Improving combat (aka finally doing it right)

[redbaron1123]

i dont see how allowing a poor country to design a cheap unit that suits their needs while a rich country designs an expensive unit that suits its needs is unbalancing.

Lets say you have two countries, one similar to great britain and one similar to the US. a us carrier is much more powerful and an offensive weapon. a british carrier is smaller and more suited to defence. the american one is expensive while the british one is cheaper. They both suit their respective countries needs and enhance their countries ability to wage war more than if the small carrier belonged to the americans and the large one to the british. Therefore, it would be more balanced to include separate types of each unit.

As for the question of design vs lots of fixed, while they accomplish the exact same thing, i dont think anyone who plays civilization would want to scroll through 256 tanks to find the exact right one that they want. A design workshop would allow the player to essentially pick the tank and then use that one until they decide to design a different one (or pick a different one).

I suppose a mix might work where there is a list of all the possible units available, the resources needed, upkeep cost, production cost, combat stats, etc. and you pick the one you want and that becomes your unit. Then later, say you get a new technology, you go back and pick a different unit. Might that satisfy people like you who hate design workshops while keeping hundreds of units out of the city build screens?

 

[rysmiel]

i dont see how allowing a poor country to design a cheap unit that suits their needs while a rich country designs an expensive unit that suits its needs is unbalancing.
Lets say you have two countries, one similar to great britain and one similar to the US. a us carrier is much more powerful and an offensive weapon. a british carrier is smaller and more suited to defence. the american one is expensive while the british one is cheaper. They both suit their respective countries needs and enhance their countries ability to wage war more than if the small carrier belonged to the americans and the large one to the british. Therefore, it would be more balanced to include separate types of each unit.

OK, I think I may have been misreading you, and I apologise; I have no problem with this at all.

My problem is with the notion that, to extend your analogy, America gets "American carriers", and Britain gets "British carriers", and if you are playing as Britain you get a "British carrier" regardless of whether your actual situation in the endgame is one where an "American carrier" or a "British carrier" would be more apt and more useful

As for the question of design vs lots of fixed, while they accomplish the exact same thing, i dont think anyone who plays civilization would want to scroll through 256 tanks to find the exact right one that they want.

You don't, IMO, have any menaingful strategic need for 256 kinds of tank. I am thinking more like, three or four specialisations of tank, twelve or fifteen classes of unit like "tank", and regular updates to the mix of specialisations available with tech increases.

I suppose a mix might work where there is a list of all the possible units available, the resources needed, upkeep cost, production cost, combat stats, etc. and you pick the one you want and that becomes your unit. Then later, say you get a new technology, you go back and pick a different unit. Might that satisfy people like you who hate design workshops while keeping hundreds of units out of the city build screens?

Not really, but interface design is trivial once the paradigm is sorted.

What I would favour there, myself, is a city build option list about the length it is now, with "tank" as one entry on it. Which you click on to say "make the tank I made last time", or right-click on to say "open up my list of options for tank-type units so I can pick something else". Nested lists are all over the place in widowing applications.

 

[redbaron1123]

Im sorry if i wasnt as eloquent in getting my ideas across, but yes, i never had any desire to limit a nation to only its own units regardless. I am a fan of having a more powerful unit if i can afford it and a defensive unit if i cant afford to attack, and being able to customize my army based on what situation my empire is in.

And however diverse a unit set would work and still be balanced is all i want. I just feel that having two armies of identical units squaring off isnt necessarily the best show of strategy. And youre definitely right, having X number of tanks (or other units) that you can choose from depending on your situation would be better than having to spend the time to design the exact same unit as would exist in the list

 

[rysmiel]

And however diverse a unit set would work and still be balanced is all i want. I just feel that having two armies of identical units squaring off isnt necessarily the best show of strategy.

No, not really.

But if you know that, in an endgame of roughly even miltary capacity, Mao will by preference attack you with vast hordes of cheap infantry and grinding you down, and Bismarck will by preference attack you with lightning raids of fast-moving and expensive tanks, and Hammurabi will smile at you and be diplomatically gracious until he builds up enough of a tech lead to nuke you to cinders, and if the balance is such that each of these strategies can work, AI personality and choices through the tech tree would entirely get rid of the "armies of identical units squaring off" issue.

 

[Tholish]

Placing combat resolution on a special battle map would resolve the issue of most battles being a stack outside a city attacking a stack inside a city. When this happened, the city would be just one square on the tactical map and the battle would occur at Waterloo rather than in Antwerp. Units would have a chance to maneuver rather than just get bashed against each other in single combat.

Further, in situations other than the above we actually play civ in a tactical manner, taking defensible ground, laying traps, concentrating force, using combined teams, etc...We just do it on what is supposedly a strategic map. A battlemap allows new combat characteristics to emerge--more ranged attacks for example--meaning more stuff for techs to do.

And I say no autoresolution. If you don't want to fight battles, don't get into wars.

The only problem is when you blow the two combat squares up into a "battle map." There are three options here
1. Stylized battle maps. When a stack on a forested grassland hill attacks a stack across a river on a featureless irrigated plain, you always get the same 8 by 8 battle map and 1 tactical unit per strategic unit hit point.
2. Random battle maps. In the same attack as above, the computer makes up a random map based on the input parameters, but each battle map will be different, even if generated at the same place
3. Detailed battle maps. After a battle, the computer remembers the battle map it used on a particular tile, and uses it again for future battles that occur at the same place.

I say option 1 initially, with the others maybe becoming optional features in expansions.

 

[rysmiel]

And I say no autoresolution. If you don't want to fight battles, don't get into wars.

i've been playing Civ rather than any number of other games for many years now precisely because I don't care for battles, and it's far more fun to me to handle the wars at a strategic rather than tactical level of abstraction. Wars are certainly not the fun part of the game, but if they are inevitable, I'd much rather be able to handle them without messing about with tactical combat.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't know about this idea. Perhaps there should be some scope for customisable unit strength based on quality, but this is already represented in the game through promotions. Not particularly well, but it is, and could be to a further extent with the simple allowance of buying promotions, so rich nations could have higher quality units.

 

[Hail]

could be to a further extent with the simple allowance of buying promotions, so rich nations could have higher quality units.