More Combat Strategy

[joyming]

Ok. I've been playing Civ 4 since I was eight and now I'm twelve. Although I'm young, I do have some ideas that I wish to share.

In history, people don't fight just by charging into the enemy ranks and stuff. They have strategies. Yes, Civ 4 offers some of that by adding defense bonuses. But other things could be added, like supply routes (food, water), ambushes, night raid, spreading rumors to the enemy so it would weaken them or stregnthen yourself, and so on. There are a lots of stuff in the Art of War by Sun Tzu that could be used in Civ 4. Here is a link to the complete english version of the Art of War. Please don't decide and say its useless without even reading it for 5 minutes.

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

Thanks! (and please comment!)

P.S for the spy area of the Art of War link, scroll down until u see "XIII. THE USE OF SPIES"

 

[weekend_warrior]

Kids today, when I was 12 I was more concerned about finding the right Lego pieces for my pirate ship.

And I agree with your post, Civ 5 would greatly benefit from deeper combat strategies. Nothing near to the Total War series, but at least give different units unique ability.

 

[Lord OST]

The most important thing in this thread is the supply line. We absolutely need that to make it more realistic, interesting, remove Stack of Doom, make a need for military bases for supply shipping and make a war on the other side of the globe harder.
Ambushes would also be nice, but night raids would be like pillaging I think.

 

[joyming]

I'm glad someone agrees with me.

 

[Argetnyx]

The death of the SoD would be the supply line, but not just that in itself. You would have to make a maximum amount of supplies that can go through a certain tile, depending on the infrastructure level (roads, rails, etc.)

 

[joyming]

I'm gonna be more specific about strategies here. Here are some that I suggest:

The use of water against the enemy
The use of fire against the enemy
Rumors
Morales
I'm gonna quote Sun Tzu here, Sun Tzu said: Whoever is first in the field and
awaits the coming of the enemy will be fresh for the fight. Whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted.

I'm also gonna specify on supplies. When an army goes to war, it brings along food, water, and other stuff. Once its all used up, you gotta go home, or you'll starve. One way to have a long battle and still have enough food is to get food from your surroundings. So maybe when an army is fighting in an area that has rich land with plenty of animals, the army can survive longer without supplies. But if an army is fighting in a desert, or in an extremely cold area, not only that the army will run out of supplies quickly, but they're going to be affected by the weather or temperature.

 

[trickofthehand]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=347893

 

[Camikaze]

Most of what you propose is tactical, not strategic, and therefore would not be good for the game. However, there are good ideas in your OP nevertheless. Supply lines, for instance. Perhaps some basic form of ambush.

The death of the SoD would be the supply line, but not just that in itself. You would have to make a maximum amount of supplies that can go through a certain tile, depending on the infrastructure level (roads, rails, etc.)

Not an arbitrary maximum though. Repeat after me: thou shalt not impose arbitrarily capped penalties. Thou shalt at all times make penalties on stacks exponential.

 

[Argetnyx]

Not an arbitrary maximum though. Repeat after me: thou shalt not impose arbitrarily capped penalties. Thou shalt at all times make penalties on stacks exponential.

It would be a maximum amount for a single unit, it would be a maximum for one tile, depending on the roads/rails. If it has reached the maximum, the units that are not able to recieve their supplies are weakened until they get more.

 

[joyming]

Most of what you propose is tactical, not strategic, and therefore would not be good for the game. However, there are good ideas in your OP nevertheless. Supply lines, for instance. Perhaps some basic form of ambush.

I don't get why tactical stuff are not good for the game. Can you elaborate?

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I don't get why tactical stuff are not good for the game. Can you elaborate?

Well, for one thing, tactics really isn't Civ's gig. The level of abstraction presented in Civ is fairly high, and unless we wanted to add a new, RTS-style level of interface, most tactical maneuvering is not exactly within our realm. We play as our civilization's government, not as its general staff (let alone its field commanders), and as such we can presume that the military is being handled.

 

[Lord OST]

Thou shalt not impose arbitrarily capped penalties. Thou shalt at all times make penalties on stacks exponential.

In other words. I agree.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't get why tactical stuff are not good for the game. Can you elaborate?

Well, for one thing, tactics really isn't Civ's gig. The level of abstraction presented in Civ is fairly high, and unless we wanted to add a new, RTS-style level of interface, most tactical maneuvering is not exactly within our realm. We play as our civilization's government, not as its general staff (let alone its field commanders), and as such we can presume that the military is being handled.

This.

Thou shalt not impose arbitrarily capped penalties. Thou shalt at all times make penalties on stacks exponential.

In other words. I agree.

 

[MosheLevi]

Well, for one thing, tactics really isn't Civ's gig. The level of abstraction presented in Civ is fairly high, and unless we wanted to add a new, RTS-style level of interface, most tactical maneuvering is not exactly within our realm.

New tactical interface for battles can definitely make Civ V more enjoyable.

“Fantasy Wars” has a very impressive tactical turn base interface “Chess Like”.
In fact “Pirates” (also released by FA) has something like that where you move in with your pirates on land to attack a city.

When players engage in battle the game can bring up the new tactical interface where units in the stack can be deployed in different tiles (mini tiles) and then engage in a tactical battle.

Terrain bonuses can also be incorporated in this new tactical interface to reflect the terrain on the main map.

FA can also limit the number of units that can engage is such tactical battle and as a result SoD’s will be eliminated.

 

[Windsor]

Perhaps some basic form of ambush.

1. Get the AI to move his main stack away from your borders (warbribe?)
2. Ambush the weakly defended cities.

Happy now?

Doing a "night raid" feel very strange when one turn lasts 5 years Warfare is already the most detailed part of Civilization, it shouldn't go to the extreme. The goal of the game is to build a Civilization that can stand the test of time thus the decisions the player should have to do have to be the big ones.

 

[EdCase]

New tactical interface for battles can definitely make Civ V more enjoyable.

“Fantasy Wars” has a very impressive tactical turn base interface “Chess Like”.
In fact “Pirates” (also released by FA) has something like that where you move in with your pirates on land to attack a city.

When players engage in battle the game can bring up the new tactical interface where units in the stack can be deployed in different tiles (mini tiles) and then engage in a tactical battle.

Terrain bonuses can also be incorporated in this new tactical interface to reflect the terrain on the main map.

FA can also limit the number of units that can engage is such tactical battle and as a result SoD’s will be eliminated.

Once you take the combat to this level, it negates a large part of the game, as a human will invariably find ways to outsmart the "AI", you'd just be making many of the aspects of the game less relevant ( and not in a good way).

For the record, loved Fantasy War and am still playing Elven legacy (its sequel). Thoroughly enjoyed Fantasy General(SSI) in its time also. (spiritual parent of both).

Not right for Civ though. YMMV.

 

[Takhisis]

Civ III had different attack and defend stats, you know. So some units were net defenders, some were attackers, some were crack troops which could take care of everything, some were useful as scouts and skirmishers, and so on.

 

[McThomas]

a couple of things i would like in combat was:

as mentioned:
- Supply lines (cutting off tactics)
- Routing/Higher retreat odds
- Bombardment without sacrificing an artillery piece in direct combat
- Morale/surrendering troops

i've fought with just about any army in a game, and thats all i miss about Civ4

 

[Takhisis]

a couple of things i would like in combat was:

as mentioned:
- Supply lines (cutting off tactics)
- Routing/Higher retreat odds
- Bombardment without sacrificing an artillery piece in direct combat
- Morale/surrendering troops

i've fought with just about any army in a game, and thats all i miss about Civ4

Points 2 and 3 were in Civ III. What many civ4 players ask for,, is actually a return to many Civ III features.

 

[Lord OST]

a couple of things i would like in combat was:

as mentioned:
- Supply lines (cutting off tactics)
- Routing/Higher retreat odds
- Bombardment without sacrificing an artillery piece in direct combat
- Morale/surrendering troops

i've fought with just about any army in a game, and thats all i miss about Civ4

I too find these points the most important. It will make war more realistic and interesting, but not to tactical.
Supply lines can lower the reliance on war .
Higher reatreat odds will make wars longer. I haven`t had much problems with caused by war.
Sucidal bombardment is just crapy.
Morale surrendering troops will strengthen the Sod, but if low morale could lead to bigger chance of reatret, then witout doing much damage first, it would be interesting. It will be like a pushing line. Together with supply lines it will be realy