about is a siege situation where troops are bottled up in a city by besieging forces. One thing that is missing in Civ4 is the effects of a siege; in the game a city under attack by an enemy army is still able to work its surrounding tiles, which I find horribly unrealistic. I would like to see the navies' "Blockade" command expanded to not only cut off trade routes but also prevent city tiles from being worked; land units should get an "interdiction" command that is similar to the "blockade" command.

 

[Argetnyx]

This is not a rational argument. Every unit in every civ game is potential suicidal. You might as well not like units.

The returns on civ IV siege are so high that only a few competent strategies exist that ignore it. You might not like the system (and seem to have perfectly legit reasons as to why), but calling the siege units themselves useless is flagrantly false.

Yes, but it is really annoying how unrealistically the artillery units have to be inplemented for them to have any effective use.

 

[Camikaze]

About your realism point. The main point is that having units in the neighbouring tiles would increase your combat odds (and the conventional way to represent that is through combat bonuses, you could also turn it around and make it penalties which might be a bit more realistic but also harder to make scale properly.) This can be rationalized through arguments that involve reduced mobility of the surrounded troops/larger front to cover.

But shouldn't it only be a larger front to cover if you are attacked? It isn't a front if nothing happens. Also, having reduced mobility due to being surrounded implies that during combat, your unit moves onto adjacent tiles. That is not the case. You will have a reduced ability to move of your tile, and you will be susceptible in the ensuing battle, but you wont be disadvantaged in any other way if the enemy spreads their forces thin.

That being said. I slightly modified idea is to have the strongest unit in each of the neighboring squares have 10% (for example) of their power added to the fight. This would solve the tank surrounded by warriors problem. It also allows more flexibility to the again as you could give certain units abilities that make them better (or worse) at projecting their power in neighbouring squares. This could for example allow the game designers to shift balance from concentrated SoDs to spread out armies throughout the different eras.

This is a much better idea, although I still don't see how it is realistic.

(SoD are actually a pretty accurate way of depicting medieval warfare. You would have a giant army roaming the country side and the defenders either riding to face them in single deciding battle, or more frequently hole up in walled cities waiting for the attacking army to lay siege.)

True, but the problem is that this extends into every other era of the game. There would be a balance point, where stacks are comprised of not enough units to have to worry about penalties, and this would be more representative of a medieval army, which was, after all, smaller.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, but it is really annoying how unrealistically the artillery units have to be inplemented for them to have any effective use.

Well, look at it this way then: tech-lead siege units almost never die.

So if you don't want to suicide troops, there's always lib---->steel and using cannons. The "range" kind of feels like its there when you lose 0 (maybe 1 if unlucky) and take down rows of longbows, knights, or whatever.

Arty own renaissance troops pretty hard too.

Siege in real life wasn't immortal and it definitely shouldn't be in civ, although I'm very open to re-working it once again, because they didn't meet any goals with it in civ III or IV. It's not especially realistic and it dominates both games (in different ways) too greatly.

My recent immortal U submission is a very good example of just how broken it is. An industrial-era civ with infantry, machine guns, and even fighters declared on me when I had cavalry and cannons.

I won. Inflicting more kills than the deaths I had...and this is mostly explained by his main force entering my vassal's territory (could just have easily been my own) and getting SHREDDED by siege + cavalry. From there on out my losses were more 1:1 due to being behind an era, but when you just got a 5:1 kills/deaths across 50 units, that's fine . The AI capitulated in less than 15 turns after I took 5 cities or so.

So siege can cover a 10+ technology hole and allow it to be done in good time...not only *not* useless, but probably too strong even in its present form!

 

[rysmiel]

True.
However, SoD is NOT the only factor in winning a battle.

A small force can decimate a much larger force via effective Ambush and inflict massive casualties.
The only problem is that Civ 4 doesn’t have a true “Ambush” feature.

I think this is appropriate, because it's a scale issue. The kind of ambushes you are talking about seem to me to all be included within the vicissitudes Civ simulates at a strategic level with one "unit" engaging another.

 

[Argetnyx]

I think this is appropriate, because it's a scale issue. The kind of ambushes you are talking about seem to me to all be included within the vicissitudes Civ simulates at a strategic level with one "unit" engaging another.

I think the 'unit' in civ is about on division level. Whole divisions are never ambushed, they're too big.