More Combat Modifier Flags ala 'Amphibious Attack' Bonus

[yoshi]

In Civ2, the 2vs.2 flag was quite popular (although it didn’t work very well). When Civ3 came out, I was expecting more combat bonus flags, but all I got was the AEGIS flag, and a ‘Mounted’ flag that never worked (they got rid of this in PTW). Conquests is supposed to include an “Amphibious” flag which allows the unit with that flag (Marine) to get an attack bonus when making an amphibious assault. More flags of this sort would be much appreciated by many I should think –considering players’ positive reaction to the new Marine ability.

Although Conquests is pretty much complete, I will offer the following request anyway because it could be easily implemented (and if anything, for future use):

“100% vs. Foot” – Units with this flag have double attack/defense when in combat with units that have the “Foot” flag (e.g. ‘MG’ unit has advantage over Infantry units).

“100% vs. Mounted” – Units with this flag have double attack/defense when in combat with units that have “Mounted” flag (e.g. Pikeman has advantage over Knight).

“100% Bombard vs. City Defenses” – Units with this flag (i.e. Artillery) have an advantage when bombarding cities –emphasizes artillery role in sieges.

“100% vs. Artillery” – Units with this flag have double defense vs. units with “Artillery” characteristic (e.g. heavily armored units or even infantry units –they are spread out).

Even one 2vs.x flag (with accompanying flag for effective unit; i.e. ‘Mounted’) would be helpful. Just activating the Pikeman’s 2vs.Mounted flag would be nice and could then be applied to other units in scenarios. So for instance, in a WW2 scenario you could give Tanks the “Mounted” flag and give an “Anti-Tank” unit the “100% vs. Mounted” flag. Hey, even the ‘Shogun’ scenario that’s meant to ship with Conquests could definitely use a flag like that –the ‘Yari’ is similar to the Pike, so Yari Samurai would (and should, if history has anything to do with it) have a bonus vs. Cavalry.

For future reference: an alternative, or even additional “Bonus” field could be included into the Editor’s Unit window, which would consist of a pull-down list of all units accompanied by an integer caption on the side. The selected unit would receive an A/D bonus vs. the highlighted units in the list. The bonus would be based on the integer in the caption (a percentage of defender/attacker’s A/D; 10 = 100%). This would be simpler than having all sorts of flags, and would allow unit combat bonuses to be more unit-specific.

This adds flavor to combat and gives different units more unique roles. Combat bonuses tend to be popular among players, so I think this request is more than reasonable. It shouldn’t be hard to implement even at this stage because technically the format for it already exists.

Which of these options do you prefer (if any)? Any ideas or comments? Add your own stuff if you want.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

i think the problem with more flags is that the AIs seem to have a very limited idea of a balanced military, and only the human player would utilize them. Based on another thread where they are trying to identify how the AI builds units, I think more flags would actually handicap the AIs as they fail to build specialized units needed for specific attacks and/or defenses. Altho I agree 100% in theory.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Except for the fact that it is hard to make the AI take advantage of this, I think its a very good and important addition to the game. Almost every RTS game has this - look at Shogun: Total war for an excellent example.

There is one additional problem though. It will be possible to have several units in one square, that each will be the best defender, depening of the type of attacker. I.e., a stack may have two units with base defense factor 3 - one with 100% bonus vs. foot units and one with 100% bonus vs. mounted units.

Now, assume the attacker have Knights and Longbowmen, both with attack of 4. If the best defender is always selected, the attacker is on a great disadvantage, since both the knight and the longbowman will be met by the unit it would not want to meet.

This will make attacking much more difficult, if the defender manages to keep a combined arms force, but that may be ok. Its hard to avoid this in a stacked game, without handling each battle as an individual game on a non-stacked mini-map. This latter may be fun, but will make the game very much longer.

 

[yoshi]

...I think more flags would actually handicap the AIs as they fail to build specialized units needed for specific attacks and/or defenses.

That's not our problem. Let Atari (or whomever) deal with that --if the AI doesn't know how to use one flag, it probably means that the program simply does not take flags into account, thus it won't use any flags...so that's a fault in the game that should be dealt with by designers, not us. In other words, AI 'stupidity' shouldn't be taken into account when talking about new additions to the game (that don't deviate from the already existing program).

If the best defender is always selected, the attacker is on a great disadvantage, since both the knight and the longbowman will be met by the unit it would not want to meet.

It seems logical that certain defenders defend better than certain attackers. If the Knight attacks, the Pikeman defends. If the foot unit attacks, a mounted unit will defend. Attackers are not really at a disadvantage as "100% vs.x" can also refer to attacks (i.e. Mounted units have a bonus vs. Foot units when defending AND attacking). This adds variation to the rather monotonous combat in Civ3 --a player that doesn't have a good mix of units can get into a jam (kind of like Shogun). Unfortunately, you' can't have your Foot units attack the Pikemen thus clearing the way for the Mounted units --perhaps the new "Stealth Attack" flag could come in handy here. Ranged support should also play a role in weakening defending units.
[The Longbowman/Archer is something that should be addressed because, as you can probably tell, it doesn't make much sense that they be counter-attacked by non-ranged units. Ranged units should be tweaked in some way to make them different from non-ranged units (as well as nullifying the "100% vs. Foot" bonus).
I tried giving Archers/Longbowmen the Bombard ability using the Editor and it worked to a degree in that Archers would take 'free shots' at attackers, but it also meant that they could destroy Improvements when attacking cities --not to mention that the AI didn't have a clue how to use this. Besides, they shouldn't just be a Foot unit with the Artillary ability.]


What did you think of the alternative idea to flags?

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by yoshi
It seems logical that certain defenders defend better than certain attackers. If the Knight attacks, the Pikeman defends. If the foot unit attacks, a mounted unit will defend. Attackers are not really at a disadvantage as "100% vs.x" can also refer to attacks (i.e. Mounted units have a bonus vs. Foot units when defending AND attacking).

But its not logical that the defenders are always positioned so that the best suitable defender always meets the attack. In real life, the attacking cavalry would some times be able to outflank the pikemen and attack the archers instead. You are correct that attackers can also gain from this, but if both sides manages to have combined arms stacks, then the attacker will always suffer. Its only when the defender has only one type of units left in a stack that the attacker can attack with the "correct" type and get advantage of it.
I don't think this is a serious problem though, it's only worth nothing, and maybe a reason to see whether some units should have a higher attack factor to compensate for this. I don't think that is necessary though.

This adds variation to the rather monotonous combat in Civ3 --a player that doesn't have a good mix of units can get into a jam (kind of like Shogun). Unfortunately, you' can't have your Foot units attack the Pikemen thus clearing the way for the Mounted units --perhaps the new "Stealth Attack" flag could come in handy here. Ranged support should also play a role in weakening defending units.

I fully agree with you. This would certainly make wars more interesting. To make it even better, I would like to this as well as a few other changes:

*Flanking bonuses (A defender gets lower defense if several adjacent squares is occupied by enemy units).

*Advanced terrain bonuses: Different units should have different terrain bonuses, and where the attacker attacks from should matter as well. Some examples:
Mounted units should have a negative bonus if attacking or defending in a woods square, but should have a positive bonus if attacking or defening in open ground.
Archers should have a positive bonus when attacking open ground or being attacked from open ground. They should also have bonus if attacking from higher ground.

[The Longbowman/Archer is something that should be addressed because, as you can probably tell, it doesn't make much sense that they be counter-attacked by non-ranged units. Ranged units should be tweaked in some way to make them different from non-ranged units (as well as nullifying the "100% vs. Foot" bonus).
I tried giving Archers/Longbowmen the Bombard ability using the Editor and it worked to a degree in that Archers would take 'free shots' at attackers, but it also meant that they could destroy Improvements when attacking cities --not to mention that the AI didn't have a clue how to use this. Besides, they shouldn't just be a Foot unit with the Artillary ability.]

Have you tried making giving them bombard with zero range? If so, they get to take a shot against attacking units when stacked, but they don't get to attack city improvements.

What did you think of the alternative idea to flags?

Its essentially a way of giving every unit individual A/D bonuses vs every other individual unit type and thus far more flexible that general flags. Its excellent for scenario makers/scenarios, but for the general game, I think it may be a bit too confusing. In the main game, it is better to be able to list an anti-tank gun as having 100% A/D bonus vs "armored units", than listing it as having 100% A/D bonus vs. "tank, panzer, MA, MI" etc.

 

[JWJ]

Yoshi, you'll be able to do this. Check out the updated features list here:
http://betaciv3.humongous.com/conq_features.cfm

 

[yoshi]

But its not logical that the defenders are always positioned so that the best suitable defender always meets the attack.

You're right, but I can't see any way around that.

Its only when the defender has only one type of units left in a stack that the attacker can attack with the "correct" type and get advantage of it.

Yes, I was thinking about this. Attackers will still be at a disadvantage.

Have you tried making giving them bombard with zero range?

It neve occored to me. Thanks.

Flanking bonuses (A defender gets lower defense if several adjacent squares is occupied by enemy units).

Like it. I have thought about that option too. It makes sense but would require additional changes to the core program.

*Advanced terrain bonuses: Different units should have different terrain bonuses, and where the attacker attacks from should matter as well.

Very good and logical idea. I also thought of that --in fact, I think I may have even opened a thread on this. Al that would be required would be a drop down list with all terrain in the unit window.

Its excellent for scenario makers/scenarios, but for the general game, I think it may be a bit too confusing.

Probably, but people who don't mod don't tend to use the Editor much anyway.