Goosbar
Chieftain
i dont lnow exactly how it could be done, but instead of haveing one unit attack at a time, why not have all of your units in the stack attack at once. now that im done typing this im sure its been thought of.
Mass Warfare
- Thread starter Goosbar
- Start date
douche_bag
can't change my name now
but how would that ever work fairly? are their attack strenghs combined? or do the all join up like an army does?
searcheagle
Emperor
that would depend on the combat system. and those vary widely. Some would work well and others would destroy the system. If you Aussie Lurker has an interesting one.
A system where all the attack/defenses were combined would be severally imbalancing. It would force huge stacks of units all over the place. (This is the exact opposite of Civ I where 1 loss in a square caused all the units beneath it to die, outside of a city. That forced units to be spread around to minimize damage.)
I personally would be infavor of some sort of Mass Warfare system that involved a "combat turn," where all the attacks took place on the same turn.
So, everyone who voted YES or Definiately:
What type of system should be implemented? Post your ideas here!
A system where all the attack/defenses were combined would be severally imbalancing. It would force huge stacks of units all over the place. (This is the exact opposite of Civ I where 1 loss in a square caused all the units beneath it to die, outside of a city. That forced units to be spread around to minimize damage.)
I personally would be infavor of some sort of Mass Warfare system that involved a "combat turn," where all the attacks took place on the same turn.
So, everyone who voted YES or Definiately:
What type of system should be implemented? Post your ideas here!
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK, I obviously picked definite-largely because I feel that the current combat system is too time consuming, and is merely an adjunct to the whole 'micromanagement' problem!!
That said, any stack combat system would DEMAND stack limits, in order to prevent rampant abuse of the system. Stack limits would depend on the terrain in which the units end up in!
Anyway, my preferred options for a 'stack combat system' would be as follows:
(a) Turn-based, tactical miniscreen: This would be the ultimate system for me, where you can move your units and attack other units in a seperate screen during the 'combat phase' of the turn. This would add a massive new tactical element to the game. I realise, however, that a lot of people don't like this idea (largely based on the CtP experience, which wasn't nearly good enough IMHO) but is what I would have if 'my will was law'
!
(b) This option would work in a similar fashion to civ3 combat. Basically everyone would have their move, and any enemy units which ended up in the same tile at the end of this phase would be required to either 'retreat' or 'slug it out'. At this point each unit in the stack would automatically 'have a shot' at a target in the 'opposing' stack-and vice versa-until the target is killed or one or the other unit retreats. If either of the latter happens, that unit will move to attack another available target. At any time, either side can do a 'stack retreat' which will essentially yield the tile to the other side. Which enemy a unit targets could either be automatically selected by the computer or selected by the player prior to combat starting. The similarity to civ3 is that you would see the individual animations for the units that are involved in conflict.
Interesting ideas connected with (b) is that a unit might be attacking one enemy, whilst fending off attacks from several other enemies. In this case, it would get to defend, but get no corresponding counterattack, against the other attackers. In addition, such a unit would probably get a penalty to its DS for every unit, after the first, that it is defending against. This would make numerical advantage much more important than is currently the case.
In addition, units might have an 'attack rate', 'range' and 'firepower' score, which determines how many times they can attack each 'phase' (or how many different enemies they can attack), how many free shots they can get on an enemy (ranged units only), and how much damage they can potentially dish out on a successful attack.
OK, here is how I sought of see option (b) working in the game:
Player A has a stack of 5 units (3 Med Infs and 2 longbowmen-LBMs) which are defending a pass through the mountains. Player B has 6 units (the maximum for this kind of tile) (2 Knights, 2 Med Infs and 2 LBM's) which he moves, on his turn, to occupy Player A's tile. When all movement is done, the two stacks 'slug it out'.
First, each sides LBM's (with a range of 1) get their 'free attack' against units in the opposing stacks. Then, the knights and 1 Med Inf take on a enemy Med Inf each, with the final med inf going 1 on 1 with the final enemy unit-whilst the LBM's of each side continue to lend 'supporting fire'.
On the screen, we see a knight take a swing at its target, and the targets counterattack, followed by the next knights attack and so on. In addition, we see 1 knight and 1 Med Inf get its attack, but with no corresponding counterattack. Also, the two 'defending' Med Infs are at a penalty to their DS (and possibly morale) due to being 'outnumbered'.
This is repeated each 'pulse' until either ALL units of one side are defeated, or one or both sides have 'yielded the field.
To continue the example, though, lets say that two of the knights defeat the enemy med inf, the controlling player may choose to 'retreat' one or both of them or, if he doesn't, then they will automatically move on to any available targets-in this case perhaps 1 knight might target an enemy LBM, and the other might go and help out against any remaining, and possibly weakened, Med infantry.
Now, I know it might SOUND confusing, but please remember that much of what I described will be worked out by the computer, based on its perception of victory odds-with perhaps an element of randomness thrown in.
Lastly, within option (a) and (b), there is still the option of building and loading armies. These armies would represent a greater level of organisation than a mere stack, and would recieve bonuses accordingly. One such bonus might be that each unit in an army would recieve a % increase-in one of its stats-equal to the unit which is strongest in that stat.
For example, if you have a knight and a pikeman in an army (and the Knight has an AS: 50, DS: 15; and the pikeman has AS: 20 and DS:60) then the Pikeman would get an AS bonus of, say, +5 (10% of Knights AS) and the Knight would get a DS bonus of +6 (10% of Pikemans DS). This, I believe, would, at the very least, encourage a combined arms strategy in armies-though I believe that stacked combat, generally, encourages such an approach.
Anyway, sorry to introduce SOOOO many concepts at once. If any of this confuses you, then please let me know and I will be happy to explain it a bit better!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
That said, any stack combat system would DEMAND stack limits, in order to prevent rampant abuse of the system. Stack limits would depend on the terrain in which the units end up in!
Anyway, my preferred options for a 'stack combat system' would be as follows:
(a) Turn-based, tactical miniscreen: This would be the ultimate system for me, where you can move your units and attack other units in a seperate screen during the 'combat phase' of the turn. This would add a massive new tactical element to the game. I realise, however, that a lot of people don't like this idea (largely based on the CtP experience, which wasn't nearly good enough IMHO) but is what I would have if 'my will was law'
!(b) This option would work in a similar fashion to civ3 combat. Basically everyone would have their move, and any enemy units which ended up in the same tile at the end of this phase would be required to either 'retreat' or 'slug it out'. At this point each unit in the stack would automatically 'have a shot' at a target in the 'opposing' stack-and vice versa-until the target is killed or one or the other unit retreats. If either of the latter happens, that unit will move to attack another available target. At any time, either side can do a 'stack retreat' which will essentially yield the tile to the other side. Which enemy a unit targets could either be automatically selected by the computer or selected by the player prior to combat starting. The similarity to civ3 is that you would see the individual animations for the units that are involved in conflict.
Interesting ideas connected with (b) is that a unit might be attacking one enemy, whilst fending off attacks from several other enemies. In this case, it would get to defend, but get no corresponding counterattack, against the other attackers. In addition, such a unit would probably get a penalty to its DS for every unit, after the first, that it is defending against. This would make numerical advantage much more important than is currently the case.
In addition, units might have an 'attack rate', 'range' and 'firepower' score, which determines how many times they can attack each 'phase' (or how many different enemies they can attack), how many free shots they can get on an enemy (ranged units only), and how much damage they can potentially dish out on a successful attack.
OK, here is how I sought of see option (b) working in the game:
Player A has a stack of 5 units (3 Med Infs and 2 longbowmen-LBMs) which are defending a pass through the mountains. Player B has 6 units (the maximum for this kind of tile) (2 Knights, 2 Med Infs and 2 LBM's) which he moves, on his turn, to occupy Player A's tile. When all movement is done, the two stacks 'slug it out'.
First, each sides LBM's (with a range of 1) get their 'free attack' against units in the opposing stacks. Then, the knights and 1 Med Inf take on a enemy Med Inf each, with the final med inf going 1 on 1 with the final enemy unit-whilst the LBM's of each side continue to lend 'supporting fire'.
On the screen, we see a knight take a swing at its target, and the targets counterattack, followed by the next knights attack and so on. In addition, we see 1 knight and 1 Med Inf get its attack, but with no corresponding counterattack. Also, the two 'defending' Med Infs are at a penalty to their DS (and possibly morale) due to being 'outnumbered'.
This is repeated each 'pulse' until either ALL units of one side are defeated, or one or both sides have 'yielded the field.
To continue the example, though, lets say that two of the knights defeat the enemy med inf, the controlling player may choose to 'retreat' one or both of them or, if he doesn't, then they will automatically move on to any available targets-in this case perhaps 1 knight might target an enemy LBM, and the other might go and help out against any remaining, and possibly weakened, Med infantry.
Now, I know it might SOUND confusing, but please remember that much of what I described will be worked out by the computer, based on its perception of victory odds-with perhaps an element of randomness thrown in.
Lastly, within option (a) and (b), there is still the option of building and loading armies. These armies would represent a greater level of organisation than a mere stack, and would recieve bonuses accordingly. One such bonus might be that each unit in an army would recieve a % increase-in one of its stats-equal to the unit which is strongest in that stat.
For example, if you have a knight and a pikeman in an army (and the Knight has an AS: 50, DS: 15; and the pikeman has AS: 20 and DS:60) then the Pikeman would get an AS bonus of, say, +5 (10% of Knights AS) and the Knight would get a DS bonus of +6 (10% of Pikemans DS). This, I believe, would, at the very least, encourage a combined arms strategy in armies-though I believe that stacked combat, generally, encourages such an approach.
Anyway, sorry to introduce SOOOO many concepts at once. If any of this confuses you, then please let me know and I will be happy to explain it a bit better!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Hi guys its me again.
Just thought I would quickly clarify what a 'pulse' is in relation to the example I gave above. Essentially it is the period in which every unit gets ONE attack/counterattack.
So, to use my example above, one pulse would consist of
Longbowmen units from sides A and B launch arrows against enemy targets.
Knight A1 attacks Medieval Infantry B1 (and vice versa).
Knight A2 attacks Medieval Infantry B2 (and Vice versa).
Medieval Infantry A1 attacks Medieval Infantry B3 (and vice versa).
Medieval Infantry A2 attacks Medieval Infantry B1 (no counterattack).
This pulse will probably take around 4-6 seconds, with damage being determined either during the attacks or at the end of the 'Pulse' (not sure which would work best). The order of events in the following 'Pulse' would be determined in order of highest Attack strength AFTER it has been modified for damage effects (if any). Damage effects can (and probably will) also determine targets in the following pulse as well.
(For example, if the knights have suffered badly from Longbow attacks in the previous pulse, the computer may assign them as a PRIMARY TARGET for one, or both, of the Knight units in the following pulse!)
Anyway, I hope that made sense, and I would like to know what people think of the stack combat model I have proposed.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Just thought I would quickly clarify what a 'pulse' is in relation to the example I gave above. Essentially it is the period in which every unit gets ONE attack/counterattack.
So, to use my example above, one pulse would consist of
Longbowmen units from sides A and B launch arrows against enemy targets.
Knight A1 attacks Medieval Infantry B1 (and vice versa).
Knight A2 attacks Medieval Infantry B2 (and Vice versa).
Medieval Infantry A1 attacks Medieval Infantry B3 (and vice versa).
Medieval Infantry A2 attacks Medieval Infantry B1 (no counterattack).
This pulse will probably take around 4-6 seconds, with damage being determined either during the attacks or at the end of the 'Pulse' (not sure which would work best). The order of events in the following 'Pulse' would be determined in order of highest Attack strength AFTER it has been modified for damage effects (if any). Damage effects can (and probably will) also determine targets in the following pulse as well.
(For example, if the knights have suffered badly from Longbow attacks in the previous pulse, the computer may assign them as a PRIMARY TARGET for one, or both, of the Knight units in the following pulse!)
Anyway, I hope that made sense, and I would like to know what people think of the stack combat model I have proposed.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Camber
Resident Family Therapist
Not only should they all be allowed to fight at once, but there should also be an RTS element in the battles, which would cut to a screen with the terrain and the armies arrayed. You would have a limited amount of time to rearrange your units, and call in a few as-yet uncommitted forces or place them into a reserve. Once the countdown timer ended, the battle would be on. You could choose to manually control some units, but others might have preset battle orders (chosen either in the precombat stage, or set as a default for a particular unit type). There would also be the option of letting the AI run the battle for you.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Oh, to answer your issue Coorae-in my model ALL cannons in a stack will be able to lend 'support fire' at the start of each combat 'pulse'. However, there is no WAY you could ever have 50+ cannons (or 50+ units for that matter) in one stack under my model!
At most, I would say that you could have 10 units, on say open plains, without effecting unit performance, and an absolute maximum of 15 units in this case (but only at a significant penalty to all the units in this tile).
I would say that stack limits also would range from around 3 units in mountains up to 10 on plains and/or grassland, with an additional +50% buffer applied-but at a large penalty to performance AND a chance to lose HP each turn!!
Lastly, having ALL cannons in a stack WOULD give you a free shot against most melee and early gunpowder units, but they would then be quickly mowed down in the coming pulse by said units (as they would have a hideously low Defense Strength!)
Hope that clarifies a few of my points!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
At most, I would say that you could have 10 units, on say open plains, without effecting unit performance, and an absolute maximum of 15 units in this case (but only at a significant penalty to all the units in this tile).
I would say that stack limits also would range from around 3 units in mountains up to 10 on plains and/or grassland, with an additional +50% buffer applied-but at a large penalty to performance AND a chance to lose HP each turn!!
Lastly, having ALL cannons in a stack WOULD give you a free shot against most melee and early gunpowder units, but they would then be quickly mowed down in the coming pulse by said units (as they would have a hideously low Defense Strength!)
Hope that clarifies a few of my points
!Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Hmmm, just been thinking guys. If my model (B) were to get up, how do you think blitzing would work? I'm thinking that, perhaps, a blitz unit can attack/counterattack multiple units in a single pulse. That is, if a tank unit with a blitz of 2 is attacked by 2 units, it can successfully counterattack both of them and/or it doesn't suffer a Defense strength penalty.
Another possibility, not mutually exclusive, is to give blitzing units a 'breakthrough maneuvere', where if the unit successfully kills its target(s), it has a chance of breaking through to the tile behind-before the end of combat has occurred-thus giving said unit an extra MP! Limitations might be that it cannot have suffered any damage itself AND that it can't be up against another blitzing unit!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Another possibility, not mutually exclusive, is to give blitzing units a 'breakthrough maneuvere', where if the unit successfully kills its target(s), it has a chance of breaking through to the tile behind-before the end of combat has occurred-thus giving said unit an extra MP! Limitations might be that it cannot have suffered any damage itself AND that it can't be up against another blitzing unit!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I think that when a unit gets to 1 health, you should decide whether you retreat or not. If you decide to retreat with a rifleman, it might only have a 2% chance of working, if you are facing cavalry. If you keep attacking, you might just win. more strategy is good. It should show you your chances of retreating successfully, so that the game doesnt become a matter of memorizing values and calculating.
Dida
YHWH
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,434
CTP and CTP2 already have very good stacked combat system. Units will have 2 attack values, Ranged attack and Close Attack. Units like connon, Musketman have good ranged attack, and units like Swordman only have close attack while Tank is very good in both ranged and close attack. In a stacked combat, the ranged units will be arranged in the 2nd row, they will fire first to soften up the enemy position before the close units attacks. Putting range units directly against close units will mean suicide.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
I really really want stack combat, but I do not want mini-screens. Just a simple combat system, not much more complex than what we have now. It would be good enough for me if all the attack and defense values of all the units in a stack were added together, so that for instance a stack of 3 swordsmen and 2 spearmen would have an effective ADM of 11/10/1.
I second this. There is a huge amount of wasted hours and days on RPGs simply because of the 5-10 second gap where the screen whirls around and sends you to a battle screen. It would reduce time from the present system when attacking with 10+ units but if it was just one fight like it is with armies then the time would go down even more.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
But my problem, Spatula, is that if they just have ALL the units stacked together as ONE giant 'super-unit', then what real difference will it make having multiple types of units in one stack. I personally think that the option (b) that I put forward in my first post would make the game faster without the need to resort to a 'mini-screen', BUT also whilst retaining the identity and importance of individual units!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
PS: Also, I notice that there have been EIGHT people opposed to mass warfare, and yet not ONE of them has posted a message telling us WHY they are opposed to the idea. I can only assume that it is because they simply believe it to be 'unciv-like'
!!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
PS: Also, I notice that there have been EIGHT people opposed to mass warfare, and yet not ONE of them has posted a message telling us WHY they are opposed to the idea. I can only assume that it is because they simply believe it to be 'unciv-like'
!!!
Lab Monkey
Peace thru ultraviolence!
The CtP stacked combat system was made worse by the game's dire strength balancing of the units. Civ4 could easily correct it's faults. One idea could be that the units would be broken down into classes - Attackers, defenders, ranged attackers, ranged defenders, and artillery.
First, the artillery would open fire, on either side, taking chunks out of both sides armies (advanced artillery could be set to target a particular class of unit).
Then, the attackers could move in. They would take on the defenders. The attack and defence values of the ranged units on both sides would also be added to the melee units respectively.
In addition to this, special ops units would make bonus attacks - for example assassinating a particular opposition unit, before the battle began.
Obviously, the number of units in a stack would have to be limited, varying according to terrain, and you could set the game to make more than one strike on a tile at once by two stacks from separate directions, forcing a defending stack to defend on two fronts.
Certainly I feel that if anything, this will remove the AI's dependance on unrealistic stacks of Doom.
First, the artillery would open fire, on either side, taking chunks out of both sides armies (advanced artillery could be set to target a particular class of unit).
Then, the attackers could move in. They would take on the defenders. The attack and defence values of the ranged units on both sides would also be added to the melee units respectively.
In addition to this, special ops units would make bonus attacks - for example assassinating a particular opposition unit, before the battle began.
Obviously, the number of units in a stack would have to be limited, varying according to terrain, and you could set the game to make more than one strike on a tile at once by two stacks from separate directions, forcing a defending stack to defend on two fronts.
Certainly I feel that if anything, this will remove the AI's dependance on unrealistic stacks of Doom.
I was not suggesting a super-unit. All I want is for the one stack to fight the other, not having to wait for all them to finish, so therein lies the similarity to the army, not the 'super unit' idea. I would like the ability to see a detailed battle, and to toggle it on/off, much like you can do with the animation now.
Bluemofia
F=ma
they should make it so you can attack from multiple directions at once, using 2 units. the defender should be able to use 2 units (if there are that many in that square) to defend against it, and if not, then they have a defense decrease to simulate how hard it is to fight on 2 fronts.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Forgive me Spatula, but I confess that now I am having trouble understanding what kind of combat model you are hoping for! Could you please give me a more detailed description of your preferred model? Thanks !
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Aussie_Lurker said:
Some have better attack values, some better defense values, no different than now. So if you wanted a stack with lots of offensive power, you might still want to mix in a couple of pikemen or whatever to boost its defense or its gonna get creamed. It's the same as the present system ... you do not leave valuable attack units unprotected.
Aussie_Lurker said:Forgive me Spatula, but I confess that now I am having trouble understanding what kind of combat model you are hoping for! Could you please give me a more detailed description of your preferred model? Thanks
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Since you were such a gentleman and asked nicely, ok
I am in favour of the idea that a stack is treated like one unit, but with a twist on it. Instead of having the ADM averaged out, I would say simply take the total and set it against the total of an enemy stack, because the way averages can work out, two stacks of different size could end up having near enough the same ADM, which begs the question 'Why have more troops than the enemy?'
When you fight, a little mini-screen comes up and shows you a nice little battle. If you want, you can turn this off in the Preferences menu.
I hope that explains it all.
