Hopes for Troop Transports

But did they also imply that no unit would die from one single battle?
that was said, yes.

. . .but there should be a chance that a unit is killed in one single combat. Maybe it should not happen very often, but it should be possible.
Why?

Historically it was exceedingly rare that an army (ie: units of the scale that the units in Civ represent) would be "eliminated". Conventional wisdom holds/held that any unit that lost 10% or more of its strength in a given engagement would no longer be capable of fighting effectively. There are some remarkable historical exceptions, to be sure, but they are remarkable for that very reason. In fact the Roman punishment for cowardice was to execute 1 man in 10 from the surviving unit (hence the term "decimated"). That was considered to more than would have died facing the enemy.

For example: The Battle of Balaclava (famous for the ill-fated "Charge of the Light Brigade") involved a total of some 30,000 troops. Total casualties and losses were just over 1,200. As for the Light Brigade itself: "Of the 666 men known to have ridden in the charge (sources vary slightly), 271 became casualties: 110 killed (less than 17%), 129 wounded, plus another 32 wounded and taken prisoner. Additionally, 375 horses were killed." (see wikipedia, not perfect, but it is a quotable online source).

At the battle of Gettysburg (an especially bloody engagement) - less than 10,000 were killed out of more than 160,000 combatants.

*disclaimer: I am only a casual student of military history, not an expert. I may get some of the specifics wrong, but I consider my impressions to be pretty sound.
 
I think there is a distinction between every individual in a unit being physically killed, and the unit being damage to such a degree that it could no longer be considered a usable military unit, and no longer appears in your overview of your forces.

If a tank regiment loses all their tanks and flees the battle on foot and in light vehicles, the tank regiment unit is gone, even if there are survivors from the actual troops involved in the unit.
 
Your grasp of the facts is obviously far greater than mine. However, since this is a game I feel like it needs a system where losing a unit is a real possibility. The way you descibe it sounds like there should be barely any risk of losing a unit since it is not historically accurate. While that may be the case this game is an abstraction of reality. A routed army is lost too in terms of being ready to engage in combat.
 
I am not saying that there no real risk of losing a unit - I am saying that what we have heard seems to indicate that there is no real risk of losing a healthy unit in one engagement.

And, Chalks, you are right that there is a difference. I think that having the loser survive fits well, given that they have said that military units will cost significantly more to produce.

Will you still be able to get rid of them? I see no reason to expect not - but it seems you will have to engage them several times in order to do so OR (possibly) trap them in a situation from which they can not retreat.

I'm sure there will be several means of attacking them more than once in a given turn - since we already know that the base speed for land units appears to be 2 hexes.

I like this, because it sounds like you will need to use strategy rather than sheer numbers to win a war (though numbers will still help :))
 
I am not saying that there no real risk of losing a unit - I am saying that what we have heard seems to indicate that there is no real risk of losing a healthy unit in one engagement.

And, Chalks, you are right that there is a difference. I think that having the loser survive fits well, given that they have said that military units will cost significantly more to produce.

Will you still be able to get rid of them? I see no reason to expect not - but it seems you will have to engage them several times in order to do so OR (possibly) trap them in a situation from which they can not retreat.

I'm sure there will be several means of attacking them more than once in a given turn - since we already know that the base speed for land units appears to be 2 hexes.

I like this, because it sounds like you will need to use strategy rather than sheer numbers to win a war (though numbers will still help :))

If you think about a situation where a defending force suffers from one extremely heavy assault, and they are so badly beaten that the survivors flee into the hills and refuse to fight - from a tactical perspective, you have lost the unit.

That's the sort of thing that must happen all the time, especially in situations where one side is greatly outmatched. I'm thinking of the Roman invasion of european tribes in many situations probably resulted in this. Also things like the recent US invasion of Iraq, many of their "battles" basically resulted in the Iraqi forces dissolving or surrendering after the first battle - or even before.
 
I am not saying it never happens, just that it is not the norm - and nothing about either Iraq war qualifies as "the norm".
 
Just thought i'd pop in with a few references from the old Panzer General which seems to be the base model for the game.

Combat and damage:
All units have 10 Strength as standard. Units could get up to 5 levels of xp, which would cause it to deal more damage and other stuff, but also allowing it to get an additional strength per level.
When 2 units go into combat, they roll for initiative, the winner gets to deal damage first, then the loser deals damage. For each free Strength the init has remaining it gets an attack chance. Each attack could result in 3 results:
Miss, didn't really do anything.
Kill, you removed 1 unit of Strength from your opponent.
Suppressed, prevented 1 unit of strength from your opponent from getting an attack chance.
The chances for the different attack outcomes were determined by the attack value of the attacker vs. the specific unit type and defense value of the defender, ofcourse experience, terrain and fortification also played in.

Retreating:
After both parties had dealt damage, a check would be made on the defender, if they had no free strength remaining (because they were dead or suppressed), they would try to retreat to a nearby tile. If no tiles were vacant they would surrender. The attacker could never be forced to surrender in this manner, since they just fall back to the tile they were in before attacking.

Entrenchment:
Leaving units several turns in the same spot would give them considerable bonuses to defending. How much you could entrench yourself would depend on your unit-type and the terrain you were in. For every battle you fought in, your entrenchment level would also get reduced, representing that your fortifications were getting shot up. If you were forced to retreat, you would ofcourse lose all entrenchment you had. Attacking nearby enemy units, did not cost you any entrenchment (but didn't build any either).

Defensive Artillery:
Artillery filled several roles, first of all, if you tried to attack a position which had backup from artillery, the artillery would get to fire a round on your attackers before normal combat would be resolved. While this rarely gained many kills, having half your unit strength suppressed before combat began would mean your damage potential was effectively halved.

Offensive Artillery:
Artillery could also be used offensively to soften up enemies, but any suppression incurred in such an encounter would not carry over to any "melee" subsequent fights, so mostly this was to get the single 1 or 2 kills, while costing them a level of suppression.

Unit types:
As mentioned earlier, all units have different attack values against different unit types. For Panzer general it was split between Air, soft and hard targets. Infantry, artillery and anti-tank was mostly soft targets while tanks were hard targets, planes were air targets, but while flying units were an important part of PG, they are not really for ciV, so i'll skip those for now.

Transports (the actually relevant part for this topic):
You could equip your infantry with transports. Either at the start or the end of your move you could embark or disembark, but not both. So if you started outside your transport, you could get into the transport, and then move around, but that meant you had to end your turn in your soft transport. If you started in a transport, you could drive up to the enemy, dismount, then attack. I'd imagine the same would be the case for ciV, So having a dedicated navy ready where you opponent is trying to cross water tiles, could potentially devastate his army with no risk to you.

Another thing to note in this scenario is that you don't automatically embark/disembark. So you've landed a few units on a hostile shore and attacked a bit (but obviously not enough). Your troops now have their backs to the water, so if the opponent attacks and forces a retreat, with no other vacant tiles available, your unit will be forced to surrender.
You could ofcourse have left them on the shore, in their transports, allowing you to retreat to the ocean, but the result would most likely be that the enemy simply took advantage of your vulnerable state, inflicting serious pain on your units at no risk to themselves and pushing you back into the sea, so the next turn you start with a wounded army that isn't any closer to capturing that beach.
 
I am not saying it never happens, just that it is not the norm - and nothing about either Iraq war qualifies as "the norm".

Certainly - I'm not saying you should normally destroy units entirely with the first attack, but I think it would be good if a significantly superior force had a chance of doing this.
 
I can accept that.
 
My impression about the "unit dying" thing is that we're probably moving to some kind of hitpoint system.

Units have a "strength" value (determines how likely they are to win a round of combat, and/or how much damage they do) and a "hit point" value.

Rather like Civ2, or Battle for Wesnoth, or an RPG.

One unit attacks another, they do some damage to each other, and take off hitpoints.

A unit's damage/probability of winning a fight is not affected by its hit point level. [Or; it might be affected when attacking, but not when defending; they had a comment that damaged units still defended at full strength.]

When a unit reaches zero hitpoints, it dies.

So, if I attack your unit once, you might lose 1/3 of your hitpoints. If I attack it again, you lose another 1/3 of your hit points. If I attack it a third time in the same round, then it dies. If I can't attack it a third time, then on your turn you can retreat the unit and try to slowly heal it, and bring up reinforcements to hold the combat line.

However, if I had a unit that did a ton of damage, or had a vastly higher probabiliy of winning each combat round than yours (tank vs spearman), then potentially I could eliminate your unit entirely in a single combat.

I'm guessing that winning a combat against a unit won't force it to retreat, a la panzer general.
 
A unit's damage/probability of winning a fight is not affected by its hit point level. [Or; it might be affected when attacking, but not when defending; they had a comment that damaged units still defended at full strength.]

This could also just be a matter of them relabeling "suppressed" to wounded/damaged, so like in PG, suppression doesn't carry over from fight to fight, but dead people stay dead.

I'm guessing that winning a combat against a unit won't force it to retreat, a la panzer general.

"winning" a battle in PG didn't cause a retreat. Wounding/suppressing every remaining point of strength a defending unit had, would cause a retreat/surrender (if there wasn't anywhere to retreat to).
 
Back to the OP, my main worry about troop transports is that with the one unit per tile you will need a defacto destroyer screen to cross an ocean without having your invading army wiped out.
 
Back to the OP, my main worry about troop transports is that with the one unit per tile you will need a defacto destroyer screen to cross an ocean without having your invading army wiped out.

If the enemy has a navy, probably.

As a rough approximation: imagine that every transport that you used to build would be switched to a offensive ship. It's likely that you won't need to put a huge additional effort into ships as compared to Civ IV
 
Some limitations I can see

1. You must Pay to convert
2. Transporting units cost more maintenance than 'walking' troops
3. Troops can only become Transports at certain points (ie coming through a harbor
4. Transports are a limited unit (only X of your units can be transports at any given time) You can build buildings, etc. that will increase you Transport limit


4 sounds the best to me (Your number of Transports is = 2 with the proper tech + 2* your number of Harbors + 2* your number of Shipyards)
 
Back to the OP, my main worry about troop transports is that with the one unit per tile you will need a defacto destroyer screen to cross an ocean without having your invading army wiped out.

Isn't this a Good Thing? Anything that makes navies more important...

3. Troops can only become Transports at certain points (ie coming through a harbor

So, how do you load soldiers from an island that doesn't have any coastal cities, or "harbors"?
This just doesn't work.
 
If the enemy has a navy, probably.

As a rough approximation: imagine that every transport that you used to build would be switched to a offensive ship. It's likely that you won't need to put a huge additional effort into ships as compared to Civ IV

There's nothing I've seen that implies that in the least.
 
I think there is a distinction between every individual in a unit being physically killed, and the unit being damage to such a degree that it could no longer be considered a usable military unit, and no longer appears in your overview of your forces.

If a tank regiment loses all their tanks and flees the battle on foot and in light vehicles, the tank regiment unit is gone, even if there are survivors from the actual troops involved in the unit.

The regiment is not "gone". It's out of commission until it receives new equipment.

It might not seem like a big difference, until you consider that replacing equipment for that unit is alot different than creating a wholly new unit with green recruits.

Also I'd like to point out that we don't know that units are never eliminated; we were only told it was rare.
 
Isn't this a Good Thing? Anything that makes navies more important...



So, how do you load soldiers from an island that doesn't have any coastal cities, or "harbors"?
This just doesn't work.

We don't know the details here. There might be beaches, or natural harbours. My guess is that you can only load at the same places you can unload (harbours, beaches, etc) so you wouldn't have to worry about picking up troops off an island that had no loading points - they'd never be able to land on it, either. I'm guessing that there could also be special units or promotions that allow loading/unloading on a wider variety of coastal terrains.
 
Back
Top Bottom