Improving combat (aka finally doing it right)

[TheMeInTeam]

Superior units failing miserably with the amount of forces being more important than anything else (at least when it comes to the enemy ai if you had inferior units it was game over).

This...just isn't true. Verified, high-scoring wins have proven it false. The AI, even very high level AI, can be beaten with tech-inferior units using a combination of tactics and #'s.

Hard penaly for unit age - simple if you attack with superior unit which is coming from a age distanced more than 100 years from the enemys (example. bolt action riflemen from the end of 19 century vs musketeer from 17/18 century) the hard counter should make the older unit lose unless the riflemen suffered 90 percent casualties)

Deliberately shattering game balance such that tech > all would not make the game better...right now war vs tech now war later has rewards and risks. Your change makes war later the only option.

I like the tactical considerations but that's not the kind of game Civ is IMO.

 

[Hail]

This...just isn't true. Verified, high-scoring wins have proven it false. The AI, even very high level AI, can be beaten with tech-inferior units using a combination of tactics and #'s.

i see that as an ai's shortcoming, not as a tactical decision. units should be penalized if their age is inferior.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

i see that as an ai's shortcoming, not as a tactical decision. units should be penalized if their age is inferior.

Well, I said it to point out that the OP was already incorrect in his first paragraph.

As for how things *should* be, the answer is no, there should not be *additional* era penalties for tech-inferior units.

Haven't you looked already? Newer units have a considerable advantage in efficiency over older ones and a very important advantage: they already have significantly higher base strength.

The vast majority of times people lost units to tech-inferior AIs, their losses can be traced to either excessively poor planning/tactics (trying to defend against 40 units with 3, or allowing the AI to suicide its siege before attacking you and inflicting collateral), or they're on the offensive, where older defenders have the advantage of movement speed, initiative, and usually defensive bonuses.

Yes, a spear can bet a tank in civ IV. Less than a fraction of a percentage of the time. Even less than that if damaged.

The unit strengths are where they are to BALANCE THE GAME, so that one era jump doesn't equal INSTANT WIN. Could you imagine someone drafting 30 rifles to attack an AI with longbows and then getting an EXTRA bonus because of era? Why even have the battles? Just declare war with a tech lead and the AI cities should all just turn to the human players w/o ending the turn at that rate.

 

[Hail]

The unit strengths are where they are to BALANCE THE GAME, so that one era jump doesn't equal INSTANT WIN. Could you imagine someone drafting 30 rifles to attack an AI with longbows and then getting an EXTRA bonus because of era? Why even have the battles? Just declare war with a tech lead and the AI cities should all just turn to the human players w/o ending the turn at that rate.

my point being that the penalty can be implicit or explicit. e.g. the implicit penalty being the penalty is already in through unit types' stats. i favor the implicit approach. however, i think you are talking about the disease's effects instead of talking of the disease itself. maybe talk about why most AIs hopelessly fall behind in research and how it can be helped [apart from fixing ai's code ].

 

[Camikaze]

I may have missed your point, Hail, but why have implicit and explicit penalties? Logically, it would make sense to either internalise all of them (which wouldn't be very good) or externalise all of them (which is what should be done). There shouldn't be hidden penalties, as such. Sure, you can a generic penalty for a particular thing that isn't precisely quantified, but having hidden penalties could make things a bit different.

 

[MosheLevi]

MosheLevi is obviously thinking from the point of view of an attacker. I will counter with a question:
-If the AI were to declare war on you with a SOD on the border capable of taking your cities, would you want them to be able to use your roads/rail, and thereby take multiple cities before you have a chance to react (remember, civ is turn based, not real time, so you have to wait for your turn before you do anything)?

Players can already do that with cities that are near their border.
For that reason players have to place many units in cities that are near a border with another CIV.
A strategy that I like to use is placing a large stack of units a few tiles behind two cities (that are near a border) where all these units have multiple “City Attack” promotions (including many artillery units).
If the enemy takes one of my cities by surprise I will then attack his SoD with my large SoD the next turn where the advantage is on my side (due to the multiple city attack promotions).

Here is my proposal for unit movement:

Infantry – 2 tile movement in enemy territory via roads (instead of 1).

Tanks, Tech infantry, Mobile SAM (and other vehicles) – 4 tile movement in enemy territory via roads (instead of 2).

Gunships - 6 tile movement in enemy territory (instead of 4).

In friendly territory units can move 10+ tiles but cannot attack on the same turn.
For attack they use the same rules as above.

I agree that this gives attackers an advantage.
However, this can be balanced via other two proposed features that we talked about in other threads.
1 – Implementing “Ambush” ability so we can ambush incoming SoD’s causing massive casualties (guerilla style).
2 – Increasing the number of units that suffer collateral damage (based on percentage) on the field (not in the city).
This will make large SoD’s more vulnerable to collateral damage.

I have played other Turn Base games where unit movement and maneuvering was important part of the tactics.
This aspect is not too advanced in Civ 4.
IMO, to make battles more tactical the tile attack movement cannot be huge (e.g. 10+) and SoD’s should not be huge and invulnerable.
CIV 5 will be more interesting if we have more stacks with limited mobility where maneuverability counts.

Take for example the “Total War” series.
They have the same movement in enemy territory and friendly territory.
They also have limited stacks.

Now I am not in favor for hard limit for stack size.
However, I believe in consequences for having too large stacks (via higher collateral damage).

Playing “Rome: Total War” and then later “Medieval 2: Total War” I always felt that I have many choices when I decide to invade another CIV.
That is not the case with Civ 4.
With Civ 4 I feel my options are limited.

 

[deanej]

Players can already do that with cities that are near their border.
For that reason players have to place many units in cities that are near a border with another CIV.

Before tanks, a city would have to be right on the border for this to occur (as units in that time only have 1 move, except knights and cavalry, which are generally not used to attack cities). After tanks (or with mounted units) a city has to be within a couple tiles of the border to be taken the same turn as war is declared. And you lose buildings/population if you have to retake your cities the next turn. How many units are players expected to keep in cities? 10 or more? I know the simplistic nature of combat in civ is limiting to people that are very good at the game, but newer/not as good players can already have trouble. Also keep in mind that the Total War games are just that: total war. Civ is not a war game, and as such cannot be as focused on the combat aspect. I also cannot see how the ambush mechanic can be implemented in civ without rewriting the rules of combat from scratch.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Before tanks, a city would have to be right on the border for this to occur (as units in that time only have 1 move, except knights and cavalry, which are generally not used to attack cities). After tanks (or with mounted units) a city has to be within a couple tiles of the border to be taken the same turn as war is declared. And you lose buildings/population if you have to retake your cities the next turn. How many units are players expected to keep in cities? 10 or more? I know the simplistic nature of combat in civ is limiting to people that are very good at the game, but newer/not as good players can already have trouble. Also keep in mind that the Total War games are just that: total war. Civ is not a war game, and as such cannot be as focused on the combat aspect. I also cannot see how the ambush mechanic can be implemented in civ without rewriting the rules of combat from scratch.

Actually same turn city captures start in the ancient era and really only take pause in medieval times, because the defensive bonuses in that time period are obscene...and this is in present day civ, where you CAN'T use enemy roads (yes, mounted can, does, and frequently should attack cities).

 

[home_office]

Movement inside enemy teritorry - unless the ground ins haunted and there are dead zombies grabinng soldiers for their legs from the ground i see no reason for such over the top penaltiesQUOTE]

I have no problem with the movement penalties because I think they represent the real difficulties attacking armies have in enemy territory - lack of cooperation and even resistance from civilians, for example. Or you can just imagine temporary roadblocks placed in the way of advancing enemy troops - and the friendly troops know the detours! I don't think this is a necessary violation of realism because it's a turn-based game. I think it's realistic.

 

[Camikaze]

It would be absolutely horrific for game balance if those movement penalties were removed. I can see the case for some sort of bonus movement along enemy roads (albeit limited to a small amount), but not to the degree that you can move within your own territory.

 

[moscaverde]

With units using enemy roads it would be a hell of pillage, 1 turn and all the working on tiles would be destroyed.

 

[rysmiel]

With units using enemy roads it would be a hell of pillage, 1 turn and all the working on tiles would be destroyed.

How about reducing the efficacy of pillaging, then ?

 

[moscaverde]

How? Maybe if units suffered some damage when pillaging to represent resistance... don't know a good way to balance this.
But I still prefer the way it is now.

 

[Hail]

How? Maybe if units suffered some damage when pillaging to represent resistance... don't know a good way to balance this.

pillaging should take several turns. during that time, if the pillaging unit is attacked, the attacker inflicts damage counting the defender's defense to be zero.

 

[moscaverde]

But a turn is a lot of time, but I kind of like this. You may choose to pillage, but will keep your units vulnerable.

 

[Hail]

But a turn is a lot of time, but I kind of like this. You may choose to pillage, but will keep your units vulnerable.

1 turn is 1 turn, but how many seconds you choose to equate a turn is another matter, that is purely a realism feel issue.

for example, in a ww2 or ww1 scenario a turn should be equal to 1-3 day(s) to fully reap a hypothetical weather system.

 

[redbaron1123]

Another problem with combat now is the similarity between nations units. One nations tank should not be equivalent to another nations tank as that is not how it is in real warfare. In WW2, russia beat germany because they had superior tanks, not because their tankers were more elite soldiers (which they werent because the germans had been fighting for three years already) or because there were more of them (i may be mistaken, but at the turn of the war during leningrad and stalingrad i dont think there were). Instead, it was because the T-34 was a better design than the German panzers. Differences in unit design between nations should be expressed somehow, and promotions dont do it well enough. This would improve combat by making it more strategic and less, my army is larger than yours as well as adding more realism to combat

 

[rysmiel]

Another problem with combat now is the similarity between nations units.

This is not a problem. This is a benefit.

One nations tank should not be equivalent to another nations tank as that is not how it is in real warfare.

There are lots of reasons for not making Civ more like real warfare. The logistical issues of realistically organising a D-Day sized invasion are outside the scope of what most people want to do for fun, for example.

Instead, it was because the T-34 was a better design than the German panzers. Differences in unit design between nations should be expressed somehow, and promotions dont do it well enough.

Represent them as different units, sure; but don't limit any given civilisation in Civ to only the units that civilisation had in real history, or you get rid of any hope of making the game an equal contest.

This would improve combat by making it more strategic and less, my army is larger than yours as well as adding more realism to combat

No, it wouldn't; it would lock you in to having very specific advantages and disadvantages as any given civilisation, which reduces strategic variety.

And realism is only a good thing if it doesn't mess up gameplay.

 

[redbaron1123]

You bring up good points, but I only said that it should be expressed somehow, not that we should only give each nation the units they have in real life. there is a difference. I only said that there is a problem, i did not put forward a possible solution. I will now offer a possible solution for you to tear apart at will.

I propose following the model of spore. Allow players and ai to design units (or use prebuilt units) depending on what they want their unit to have. you can limit things by imposing restrictions depending on tech level achieved, money available to the civ for research, and for the upkeep of the unit (something with very good combat values should have higher upkeep cost). This would make combat more realistic and, if done right, would still keep the game balanced by allowing you to build the unit that is best for your situation.

 

[rysmiel]

You bring up good points, but I only said that it should be expressed somehow

Fair enough, but I do actually disagree with this point too.

I propose following the model of spore. Allow players and ai to design units (or use prebuilt units) depending on what they want their unit to have. you can limit things by imposing restrictions depending on tech level achieved, money available to the civ for research, and for the upkeep of the unit (something with very good combat values should have higher upkeep cost).

And why is "you can design units from conbining this, this and this to give 256 combinations in total" any better a model than "here are 256 units" ?

I'll freely admit, I hate unit design workshops and the like with a passion - they're toys, not games, and I do not want them interfering with my game experience. But I am still not seeing any advantage to them in gameplay terms.

This would make combat more realistic and, if done right, would still keep the game balanced by allowing you to build the unit that is best for your situation.

The balance issues are exactly the same in either model. Lots of fixed units or unit design workshop, every option has to be tested to make sure it's not a game balance breaker. Lots of fixed units or unit design workshop, there will be limits on building units based on tech, and limits on how many you can support based on upkeep.