Limiting SoD

[Trev]

Tactics in individual battles are nearly impossible to simulate in civ type games, unless there is a switch to special combat screen for each and every combat, where players can individually position and move each member of the army. This however would be far too time consuming for a game with the multitude of combat situations such as there are in civ games, so there will always be a need for a combat calculator such as is used in the civ games. But as there is a desire to limit stacks, this is best done either by bombard units damaging a percentage of units in stacks, so in large stacks more than one unit is damaged, or in defensive battles, a loss would result in a small but significant percentage of units in a stack being destroyed rather than just one, this would cause the stackers to seriously question the advisability of using large stacks in most circumstances

 

[rhialto]

I agree. Players shouldn't be in the position of deciding what tactics their generals are using, any more then they should be directing their scientists how to research for that tech they want.

I would go as far as having actual 'general' units, which would increase the command limit for the stack the general is with, and possibly electronic warfare units late in the game which would reduce enemy command limits for the stack it is with.

 

[Sirian]

It's a question of tactics.

Right, and Civ is not a tactical game. Civ is not Centurion, nor Total War, nor a WW2 sim, and it certainly isn't X-com. Civ abstracts all the tactical details. The "tactics" are reflected in the dice rolls attached to unit combat.

There are still tactics in handling units, but they are board game tactics, not deep military tactics. If Civ tried to get too tactical, the length of games would drag out intolerably.

I think we should all keep in mind the scale and scope of Civ, because I would expect the franchise to continue in the vein of what has come before. Those who crave military tactics can play Squad-level games like Silent Storm or X-com, or they can play unit-level games like Battlefront or Panzer General. Note that none of these games attempts to represent 6000 years of human history in one package.

Civ can't be all things to all people. Best that it stick to its specialty and not get too radical with trying to overcome its known shortcomings.

My two bits.


- Sirian

 

[sir_schwick]

Following SIrians post, for board game strategy stack limits forces you to decide where and how to place forces. If the group fighting mentioned in the preview thread is right, this will help make that feature very useful for strategy.


Sirian, you play X-COM?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think the only 'tactics' the game needs-if you can call it that-is the decision the computer makes as to which units face off against each other in two opposing stacks. This decision will be mostly based on percieved victory odds so that, if the computer decides that your best odds lie with facing your horseman off against the opposing swordsman, then that is how it will do it!
In addition, though, as you research different military techs, you should also be able to increase your 'command and control' limit (read: stack limit), and reduce the penalty for being over the stack limit-to reflect improved organisation and large scale tactics.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sirian]

Sirian, you play X-COM?

I finished the original X-com two times and played a "no reloads" ironman game on the next-highest difficulty about 80% of the way through.

I played the undersea sequel most of the way through, as well, but it had some unbalanced elements and was just a bit too hard, overall. I had my most satisfying X-com battles here, though, because it was so tough: winning some of those two-stage ship missions ironman style... Good stuff. I just could not pull that off against the Tentaculats in the underwater bases, though. TOO MUCH MOVEMENT combined with too many hit points for them combined with their one-shot melee kills on your troops, turning them into another of the aliens. Good for a "Hurt Me, I Want To Lose" level of pain, but a halting problem for those seeking a balanced challenge.

I did not play the series after it radicalized its gameplay and switched genres.


- Sirian

 

[rhialto]

You missed out on xcom 3 then, as that still kept the same gamplay style. Sure, it had a risible realtime mode, but no sane person played that. The final missions in xcom3 were a real challenge, and some of the later aliens were straight out of 50s B movies

 

[sir_schwick]

I also thought Apocalypse kinda fell short of the series, although TFTD was too hard and unbalanced. The RT in Apocalypse was convenient for large battles, as was the troop position.

Anway, back on topic....

This is paralell, but maybe the effectiveness of certaint roops in battlegropus or battlegroups with certain troops could be increased by 'tactics' that come about as part of technology. Various tactics beat other tactics.

 

[dh_epic]

I easily, easily agree that tactics like "will my soldier strike with caution or strike with brutality", or "will I move silently or make a lot of scary noise" should not be in Civ. But I think most people would agree that there ought to be more to who wins the war than who has the most troops. And technological factors are very linear -- one unit is always better than the other, not merely different.

I do think you guys would agree -- even in principal -- that it shouldn't just be size that counts but how you use it. The challenge then becomes coming up with something that fits with the scope, focus, and spirit of Civ.

Agree so far, no?

 

[sir_schwick]

Waht I meant about tactics were things such as, 'phalanx', 'ranged skirmishing', 'sword and shield', 'cavalry pincer', 'echelon envelopment'. These could be assigned to battlegroups based on tactical research, some wonders(Sun Tzus would now allow advanced tactical forms) and unit composition. Some tactics work really well against other tactics.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, DH, thats why having stats such as 'Rate of Fire', 'range', 'morale', 'armour' and 'Firepower' would really help. For instance, you might have a lower tech unit which has low firepower, but heavy armour, making it a potentially good defensive unit (as it withstands greater damage). You could make a devestating attack, against a unit, that virtually causes it to 'melt away' before you (i.e. an attack that drains the units morale so low as to cause a rout!!) You can field units which are lightly armed and armoured, but which are very quick and agile, hence giving them an excellent defense strength. Other units might sacrifice speed for raw power, giving them excellent Firepower, but making them vulnerable to counterattacks! You can churn out conscripts, which have lower maintainance, but higher population cost, lower hp and less morale! You see, then, how suddenly all of your options are opened up-merely being tech and numbers!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

If the player is choosing a tactic to use in the game for each battle, it seems like MM to me. It basically turns into a shell game of luck. For every combination of units, there will be an ideal tactic, and an ideal counter-tactic. You'll manipulate the odds, sure, bt it's still a shell game.

 

[dh_epic]

It seems as though the only way to open up more tactics is to move away from the simple "attack versus defence" dualism of Civ's past. You would need more variables to open up even a paper-rock-scissors type of choice between equal units, let alone something where you're genuinely weighing the value of more firepower versus a faster rate of fire.

I do have an "outside the box" idea, but I'm curious where this discussion is going so far. If people agree in principal that the combat system should move away from pure numbers, even if they're worried about how it might be implemented.

(And I mean outside the box as in not what you'd expect. I don't mean outside the box to give myself a pat on the bat for being an innovator.)