How would you improve combat in Civ7?

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Each tile on the map has a military "influence score" for every faction
This score is increased by having military units nearby. Different units have different "ranges" (Lighter units generally influence more tiles but less effectively).
You always know your own score, but your knowledge of other factions is based on espionage.
When war is declared, the aggressor will tell their commanders what tiles to try to take, what units to use to take them and where their supply line is.
The defender will tell their commanders what tiles to defend, what units to use and where their supply line is.
The war is "played out" by the computer. Tiles swap ownership depending on whose military controls where.
The war is over when both sides agree on their new borders.

if not micromanagement total war style, then this. i like your idea.

i would add that units should be able to be made and move at a rate consistent with the rise of the largest empire of the ancient West: ancient Rome. as of now you cannot replicate Rome's conquests in any form of Civ.

 

[aieeegrunt]

That requires two separate stats and creates a problem when the archer can't attack without moving into the tile (so if they win the battle they move and you have to move your cover with them - they shouldn't need to do that). And create much too great overlap between archer and melee infantry since they now serve the same basic gameplay role just with slightly different stats.

Much easier in my opinion to keep the single stats, and make ranged units Ranged 1 (can attack a tile without moving into it and without taking damage unless the enemy counterattack, but can't attack multiple tiles away). Then have a limited stacking system to allow for limited escort.

Yes. That is the whole point.

Having a seperate attack and defense stat (TWO WHOLE NUMBERS OH NO) allows you to properly model things like certain units being better on defense than offense. The amount of tactical and stragic depth over one stat is ridiculous.

Archers use their attack stat to…attack. Literally what it’s for. The fact that they have to then advance a hex, and having a low defense means that yes, they have to be covered by other units.

Just like an actual battle

So your tactics look like history; the pikes plus archers/crossbow combo was common for very good reason.

And you don’t have stupidly OP range units that just focus fire and delete.

 

[Evie]

By this standard, Archers would need to leave the cover of the city walls (ot a fort) to attack besiegers.

This is of course dumb.

No, archers should not have to move into a tile to attack.If you park your military unprotected next to archers, you deserve to suffer for it

 

[jsciv69]

Bring back the realistic game-play from Civ III. To me, Civ III was the most realistic and enjoyable game of the series. Where not all bombardments were successful. Where Amphibious and Naval Fleet activity was most real.

 

[aieeegrunt]

By this standard, Archers would need to leave the cover of the city walls (ot a fort) to attack besiegers.

This is of course dumb.

No, archers should not have to move into a tile to attack.If you park your military unprotected next to archers, you deserve to suffer for it

Range zero units get a free shot at units attacking them.

Moderator Action: Let's avoid the insults. Post edited. ~LK

 

[Evie]

Amazingly, I was aware of that part. It does precisely nothing to address my criticism of your idea, since my criticism is about archers being able to interfere with sieges, (enemy units installing themselves around the city without attacking), not assaults (enemy units actually attacking the citty).

People are allowed to think an idea is terrible (or any other negative sentiment one may have about an idea). In this case, I do. It doesn't mean I'm too dumb to understand it. It just means I think it's a bad idea. Archers that need to move into a tile to attack are a bad case of "realism" (specifically, the idea that tiles are too large for archers to shoot from one tile to the next) interfering with gameplay.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Amazingly, I was aware of that part. It does precisely nothing to address my criticism of your idea, since my criticism is about archers being able to interfere with sieges, (enemy units installing themselves around the city without attacking), not assaults (enemy units actually attacking the citty).

People are allowed to think an idea is terrible (or any other negative sentiment one may have about an idea). In this case, I do. It doesn't mean I'm too dumb to understand it. It just means I think it's a bad idea. Archers that need to move into a tile to attack are a bad case of "realism" (specifically, the idea that tiles are too large for archers to shoot from one tile to the next) interfering with gameplay.

Archer deciding to do a sortie from the walls to attack besieging units, who won’t just be standing there within bowshot the whole time,is how this actually works in anything approaching reality

And yes, that means having to be covered by other units

Just like reality

The alternative is the stupidity we have now, where you can just use ranged units to delete opponents and the other unit types are almost superflous.

Which is terrible as both gameplay and historical rp

 

[Evie]

Yeah I'm sorry but the idea that your units should be able to walk right next to a bunch of archers (or sit right outside the city wall) without getting shot strikes me as neither realistic nor fun.

Because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how big an area a tile is supposed to represent (a number that varies wildly depending on map size) it's still the smallest unit of geography in the game, and from a practical and gameplay standpoint, two units in adjacent tiles should be considered right next to each other. Because they cannot be closer than that.

Otherwise, if we get bogged down in insoluble considerations about tile sizes, a lot of game aspects rapidly stop making sense.

The game is richer and deeper for having ranged attacks, and poorer for having more units that just do the same things with different stats., Though they may need toned down or adjusted (I wouldn't mind going back to non-lethal ranged attacks), abolishing them entirely from archers is just counterinutive nitpicking that does no good for the game.

StIll entirely and wholly against this idea.

 

[Malexander]

Perhaps a solution where the player can form combat regiments that would consist of 2 - 5 units, would require research to unlock. Instead of tile vs. tile based combat, regiments would fight over multiple tiles / regions. The size of the influence region would depend on the units combined military power and unit specific attributes. Stepping on another units area of influence would trigger combat based on overlap area. Perhaps set to trigger always or only when fortified. The point of this new combat mechanic would be to speed up the unit combat process.

Siege on cities would have to be manually set by the player. Army attacking a city would become more vulnerable to forces attacking it from the flanks. Normal combat rules would apply in attacking the sieging army from inside the city.

The system would require the introduction of new combat mechanics and stats. For example, bowmen would have a bonus in ranged combat but would suffer penalties in close up combat against melee units when not supported by melee units. In regiments units would gain synergy bonuses from supporting unit types. Scouts would enable the army to detect enemy units from afar based on ”tracks” left by armies; bigger army would leave more ”visible” tracks.

New terrain bonuses would influence units combat stats. Ranged units would gain +1 range, first strike bonus and more defense when located on a hill. Melee units could gain ambush and first strike when attacking from a forest tile and increased defense against ranged attacks. Bonus strenght could vary depending on unit type. Flanking / ambush would be possible from forest tiles and attacking behind hills. Hills and forests could obstruct vision. Fortification would prevent from losing defense based bonuses in combat. Etc.

Could be that this is too many changes to digest in single iteration of Civilization franchise but I personally have a problem with the end game turn duration when pursuing the domination victory and wanted try offer some thoughts regarding that issue.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

1. If a melee unit is attacking from inside a city center or fort, they should not end up outside the city center if they win the fight. That makes units vulnerable if they end their turn outside the defended position.

This I disagree with. The way I see it, the reason a unit ends up on the other tile when killing off the other unit is because they pursue the fleeing combatants and eliminate them, thus finishing off the unit they attacked and preventing it from regrouping (healing). A garrisoned unit doesn't have the luxury of venturing too far off and for too long, which is why it can weaken besieging units, but never completely eliminate them.


...though now that I think of it, my rationale doesn't account for how ranged units can finish off other units. I shall have to ponder this more deeply.

 

[aieeegrunt]

This I disagree with. The way I see it, the reason a unit ends up on the other tile when killing off the other unit is because they pursue the fleeing combatants and eliminate them, thus finishing off the unit they attacked and preventing it from regrouping (healing). A garrisoned unit doesn't have the luxury of venturing too far off and for too long, which is why it can weaken besieging units, but never completely eliminate them.


...though now that I think of it, my rationale doesn't account for how ranged units can finish off other units. I shall have to ponder this more deeply.

sortieing from your fortifications SHOULD absolutly expose the units doing so. You have to leave your fortifications to engage the enemy.

Your second point is one of the many ways ranged units are both broken and wildly ahistorical

 

[Not_Brixter]

Ok

 

[Evie]

Only wildly historical if you cling to measuring the size of hexes.

“All non-artillery fighting must happen in the same square” as seems to be the crux of your argument is putting nitpicking over game scale over depth of combat options by reducing all combat to “walk into enemy”.

There are balance issues to be solved but essentially making all non-artillery combat close quarter is throwing the whole family out with the bath water. Civ has progressed for the better since 2-3 and dragging combat back there because you don’t like not getting a shot back when archers attack you would be a horrendous mistake.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Civ has progressed for the better since 2-3

In the case of the Combat System, the subject of this Thread, what is your basis for making that statement?
Given the topic of this Thread years after Civs V and VI have been in play, it is fairly obvious that is not a universal opinion.

I would rather characterize the latest attempts at a combat system as Different rather than Better, and since it is an abject failure from the standpoint of AI utility and virtually all game scales of time and distance, we are still looking for something 'better'.

- Which I completely agree means not going back to earlier versions of the game, which were no better but simply bad in different ways.

What we need is something other than a choice between the tired old 1UPT Versus SoD

 

[Evie]

Note that was in the context of aieegrunt advocating for a no ranged attack for archers, all combat is walk-in-tile model.

There's debate to be had over 1upt or no 1upt (and alternatives), as well as various aspects of balance. But arguing for returning the game to one-size-fits all walk-in-tile combat (as in 2-3) rather than diverse roles is arguing for a plain step backward.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Mea Culpa. Had not read the previous series of posts for context.

I confess, I am inclined towards the 'All combat within 1 tile and 1 turn' model simply because it is closer to the Grand Strategic ground and time scale of the game.
But somehow any such system also has to acknowledge the differences among the various units on the battlefield, their tactical and operational distinctions (and I would point out as a military historian that Civ nor any other 'battle' game has addressed Operational advantages of certain units, yet that is a very important part of combat at Civ's scale of time and space).

One fundamental difference is between Ranged and Close Combat (melee, anti-cav), but I would argue there are also fundamental tactical/operational differences between mounted and foot-mobile, heavy close-formation and light, open-formation units that are as important as the range of their weapons.

No system is going to please everyone, all the time, which is another fundamental reason for the on-going debate.

 

[Evie]

I definitely agree, and I'm in favor of the game going deeper on those distinction.

 

[BuchiTaton]

One tile, one turn and one army*(composed by multiple units) sytem is still compatible with the tile-range related abilities of different classes.
* The "melee" units in an army engage in combat either by defending againts the enemy attack or when advancing to attack the enemy tile.
* The "range" units can shoot any enemy on the adjacent tiles without the need to advance to do it.
* The "siege" units can attack fortifications from two tiles away, effectively beyond defensor's ranged units.

Still the damage from siege units is exclusively to fortifications (and others siege weapons for ballance*), besiegers are supposed to use time in their favor, devasting what is outside, until the fortifications are damaged enough to be assulted without too much losses. Just parking an army (with "ranged" and "melee" units) adjacent to the besieged city would be pointless if you dont want to assult it immediatey, at the same time the defender would need to either use their own "siege" units, break the siege with some counter assult (cavalry over the siege weapons) or some nice reinforcement forces from outside to stop the bombardment.
In this model instead of have dozens of units moving around in WW-like "battle fronts" since ancient time ( ) the number of individual units are reduced by the need to be either part of garrisons (asigned to a city) or proper armies (asigned to a general), so a defensive player could actualy deal with an invasor by using lesser guerrillas to annoy without direct confrontation against bigger armies, or what about use your own army to attack some enemy cities while yours resist the main enemy forces. After all too many militar units moving around make the game more tedious, difficult to process, limits the strategic actions and is less immersive (at least for pre-20th century wars).

 

[AffineConstant]

One tile, one turn and one army*(composed by multiple units) sytem is still compatible with the tile-range related abilities of different classes.
* The "melee" units in an army engage in combat either by defending againts the enemy attack or when advancing to attack the enemy tile.
* The "range" units can shoot any enemy on the adjacent tiles without the need to advance to do it.
* The "siege" units can attack fortifications from two tiles away, effectively beyond defensor's ranged units.

Still the damage from siege units is exclusively to fortifications (and others siege weapons for ballance*), besiegers are supposed to use time in their favor, devasting what is outside, until the fortifications are damaged enough to be assulted without too much losses. Just parking an army (with "ranged" and "melee" units) adjacent to the besieged city would be pointless if you dont want to assult it immediatey, at the same time the defender would need to either use their own "siege" units, break the siege with some counter assult (cavalry over the siege weapons) or some nice reinforcement forces from outside to stop the bombardment.
In this model instead of have dozens of units moving around in WW-like "battle fronts" since ancient time ( ) the number of individual units are reduced by the need to be either part of garrisons (asigned to a city) or proper armies (asigned to a general), so a defensive player could actualy deal with an invasor by using lesser guerrillas to annoy without direct confrontation against bigger armies, or what about use your own army to attack some enemy cities while yours resist the main enemy forces. After all too many militar units moving around make the game more tedious, difficult to process, limits the strategic actions and is less immersive (at least for pre-20th century wars).

Siege Units could damage everything, I don't see why not. But yes, overall the giant flood of units needs to be tamed one way or another.

 

[dagriggstar]

Terrain should be the primary factor in determining the best unit to build. You build the worlds best heavy infantry, you control the open grasslands, but you cannot exert any control over the forests.
This way you can have one-turn warfare while having units be differentiated from each other.
It makes it more difficult to build an unbeatable army, as you need to builds lots of everything whereas your opponent builds lots of one thing.

I think ranged would be better as a "support" unit, gives your opponent a 10% combat penalty, something like this. You might stack them but you get diminishing returns and if you lose you lose big.
Siege units then become the only unit that can fire "over" tiles. Make them capturable.