More Complicated Battle System Please!

[Wai_Wai]

I would like to see a more complicated and tactical battle fights in Civ4.
In Civ3, we are usually limited to 1/2 type of unit only (eg swordmen or horsemen only in anicent age).
And the winning tactic is just too simple - build many and strong units - not many to consider

I would like to a battle like this to occur:
A stack of units vs another stack of units
- http://apolyton.net/ctp2/images/preview/day5-battle1900.jpg

Strategical Bonus
I would like to see some strategical bonuses from different units (eg spearmen have bonuses vs mounted units).
This can promote the diversity of units using in a battle.

More Military Roles
In Civ3, there are roughly only 3 roles, ie attackers/defenders/artillery.
We may add more like:
-- medical soldiers (Instead of army healing themselves, this unit is present to heal the army)
-- commander of attack/defense (they don't have fighting ability. Instead they help the armies to fight. They are hidden within a troop. They have a range of influence. Troops within its influence get either attack or defense bonus)
-- battering ram (it can destroy walls/towers; weaken city's defense easily)
etc.
-- military advisor (they are used to perform plots. They are hidden within a troop.
-- spy (They are hidden within a troop. They have range of influence. Within their influence, they can keep supplying information about enemy unit [eg hit points, experience, tiredness, morale], find out enemy commanders/spy. When a troop with the spy in it get destoryed, the information will be lost.)
-- leader (At least one leader is necessary to perform big battles. They are the spirit of the whole army. They are within a troop, but known to the enemy. When all leaders are died/captured, the whole army will lose morale and no longer attack effectively - the battle is probably lost. The army has to be retreated.)


Plots
Also some plots/tactics etc. can be made within battles (eg psychological warfare, confusion tactics, fire/water attack, traps etc.)
War is not just a contest of strength, but also wisdom.

More aspects/elements about a unit
Not just "attack/defense/move" and "experience (hit point)" of a unit matter in a battle, add the following elements to a unit:

Morale
Eg: An army will lose morale if they stay in the battlefield long. They need to take some "holidays" before going back to battle. That can prevent the player using the same experienced armies, and fighting all the time.
An army will have higher morale if their fellow are winnning all the time.

Tiredness
Eg:A unit will feel tired every time they attack/defend. They need some rest, or they are going to lose the battle and their lives soon.
Tiredness can be reduced by:
-- 5 if a unit is not involved in any battle in a turn
-- 5 if a unit does not move in a turn
etc.
This can prevent a situation where a much strong unit keep attacking all the time and still win because the chance of winning is high. Also a unit (eg a heavy cavalry), no matter how storng it is, cannot defend against many units (eg warrior), even if they are weak, it will lose eventually due to tiredness (the tank will not be tired, but the driver will ).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'd have to disagree and say that the battle system needs to be more simplified in many ways.

 

[Wai_Wai]

It's already too simplified in Civ3 in my opinion. It's surprising to me someone wish to be more simple than that.
Some complications and diversity are preferred (although they don't need to implement every suggestion I proposed)

I usually need to hire one type of unit only (ie attackers) [plus artillery in later stages] and use the same winning tactic in Civ3 which winning a battle is so effortless.

Also the battles in civ3 is really an contest of military power. A weak civ (with fewer or lower-level units) cannot do much to change the situation when facing a stronger civ in a battle (especially in earlier ages).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well alot of the things like morale/leader units, etc. definitely should not

Stack v. Stack I actually consider a way of simplifying combat and from what I hear will hopefully be in cIV (and should be done well)

Most of the extra roles should be things that are assumed to be included with units (ie battering rams would often be made on the spot)

What I would do is make sure that tactical considerations are actually more automated but included (ie strategical bonuses like you have)

I'd also simplify it by giving units a 'Zone of Combat' ie an ability to strike at units they are not adjacent to automatically (so you don't need to worry about covering every square/starting every movement)

 

[Wai_Wai]

Well alot of the things like morale/leader units, etc. definitely should not

Stack v. Stack I actually consider a way of simplifying combat and from what I hear will hopefully be in cIV (and should be done well)

Most of the extra roles should be things that are assumed to be included with units (ie battering rams would often be made on the spot)

What I would do is make sure that tactical considerations are actually more automated but included (ie strategical bonuses like you have)

I'd also simplify it by giving units a 'Zone of Combat' ie an ability to strike at units they are not adjacent to automatically (so you don't need to worry about covering every square/starting every movement)

Points taken.
I would like to know why you feel the concept of "morale" and "leader" unit is a definite no.
I would also like to ask what you actually mean by simplification.
In which aspects/areas about combat do you wish to simplify?

 

[dh_epic]

I'm kind of in the middle -- I think combat has a nice level of complexity right now.

Any simpler, and combat is almost a second thought. You may as well say "If my army is 20 units and yours is 12 units, let's just skip combat and say I conquer you with 8 units left".

I might err on the side of a touch more complexity. But I don't think an entire "battle screen" with a seperate mode is the answer. All in all, I think it needs a few tweaks, and not much else.

 

[Crazy Eddy]

Well, a little complexity is good but not too much because I like the simple form of Civ3C. I think if theres too much complexity it will take the fun out of it. It will turn into a turn based RTC if thats possble. We will be foucsing on combat instead of the whole picture.

 

[Commander Bello]

I disagree with the term "more complicated", but I am a strong defender of the idea of having a more "complex" system (at least in German, there is a significant difference between both terms)

The screenshot is of a battle from CTP, which definately had a much better combat system than any Civ ever had. Unfortunately, many players mix a long description with a complicated system. The system from CTP was easy to understand and easy to handle and it avoided the stupid Civ-pattern "have more strong units and you'll win".

About the strategical bonus: Sorens presentation as of last year mentioned they would not like any kind of "scissors - paper - stone" being included in the game.
As Firaxis has proven to be unable to cope with complex systems (not only in combat but almost in any specific area of the game) I think we have to rely on the "moddability" of Civ4 to get a more appealing combat system.

About the military roles: If military great leaders (under the assumption that they would still be in the game) would benefit the combat groups they were attached to, this could add quite some spice to the game. Again, I don't think that this will be in the standard game. This concept just doesn't fit in Firaxis' history of Civ3.
To have too much different roles for single units (as the "medical service") would not enhance the military options much, though. It would add quite some micro-management to the game.

About the plots: at the moment, I don't see how they should work?

About morale and tiredness: Those I see as being almost two sides of the same medal. I even would assume that they could be easily implemented in the game from a technical point of view, but would interfere with the announced "simplicity" of Civ4 which in turn is just a consequence of Firaxis' proven incompentence in balancing the game and proper game testing. Again, we have to put our hopes on the "moddability"

 

[rhialto]

I don't think there should be separate medical or spy units as you describe. In real life, including such detachments is a no-brainer decision, so it should be with civ.

Ditto for battering rams. Not to say they don't exist, but the period an circumstances in which they are relevant is small, and they have no logical upgrade pattern.

I'd like to see:

stacked combat
military leaders (gives bonus to size of stack that can fight)
morale

 

[ledfan]

combination bonuses would be good. e.g. tank + mech infantry has better defense against tank units than mech infantry by them selves. This would mean that combined "divisions" would acted as a single unit. Rules would have to be applied, such as no more than three units in one combination. Even armies in civ 3 use only one unit at a time....

 

[mastertyguy]

we should make a battle system more likes civ2's one. it wasn't to complex. the odds were quite easy to calculate. Sure you have to add artillery, but fire power was a good thing. it made muskets with a 3 attack better than legions with 4 but less fp.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I have much more to say on this subject, but for now I will leave it at this:

1) @Commander Bello-you are right to point out the difference between Complex and Complicated-you can have the Impression of the former WITHOUT any of the latter-as I have stated in several other threads.

2) I think the addition of Morale, Stamina and Firepower will help to add a great deal more complexity to the game, without forcing the player to do much more than at present.

3) Adding concepts like Command and control limits+terrain limits for stacks. Leader bonuses for stacks, variable unit improvement paths and combined arms systems will make combat more FUN-not more complicated!

Hope that makes sense!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Kosez]

In Cossacs: European wars, you need an officer in order to make your units stand in formations. I think in Civ you should have a leader (commander) to form stacks (armies).
I think stacks (armies) is a must be, as it is pretty realistic and very fun to use (in CTP it was). It makes ranged attack units more usable, in CTP they stood in second row. In CTP2 they had even more types of units, flanked, attack, defense, ranged, bombard. It should be the same in CivIV I believe.
For example: renaissance age, musketman as defense unit, grenadier as attack/ranged unit, artillery as bombard unit, dragoons as flanked unit, ablo to attack on flat squares only,...
If you wanted to attack units on mountains or in fortress, you would have to make different mix of units, ...

 

[Professor-Gamer]

Not bad idea, but can you imagine the way it will be shown graphically? Really, to make armies look realistic, you need to have huge squares. Of course, the Info could be available by right-click, but THAT would look to complicated. It would take a while to recognise an army of muskets and grenads, from an army of purely muskets. Gosh.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, the simplest solution is just to make combat resolved in a seperate Tactical miniscreen-a system used to good effect in CtP I and II and Birth of the Federation.
Alternatively, given the zoom function which will apparently exist within the game, it may be possible that battles with stacks will be 'zoomed in'-so that you can see the details.
The key things I think should be incorporated-as I have said before-is morale and stamina. This may make it more possible for less powerful units to win in a fight-if they have an advantageous position and good leadership.
In addition, though, ranged units should have more effect on the outcome of battle than is currently the case-with range possibly granting a # of free shots against non-ranged units.
The way I see it is that certain units will have 'priorities' in combat, determining who they attack first. Ultimately it comes down to the greatest percieved chance of success, but will be weighted by unit type.
For instance, archers and other ranged units will prioritise Mounted Units (non-ranged), followed by foot units, followed by all ranged units.
Foot units will prioritise other foot units (non-ranged), followed by foot units (ranged) followed by mounted units. Mounted Units will prioritise mounted units, followed by ranged units, followed by foot units.
This way, any archers in a stack will try and take out any mounted units in the opposing stack, whilst mounted units will try and engage archers IF all other opposing mounted units are currently engaged in combat.
Anyway, just some thoughts.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[CurtSibling]

I would like to see a morale system were the affected troops get confident and get a (balanced) bonus.
This 'high morale' state can be created with increased military budgets, and war victories.

Low morale would result from long wars of attrition and heavy losses.

I would also like to see multi-victory units gaining perhaps an extra
bar-pip of health or a chevron system, similar to Rome Total War.

I know it is unlikely we would see these, but it would be nice.

.......

 

[Idylwyld]

Civ is not a game of combat and military strategy. Civ is a game of civilization building. In the grand sweep of cultural history the details of military strategy are largely unimportant. The Romans had the legions who fought in a certain manner, so what, the important thing is they won and their cultural influence was expanded. When it comes down to it, in a macro-historical perspective (that CIV reflects) HOW the conqueror wins isn't important, WHO wins is what matters. Military/combat issues in civ are just as complex as they need to be. If you want to play a RTS go by a RTS.

 

[sir_schwick]

History is a story of constant conflict of one kind or another between peoples. Thus civilzation is a game about warfare, whether it be fought with guns or currency.

I would like to the 'Zone of Engagement'(Krikkitone #4) combined with a WE-GO system. The WE-GO system was designed to utilize the computing power of pcs. It removes the advantage from turn order and also forces players to think in terms of time instead of turns. Of course to prevent this from turning into a management nightmare, large Battlegroups should be a feature that is automatically allowed for players.

The biggest improvement would be to allow different war strategies. Currently the only strategy civ generals can use is the Total Engagment, i.e. fighting till one side is completely neutralized. Yes, fast units disengage when beaten up, but this is more of a second thought then overall tactic.

Most campaigns are a combination of attrition, application of force at a critical point, skirmishing, and subterfuge. You should be able to engage in a battle with fast troops, kill some of the enemy, pin their battlegroup, but then retreat ot a better position. Being able to wage wars of attrition and light skirmishes would allow small nations to hold off big powers. Artillery and fortifications should also be able to pin or flank opposition in their area.

 

[Idylwyld]

You're thinking tactically. As I said, in the greater historical scope it's not about how you won, only who won.

[Edit/] Caveat: If you won due to massive technological differences then how matters a little. During the early Norman conquest of England English longbowman were a technological advance the Normans did not match which gave the English an advantage. The Unit made the difference, not any tactics except using the unit. [/Edit]

 

[sir_schwick]

Yes, however withdrawing from a sector is not an easy or profitable thing to do in Civ3. The mechanics for strategic decisiions of where to hold and where to withdraw do not exist. I have always considered the difference between tactics and strategy to be methodology. Strategy does not define methodology, but the goals of an operation. YOu can decide your goal is disruption or ground or advantage or movement. Currently civ only lets you decide your goal is ground.