More Complicated Battle System Please!

[GeneralX]

Aussie_Lurker, your suggestions are quite valid. One thought I had was that the proximity of a friendly supply centre and valid supply lines should also play a part. Here are two scenarios:
a. Fighting a war on your own land mass. Your units, with respective supply points, are supplied in the field so long as they are within a certain radius of a friendly supply centre (city). This could be your own city or that of an who is also involved in the war. It could also be an airstrip located within your territory (or ally’s territory). There would be penalties incurred the further away from the supply centre your unit is. Maybe the presence of a road/rail link could also be factored in (perhaps in increases the distance a unit can be supplied over).
b. Fighting a war in someone else’s territory. Your units can last as long as their supply points do, unless you conquer a supply centre and build an airstrip/harbour (if one isn’t already present). The same penalties for distance (and combat perhaps) would also apply. The more combat you are engaged in the faster your supply points dwindle.

 

[GeneralX]

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.

Actually I can think of a number of battles throughout history where smaller armies defeated larger ones both in attack and defence. Most were not at Divisional level or above, but it has happened. Some examples are Thermopylae, Agincourt, Minden, Rorke’s Drift, Kokoda, the Imjin, Long Tan (I could go on but I will leave it there).

Having said that though, there is a need for an increased emphasis on strategic thinking and unit placement.

 

[BkGreatWarnut]

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.

BS...Civ, for several of us, myself include, a favorable option to the almost complete disorder, lack of any TRUE diplomacy and requirement of memorizing hot keys that are RTS games. I do not want Civ to go RTS and it won't, but I do think that it would be entirely appropriate to add some things mentioned in this thread to the combat. The bottom line through out history is that in almost all cases, military decided the fate of civilizations. And, when military capability (ie units and tech) were equal, tactics or great leadership was the deciding factor. I do also think that with a modified military system requires for aspects such as conquered people never losing their ideal of sovereignty and rebelling more effectively...effective or at least very threatening revolutions in your country...which weaken complete military power and add more realism to the game that need to be added.

I like the idea of entire stack vs. entire stack. Quite often throughout history, especially before WW1, the bulk of a country's entire army would square off against the other country's army. Some sort of truly combined arms in which the whole stack fought against the whole of the other stack would represent this.

I don't know about expanding zone of control to much more than one pot shot (don't know how much some of you think this should be expanded) because then only large stacks would become even more predominate...no need to fortify three squares and therefore takes away from the grand strategy (not tactical...ie units taking on units in their near location).

 

[BkGreatWarnut]

As I finished up reading this thread I realized that adding more leaders to the military aspect could have limited possibilities that would combine many of the suggestions covered here. I like Khan Quest's ideas of elites improving ability of surrounding units. Leaders would, if affect do this. Leaders with different levels of experience would boost troops grouped under their leadership with an x amount of bonus attack/defense that would divided equally amongst all the units.

Improvements/a small wonder/a great wonderer would effect the initial rank of a leader. The leader would then be of a certain rank (ie captain, colonel, general, field marshall...sorry if in the wrong order, substitute whatever titles you like). Rank would increase with success and decrease with failure (or end if there isn't better retreat options/possibilities in Civ 4).

Improvements/a small wonder/a great wonderer would effect the initial rank of a leader. The leader would then be of a certain rank (ie captain, colonel, general, field marshall...sorry if in the wrong order, substitute whatever titles you like). Rank would increase with success and decrease with failure (or end if there isn't better retreat options/possibilities in Civ 4).

The rank would allow them to give a particular bonus level increase divided amongst the units (all kinds, inf/cav/art) that were grouped under a particular leader.

Something like 5% for captains, 10% for for colonels, 15% for generals and 25% for field marshalls...this % would be based on the overall ability of the four strongest units grouped under that leader. This total bonus would be divided amongst all the units.

Each rank would also allow them to lead a certain number of additional leaders under them...for example, colonels could lead 2 captains, generals could lead 2 colonels and field marshalls could lead 2 generals. The field marshalls bonus would be added to the generals and to the colonels and to the captains...

Leaders should be available after certain advances, have the ability to be built (although with high shield cost), have the chance to earn promotion from successful combat (although relatively small and increasing from level to level), and be spawned randomly (more often then currently) from battles. I also think you could do away with the experience bonus of barracks and just have conscripts, regulars, and elites with elites have the chance of becoming leaders. If a leader was produced, he would then be grouped to his unit and offer perhaps double his bonus for the unit type that spawned him. If you grouped the leader to the unit automatically, you could also end up with naval leaders that would act much the same as other leaders...

I know this system isn't perfect and would require tweaking...maybe to simplify, but I think it does offer some very welcomed and fun possibilities.

In a related topic, I would also like to see the addition of more great leaders and their impact on the overall tone of the government, culture, etc. as leaders and not just simply being able to hurry production or build armies...

 

[sir_schwick]

I also have to disagree with Wai Wai that civlization, historically or in a game, is about conflicts of some nature between peoples. Throughout history there has been constant conflicts between cultures, economies, ideals, etc. Often they have been punctuated with periods of violence, whether in forms of revolutions, purges, or wars. While I'm not suggesting we go to something as detailed as TW, making combat strategically and tactically relevant is not the same thing as becoming an RTS.

Spoiler RTS :

There seems to be a trend on this board that suggestions to make combat any more detailed or complicated is being labeled as "RTS". I am not sure if this is an intentional effort or just a product of ignorance about the nature of RTS. Also there is a tremendous stigma towards Real-Time of any kind. This is logical because one of the Civ hallmarks is that speed is not a factor. However if a suggestion looks like a RealTime feature, that does not necessarily mean it is.

_______________________________________________________________

My Ideas, Restated:

1) WE-GO System = Civ is a turned based game on a computer, so WE-GO is just logical. For the uninitiated, WE-GO means that all moves are planned out then executed simultaneously, versus the current IGO-UGO system. It eliminates what feels like a funny version of chess in terms of global combat. Also, now you can think in terms of fronts and offensives.

2) Stack Limits Per Battlegroup = Armies are organized like armies normally, not after some leader emerges from combat. However for gameplay purposes, lets assume there are limits on how many units can join a battlegroup. If you make a 1-2 BG per tile rule, then fronts look and play better.

3) ZOE - Zone of Engagement = This determines what area a battlegroup can challenge opponents to combat in. Because of WE-GO, it would be nearly impossible to hit the exact opposite army. However if units have a radius of sorts, than it makes sense how to set up defences and attacks knowing units will intersect.

4) ZOC - Zone of Control = An effective army can lower the movement options of an opponent tremendously in the right conditions. When a BG can establish ZOC, this means opponents must either directly assault the BG or suffer heavy losses, slow movement, and the like trying to cross that.

5) Engagment = In Civ3 there is only one and a half kinds of engagment; Full or Full with retreat when you are beaten up. Small armies do not defeat large armies by fighting to the last man in every battle. You should be able to engage in different levels of commitment ranging from Full to Raid. This means you can try to at least slow down the enemy or force them a different route. As attackers you could tie up enemy forces with probing assaults in different areas.

6) Logistics = With WE-GO logistics could determine range penetration and other things rather easily. Because everyone goes at the same time, exploitation is virtually impossible. It would also prevent the first person with a warrior from mapping the continent and conquering all other peoples.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

My only issue, Sir_Schwick, is that a good Zone of Control system can-ultimately-result in the equivalent of a Zone of Engagement system. After all, if a stacks' ZoC prevents an enemies movement and/or disrupts its supply lines, then the enemy is FORCED to engage said stack-in order to clear the route for further penetration into the territory. In addition, though, limiting the movement of an enemy makes it MUCH easier for said stack to engage the enemy!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

I dislike the we-go system for civ. It works for games that use provinces are teh basic unit of area, including Victoria (and its predecessors) and Orion (each star system was effectively a province). It is very significant that every we-go system has, as its fundamental unit of territory, an area that takes one or more (usually more) turns / game-days to cross, the exact reverse of civ.

Here's one critical issue. Say I have an army next to yours. My options are either move directly away, move to another space adjacent to you (depending if zoc rules allow it), move to your tile and engage, or remain on my tile and engage (if zone of engagement rules allow). Simultaneously, you get the same choices.

If one sits still and engages, while the other marches and engages, the tile (and associated terrain bonuses) are obvious. In any other situation, there is no reasonable way to decide on what tile the battle takes place.

 

[sir_schwick]

The province-less maps of Civ do create that paradox. I have no obvious solution at the moment for this problem. Fundamentally I do not like the IGO-UGO system becasue of its obvious deficiencies and would like to move away from it in some manner.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, could someone remind me what the WE-GO system is again?
If it is anything like my 'simultaneous' movement system, then I don't see how it would be a problem Rhialto. If two units/stacks engage in the same tile-then the one who gets the 'terrain benefits'-if any-will be the one who arrived there first. Of course, FULL terrain benefits should only be available if a unit has spent more than just that turn in the square-i.e. units gain an increasing terrain bonus the longer they have occupied a tile (consider it an 'entrenchment' bonus of sorts).
A good ZoC and logistics system-as I stated above-could also help to ensure that engagements do still occur quite regularly (eg, an invading stack is going to have major logistical problems if it tries to evade every unit and merely bee-line for the capital!)
Anyway, just my feelings.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

WE-GO is a system where everyone plots out there moves during their turn. This means before they hit the 'End Turn' button, things can be reversed. HOwever once the simulation starts, there is no stopping it. Everyones moves are doen simueltaneously. Not really related to the simultaneous pulses of combat you discuss and I endorse.

 

[GeneralX]

I’ll throw my weight behind a WE-GO system. I think I would cause the player to analyse the ground and determine and enemy’s most likely course of action. This system would also be enhanced if you could give a unit/stack a pre-determined stance, kind of like rules of engagement (attack, defend, withdraw, level of aggression/commitment) and if mobility was limited by not allowing civilizations to build checkerboard patterned road/rail networks.

 

[AndrewCree]

Firstly, the stuff I don't like:

When it comes to combat, Civ is supposed to be a Macro system, not a Micro system. Hence the fact that combat is so simplified. At the level Civ takes place at, each unit can easily be considered to be a Battalion or larger formation (depending on the time setting, obviously), and at this point, a unit's equipment has very little impact on the game - well, up to the time they try using pre-gunpowder weapons against AFVs anyhow , and that can be dealt with by making later tech units far harder than they are at the moment.

Logistics - it looks a good idea, but this wouldn't be too important until the gunpowder era as early on it was fairly easy for armies to live off the land. Further, given the length of Game Time that takes place between turns, why wouldn't the unit have cleared off to the nearest base and returned with fresh supplies?

Stamina - given that each turn is at least 1 year in length, I consider this to be an uneccessary stat. The fastest ground units move at only 1 square every 4 months at present, thus giving plenty of time to rest.

Now, the ideas that I think will work, if implemented correctly:

Morale - tricky. It shouldn't have too big an impact on the game, but it should have some. The HoMM series had Morale on a scale of -3 to +3. When Morale was low there was a (small) % chance for the unit to freeze and do nothing for the combat phase (represented by the enemy hitting automatically, regardless of A/D ratio?), but when Morale was high the unit got a % chance of a free turn (additional attack at normal A/D ratio?). Of course, HOMM had far more modifiers than would be in Civ, due to magic items, locations and creature types. Maybe just keep it to +1/won last battle and -1/lost last battle. Being outnumbered should be randomised - is the unit behaving like Private "We're all doomed" Fraser, or are they more like "We're outnumbered. Let's see how many I can take with me!"

WE-GO - reading it leaves me feeling funny, yet I know that it's ultimately the best way to go. It shouldn't require that much work - after all GW have developed a WE-GO tabletop campaign system for Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

Stack Limits - goes without saying really. After all, there's only so much room on each of these squares!

ZoE/ZoC - I can see these being important. Also important for the WE-GO system is who gets priority (i.e. who moves first?)? There will be a time when a unit attemts to move onto another unit. There will also be a time when 2 units attempt to move onto the same square. Simple to solve though - assign priority as follows:
1)The player who controls the target square.
2)An ally of the player who controls the target square.
3)Randomised.
Of course, this may not always be necessary, e.g an player attempting to move onto a square under an ally/neutral that has moved should through up an option box of "Is this an attack move?" - if it isn't an attack move then priority doesn't matter.
[edit] - oh, and also a rule that GW called "Don't Pass in the Night", can't remember what that was all about, will have to look it up again some time.[/edit]

Engagements - yeah, I can see different scales of enagements. This is a tricky one though, as depending on the mechanics, a player weak in tech but strong in numbers could use this to smash a player that is strong in tech but weak in numbers.



@Sir_Schwick

I too am trying to figure out why complex = RTS. The most complex game I have ever played (mechanics-wise) is the freeware Steel Panthers:World at War, by Matrix Games which is a TBS.
RTS games tend to be "This weapon does Apts of damage. This unit has B-type armour which reduced damage from that weapon by B, meaning that the shot you fired has taken Cpts of damage away from it."
SP:W@W, by contrast is "OK, You've fired a 17lb. HVAP shell at that Panther. The to hit chance is A%. The angle of incidence is B, which means that there is a C chance of a riccochet. The range is D, which means that the penetration is E+F. You have a G chance of causing serious damage to the tank".

@GeneralX

Nice H2G2 reference. And to further the references of outnumbered armies winning, pretty much any battle involving Wellington.

 

[sir_schwick]

When it comes to combat, Civ is supposed to be a Macro system, not a Micro system. Hence the fact that combat is so simplified. At the level Civ takes place at, each unit can easily be considered to be a Battalion or larger formation (depending on the time setting, obviously), and at this point, a unit's equipment has very little impact on the game - well, up to the time they try using pre-gunpowder weapons against AFVs anyhow , and that can be dealt with by making later tech units far harder than they are at the moment.

I agree that Civ planning should be where armies move and what there objectives are(Barbarossa, Shcleifin[sp?] Plan, Sea Lion). Despite my love of TW, I would never suggest Civ get anywhere close to that level of command. However I must disagree that equipment does not make a big difference in warfare even in early days. The Hoplite spears(forgot the name) were considerably advanced in terms of effectiveness. The English warbow(Longbow) was superior to most firearms until the developement of breech loading in the mid-nineteenth century. Equipment and technology have been vital in every conflict. However I agree that should be reflected in overall stats.

Logistics - it looks a good idea, but this wouldn't be too important until the gunpowder era as early on it was fairly easy for armies to live off the land. Further, given the length of Game Time that takes place between turns, why wouldn't the unit have cleared off to the nearest base and returned with fresh supplies?

But that is easily compensated by the relatively little mobility of troops. Maybe the amount of time they can live without direct support(from motherland) would be much longer than later units, but that is because they suck compared to later units. Also they would be slow moving through the land.

Stamina - given that each turn is at least 1 year in length, I consider this to be an uneccessary stat. The fastest ground units move at only 1 square every 4 months at present, thus giving plenty of time to rest.

I agree that stamina for the main map is an illogical prospect. HOwever for combat,which is usually a puncutation in an ancient campaign, fatigue is extremely important. Any unfortunate general who lead FMAA into the deserts of North Africa knows what I mean. A while back I proposed a fatigue system where units would lose stats at various rounds(normal civ combat is many rounds until one unit dies/retreats) to represent fatigue. This would allow differentiation of cavalry vs. infantry types(no more KNight domination). In more modern wars, especially after night-fighting starts, stamina is much more important overall.

Morale - tricky. It shouldn't have too big an impact on the game, but it should have some. The HoMM series had Morale on a scale of -3 to +3. When Morale was low there was a (small) % chance for the unit to freeze and do nothing for the combat phase (represented by the enemy hitting automatically, regardless of A/D ratio?), but when Morale was high the unit got a % chance of a free turn (additional attack at normal A/D ratio?). Of course, HOMM had far more modifiers than would be in Civ, due to magic items, locations and creature types. Maybe just keep it to +1/won last battle and -1/lost last battle. Being outnumbered should be randomised - is the unit behaving like Private "We're all doomed" Fraser, or are they more like "We're outnumbered. Let's see how many I can take with me!"

Morale is tricky, especially since you do not control tactics. We can assume flanking, cutting off supplies, and having numerical advantage drop morale. Giving the enemy no percieved means of escape increases morale, so amphibious troops will be frenzied cause they know there is no retreat. I would personally make it a local theatre and past performance thing. Also, facing elite divisions always inspires fear in the enemy.

ZoE/ZoC - I can see these being important. Also important for the WE-GO system is who gets priority (i.e. who moves first?)? There will be a time when a unit attemts to move onto another unit. There will also be a time when 2 units attempt to move onto the same square. Simple to solve though - assign priority as follows:
1)The player who controls the target square.
2)An ally of the player who controls the target square.
3)Randomised.
Of course, this may not always be necessary, e.g an player attempting to move onto a square under an ally/neutral that has moved should through up an option box of "Is this an attack move?" - if it isn't an attack move then priority doesn't matter.

A reasonable initiative and mobility system could be devised. ARmies that have better communication and can set up for the enemy faster will get more terrain bonus. ARtillery and skirmishers can slow down enemy advances to the main battle site.(all automatic)

Engagements - yeah, I can see different scales of enagements. This is a tricky one though, as depending on the mechanics, a player weak in tech but strong in numbers could use this to smash a player that is strong in tech but weak in numbers.

Exactly, it would be way more exciting then current 'industry wins' model. Now plenty of strategies are open to defenders and attackers alike. Defenders with great mobility and intelligence could allow attackers into their territory, but make logistics a nightmare. A large, but tech downed army could manuever the enemy into a place where they can be concentrated on or cut off.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, as I see it there are two good ways of doing movement. The first is the WE-GO system, which can work fine-without provinces-if certain conditions were met:

1) When two units 'cross paths' on the same tile-and so long as one of them is visible to the other-then the 'end-turn' phase should be interrupted for those involved-with a question as to whether or not you wish to engage the enemy. If they both say yes, then all movement ceases for those units and combat begins when all other movement is resolved. The winning unit(s) will then have the chance to continue their movement as previously indicated.
If both say no, then the units merely pass by one another. If one says yes, but the other says no, then a 'Retreat' attempt is made by the latter players units-if successful, then they continue their movement, but not before the other unit gets any ZoC 'free hits' on the units (if applicable). If the attempt fails, then combat ensues AND the former player gets a free attack.

2) Units with Civ2 style ZoC should be able to force a unit to stop in its tracks IF the former has a higher ZoC number than the latter. This means that, after movement is resolved, the latter units movement will have ceased wherever the two stacks came into close proximity. The former unit, though, will also get a chance to cease its movement IF it is aware of the latter units presence. Hope that makes sense.

3) Units would need not just movement points, but some kind of movement rate (i.e. what fraction of MP's the unit uses per 'pulse')-to determine key issues like: will he get his units through the pass before he is intercepted by that column of enemy cavalry?

As much as I like the WE-GO system, I think my proposed system strikes a reasonable compromise between the I-GO/U-GO system and the WE-GO system. Essentially, each civ will have an 'initiative' rating-based on its current number of cities AND its number of units-which is then modified by a RNG each turn. The higher your initiative number, the later in the turn you move (thus often 'ceding the initiative' to nations with smaller militaries). After all players have enacted their moves, any units either within the same tile-or within the Zone of Engagement (if that is used)-will have the opportunity to engage each other-assuming that they can 'SEE' each other.
Anyway, hope that makes sense.

EDIT: As for logistics prior to gunpowder weapons, perhaps people are forgetting the adage that 'an army marches on its stomach'. Even ancient armies will require supply lines, as they require food, spare clothing and possible replacement equipment. Units can survive in hostile territory without supply lines/points, but only if they are prepared to sacrifice a MP in order to 'live off the land'. This means that disrupting an enemies supply line can still be effective, if only to slow the rate of progress of its advance.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

1) When two units 'cross paths' on the same tile-and so long as one of them is visible to the other-then the 'end-turn' phase should be interrupted for those involved-with a question as to whether or not you wish to engage the enemy. If they both say yes, then all movement ceases for those units and combat begins when all other movement is resolved. The winning unit(s) will then have the chance to continue their movement as previously indicated.

That sounds good, although I would expand a couple points. First, units only need to be within ZoE to have those options come up. Second, the options should be more sophisticated then Attack/Retreat. Once again, you can probe, prepare for various battle strategies(tactical withdrawl, slow advance, quick advance, hard defence, withdraw, etc.). This means that the wise defender or attacker may only harass rather than engage the enemy.

As much as I like the WE-GO system, I think my proposed system strikes a reasonable compromise between the I-GO/U-GO system and the WE-GO system. Essentially, each civ will have an 'initiative' rating-based on its current number of cities AND its number of units-which is then modified by a RNG each turn. The higher your initiative number, the later in the turn you move (thus often 'ceding the initiative' to nations with smaller militaries). After all players have enacted their moves, any units either within the same tile-or within the Zone of Engagement (if that is used)-will have the opportunity to engage each other-assuming that they can 'SEE' each other.
Anyway, hope that makes sense.

I think basing initiative on nation size would lead to tons of exploits and not feel right for players who invest in elite versus large militaries. Instead initiative should be unique to each battlegroup and based upon these factors:

1) Command and Control - Obviously the level of sophistication is based off military planning decisions and technology
2) Group Mobility - This is effected by which units can get where based on the possible zones of engagement
3) Restriction Factors - Active engagment makes command more unwieldy. Even passive engagement such as artillery fire can take away initiative.
4) Reconnaisance - Having good reconnaisance(outposts, natives, technology) will provide generals with more ability to react

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry, I had considered the options you mentioned as variables to the baseline initiative levels, but I just forgot to mention them here-sorry . I do think, though, that some penalty for large empires/vast armies is neccessary to take us away from the 'more is better' philosophy that currently grips the game-i.e. a nation with a small yet elite army will almost ALWAYS have a lower initiative number than a nation with a huge number of units. This means that the latter nation will have to move its units first-allowing the former player to get a sense for the disposition of enemy forces BEFORE he needs to move.
Another factor I have mentioned previously is 'Stances', which you can preset for units prior to any conflict. Your stance will determine the kind of attack/defense you make if you engage-or are engaged by-an opposing stack. This stance can be anything from Hard Attack (i.e. full on attack bonus attack strength and morale, but penalty to defense strength and retreat chance) to a Full Retreat.
Anyway, just some additional thoughts.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[GeneralX]

Another factor I have mentioned previously is 'Stances', which you can preset for units prior to any conflict. Your stance will determine the kind of attack/defense you make if you engage-or are engaged by-an opposing stack. This stance can be anything from Hard Attack (i.e. full on attack bonus attack strength and morale, but penalty to defense strength and retreat chance) to a Full Retreat.
Anyway, just some additional thoughts.

I endorse this as well. It would be the same as giving your units “Rules of Engagement” before they actually encounter the enemy.

On the initiative front, would there be room for the level of experience that each unit has? Perhaps this would be too difficult in a stack (unless you could designate a Command Unit of some type). What I am implying is that the greater status a unit has (veteran, elite etc) the better the initiative they have in attack/defence/withdrawal, and by default any units that are under their command.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The thing, GeneralX, is that it would be difficult to apply 'initiative' on a unit by unit-or even a stack by stack basis-as I could see it becoming WAY to confusing. Instead, I think it is best applied on a civ by civ basis.
The things which should determine initiative are:

1) # of cities.

2) # of units.

3) Level of appropriate Military/C&C technology.

4) Average level of your units.

5) +/- a random number from the RNG.

The civ with the HIGHEST initiative number would go first, meaning that its neighbours essentially get the jump on him.
Anyway, hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[BkGreatWarnut]

Those units would have a greater advantage and likelihood of withdrawl. Hopefully as the common misconception of a "stack" will change to more of a "group" of units...and it won't be like the armies used in Civ 3 currently in which all the units are one whole unit that can't be changed once it is conceived. Hopefully combat leans something towards the Apolyton link showed the two armies fighting in Call to Power II. I'm not saying they need to go to a seperate screen (it is only done for a more artistic/dramatic few), but the concept in which all units grouped together work together.

And, as Aussie was saying you could set your armies stance. Perhaps even sliders for when you want to retreat...when my attack strength decreases by 50% or I want to retreat when my defense strength reaches 30%. I don't know anything about programming and how tough this would be, but stances...there are defend, attack and retreat...and a how long to pursue each until a particular stat decreased to a certain percentage would be good and not so sophisticated that it would turn Civ into a military only game.

So, what I am trying to explain is that based on this, if you had your stack's combined attack strength drop to a certain percentage, then all units still alive in the stack would have the chance to successfully retreat... Of course I think the opposition, especially if they are attacking, should be able to shoot one more volley or as Aussie says one more pulse.

I think the three stances and sliders would also solve many questions about WE-GO... If both players moved to the same, previously un-occupied square, there group of units would attack/defend based on what they had set on there sliders.

So, from my reading this thread it is apparent that Civ 4 needs a different way of grouping units (please do away with the old army as one unit and towards an army of interchangeable, seperate units working as one). Also, move towards a WE-GO system as it sounds much more realistic and balancing.

Lastly, since in PBEMs you wouldn't be able to see the WE-GO put in an automatic battle report of previous turns!!! I can't imagine that would be all that difficult...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that, where stances are concerned, it should be kept fairly simple. For instance, if you have a strong attack stance, then you will get bonuses to attacking, and will tend to stick it out until the 'last man'-as it were. If you do a 'cautious attack', on the other hand, then you will get a bonus to your defense-and will tend to try and retreat from combat if you lose around 60% of your hitpoints. If you choose an outright defensive posture, then you get bonuses to defense, penalties to attack/morale, but a better chance of retreating. However, you will tend to retreat if you even lose around 20-30% of your hp.
Other stances might be 'harrass'-which are hit and run attacks where you have a defense and morale bonus, and which do standard damage to HP, but get a bonus for reducing morale of the opposing side.
Anyway, just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.