New Combat

[FriskyBuddha]

Anyone ever played AOW:Shadow Magic

How cool would it be if you'd could battle several units at the same time. I guess I have always felt that the current method of combat in civ is the weakest aspect of the game. If a game like AOW can do it, you've gotta be up to the task Sid!!!!

get gully!!!

 

[Alsark]

Yeah, I'm not much of a fan of the combat system, either. Unfortunately, however, online play is pretty well solely combat, because everybody is going for a conquest victory. I don't like how it is mostly luck-based, aside from what units you decide to bring into combat and the promotions that you give them. The combat system could probably use some work, but I think that a similar system has been used since Civilization I (I haven't really played the others, but I've heard stories), so it's highly unlikely to change.

 

[flyingchicken]

Why is the combat system of Civ repeatedly becoming an issue?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Why is the combat system of Civ repeatedly becoming an issue?

Because CivIV has been designed in such a way that combat is a MUST.

Therefore 100% of CivIV players experience it.

Therefore 100% of CivIV players have at least something to say about it.

--------

IMHO, Master of Magic (published by MicroProse -- publisher of Civilization) had one of the most memorable and superior combat systems.

Instead of just randomly winning / losing, a player could opt to 'zoom in' to every battle and play it out turn for turn on the battlefield. This was time-consuming but allowed a skillful player to leverage his units' abilities to overcome otherwise superior forces.

--------

I think the problem is that combat has become too rinse/repeat. Nothing else in CivIV works the same way every game except combat, which undoubtedly always includes a Stack of Doom and lots of pillaging.

 

[flyingchicken]

Because CivIV has been designed in such a way that combat is a MUST.

Therefore 100% of CivIV players experience it.

Therefore 100% of CivIV players have at least something to say about it.p

Can't argue with that.

However, my greatest qualm would be the "zooming in" option constantly being suggested in various threads. It would turn Civ into an entirely different game, IMO.

 

[Infantry#14]

Anyone ever played AOW:Shadow Magic

How cool would it be if you'd could battle several units at the same time. I guess I have always felt that the current method of combat in civ is the weakest aspect of the game. If a game like AOW can do it, you've gotta be up to the task Sid!!!!

get gully!!!

well, technically, units that do collateral do combat with more than one unit (unless against a siege weapon)

 

[Ammar]

I would not mind a combined arms approach to stack fighting. I don't like the defender being able to pick the best unit versus yours all the time.

But real command on the Battlefield, no. This would make Civ too much of an wargame.

 

[1889]

Real combat is affected by so many factors that are beyond a commander’s control, let’s call them luck, but with careful and thorough planning the effect of those elements can be reduced. I guess it would be rather dull if all you did was attack with the same kind of units with the same promotion but I have found a great deal of room for tactics in Civ IV combat.

I use combined forces and try to wait until the last moment before giving my units the best promotion. Then rather than just attack with the unit that has the highest victory percentage I may accept slightly lower odds so I can use the most appropriate unit on the next defender.

 

[mjs0]

(Apologies for replicating a post from another thread, but I found this thread after I posted the following elsewhere and this is clearly a more appropriate location.)

From my perspective there is no need to control battles tactically in Civ, what I would like to see is some acknowledgement of the tactical nature of engagements (especially between stacks) in the computation and thus results of battles.

When two stacks engage rather than resolving it piecemeal...do it as a battle with units assigned as front rank, flanking, bombardment, etc.
This would make the strategic selection of units in stacks more meaningful as, for example, archers would get ranged strikes (within the tactical combat resolution) and one Pikeman could not defend the entire front rank against 3 units of Knights assigned to the flanks.
This would require players to take into consideration the tactical implications of strategic choices.

Note, I am not suggesting the player have control over this tactical battlefield (although it would be a step towards allowing that for those who would like to) just that it be modeled by the combat engine.

I remember something similar to this in another Civ-like game. If I recall correctly that allowed the player to choose the formation of units though I'm not sure such detail is required. Perhaps just the ability to assign roles to units in a stack (flank, bombard, ranged, front rank, reserve, etc) and then choose a tactical battle plan for the stack.

It shouldn't add time to the game since you have to attack, attack, attack with each unit now anyway. Just some up front chance to make interesting choices and then a single attack.

 

[1889]

That is very much like Call to Power, a crappy game with many awesome elements. The tactical formations were assigned automatically by the computer and combat was still mostly one unit vs. one unit at a time.

The problem was that a big stack won every time. That is much more realistic but is that the kind of realism that would make civ more fun. I enjoy beating a much stronger AI and I like the fact that in a PBEM even the weakest civ can never be completely ignored.

 

[FriskyBuddha]

I agree with the comment aboujt call to power sucking, but having alot of awesome concepts. I mean what makes more sense that if you attack with and archer and a warrior. The warrior takes some damage, while fighting back, and the archer can shoot at the enemy at the same time. In this way, not only big stacks would win, you'd have to have a proper balance of units

 

[Ceritoglu]

Giving a 'zoom-in mode' would merely give the player another advantage over the AI in combat - as if the AI's current pathetic attempts at warfare aren't bad enough.

I think rather than qualms with the system, people are just unhappy with repetitive, creatively deficient AI generals. AI warmongering is solid...but it's ridiculously predictable and easily out-manoeuvred by a player with even a glimmer of intelligence.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Giving a 'zoom-in mode' would merely give the player another advantage over the AI in combat - as if the AI's current pathetic attempts at warfare aren't bad enough.

I think rather than qualms with the system, people are just unhappy with repetitive, creatively deficient AI generals. AI warmongering is solid...but it's ridiculously predictable and easily out-manoeuvred by a player with even a glimmer of intelligence.

Though, I still think the combat system needs some help all around.

I don't recall what game had this feature, or even if I'm just imagining things, but I recall playing a turn-based game a while back in which units being attacked from two sides received penalties (massive penalties if those sides were 180 degrees on either side).

Adding something like this would give smaller, even inferior, forces a fighting chance if they can surround their enemy.

This might also give peacemongers and the AI the ability to build fewer troops to effectively defend their territory, since having access to roads makes surrounding the enemy nearly always possible.

Something like this might also serve to dwindle the massive Stacks of Doom we seem to see here and there. To gain this benefit, the SoD would have to be split. Therefore, the movement of troops would need to be more strategic to gain this advantage.

There would have to be a qualifier for this, though. For example, you couldn't send one lonely Warrior against a stack's back and then gain benefits by attacking the front with your Grenadiers and Cannons.

The two means of distributing this penalty I can think of are:

• 1:1. If a unit was attacked from another side this turn, he receives a penalty of X% when attacked from the side and Y% if attacked from behind this turn only.
  
  
• Collateral. When a stack is attacked, all other units in the stack besides the defender receive a penalty of X% if attacked from the side and Y% if attacked from behind this turn only.

In both examples, the percentage would also be based on the relative strength of the offender and defender to prevent a Warrior from giving a penalty equivalent to a Maceman or Grenadier attacking.​

Whatcha think?

 

[Ceritoglu]

Whatcha think?

I approve of this type of improvement to gameplay (it still needs tweaking, but it works in principle) since it's something which adds further depth to the AI's warmongering abilities. I think BetterAI is the way my personal qualms will be solved, but the more complex the variables involved in warfare, the more ways a smart AI or a MP player can challenge me.

 

[King Flevance]

Giving a 'zoom-in mode' would merely give the player another advantage over the AI in combat - as if the AI's current pathetic attempts at warfare aren't bad enough.

I think rather than qualms with the system, people are just unhappy with repetitive, creatively deficient AI generals. AI warmongering is solid...but it's ridiculously predictable and easily out-manoeuvred by a player with even a glimmer of intelligence.

Actually, I play Age of Wonders 2: The Wizards Throne still. I actually played this weekend and we are going to be finishing the game tonight. The AI on a battlefield on that game is more easily programmed I think. As in it, the AI on the hardest difficulty will catch you good quite a few times in 1 game. And on the battlefield, it proves it knows what it is doing as well. Actually, on the battlefield the AI is smarter than on the main map by a small amount. Most likely because it has to take less things into consideration.

I would say the only downside to making this pay a role is the amount of time that it would take to complete 1 game. Our current game on AOW2, is on an XL map and We have put in over 48 hours and it is only on turn 75. Considering there are 1200 turns on marathon on civ, finishing 1 game would take weeks of uninterupted gameplay. For a normal person 1 game could last a month or longer.
Additionally, it would take time to balance as all the units would have to be evaluated and possibly redesigned.

Although, it would still be something I would definatly like to see come in.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

On your comments Flev, I dunno, to me Civ was always a game that should last the best part of a week or so. When I first played Vanilla Civ IV, on normal speed, standard map, I was shocked to be able to finish a whole game in one session. That's not Civ for me (thank god marathon was added).....

I blame the MTV generation with creating people with 5 minute (tops) attention spans, who want everything NOW, and can't be bothered to put any real effort into something. A programme like "Heroes" sums it up (which I love btw), the earlier episodes would have a 5 min seg reminding you of what happened last week, then 10 mins of new plot, then a commercial AND THEN another 5 min recap on what you'd watched before the commercial (and tons and tons of shows are guilty of this)....

It's like a whole nation of utter stoneheads

I still think Civ should take a loooong time (your playing all of Man's recorded history after all), so I'm all for making combat more complex, with maybe an optional "zoomed in" mode......of course I suppose you've got to leave "arcade mode" civ in there for those who like to finish a game in 3 hours or so...

Anyways, I haven't had a rant in a while, and feel better now

(I've been trying to fix my Dad's non booting pc on the phone without seeing the problem or having it described to me adequately for half the day, enough to make anyone need a rant )........

 

[gunkulator]

Add me to the "no thanks" pile for turning civ into a tactical war simulation. Warfare already takes too much time. I'd prefer more diplomacy options, more religious features and a better trade model. There are enough war games out there.

 

[King Flevance]

On your comments Flev, I dunno, to me Civ was always a game that should last the best part of a week or so. When I first played Vanilla Civ IV, on normal speed, standard map, I was shocked to be able to finish a whole game in one session. That's not Civ for me (thank god marathon was added).....

LOL. I am the same way. When 4 came out, I only played Epic. When Marathon was added later, I have never went back to epic. The only reason I have played anything other than those 2 speeds is mulitplayer where everyone insists on having fast game speeds.

I blame the MTV generation with creating people with 5 minute (tops) attention spans, who want everything NOW, and can't be bothered to put any real effort into something. A programme like "Heroes" sums it up (which I love btw), the earlier episodes would have a 5 min seg reminding you of what happened last week, then 10 mins of new plot, then a commercial AND THEN another 5 min recap on what you'd watched before the commercial (and tons and tons of shows are guilty of this)....

I don't watch much TV, but that is hillarious. I like heroes but I watch so little TV that on Tuesdays alot of times, I am like aw crap, I missed Heroes - like today for instance. (I like that show when I get to watch it - I have only seen 3-4 episodes)

I still think Civ should take a loooong time (your playing all of Man's recorded history after all), so I'm all for making combat more complex, with maybe an optional "zoomed in" mode......of course I suppose you've got to leave "arcade mode" civ in there for those who like to finish a game in 3 hours or so...

I totally agree. I am not against a zoom mode coming in at all. Me and my friends I play AOW2 with online would be willing to jump in on it too. The reason it probably won't happen is I bet this is more of a thing to bring into Civ 5 than 4. Mostly due to the fact that units and some structures will have to be redesigned. Namely city walls. Then you have to decide what types of units can damage walls. They will need alot more than a mere str value.
As you say too they will need an option that auto-commands battles
with an RNG the way it is now.

Anyways, I haven't had a rant in a while, and feel better now

(I've been trying to fix my Dad's non booting pc on the phone without seeing the problem or having it described to me adequately for half the day, enough to make anyone need a rant )........

I know the feeling. You ask a question about something and get told 'no' then 5 mins later when you are like "WTH is going on?" they go "Oh wait, did you mean this? Oh, then yeah"

Unrelated to Drew's post: I just want to point out the fact once more tho to any nay-sayers that saying the AI would do stupid things in battle, is a dull arguement. The AI seems to hold its own better on battlefields than in the main map view on most "zoom-tactics" games.
Just to throw in additionally though, the AI may be pretty dumb until the community fixes it. I wish I could find this old thread where I was discussing the AI and someone told me something along the lines of "If its so easy to program an AI then do it and stop posting. Better yet, Firaxis had an opening for AI programmers." A pretty witty remark I must say. Then I responded that it is Firaxis's job and if I did I would have to learn how to program, I couldn't get hired as Firaxis was looking for someone with years of experience at the time. So if I managed to make a new AI on my own, they would probably just take it, lay claim via the EULA and would basically have someone do their job free of charge. Shortly after, Firaxis uses Blakes work on Warlords. Most likely Better AI will be the "Enhanced AI" featured in BTS. Since, that job opening for AI programmer at Firaxis has dissappeared. So, I wonder if the Better AI team has recieved anything for their efforts at doing Firaxis's job for them.

 

[flyingchicken]

"Zoom in" mode? Heretics! Liberals! It just won't be Civ anymore.

...Be conservative, people! If you don't appreciate Civ as it is, just play M2:TW or something.

 

[Dale]

Combined arms stack attack in all its glory: http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=2509

Does no one search the forums at all?