Get rid of SODs

[exhile]

SODs are probably going to remain in Civ5. I think there ought to be some sort of cap for all tiles including those with forts & airbases (exception for cities). The number should be 5 for ancient, 10 for classical, 15 for medieval, 20 for industrial and 25 for modern. So all tiles wouldn't have more than 25 units at one time. This concept may bring about multiple SODs side-by-side each other on an offensive against a city.

 

[deanej]

That could work; it would make the eras actually have an effect on gameplay. Forts should allow more units than a regular tile. This would make choke points more strategic. Air units should work like they do now, and navel units may need a different system. Units that represent a single person (spies, great people, etc.) should be exempt.

 

[rysmiel]

SODs are probably going to remain in Civ5. I think there ought to be some sort of cap for all tiles including those with forts & airbases (exception for cities). The number should be 5 for ancient, 10 for classical, 15 for medieval, 20 for industrial and 25 for modern. So all tiles wouldn't have more than 25 units at one time. This concept may bring about multiple SODs side-by-side each other on an offensive against a city.

That is really crude, and I do not like it at all. I'd far rather fixes where the inefficiency and undesirability of SoDs arose naturally from the larger game rules than arbitrary caps saying basically "the rules would let you win this way but we will explicitly hack them to stop you".

 

[morss_4]

Since no one has brought it up I'm going to mention the attrition system from EU3, which is pretty effective at resolving the SoD question in that game. SoD in that game are neither eliminated, nor fool proof. They exist but require care in their use.

The system works like this. Every province (if implemented in Civ this would be a tile) has a support limit. Say 9. Support limit is higher in provinces you own and lower in provinces your enemies own. As land tech and economic development go up this number increases, so by the late game it may be 30. You may place more than 9 regiments in that province if you wish, however if you do so you will suffer attrition. Attrition quite simply kills a fixed number of your troops every month.

So for example if a province has a supply limit of 9 and you march 30 regiments into it, some fraction of your army will die every month due to attrition. This represents the fact that the province cannot support an army of that size. The fraction of your troops that dies every month depends on the province itself, as well as the time of year. Generally it is 5% (so in a 1000 man regiment 50 die every month) but during winter or in tropical provinces it could go as high as 15%. Further, if you invade an enemies land they may scorch the Earth in that province, which could add another 10%.

What this means is that your SoD can be brought to it's knees by disease and starvation without the enemy firing a shot. Despite this a large army will always mop the floor with a smaller one, all things being equal. As a result you try to keep SoD's together only briefly, defeat the enemy army, then split your forces.

In Civ I think this could work quite well. In addition to grasslands having higher support limits than hills for example, you could have farms have higher support limits than unimproved tiles. Thus a viable strategy on defense would be to pillage your own farms in the face of attack by a superior force, to increase their attrition. Much like in EU3 you could imagine strategies of avoidance, where you keep sufficient forces near by to force your enemy to concentrate his forces, but avoid direct confrontation, resulting in attrition losses.

 

[Trias]

Since no one has brought it up I'm going to mention the attrition system from EU3, which is pretty effective at resolving the SoD question in that game. SoD in that game are neither eliminated, nor fool proof. They exist but require care in their use.

The system works like this. Every province (if implemented in Civ this would be a tile) has a support limit. Say 9. Support limit is higher in provinces you own and lower in provinces your enemies own. As land tech and economic development go up this number increases, so by the late game it may be 30. You may place more than 9 regiments in that province if you wish, however if you do so you will suffer attrition. Attrition quite simply kills a fixed number of your troops every month.

So for example if a province has a supply limit of 9 and you march 30 regiments into it, some fraction of your army will die every month due to attrition. This represents the fact that the province cannot support an army of that size. The fraction of your troops that dies every month depends on the province itself, as well as the time of year. Generally it is 5% (so in a 1000 man regiment 50 die every month) but during winter or in tropical provinces it could go as high as 15%. Further, if you invade an enemies land they may scorch the Earth in that province, which could add another 10%.

What this means is that your SoD can be brought to it's knees by disease and starvation without the enemy firing a shot. Despite this a large army will always mop the floor with a smaller one, all things being equal. As a result you try to keep SoD's together only briefly, defeat the enemy army, then split your forces.

In Civ I think this could work quite well. In addition to grasslands having higher support limits than hills for example, you could have farms have higher support limits than unimproved tiles. Thus a viable strategy on defense would be to pillage your own farms in the face of attack by a superior force, to increase their attrition. Much like in EU3 you could imagine strategies of avoidance, where you keep sufficient forces near by to force your enemy to concentrate his forces, but avoid direct confrontation, resulting in attrition losses.

Such an attrition system makes sense in a preindustrial age scenario, but almost no sense in modern times, where it is relatively easy to ship supplies over long distances. (it is not like the US troops in Irak are supported by the local produce) So to implement this in civ would require a more complicated supply system, which isn't very civ like. (after all civ is NOT a wargame)

From a gameplay perspective, I also dislike this mechanic, because it directly penalizes stacks, instead of providing alternate viable options.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Personnally, I don't see any problem with stacks. But if there was, we could simply move back to Civ1/2 (2? not sure) where entire stacks were destroyed if only one battle was lost. (but it would need some tweak as in Civ1/2 it was nearly impossible to lose against a less powerfull unit)

 

[morss_4]

Such an attrition system makes sense in a preindustrial age scenario, but almost no sense in modern times, where it is relatively easy to ship supplies over long distances. (it is not like the US troops in Irak are supported by the local produce) So to implement this in civ would require a more complicated supply system, which isn't very civ like. (after all civ is NOT a wargame)

You could simply turn the feature off for modern age units. Then in the modern age you could up artillery collateral damage to punish stacks.

 

[MosheLevi]

You could simply turn the feature off for modern age units. Then in the modern age you could up artillery collateral damage to punish stacks.

Exactly.
I was saying the exact same thing in my previous posts.
Why limiting SoD sizes or adding annoying penalties?

Just increase collateral damage for modern artillery so it damages 20% of the units in a stack (with no cap) and the problem is solved.

Players can still have huge SoD’s if they must but that will be a tactical mistake.
This solution will encourage them to split their huge SoD to a few smaller ones.
Encouraging them to do so is better than forcing them (via SoD limits).

 

[morss_4]

Exactly.
I was saying the exact same thing in my previous posts.
Why limiting SoD sizes or adding annoying penalties?

Just increase collateral damage for modern artillery so it damages 20% of the units in a stack (with no cap) and the problem is solved.

Players can still have huge SoD’s if they must but that will be a tactical mistake.
This solution will encourage them to split their huge SoD to a few smaller ones.
Encouraging them to do so is better than forcing them (via SoD limits).

The problem of course is that if you do this with pre-modern artillery it becomes very ahistorical (assuming you are bothered by that) so you are either left with the situation we have now where catapults are battlefield killers or you have a situation where SoD's are permitted to run rampant until the 19th century. Some people are bothered by the former, some are bothered by the latter. The attrition system is one possible way of resolving it (without hard limits) that no one mentioned, so I thought I would.

Personally I find the attrition system in the Paradox games fun and strategically interesting, and I like the idea of pillaging my own farms in the face of a superior force being a viable tactic, but that's just one mans opinion.

 

[Argetnyx]

Personnally, I don't see any problem with stacks. But if there was, we could simply move back to Civ1/2 (2? not sure) where entire stacks were destroyed if only one battle was lost. (but it would need some tweak as in Civ1/2 it was nearly impossible to lose against a less powerfull unit)

I like this idea, how about all units in the stack are damaged if a battle is won (obviously this needs tweaking, but it's a start)

 

[Naokaukodem]

I like this idea, how about all units in the stack are damaged if a battle is won (obviously this needs tweaking, but it's a start)

Then all units would act like Civ4 artillery. But what would be the use of artillery then?

Definitely, I want a system of armies comparable to CivRev in Civ5, even more elaborated. (with the 4 types of battles along History represented)

Another thing I find is important regarfull of warfare in Civ is the ability to determine places of battle. In reality, battles was most of the time programmed, and when they were not, it was easy with spies to localize an enemy army.
But with the actual system of spies of civ4, it is still difficult to guess where the AI will hit, when it is very important especially with a long frontier with it.
So maybe a spie option should allow us to see AI "war routes", in order to see where the AI will go in case of war.
It was possible in Civ3 and 2 to some extend, the AI "military plans" revealing us only the position of the AI troops. In Civ5, it should not only reveal AI troops position, but where they will hit also.
We could do that kind of automatic, because spies in reality are so common that they are in every place. Or we could do that a spying action, like the "plan steal" of Civ3/2. Needless to say that i prefer the automatic way.
But we need something about army moves because it is an aspect as important as warfare itself.

 

[Trias]

Personnally, I don't see any problem with stacks. But if there was, we could simply move back to Civ1/2 (2? not sure) where entire stacks were destroyed if only one battle was lost. (but it would need some tweak as in Civ1/2 it was nearly impossible to lose against a less powerfull unit)

I've been thinking about this as well. The civ2 system may have been a bit harsh (and even more so on the AI), but it effectively limited the use of very large stacks. Units outside of cities should pretty much always do collateral damage if they win. (similar to the BTS flanking mechanic against siege weapons) The amount of collateral damage dealt to stack could depend on the unit used. (which gives a way of scaling the effect of this mechanic in different ages) The amount of collateral damage recieved could also depend on the status of the defending units. (fortified units could be less prone to collateral damage than units that simply ended their turn on the square.)

This makes SoDs less attractive, but not impossible. If using large stacks a player will have to take measures to protect his/her primary stack from counter attacks. This is much more attractive than directly penalizing stacks, since certain situations will always require large stacks (for example taking a well defended city for a technologically superior opponent.)

Then all units would act like Civ4 artillery. But what would be the use of artillery then?

As for the use of siege units. They still have their primary use in history, bombarding/reducing enemy defenses. (Hell, it's why they are called 'siege' units in the first place.) Ranged bombardment could also see a return. The damage cap should probably be higher than in the past. Especial early siege units should do more than maybe 10% damage to units. Softening them up to increase the odds of units attacking them, but not so much that an attack is not much more than 'mopping up'. The damage cap could be higher for more modern artillery (which also historically saw more use as an antipersonnel weapon), but probably should not exceed about 25%. (as an option the damage cap could be higher for unfortified units) Below that combat against bombarded units becomes somewhat a formality, leading to artillery being overpowered and abused in gameplay.

The damage caps should probably be different for naval units. It should be perfectly fine for bombardments and air raids to sink ships.

Definitely, I want a system of armies comparable to CivRev in Civ5, even more elaborated. (with the 4 types of battles along History represented)

Another thing I find is important regarfull of warfare in Civ is the ability to determine places of battle. In reality, battles was most of the time programmed, and when they were not, it was easy with spies to localize an enemy army.
But with the actual system of spies of civ4, it is still difficult to guess where the AI will hit, when it is very important especially with a long frontier with it.
So maybe a spie option should allow us to see AI "war routes", in order to see where the AI will go in case of war.
It was possible in Civ3 and 2 to some extend, the AI "military plans" revealing us only the position of the AI troops. In Civ5, it should not only reveal AI troops position, but where they will hit also.
We could do that kind of automatic, because spies in reality are so common that they are in every place. Or we could do that a spying action, like the "plan steal" of Civ3/2. Needless to say that i prefer the automatic way.
But we need something about army moves because it is an aspect as important as warfare itself.

First of all, you should not overestimate the depth of the strategy of the AIs in civs. Most of their decisions are based on a turn by turn heuristic. (leading to the some times undecided erratic behaviour of the AI units.) Second, much of what your are proposing is already possible with the civ4 espionage system. Having enough espionage points against an opponent will give you vision around his cities. You can also use spy units to find an track the enemy army.
The only thing that is currently not possible is seeing what the AIs plans are. As said you should realize that these are not too many. But even if the AI had a military master plan, I think it would not be a good idea to give the player access to it, as it would disadvantage the AI even more than now. (the AI cannot see the players military master plan.) AI players should act as much as possible as human players and should be treat as such as much as possible. (note that this can from time to time mean allowing the AI to cheat a little by giving him access to information that should not be available to him, but would be available to a human to a high degree of certainty through deduction and game sense.)

 

[Argetnyx]

Definitely, I want a system of armies comparable to CivRev in Civ5, even more elaborated. (with the 4 types of battles along History represented)

Is this anything like the Civ3 armies?

As for the use of siege units. They still have their primary use in history, bombarding/reducing enemy defenses. (Hell, it's why they are called 'siege' units in the first place.) Ranged bombardment could also see a return. The damage cap should probably be higher than in the past. Especial early siege units should do more than maybe 10% damage to units. Softening them up to increase the odds of units attacking them, but not so much that an attack is not much more than 'mopping up'. The damage cap could be higher for more modern artillery (which also historically saw more use as an antipersonnel weapon), but probably should not exceed about 25%. (as an option the damage cap could be higher for unfortified units) Below that combat against bombarded units becomes somewhat a formality, leading to artillery being overpowered and abused in gameplay.

Finally! Artillery units should not be used to attack kamikaze style, but to bombard.

The damage caps should probably be different for naval units. It should be perfectly fine for bombardments and air raids to sink ships.

Naval units should not be able to sink other ships, the AI would kill you with no damage to their own ships. Air raids can already sink ships, so it would be stupid if they took it oun in Civ5.

 

[r_rolo1]

Naval units should not be able to sink other ships, the AI would kill you with no damage to their own ships. Air raids can already sink ships, so it would be stupid if they took it oun in Civ5.

They don't need to take it out in Civ V because in Civ IV planes can't sink ships..... most likely a reaction to the good ol'"planes ubes alles" strategies of Civ III,where when facing a competent foe, you were impotent to make a landing since the times of flight ( that and the wall of units against the AI )

 

[Hail]

attrition is good! firaxis should find a place for it in civ5!somewhere...

 

[MosheLevi]

attrition is good! firaxis should find a place for it in civ5!somewhere...

The problem with attrition is that it is NOT fun.

I played the “Rise of Legends” game that has attrition, and it is simply not fun to see your army dying slowly.
It’s annoying to get panelized.

Luckily that game had a unit that eliminated attrition so it wasn’t so bad.

Instead of attrition, defender should have an advantage on the battlefield and that is already implemented in Civ 4 via faster movement.

 

[deanej]

That's right. The only unfun thing civ is allowed to have is global warming.

 

[morss_4]

The problem with attrition is that it is NOT fun.

I played the “Rise of Legends” game that has attrition, and it is simply not fun to see your army dying slowly.
It’s annoying to get panelized.

Luckily that game had a unit that eliminated attrition so it wasn’t so bad.

Instead of attrition, defender should have an advantage on the battlefield and that is already implemented in Civ 4 via faster movement.

Attrition is awesome.

It might not be fun to see your army dying slowly but that's why you don't let that happen. Plus it's a ball to see it happen to the other guy.

EU3 would be so much more boring without it.

 

[Argetnyx]

They don't need to take it out in Civ V because in Civ IV planes can't sink ships..... most likely a reaction to the good ol'"planes ubes alles" strategies of Civ III,where when facing a competent foe, you were impotent to make a landing since the times of flight ( that and the wall of units against the AI )

OK, fine. The makers of civ4 have done another stupid thing. The whole reason there are no more battleships is because of the bomber (duh!). That's why there are mainly carriers around now.

What's attrition in game terms?

 

[morss_4]

OK, fine. The makers of civ4 have done another stupid thing. The whole reason there are no more battleships is because of the bomber (duh!). That's why there are mainly carriers around now.

What's attrition in game terms?

Attrition is a concept from other games like EU. For a description of what it means in game turns see post 164.