Please improve the combat system!

[Aussie_Lurker]

As I said, though, a 'supply' system doesn't have to be overly complex or a grind. All you need is a simple 'pathfinding' system which determines if you are 'in range' of a friendly plot (as determined by the presence of your culture, your allies' culture or a fort). If the unit is >X tiles away from this plot, then the unit gets a new 'promotion'-one which reduces combat strength. Its simple and easy, whilst still forcing a player to think before he commits forces. It also allows for different tactics, as 'outflanking' a group of units would cause the pathfinding algorithm to plot a course AROUND those enemy units-thus potentially putting said units 'out of supply'.
It also might help to solve the current 'Discover the Continent' phenomenon we see at present in the game.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Holycannoli]

I would really, really love a "Civilization : Total War" system, with the Civilization's global maps, city management, tech and so on, and the Total War's fighting system...

I've said it before and I'll say it again...yes yes yes! This would be THE single greatest game ever made. It would be complicated though. With RTW, they only had ancient units to model, most of which were melee of some sort. All they had to do is give units a unique skin and modify a few variables like speed, bonus vs certain units, attack and defense strengthm morale etc. In Civ, you go from ancient warriors and catapults to navy seals and stealth bombers. Each unit would have to be balanced and behave on the battlefield properly. Then you'd have to take into account artillery in it's various forms, air units, naval units etc.

How would a battle between an attacking stack of modern armor, mechanized infantry, gunships and artillery vs a defending city with modern armor, mechanized infantry, gunships, artillery, SAM infantry AND fighters and bombers work? Now throw in units from various ages like you see ingame. Longbows with infantry, spearmen with grenadiers.

Man oh man would that be a great game! And there could always be a "quick combat" button for when you don't want to play the battles, and to make it more Civ-like.

 

[Sidewinder00Q]

If I were wanting a more realistic military model, I would set it up so that Battle Casualties couldn't be completely replaced without going back to a city. Maybe make it so that the unit can only regain 25 or 50% of its damage total through healing.

But as its been said, this is not a war game simulation, exact population numbers aren't kept, gold is abstracted. About the only thing I would want to add to the game as it stands, is air promotions.

 

[Danielos]

Also, I think the Civ-series need to include the concept of manpower. It´s strange that cities can just pour out new units without any effect on the city itself. If you train soldiers, you would reasonably lose some manpower that would otherwise be working in towns, farms or mines. So, there need to be an effect where the building of a military unit will reduce the remaining civilian population that can work the city area. Maybe, one lost population unit for every three military units built in a city. This would place a more realistic and interesting strain on your civilization if you are fighting long, bloody wars.

Edit:

Link for an earlier discussion on this subject, that I found:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=79318&highlight=manpower

 

[Beathoven]

As I said interesting thoughts.

One has to ask:

>>Does an "improved" combatengine really improve combat with respect to the conquest winning condition and does an "improved" combatengine really improve the gameplay of Civilization?!<<

Developing the combatengine though must pay attention to the fact that war and conquest is a a part of the game. Bringing too much realism to the concept of combat might alter it to the worse - reducing wars to trenchwars and bringing conquest to a stalemate. It is also a question of what level does the game favor: Micro og macro...

 

[phungus420]

If you've ever played Rome: Total War, you'd know a CIV economic engine with a R:TS combat engine would be completely possible. This will happen one day, so I'm not going to sweat it, and it will make $$$.

 

[Norseman2]

The AI is already difficult enough to program for from a militaristic standpoint. To put it simply, they do not know how to wage war. If you make it more realistic you're going to just give the human more of an advantage. Humans are always capable of better strategy and figuring out the computer's tendencies.

It's fine. If the computer has to cheat now in order to keep up with a human, then the combat is either too complicated (easier to make the AI) or not complicated enough (harder for the human to understand and exploit it). Personally, I'd prefer the increased complication. It makes it harder to have a universal strategy for winning. If one strategy becomes popular, another strategy might develop to counter it. When you make it more complicated, getting the computer to beat the human is just a matter of making it less random than a human. For example, see the majority of RTS games. Usually, normal difficulty settings can be achieved without the computer needing to cheat.

 

[Danielos]

The AI in "Hearts of Iron 2" is capable of "understanding" advanced combat and supply rules so it should be possible even in the Civ-series.

 

[Akka]

Also, I think the Civ-series need to include the concept of manpower. It´s strange that cities can just pour out new units without any effect on the city itself. If you train soldiers, you would reasonably lose some manpower that would otherwise be working in towns, farms or mines. So, there need to be an effect where the building of a military unit will reduce the remaining civilian population that can work the city area. Maybe, one lost population unit for every three military units built in a city. This would place a more realistic and interesting strain on your civilization if you are fighting long, bloody wars.

Actually, that was how I made a mod on Civ3 : each unit required one population point to be created, up to the industrial era where it needed 2 pop points.

Worked like a charm (though the AI were a bit weaker because they had a harder time to adapt, I think).

 

[Smidlee]

If you've ever played Rome: Total War, you'd know a CIV economic engine with a R:TS combat engine would be completely possible. This will happen one day, so I'm not going to sweat it, and it will make $$$.

Yet Civ:Total War would just play like all other Total war series and wouldn't be civ anymore. This is the same with Rise of Nations which was suppose to be Civ RTS. But in the end it played just like other RTS even though it was a good one. (some still believe AoE series was better).

 

[Smidlee]

The AI in "Hearts of Iron 2" is capable of "understanding" advanced combat and supply rules so it should be possible even in the Civ-series.

Do you realize HOI 2's AI doesn't play by the same rules that the player does? It's AI cheats big time.

 

[BomberTank]

why not have a complex economy with a complex tactics -- will add so much more dimension to game, one thing to be careful of however is to keep the increased war option/tactics still in turned based.

 

[Evie]

Because then you get Victoria, and that game gave me more headaches than all other games put together.

 

[General Failure]

Civ is not a combat game, not a game of (only) military conquest. I don't think something like Rome: Total War's combat engine should be in Civ. I know the Total War series, and I have played and still play them. They are great, but their focus is on battlefield strategy. Learn to use the terrain, learn to use the weakness and strength in each unit, learn to use the weather.

This is on an entirely different scale than Civ. Civ only looks at things on a macroscopic level. Civ is not concerned with things like weather. I think t would be a mistake to include it into Civ, because it just might alienate a whole class of players, who do not want to be bothered with this sort of exact reconstruction of how to fight a battle. I certainly would be intrigued, but maybe this is not so for the majority of Civ players out there.

However, one thing that I do feel should be included in Civ, is the idea of morale of the military. In Civ, we can happily send warriors to fight riflemen. We know they're not coming back, but we can do so. I think in real life, those warriors might not be so willing to go and fight riflemen. So I think there should be a penalty for this in morale. Maybe like -25% for having to fight a much more advanced unit.

What do you think about these suggestions:
- If you have been at war and winning lots of battles: morale bonus + 15%
- If you have been at war and loosing lots of battles: morale penalty - 15%
- If your units are fighting obsolete units: morale bonus + 25%
- If your units are fighting advanced units: morale penalty - 25%
- If you are attacking a hated nation (bad diplomatic relation): morale bonus + 20%
- If you are attacking a friendly nation: morale penalty - 20%

More modifiers are possible, of course.

What do you think?

General Failure

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^^I love almost all your ideas, but maybe leave out the modifiers for advanced/obsolete units. After all, do you really need another boost if you are already sending a grenadier against an archer? Do you really need a penalty if you're sending in a 0.0% suicide cat against a rifleman? It would be kinda overkill in either situation IMHO.

Other than that, tho, I really like your ideas. Someone could probably mod that in with a little work.

 

[BomberTank]

What ever happened to the privateer was such a fun unit

Does anyone else here like the combat animations from civ3 better, i know i do alot faster and nicer looking

 

[General Failure]

^^^I love almost all your ideas, but maybe leave out the modifiers for advanced/obsolete units. After all, do you really need another boost if you are already sending a grenadier against an archer? Do you really need a penalty if you're sending in a 0.0% suicide cat against a rifleman? It would be kinda overkill in either situation IMHO.

Other than that, tho, I really like your ideas. Someone could probably mod that in with a little work.

Yes, perhaps it would be a bit much to add a bonus or penalty for having obsolete units to fight with or to fight against. But I think it could also add another dimension/difficulty to the game, where the player is forced to keep an up to date military, even more than he/she already is. I mean, no modern country fights wars with pointed sticks or trebuchets anymore. It's not that we LIKE to pay for having advanced units, but it is a MUST. Any army coming on to the battlefield today with pointed sticks is going to get butchered. It's not even a battle, it would be a massacre. And I think those soldiers with the pointed sticks...well, their morale wouldn't be too good.
Of course in the game this would be balanced by other modifiers. For instance if you are attacked by a hated Civ, you get a + 20% morale bonus for that too, so with the penalty for having obsolete units being 25%, you'd only get a - 5% penalty.

Also, it would reflect what happened for instance when the British encountered the Zulu, or the Spanish encountered the Aztec. Small but modern armies could easily dominate the battlefield. Older units in the game are cheaper to build, so you could have more of them. There could be a modifier that if your advanced units get beaten by obsolete units, the side with the advanced units gets a penalty for that. I do think that in a way this system would add something to the game. Of course, it would have to be very well balanced!

General Failure

 

[grad]

I think the strategic simulation of CIV series it's not compatible with the tactic combat system of Rome total War.

Yoo could see, at a "strategic" level, a complex combat system only in wargames, like The Operational Art of War series.
If you desire an almost perfect strategic war simulation try that.

 

[IdiotWind]

What ever happened to the privateer was such a fun unit

Man, i was just thinking that same thing. Mussin round with someone else's shipping without them knowing it's you...

Bring back privateers, me hearties!

 

[biratets]

Imo Civilization has become too much war-oriented already (we now have a expansion named WARlords). There's very little room left for players with peaceful playing style in Civ 4. The war is almost inevitable, no matter what you do. I hope Civilization never becomes a 100% war game, where the other aspects (culture, building, diplomacy etc.) are just decorations amidst constant war-making. I think the interesting mix of war AND all the other things is what distinguishes Civilization from all the other games and makes it so great.

I never understood what's so great in winning a conquer/domination victory around 1000AD. You probably get a new high-score, but at the same time miss most of the other aspects in the game. I hope the developers remember that there are also people out here, who don't see war as the most important or interesting part of the game. Building wonders and developing culture can be just as rewarding as rushing your swordmen against yet another city in 500BC.

< /end rant>

If I want to play a strategic level war game, I play Hearts of Iron 2 or Operational Art of War. If I want to just build stuff, I play SimCity. If I want to do something in between, I play Civilization, and I hope it remains that way.

So yes, the current combat system is naive and unrealistic, but it's good for this type of game.

(edit: typos)