Improving combat (aka finally doing it right)

[Alter Hase]

As long as i remember in every Civ (minus Call to power) or Alpha centauri there were no real armies just stacks of individual units, which together with simplified terrain bonuses and horrible movement penalties to the attacker, and the civ sickness(pikemen defeats tank), made this game a horrible war of atrittion.
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).

I think that civ 5 finally should do it right.

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)

A better example - Tank beats any pre 20 century infantry or cavalary with no losses at all.

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 penalties give us a new mechanic which modifies defence and cohesion of attacking trooops depending on their movement speed (in game amount of hexes ups you now what i mean)

Full speed - at the end of your turn or if the troops are ambushed (you basically run into a hex occupied with a enemy unit) you suffer a penalty(plus suffer an ambush attack) in defence, depending on the exp of units.
Veteran or elite units should have minimal penalty with recon units (yes a specialised recon unit, not a sacrificial goat) having close to none (combined arms/regiments divisions/armies i will explain later).

Medium speed - normal speed of advance, a tradeoff between protection and speed of advance.

Low speed - you have the best defence and alertness if you think that the enemy is about to attack with superior numbers (but you need to) move this is your choice .

Of course the the speed of a cavalary/tank/mech unit wont be the same as the foot slugging inf. so mobile units will have better cohesion despite going further (faster).

Digging in a unit now will take away almost all action points but it will be hard to defeat.

Logistical chain - every unit securing a road (by passing on it, if a whole army or div.passes on a hex to the road it will still be secure but watch out for possible ambushes on the logistics if you dont have good reckon units).
If the chain is broken (enemy got at least a regiment on your supply road but it has to be over 60 percent of its strengh otherise it will be trampled by basic security going with the convoys, making slight setback in movement of your army by 1 or 2 hexes).

Solution to this problem is

- add regiment to the supply chain increasing the defence force, adding a reckon unit will also make a good counter to ambushes by alerting you to the enemys presence both detection and defence of the chain is cumulative (the more units defending it the better) but dont overdo it since now they are using up supplies of this chain as well.

- kepping your front solid with good amount of reg/div/armies placed in a line (keep in mind that every unit "radiates" a controll area depending on its size so for example a single unit (reg) radiates a control all around one hex deep, a division 2 hexes deep, army one more hex. So the nememy wont be able to slip behind (unless a regiment gets in the way to a fully mechanized tank army, well bye bye reg )

And on the end of this post the most important, there should be a turn based style battle on a special battle map every time when units collide (you can autoresolve if you want).

The best part is, its allready made in Sid Meiers.....Pirates.
Anyone who was plundering cities knows what i am talking, and there is no reason that it shouldnt be coppied and improved for use in Civ both ground and sea.

 

[rysmiel]

I think that civ 5 finally should do it right.
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)
A better example - Tank beats any pre 20 century infantry or cavalary with no losses at all.

Well, soem of us strongly disagree.

I'm all for exponentially scaling attack/defence strengths (stone-age warrior 1. iron-age legionary 4, medieval knight 16, modern battle tank 256) but never, under any circumstances, a hard rule making combat entirely deterministic.

Logistical chain - every unit securing a road (by passing on it, if a whole army or div.passes on a hex to the road it will still be secure but watch out for possible ambushes on the logistics if you dont have good reckon units).

I absolutely oppose this. It's the wrong scale of abstraction for the game.

And on the end of this post the most important, there should be a turn based style battle on a special battle map every time when units collide (you can autoresolve if you want).

No, there absolutely should not. Because if you want that kind of game there are plenty out there already.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, I'm with rysmiel on the deterministic thing. Not to beat a dead horse, but it would be possible, in real life, for 100 spearmen to beat a tank. But setting a hard limit on damage (i.e. none) would completely eliminate this. This would make the easier difficulty levels even easier, i.e. your armies would always be invincible.

 

[Hail]

Yeah, I'm with rysmiel on the deterministic thing. Not to beat a dead horse, but it would be possible, in real life, for 100 spearmen to beat a tank. But setting a hard limit on damage (i.e. none) would completely eliminate this. This would make the easier difficulty levels even easier, i.e. your armies would always be invincible.

easy difficulty level should be easy. hard diff levels should be hard. if you feel that the games are too easy, just go up a level. as for spearmen and tanks, a tank units represents some number of tanks, as does a spearment unit represent some number of spearmen. a spearment unit should not stand a chance against a tank unit.

as for imporving combat: i think that an armor unit parameter will take care of the units' epoch issues. this way a tank, reduced to 10 does not turn into a knight with blitz.

 

[Camikaze]

But easy difficulty levels should not be impossible to lose. And probability of something being literally impossible is worse than the probability of a spearman beating a tank.

 

[rysmiel]

easy difficulty level should be easy. hard diff levels should be hard. if you feel that the games are too easy, just go up a level. as for spearmen and tanks, a tank units represents some number of tanks, as does a spearment unit represent some number of spearmen. a spearment unit should not stand a chance against a tank unit.

Yes it should. Just a very very small chance.

 

[Alter Hase]

Well, soem of us strongly disagree.

I'm all for exponentially scaling attack/defence strengths (stone-age warrior 1. iron-age legionary 4, medieval knight 16, modern battle tank 256) but never, under any circumstances, a hard rule making combat entirely deterministic.

A Tank is a Tank, period, the only thing pre 20 century units should be able to do is jam the tracks with their own bodyparts as the tank steamrolles them

Pikemen defeating tank is to me on the edge of being a bug.

I absolutely oppose this. It's the wrong scale of abstraction for the game.

No its not, please elaborate.

No, there absolutely should not. Because if you want that kind of game there are plenty out there already.

So you want the combat in civ to remain primitive with absolutely no way to act why not then make a tech tree which you cant develop, you just build research buildings and pray that you get the tech you need, while the computer beats the crap out of you for no real reason, and that just keeps getting worse with higher level.

I am not advocating total war, but when you cant be certain for a positive result in everything but the most one sided battles thats where i draw the line.

Civ games are great, but honestly, every time i get into combat for any reason, game goes from challenge to frustration.

I still remember the anger on roughly medium level difficulty(i think its monarch dont remember anymore) when i was sending like 10 swordsmen and a couple of catapluts to secure a medium sized city with 2 or 3 spearman, and no walls. Catapults don hit anything swordsmen dying like flies on individual attacks (where is the f..ing mass attack with the whole stack when you need it ).

On the other hand the ai just pops up with 4 swordsmen aggainst my walled city and beats all 3 guarding units of spearman like nothing (all units veteran like the enemy) with no losses.


Thats not hard thats just banging the head into a nearby wall hoping that the game will have mercy on you and let you win a fight.


And thats the reason why i advocate changes i agree that civ is not a war game but unless we live in a hippie virtual world the most powerful civs got their power with blood drenched swords, not pacifism.
You can negotiate and be a peaceful guy but if you dont have a good army, you are doomed.

 

[deanej]

Some of your suggestions would tilt the favor to the attacker even more than it already is. There is a reason why enemy units can't use roads: it's so the defending empire has time to react! Since civ is turn-based, unlike in real life, you really can't do anything while the enemy armies move. By the time it's your turn, it may be too late. Civ 3 had something that ended with the same effect called ROP rape. Also, ambushes would not work like you describe as in civ all units except spies and submarines are visible, regarldess of recon (as no player would use goto to send their units into the unknown in enemy territory).

One thing I am in favor of is code that would make it so that if you pass a certain threshold in combat odds you automatically win, like in civ rev. This would prevent losing a unit with 99% combat odds (which makes sense from a mathematic perspective but no sense from a realism perspective).

 

[rysmiel]

A Tank is a Tank, period, the only thing pre 20 century units should be able to do is jam the tracks with their own bodyparts as the tank steamrolles them Pikemen defeating tank is to me on the edge of being a bug.

You are thinking of realism here ?

(logistics train being the wrong scale of abstraction)

No its not, please elaborate.

Explicit logistics of the sort you describe is a tactical-scale issue. Civ is not a tactical scale game,

So you want the combat in civ to remain primitive with absolutely no way to act

Of course you have a way to act; you choose whether to attack or not. You choose what to attack with. The control is at the level of what you build in your whole empire and how you concentrate and deliver that force, not of running around a babttlefield taking potshots.

I am not advocating total war, but when you cant be certain for a positive result in everything but the most one sided battles thats where i draw the line.

If you can be certain of an outcome in any battle, what's the point in playing ?

I still remember the anger on roughly medium level difficulty(i think its monarch dont remember anymore) when i was sending like 10 swordsmen and a couple of catapluts to secure a medium sized city with 2 or 3 spearman, and no walls. Catapults don hit anything swordsmen dying like flies on individual attacks (where is the f..ing mass attack with the whole stack when you need it ).
On the other hand the ai just pops up with 4 swordsmen aggainst my walled city and beats all 3 guarding units of spearman like nothing (all units veteran like the enemy) with no losses.

This would be the odds ganging up on you ? I trust the statistical results people have generated by careful testing of combat situations.

And thats the reason why i advocate changes i agree that civ is not a war game but unless we live in a hippie virtual world the most powerful civs got their power with blood drenched swords, not pacifism.
You can negotiate and be a peaceful guy but if you dont have a good army, you are doomed.

I want plenty more ways to win than military strength, but that's a different argument.

 

[rysmiel]

One thing I am in favor of is code that would make it so that if you pass a certain threshold in combat odds you automatically win, like in civ rev. This would prevent losing a unit with 99% combat odds (which makes sense from a mathematic perspective but no sense from a realism perspective).

Yet again, realism is less important than good gameplay; I am very strongly opposed to this notion.

 

[Hail]

If you can be certain of an outcome in any battle, what's the point in playing ?

what's the point in starting a civ game? you know you are gonna win anyway.

I want plenty more ways to win than military strength, but that's a different argument.

the quote was about loosing without military strength, with which i agree.

i vote "deterministic realism". things that should not happen, will not happen. to the objection that, "ai civs that are really behind in research, will be an even easier prey, then before", i can say, that, maybe create a mechanism, that will not allow a civ to really fall behind. something along the lines, that the more civs discover some tech, the "cheaper" it becomes for others to discover it. this mechanic, however, creates new problems, but i believe, it's just a balancing issue.

 

[rysmiel]

what's the point in starting a civ game? you know you are gonna win anyway.

Then either you get very different things out of the game from what i do or you need to move up a level or two.

 

[MosheLevi]

Without going too much into details (I am short on time) I just want to mention a few game changes that should make CIV 5 better than CIV 4.

1 – Penalty for movement in enemy territory should be reduced (more so with low level promotions).
Slow movement in enemy territory frustrates me very often.

2 – Units should not be able to attack from 10+ tiles away.

3 – Upgrading old units to new units should be made much cheaper to a point that it will always pay off to upgrade them.
In my Warmonger MOD such cost has been reduced substantially and I am having fun with certain units that I keep upgrading and I managed to bring some of them up to level 6 units.
Being able to upgrade these units again and again was a fun new experience.

4 – Units should have “Attack” and “Defense” in addition to “Hit Points”.
So if a Tank has 10 “Defense” and a Pikeman has 8 “Attack” then no damage will be done to the tank.

5 – Battle mechanics should be improved by making them more tactical.
Civ 4 is a strategic game but it also has tactical elements.
I therefore think that battles should be more tactical and that is definitely going to make battles more fun.

 

[exhile]

1 – Penalty for movement in enemy territory should be reduced (more so with low level promotions).
Slow movement in enemy territory frustrates me very often.

That is the whole point. If you were attacked and the enemy was penetrating into your territory, you'd like to be able to slow them down on their advance.

2 – Units should not be able to attack from 10+ tiles away.

If there is clear line of sight from 10+ tiles away, why not? Fog of war is when it gets tricky.

 

[deanej]

And since civ is tile-based, even when you move 10 tiles to attack, you are still attacking from 1 tile away (your unit does not teleport to that tile, it moves throught the tiles in between). And nobody in their right mind would send a unit that far through the fog anyways, as remember: when you run in to a unit that way, your unit does not just pass through or even stop. It enters combat. I have lost units this way in the past.

 

[rysmiel]

Without going too much into details (I am short on time) I just want to mention a few game changes that should make CIV 5 better than CIV 4.
1 – Penalty for movement in enemy territory should be reduced (more so with low level promotions).
Slow movement in enemy territory frustrates me very often.
2 – Units should not be able to attack from 10+ tiles away.

That seems like a recipe for going from quick effective wars to slow grinding ones; I would not find that made the game more enjoyable myself.

Once technology gets to a certain point, blitzkrieg becomes feasible; do we want the game to model this or no ?

4 – Units should have “Attack” and “Defense” in addition to “Hit Points”.

You should play more Civ 2 and 3. In which they do.

5 – Battle mechanics should be improved by making them more tactical.
Civ 4 is a strategic game but it also has tactical elements.

Yes; this is most of what is wrong with it by comparison with the earlier games.

 

[MosheLevi]

That is the whole point. If you were attacked and the enemy was penetrating into your territory, you'd like to be able to slow them down on their advance.

Then slow them down with your army.

“Ambush” ability (if implemented) can be a nice way to achieve that while you assemble your army to intercept the invading army.

However, if the enemy is in enemy territory where roads are available and there are no armies to stop their movement, then why can’t they use these roads and move faster?

Units in the modern age move in enemy territory at the same pace as in the medieval era.
That doesn’t make sense.
It makes sense if there is a fog of war and I cannot see what is ahead of me.
However, why can’t I move my army faster in enemy territory when I have bunch of spies in that area and there is no enemy to slow me down?
The roads are right there, aren’t they?

I already talked about the problem of attacking from 10+ tiles away in other threads.
The basic problem with that is that enemy units can attack your force from anywhere when you invade their territory.
There is also no way to anticipate where the attack is coming from ahead of time.
That is NOT a nice feeling.
It is simply not fun.

I don’t mind 10+ tiles movement, but the attack should then wait for the next turn.
This will encourage tactical maneuvering where you can see the enemy coming and you can maneuver your forces accordingly.
With 10+ tiles attack, there is no way anyone can calculate/anticipate enemy attacks.
That diminishes tactical combat.

Got to go on a trip now.
See you guys when I come back on Monday.

 

[rysmiel]

With 10+ tiles attack, there is no way anyone can calculate/anticipate enemy attacks.
That diminishes tactical combat.

You say bug, I say feature.

 

[exhile]

Then slow them down with your army.

“Ambush” ability (if implemented) can be a nice way to achieve that while you assemble your army to intercept the invading army.

However, if the enemy is in enemy territory where roads are available and there are no armies to stop their movement, then why can’t they use these roads and move faster?

This is what happened in Civ2 where there was no zone of control and cultural borders did not exist. Roads in all squares provided the same unit movement no matter the vicinity to whose city.

Units in the modern age move in enemy territory at the same pace as in the medieval era.
That doesn’t make sense.
It makes sense if there is a fog of war and I cannot see what is ahead of me.
However, why can’t I move my army faster in enemy territory when I have bunch of spies in that area and there is no enemy to slow me down?
The roads are right there, aren’t they?

Cultural borders and diplomacy defined the use of roads. In peacetime, an open-borders agreement allowed road movement as if the territory was your own. In war, those privileges are removed. The spy concept is actually a good idea where a regular spy can temporarily provide info. on the area for units to move into. The regular spy will eventually be captured. A Great spy should provide map info. indefinitely when positioned in enemy territory.

I already talked about the problem of attacking from 10+ tiles away in other threads.
The basic problem with that is that enemy units can attack your force from anywhere when you invade their territory.
There is also no way to anticipate where the attack is coming from ahead of time.
That is NOT a nice feeling.
It is simply not fun.

An enemy attack is supposed to be challenging and at times, "not fun" because it is unexpected. If the enemy was in your territory, you should be able to use railroad tracks to send units 10+ tiles away to intercept the enemy. The enemy cannot anticipate where your attack is coming from ahead of time because they are in your territory. The enemy is also surrounded by the fog of war.

I don’t mind 10+ tiles movement, but the attack should then wait for the next turn.
This will encourage tactical maneuvering where you can see the enemy coming and you can maneuver your forces accordingly.
With 10+ tiles attack, there is no way anyone can calculate/anticipate enemy attacks.
That diminishes tactical combat.

Tactical combat movement is good as is. I found the only way to counter-attack such 10+ tile movement and the enemy is to shift gears into war production & nationalism.

 

[deanej]

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)?