More Complicated Battle System Please!

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I think I agree with Bello in that combat should be more complex, the way I see to avoid making it more complicated is to automate it more
so you move your stacks
They then execute the order type (basically setting how Bold/Risky you want them to be and what you want their objective to be, either a specific point ie a city or a new staging point OR a certain area around their existing point, ie long range patroll/counter attacking or hole up and let the enemy swarm around you as long as they don't take your position)

Leaders Might be useful but not as a prerequisite for stacking (could also be very interesting for early monarchies where your leaders are also governmental leaders)

Morale+tiredness: I'd subsume those into one and basically use it for mass desertions or rebellions only (tiredness isn't really an issue when you are talking about yearlong turns)

 

[sir_schwick]

Agreed, especially since you will not know whether or not the enemy is engaging you or not. Makes for actual strategic moves, since you have to think in terms of fronts and offensives, not duels.

 

[denyd]

I'll toss my 2 cents into this one. How about something to make everyone happy? A user controlled flag for battle execution. When the selection is no, the a similar to Civ 3 method is used with stacks colliding. When the selection is yes, a new screen is used to contol the battle and the general issues orders to each unit. The orders would be simply: attack, entrench, move to, wait and retreat. The unit would carry out the instructions until those orders are changed or the unit wins or loses. Additional items such as fatigue, morale and expierence level would be added. The tough part of all of this is programming the computer end to provide an intelligent opponent.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't think its neccessary to automate combat TOO much. Also, I think its wrong to get too hung up on the whole 'year long' campaign thing either. A single 'combat' between stacks probably only represents a few major engagements over the space of several weeks-which is where morale can become a major factor-especially if you are losing!
Where automation could work VERY well though, IMHO, is in the actual tactics and targets of attack by the various units within each stack. With proper weighting-and just the smallest amount of player input-you can watch the 'ebb and flow' of combat, and feel like it is a genuinely fluid environment.
For instance, your knights are taking out some enemy knights but, after several 'pulses' of combat, the enemy knights are almost routed, so some of the other knights start lending support to their foot soldiers in the attempted destruction of the enemies foot units. Then, assuming they haven't retreated the field, or been destroyed, the remaining enemy knights will be destroyed by the foot soldier/knight coalition.
The thing is that the underlying complexity of this described battle is being conducted by the computer-based mainly on statistical factors and unit-type weighting. It appears complex to the players eye, but the underlying algorithms could in fact be quite simple (though multi-faceted)
Anyway, thats just my feelings.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[777]

I would disagree with putting morale to battles. If you would have little army then defending against big army would be even more difficult. So it would became frustrating.

To make it more interesting and with easy way let's put two stats more: against armored units stat and against infantry unit stat.

If Civ4 comes more complicated at every way (econ. battle etc.) it wouldn't be any fun, just million things more to do.

 

[Kosez]

Morale can be problematic. It shouldn´t be affected by size of army I think. And it shouldn´t have too great influence on your armies.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I 100% agree with you Kozez. Size should have LITTLE OR NO effect on morale-unless a stack is massively outnumbered. HP loss and poor terrain should be a much more telling factor in morale determination.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Kosez]

On the other hand, morale is quite logical and natural thing. I believe Italian soldiers in Abessinia (Ethiopia) or American, and French even before them, in Vietnam, probably weren´t very inspired and enthusiastic about fighting, whereas Russian and all other Allied troops in WWII fought for they country with all their heart.
I think same could be in Civ. Agressor should have morale penalty, defender a bonus.

 

[777]

Russians sucked against us Fins, perhaps of our morale plus Stukas and few Panzerfaust from south Anyway we made a decisive defense victory.

 

[dh_epic]

I definitely agree with that, Kosez. Defence against an aggressor is great for morale. Being the aggressor, not so much... unless you have a country that's mobilized for war, with heaps of propaganda and so on.

 

[Khan Quest]

Hannibal, invading Roman lands in the 2nd Punic war, lost about half his troops and all his elephants crossing the Alps and traversing through swamps. Yet they maintained great morale. The Romans, though fighting on thier home turf and outnumbering the enemy had at best, moderate morale. Roman Cavalry had to break and run at nearly every battle just to survive (bad morale).

From this example, professional, better trained troops have higher morale. Troops with GML have higher morale.

I'd like to see elites have high morale themselves, and raise morale of x number of troops in the same stack. GMLs, or GML armies have unshakable morale and raise morale of all those within 1 tile. Veteren troops could have a slightly higher morale, and conscripts lower.

Good morale would allow an attack or defence bonus, depending on troop type. Great morale, both. The opposite for low morale, including a chance give up (POW, if implimented), and in case of regular and more so for conscript, desert (unit disappears without fighting).

 

[GeneralX]

Morale will always be a tricky element, but its impact upon a battlefield should not be underestimated. I have been in circumstances when morale was the only thing that kept us together and allowed us to keep going and do a good job, and I have seen the reverse where morale collapsed and even the most simple of tasks resulted in failure. Admittedly though this is at the small scale, but I imagine the principle would be the same at Divisional, Corps or Army level. I can think of a number of battles where small forces with high morale stood strong in the face of overwhelming odds (both in attack and defence) and prevailed. I am not advocating that morale elements be given dominance within the game, but they certainly need to be given a bit more weight.

On another matter, to assist in my combat calculations I would like to know just exactly what a “Unit” represents. Is a tank unit a troop, squadron or battalion/regiment, and if so does that mean that an artillery unit is the same size as an infantry unit? This blows out the ratios a bit in that if the two units are the same size then you could have an artillery regiment supporting an infantry battalion with an attached armoured regiment to boot. In real terms this is very expensive, although I know that commanders would certainly like to have such combat power at their disposal.

 

[sir_schwick]

Just out of curiosity, what conflicts did you fight in and with which units(include country)?

PS: Does your signature have some kind of cool VB tag, or is that really about me?

 

[GeneralX]

Sir_Schwick, I have sent you a PM, but as for the tag, yes it really is about you. Any person who truly recognises the value of towels gets an A1 in my book. They are the most valuable thing in the universe.

 

[Wai_Wai]

> Civ is not a game of combat and military strategy.
Yes, it is true. If we add too much elements on combat, it may probably make other victories conditions unattractive.

How the problem in Civ3 is it is too standardized and dull. It is just a battle of militiary power. I often find myself hiring the same unit and win the battle all the way. Battles should be more complicated than that which make it more fun and realisitc (we should use mixed units in a battle, right?). Also it should give a militarily weak civ a chance to win by strategic means in a battle (eg have we ever heard some battles where a very weak army [eg 30,000 people] wins a strong army [eg 600,000 people]). So adding more strategic elements is more preferable.

 

[Wai_Wai]

Now "combat" is the strongest means to win. Especially at the start, you can rip off a civ completely by some fast military rush which I don't wish to see. Also you can meet/communicate/trade with many civs early in the first age.

I would like there is an age where a civ cannot go too far and focus on settlement and grow. It is easy to understand why. In anicent times, the world is just so unknown. The dangers do not just happen in the water (eg boats will sink if travel across see/ocean), it should also happen in the land. There are beasts, diseasters etc. So if a unit go too far from the capital, it has a chance to damage/die. Also it seems non-sense we can co-ordinate and trade with quite a few civs early in the first age.

 

[Wai_Wai]

As to morale, it should not be only a simple formula. When you are winning, you have higher morale, vice versa. If it were the case, "morale" helps only the strong army. In reality, it's not true. Or it just tend to help a particular party.

I have a few suggestions. Morale can be affected by the following:
- Objective of the war
If it is a holy war for the defence of our capital, our soldiers will have higher morale.
If you attack someone with no reason, your army will suffer from morale drop
You need to find some reasons before war (although it may be unreasonable, like the reasons to attack Iraq)

- Declaration of the war
If you don't declare wars before fight, you suffer from morale drop.
Or you just declare and attack the civ immediately (ie it is just an "empty" declaration), you will suffer too.

- Friendship of two parties
If you attack someone who has a friendly relationship with you all of a sudden, you will suffer from a drop of morale

- Cultural Difference
If you are more cultivated than your enemy, you will have morale gain.

- Dirty tricks
If we use some dirty tricks in the battle, you will suffer from a drop of morale.
If you don't use dirty tricks, you have morale gain.

- Cruelty
Eg: If you pillage village buildings, destory cities, kill workers etc., the emeny will have higher morale

- Leader
A good leader can raise a morale of the army

- Weather
If you attack in a bad wether, your soldier will have lower morale

- Terrain
If you stay too long in a poor area (eg tundra, desert, jungle), you will suffer from morale drop

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Wai-Wai, that sounds like 'Operational Range' to me-i.e. certain units can only go a certain # of squares from their home borders-UNLESS they have some kind of supply point. However, the more supply points you have, and the longer your overall supply line, the more susceptible your forces are to being 'cut off from behind'.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Wai_Wai]

Yes, sort of.
But I don't like there's an "obvious/fixed" operational range.
A unit can definitely go beyond the range, although the chance of death/getting ill (damage) will increase.
And it would dsappear when we advances (just the same as water" case).

It may be more fun if we add beasts (eg lion, sharks) and their lairs in the maps. Unlike barbarians, they won't come along and attack you. Rather they operate roughly within a particular range.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, what you described was what I had in mind Wai_Wai, I just forgot to mention in (oops )
The idea I have put forward before is that for every tile a unit goes beyond its operational range, its firepower and morale get reduced-as well as their being an ever increasing chance of getting a hp of damage-especially if the unit has already recieved previous damage.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.