Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
Don't know what exactly, but I vote yes for a better combat system, better than a dace rolling...
More Complicated Battle System Please!
- Thread starter Wai_Wai
- Start date
BkGreatWarnut
aka "Brian the Great"
Portuguese said:
At least they are weighted dice...based on units strength...but I suppose it is closer to a random dice roll after the units strength...
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Unfortunately, I have to clearly contradict, as far as the WE-GO being logical is concerned.
A WE-GO system is logical in a RTS, not in a TBS.
Let me explain.
For simplicity reasons, we assume to have an orthogonal grid system. At x,y there is a swordsman from A-country, at x+1,y there is a swordsman from B-country. Both tiles are grassland without roads or other improvements, both units are not fortified and both units have full hitpoints from the same level of experience.
Now, instead of attacking each other, both have been ordered to occupy x,y+1. It is obvious, that in both cases it is just one tile away.
So, whom of both will arrive first?
There are not many chances to make a meaningful decision. You could have:
a) randomly determination
b) distance based determination
No other chance exists.
Option a) would be a disaster, as you could never know if the Gods of the RNG would be on your side. It would be just like throwing a coin.
Option b) seems to be more logical. As for the A-unit it would be and orthogonal movement, the distance would be just 1. For the B-unit, it would be a diagonal movement, so the distance would be square root of 2 (appr. 1.4142).
So, I think most people would agree that A-unit would arrive first, as for this unit the way would just be around 70% of the way for B-unit.
Ok, we keep that in mind for a moment.
Now, we assume that country A has a "stack / battlegroup" of two swordsmen, while country B has a "stack / battle group" of a knight and a swordsman.
Again, both BGs are ordered to tile x,y+1. Now the calculation becomes a little bit more complicated, no?
Would the two swordsmen from A be quicker, or would the knight have a little sprint to occupy the tile and to wait there for his fellow-swordsman?
As WE-GO - aka simultaneous moving - is meant to be more "realistic", there are strong arguments for both options. This in turn means that any decision will be confronted and opposed, as there are strong arguments against as well.
Anyway, we assume that the inherent rule might be that faster units move faster, and so the knight would arrive prior to the A-swordsmen.
As he is ordered to move just this one tile (he still is part of that "stack / battlegroup"), now his movement has come to an end.
Ended movement in Civ means: no attack.
And now, due to his speed, he will be an easy pray for the two swordsmen from A, as they will be in any case quicker than the second swordsman from B.
This means, that movement and speed now would become a disadvantage, instead of being an advantage. Even more in case of battle groups, as those would be torn apart by different unit speed.
It is most obvious, that this doesn't make any sense.
So, we have to assume, that the knight will be bound to the speed of his fellow swordsman and for that, the two swordsmen from A will arrive first on x,y+1. Obviously, the will have no chance against a knight/sword combination.
Because of that, the only logical decision for player A would be to fortify his units to maximise his chances for survival - or to attack directly against the B-forces.
But, as for those the decision would be just the same (and for them even more logical due to their additional attack value), B would attack as well.
In fact, both players could only maximise their chances if they would decide to attack.
And in this simple example, the attack and defense value are putvery closely. The need to attack becomes more and more, the more the different units are "developed", meaning the later they come into the game.
In consequence this means, that the tactical freedom of the players would be drastically limited by the invention of a WE-GO system.
But, there would be the next problem. In case both battle groups attack each other simultaneously, who would be the attacker and who would be the defender?
Would you grant the attack values for both sides? This seems to be a good solution - at first glance. In consequence, this means that any unit with higher attack than defense value would have to constantly move, as this would maximise it's chances.
Now, if you have an army of 50 different units, you would have to give a GO-command at any turn.
This is something, I would call the real micro-management.
No, as long as there is no conclusive concept for how to adjust the combat system as well, I have to definetely ask for overworking this idea.
A WE-GO system is logical in a RTS, not in a TBS.
Let me explain.
For simplicity reasons, we assume to have an orthogonal grid system. At x,y there is a swordsman from A-country, at x+1,y there is a swordsman from B-country. Both tiles are grassland without roads or other improvements, both units are not fortified and both units have full hitpoints from the same level of experience.
Now, instead of attacking each other, both have been ordered to occupy x,y+1. It is obvious, that in both cases it is just one tile away.
So, whom of both will arrive first?
There are not many chances to make a meaningful decision. You could have:
a) randomly determination
b) distance based determination
No other chance exists.
Option a) would be a disaster, as you could never know if the Gods of the RNG would be on your side. It would be just like throwing a coin.
Option b) seems to be more logical. As for the A-unit it would be and orthogonal movement, the distance would be just 1. For the B-unit, it would be a diagonal movement, so the distance would be square root of 2 (appr. 1.4142).
So, I think most people would agree that A-unit would arrive first, as for this unit the way would just be around 70% of the way for B-unit.
Ok, we keep that in mind for a moment.
Now, we assume that country A has a "stack / battlegroup" of two swordsmen, while country B has a "stack / battle group" of a knight and a swordsman.
Again, both BGs are ordered to tile x,y+1. Now the calculation becomes a little bit more complicated, no?
Would the two swordsmen from A be quicker, or would the knight have a little sprint to occupy the tile and to wait there for his fellow-swordsman?
As WE-GO - aka simultaneous moving - is meant to be more "realistic", there are strong arguments for both options. This in turn means that any decision will be confronted and opposed, as there are strong arguments against as well.
Anyway, we assume that the inherent rule might be that faster units move faster, and so the knight would arrive prior to the A-swordsmen.
As he is ordered to move just this one tile (he still is part of that "stack / battlegroup"), now his movement has come to an end.
Ended movement in Civ means: no attack.
And now, due to his speed, he will be an easy pray for the two swordsmen from A, as they will be in any case quicker than the second swordsman from B.
This means, that movement and speed now would become a disadvantage, instead of being an advantage. Even more in case of battle groups, as those would be torn apart by different unit speed.
It is most obvious, that this doesn't make any sense.
So, we have to assume, that the knight will be bound to the speed of his fellow swordsman and for that, the two swordsmen from A will arrive first on x,y+1. Obviously, the will have no chance against a knight/sword combination.
Because of that, the only logical decision for player A would be to fortify his units to maximise his chances for survival - or to attack directly against the B-forces.
But, as for those the decision would be just the same (and for them even more logical due to their additional attack value), B would attack as well.
In fact, both players could only maximise their chances if they would decide to attack.
And in this simple example, the attack and defense value are putvery closely. The need to attack becomes more and more, the more the different units are "developed", meaning the later they come into the game.
In consequence this means, that the tactical freedom of the players would be drastically limited by the invention of a WE-GO system.
But, there would be the next problem. In case both battle groups attack each other simultaneously, who would be the attacker and who would be the defender?
Would you grant the attack values for both sides? This seems to be a good solution - at first glance. In consequence, this means that any unit with higher attack than defense value would have to constantly move, as this would maximise it's chances.
Now, if you have an army of 50 different units, you would have to give a GO-command at any turn.
This is something, I would call the real micro-management.
No, as long as there is no conclusive concept for how to adjust the combat system as well, I have to definetely ask for overworking this idea.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well for a WE-GO system to work you would have to change how Attack and Defense values worked in Combat, or better yet substitute other stats, perhaps
Range of Combat (how many squares out they can cover/protect)
Combat Strength
Hide
Seek
Tactical Mobility (basically ability to flank, retreat, etc.)
The last four values would determine the results of 'contact with the enemy' situations The first would determine when and where those occurred.
So 'Attack' units would actually be those units with highest mobility, ie they will tend to be attacking by converging on a position or retreating. 'Defense' units would be those with lower mobility, they can't retreat well, but they are better on their basic combat values, so they are ok when a number of other units converge on them (as long as that number isn't too many)
This fits relatively well with the previous Civ paradigm since the swordsman and the archer are the only two offensive slow units, and you attack by moving into a square, so the Attacker is generally conceded to be the one moving.
If you add in some ability for a unit to trade off between their Combat Values based on the type of orders you give them (eg. Fortify maximizes your Combat Strength at a penalty for other values) then the micro-management is reduced because it is included (so your knight don't always have to be given a move order every turn to preserve themselves because they are set on high 'Retreat' when you have them in the open field, so that if they encounter something unexpected, you don't suddenly lose them even if their base combat value is low.)
Also, a good combat system should probably include the ability for enemy units to occupy the same tile.
The combat system does need to be changed for a WeGo system to work well, but I think that is as much of an argument for the WeGo system as an argument against it. (because the combat system could use a good deal of change)
Range of Combat (how many squares out they can cover/protect)
Combat Strength
Hide
Seek
Tactical Mobility (basically ability to flank, retreat, etc.)
The last four values would determine the results of 'contact with the enemy' situations The first would determine when and where those occurred.
So 'Attack' units would actually be those units with highest mobility, ie they will tend to be attacking by converging on a position or retreating. 'Defense' units would be those with lower mobility, they can't retreat well, but they are better on their basic combat values, so they are ok when a number of other units converge on them (as long as that number isn't too many)
This fits relatively well with the previous Civ paradigm since the swordsman and the archer are the only two offensive slow units, and you attack by moving into a square, so the Attacker is generally conceded to be the one moving.
If you add in some ability for a unit to trade off between their Combat Values based on the type of orders you give them (eg. Fortify maximizes your Combat Strength at a penalty for other values) then the micro-management is reduced because it is included (so your knight don't always have to be given a move order every turn to preserve themselves because they are set on high 'Retreat' when you have them in the open field, so that if they encounter something unexpected, you don't suddenly lose them even if their base combat value is low.)
Also, a good combat system should probably include the ability for enemy units to occupy the same tile.
The combat system does need to be changed for a WeGo system to work well, but I think that is as much of an argument for the WeGo system as an argument against it. (because the combat system could use a good deal of change)
covenant
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 162
Or get rid of the grid system and make a range of site number for each unit. If the Civs are at war and the units come within there range of site, they attack. If one can see farther he will have surprise. If they are not at war, they could just occupy the same general space as in an overlap.
But this hardly deals with what Bello points out. This would involve a total reworking of how the game would work. Not a bad thing, but unlikely.
But this hardly deals with what Bello points out. This would involve a total reworking of how the game would work. Not a bad thing, but unlikely.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
covenant said:
That is what ZoE is. WHen two units are within engagment range, they have several options of effecting each other. Edgy units could be in the same space, and under the right RoE, they might attack each other prematurely.
GeneralX
Warlord
Aussie_Lurker said:
The only problem I have with calculating initiative on the basis of # of cities, # of units, level of appropriate Military/C&C technology. average level of your units and +/- a random number from the RNG is that it does not adequately address the real world scenario that commanders have initiative and that their initiative is not dependant completely on the factors you have stated. Yes it is possible that an advanced society can train its soldiers to have initiative and that the bigger the army the more options you have, however it is often the initiative of the commander on the ground (their ability to see and exploit an opportunity) that can determine the tactical or strategic movement of a battle group. The best historical example I can think of is Gettysburg, specifically Little Round Top. On day two the Union left flank was unguarded and the Confederate forces were mounting an assault towards Little Round Top. It was only the initiative of Major General Warren that saw a Union Brigade sent to the hill and after the ensuing battle the flank was secured. This had a significant effect on the course of the battle and ultimately the war. As far as the battle overall is concerned, some historians hypothesise that the battle could have been won by the Confederates on the first day if Lt. Gen. Jackson had not been killed at an earlier battle. Their reasoning is that he was a very aggressive general who could recognise an opportunity and take the initiative, or regain the initiative, to press home an advantage. I would like to see this battlefield characteristic replicated within Civ IV.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK then, General X, how about you add in that each commander (i.e. military Great Leader)-and their average level-you possess ALSO gives you a bonus to your initiative number, signifying the ability of a nation with many good generals to essentially 'anticipate' the movement of their enemies. It still retains the simplicity of a one off initiative level, whilst given an additional benefit to those who have 'cut their teeth' on the field of battle.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
GeneralX
Warlord
Aussie_Lurker said:
That could work. I guess I have been a bit spoilt with the TW range of games (well that gives it away). I really do like the combat system they have.
Conflicted!?
Chieftain
Maybe this has been said already, but maybe you could have a special unit-sniper. He would be told to "stalk" a unit of infantry, and as long as the sniper was undetected, he would reduce the effectiveness of the unit he was "stalking". (because snipers kill officers, thus reducing the effectiveness of the unit as a whole.)
Still standing by my initial arguement there are two things I do find interesting in this thread.
1. Morale: In a previous thread I made the proposal that losing a battle should have a negative impact (1hp) on every unit in a stack. This would limit the desirable stack size and open up more "tactical" unit movement and battle planning. Morale bonuses for winning stacks is more difficult and, I think, best modeled by the hp loss for the losers.
2. Logistics/Line of Supply: The ability of units to heal is the best reflector of proper Line of Supply. The current system by which a unit is unable to heal when in enemy territory seems appropriate. "Battlefield Medicine", while very useful, is probably the worst named Wonder in the game. Under the scheme I see existing "General Staff" or "Pentagon" would be the better name (then change the name of the Pentagon wonder or get rid of it altogether). Units should not be able to heal in unclaimed territory unless on a friendly road. Civ currently assumes that movement of goods is "instantaneous" and unlimited making a system whereby units further from the core are less efficiently supplied difficult to implement.
As for WE-GO, it's great for modeling tactical movement and initiative but doesn't do any better at modeling strategic initiative than the current turn based system.
Finally for Zone of Control and Zone of Engagement, until a strong scaling relationship is cemented (1 square = x miles) the current system is the best that I've seen.
Once again, Civ combat is macro in the extreme and changes in the system need to take into account that combat is not the core of the game.
1. Morale: In a previous thread I made the proposal that losing a battle should have a negative impact (1hp) on every unit in a stack. This would limit the desirable stack size and open up more "tactical" unit movement and battle planning. Morale bonuses for winning stacks is more difficult and, I think, best modeled by the hp loss for the losers.
2. Logistics/Line of Supply: The ability of units to heal is the best reflector of proper Line of Supply. The current system by which a unit is unable to heal when in enemy territory seems appropriate. "Battlefield Medicine", while very useful, is probably the worst named Wonder in the game. Under the scheme I see existing "General Staff" or "Pentagon" would be the better name (then change the name of the Pentagon wonder or get rid of it altogether). Units should not be able to heal in unclaimed territory unless on a friendly road. Civ currently assumes that movement of goods is "instantaneous" and unlimited making a system whereby units further from the core are less efficiently supplied difficult to implement.
As for WE-GO, it's great for modeling tactical movement and initiative but doesn't do any better at modeling strategic initiative than the current turn based system.
Finally for Zone of Control and Zone of Engagement, until a strong scaling relationship is cemented (1 square = x miles) the current system is the best that I've seen.
Once again, Civ combat is macro in the extreme and changes in the system need to take into account that combat is not the core of the game.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Idylwyld said:
The problem is that the number of squares on the map (1-10k) make combat unmacro, Zones of Engagement/Combat would effectively allow battles to be over a smaller number of 'squares' each which involved more territory. Ie in one move, Germany moves its tank stack into 'Poland' rather than giving ten seperate stacks three move orders each to systematically eliminate each of 10 seperate Polish stacks. scattered among its cities.
Another idea for doing this would involve actually merging the squares as time went on, but I think that causes too much of a loss of important terrain factors. (such as the closing of the Mediterranean or elimination of Ireland on small earth maps)
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Well as you know Rhialto, I support many of the ideas which you have put forward for Zone of Control-though I also believe that there is room for both Civ2 AND Civ3 ZoC systems-with the situation determining which one applies.
I think Stack combat is a better way to go than a collateral damage system, but that is just IMO!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I think Stack combat is a better way to go than a collateral damage system, but that is just IMO!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I also support stacked combat as my first choice, but I won't be too dissapointed with collateral damage. I don't mind the civ3 style zone of snapshot, but it should be in addition to a civ2 style zone of control. A zone of snapshot doesn't do anything to discourage stacks, making it of nuisance value only - it won't affect any strategy level decisions.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
This is the way I would like to see ZoC work. All units will have a ZoC number (based on mobility and weapon range), but only certain units will have a ZoC flag. Units which lack the flag exert NO ZoC under normal circumstances. If the unit is fortified in the open, then the unit exerts Civ3-style ZoC (if its ZoC number is higher than its opponent). If it is fortified in a fortress, then it exerts a Civ2 style ZoC (again, only if its ZoC number is higher).
A unit with the flag, OTOH, gets Civ3 ZoC even under normal circumstances, and exerts a Civ2 style ZoC if fortified in the open. In a fortress, it still gets Civ2 ZoC, but with a +1 to its ZoC number.
Also, ZoC would not only prevent unit movement (or get a chance of a freeshot), it would also act to disrupt supply lines and trade routes.
Hope that all makes sense.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
A unit with the flag, OTOH, gets Civ3 ZoC even under normal circumstances, and exerts a Civ2 style ZoC if fortified in the open. In a fortress, it still gets Civ2 ZoC, but with a +1 to its ZoC number.
Also, ZoC would not only prevent unit movement (or get a chance of a freeshot), it would also act to disrupt supply lines and trade routes.
Hope that all makes sense.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
GeneralX
Warlord
I like the sound of that. The use of mobility and weapon range is a logical basis for the calculations. It reflects real-world factors. Mobility requires the presence of armour/reconnaissance units (cavalry, mechanised infantry) while weapon range requires the presence of artillery.
elementgoo
Lazy Monarch
Yea! I want to have more strategy put into the battles of the game so that i can use my genius tactics! haha
i think the bonus for spearmen vs horses etc is already being considered and probably implanted. it was mentioned on sorens presentation a while back about how this was effective in age of empires and then used the same principle but a more complex version in age of mythology. i predict they're one step ahead of you but i agree with the post entirely
Similar threads
