Promotions: The Final Solution...

Ramesses · Aug 25, 2009

Argetnyx said:
Maybe don't call it 'promotions', but 'skills' instead.

Or how about using multiple stats to represent unit strengths and weaknesses, and letting them increase with XP?

Some examples of stats:

Power: Represents the attack power of the unit's weapons.
Agility: Represents the speed and frequency melee attacks.
Reach: Represents the reach of melee weapons.

Armor: Represents the sturdiness of the unit's armor.
Shield: Represents the additional defense power afforded by shields.
Speed: Represents the unit's evasiveness.

moscaverde · Aug 25, 2009

Too much RPG like, remember that in CIV a unit represent a lot of people.

Edit: but I do like the idea of creating weapons and soldiers separadly (You could export and import weapons / mercenaries this way).

Argetnyx · Aug 25, 2009

I agree with moscaverde, it's too tactical, but a nice idea. Especially if you get rid of the 'reach' value.

Ramesses · Aug 25, 2009

Argetnyx said:
I agree with moscaverde, it's too tactical, but a nice idea. Especially if you get rid of the 'reach' value.

But then what do you suggest for an offensive trait that captures the Spearman's (and later Pikeman's) ability to effectively kill mounted units but not melee units?

Camikaze · Aug 26, 2009

I don't really like the stats idea, although it is a possible solution. I would much prefer that all units of the same type start off the same, with their unit type abilities built in (like +10% city attack for swordsmen (?)), before training such as Argetnyx suggests takes place to determine the further skills of the unit.

Ramesses · Aug 26, 2009

Camikaze said:
I don't really like the stats idea, although it is a possible solution. I would much prefer that all units of the same type start off the same, with their unit type abilities built in (like +10% city attack for swordsmen (?)), before training such as Argetnyx suggests takes place to determine the further skills of the unit.

And I think the rock-paper-scissors effect can become more natural by making it stats-based. If a unit's attack advantage is rendered useless against its units specialized defenses, AND its opponent has an attack advantage which hits the unit's weak point, the unit is effectively trumped by it's opponent type.

Warning, TL;DR text inside.

Spoiler :

Now, of course, this is limited only to the strategic rock-paper-scissors set of the Ancient Era, and contains no stats for different unit types of different eras to use, such as Range and Reload Speed for Archery and Gunpowder Units. But there's only so much I can think up in one night.

moscaverde · Aug 26, 2009

What if units could be more diversified instead of a single type (rifleman, archer, machine gunner etc). Maybe you could produce weapons individually and standart units. Each unit produced you equip with an arbitrary number of weapons (maybe 5?). You then equip with the weapons you want, 1 longbow, 1 pike, 3 swords and a siege weapon -> the unit would have 1 first strike chance and would battle slightly better in cities and agains mounted, would be good agains melee and lil bombard habilty. This way you could emphasis in what you want for your units.
It's a combinations of armies and units and introduce the rpg element (promotions or the Ramesses idea) without much tactic.

Dunno if it's a good idea (started to like Ramesses idea after the explanation).

Camikaze · Sep 1, 2009

@Ramesses- that only takes into account attack ability, not defence ability. The examples you have given only indicate what chance each unit would have in attack, even though only one unit is attacking. If stats like this were being used, you would have to disregard the attacking stats for the defender, and the defensive stats for the attacker, for starters. But that is a bit of a triviality.

My main argument with it is that it seems very RPG (unlike what civ combat should be) and more complicated than a system that I would like to use. I would much prefer a promotion mechanism whereby we could keep the current (or revert to Civ3) strength measurement system, adjusted by promotions. Either one singular strength value that can be modified by promotions, or two values (attack and defence) that can be modified by promotions*.

*Note that I wouldn't mind extra parameters, like morale, but not that are effected by promotions. Promotions should only, IMO, affect the strength of units in given situations.

Ramesses · Sep 1, 2009

Camikaze said:
@Ramesses- that only takes into account attack ability, not defence ability. The examples you have given only indicate what chance each unit would have in attack, even though only one unit is attacking. If stats like this were being used, you would have to disregard the attacking stats for the defender, and the defensive stats for the attacker, for starters. But that is a bit of a triviality.

That's not how it works. In the Spearman Vs. Chariot example, the Spearman attacks for an average of 13 HP per round at full health, while the Chariot attacks for an average of 6 HP per round at full health. I say average and full health because, after these attack powers are calculated for both sides, combat plays out as follows:

Both sides have their attack power adjusted by a RNG (-2 to +2)
Both sides have their attack power multiplied by their remaining HP divided by 100.
Both sides deal damage to their opponent equal to this amount.
Repeat until one unit is dead.

So, an example battle would play out like this:

Spoiler :

True, this system is currently only complex enough to handle battles on equal ground between early melee units, but that's because it still isn't complete. You're seeing a very early alpha.

Gooblah · Sep 1, 2009

I would modify Rusty Edge's idea:

The first promotion of every line (Combat I, Drill I, City Garrison I, etc.) could be learned straight out of production using XP from buildings and civics. However, further promotions down that line would be based on combat experience. If I gave my unit Combat I, next time it won a normal battle against a unit AND got enough experience, it would be eligible for Combat II AND the promotions corresponding to the units it killed.

Example:
I train an Axeman. The Barracks in the city give it 3/5 XP, so it gets City Raider I. It then proceeds to maul an Archer at low odds in a city, survives, and gets 2 XP instead of the normal 1. Great!

Now it's eligible for a second promotion. Now, it can get any of the starting promotions, Cover (due to its win against an Archery Unit), and City Raider II (due to its win against a unit in a city).

Hail · Sep 1, 2009

Gooblah said:
I would modify Rusty Edge's idea:

The first promotion of every line (Combat I, Drill I, City Garrison I, etc.) could be learned straight out of production using XP from buildings and civics. However, further promotions down that line would be based on combat experience. If I gave my unit Combat I, next time it won a normal battle against a unit AND got enough experience, it would be eligible for Combat II AND the promotions corresponding to the units it killed.

Example:
I train an Axeman. The Barracks in the city give it 3/5 XP, so it gets City Raider I. It then proceeds to maul an Archer at low odds in a city, survives, and gets 2 XP instead of the normal 1. Great! Now it's eligible for a second promotion. Now, it can get any of the starting promotions, Cover (due to its win against an Archery Unit), and City Raider II (due to its win against a unit in a city).

Camikaze · Sep 2, 2009

@Ramesses- your idea is basically a hybrid of the promotion system and the separate attack and defence values system. What I would like is more of the former and less of the latter, or more to the point, completely the former. It's hard to halfheartedly implement separate values. You either have them or you don't. A way of modifying the single strength value would be more optimal, IMO.

redbaron1123 · Sep 3, 2009

Maybe instead of thinking in terms of promotions, the player could design the unit itself (such as in spore) to the criteria the player wants based on technology available and money available. This would also make the game more realistic as, currently, the world war two jet fighter Me-262 is equivalent to the F-15, which shouldnt happen.

killmeplease · Sep 4, 2009

i've read this topic so here's my ideas.
promotions can be obtained in different ways.

1. military training:
barracks: gives level 1 promotion to newly built units (combat 1, city raider 1, drill 1 etc).
military instructor can be set in city with barracks. gives level 2 promotion (combat 2, city raider 2, drill 2, shock, cover, medic etc). there can be only 1 instructor in a city.
military academy can be built in a city with settled instructor. gives lvl 3 promotion (amphibius, formation, combat 3, drill 3etc).
west point gives lvl 4 promotion.
promotions unit will get are determined by player when unit is palced in production queue.

2. promotions can be obtained from winning battles. When unit wins it has a chance to get various promotions. This chance is based on promotion's complexity parameter and on the chance of victory. Promotions can require having other promotions or winning a certain battle type to be got.
say combat1 warrior kills a wounded archer on a hill with 20% chance to win, so his chances to get promotion are multipled by 5.
accessible promotions are: combat2, guerilla (as warrior attacked hill plot), cover.
assume combat2 promotion has complexity parameter = 10, guerilla = 15, cover = 20.
and warrior have 5 chances of [complexity] to obtain any of those promotions, thus he have a 50% chance of getting combat2, 33% - guerilla and 20% - cover.

3. How civics, traits, wonders can influence promotion system?
vassalage: free military instructors in all cities.
aggressive: free combat I for all units
charismatic: +2 to chances of promotion
pentagon: +1 to chances of promotion

CarlGustaffa · Sep 7, 2009

I think I like this last idea the best, but I would also remove the possibility to endlessly promote units in the field. In the field, you only get to choose a single promotion. If you have more experience points to spend, you have to visit one of the buildings to get that promotion (instructor, academy, west point).

Maybe all units should have builtin 'visible promotions' instead of 'hidden bonuses'. And field promotions were limited to increasing this bonus by upping it to a new level of expertise. A spearman would get better at stopping mounted units, but he would need some 'serious theory' training to become a medic.

I would also like to see the requirement of certain buildings for producing/upgrading certain units. Take out the drydock to prevent him from building a navy. The barracks/academy still determine the level of the built unit. To change a pikeman into a mechanized infantry, you'd have to have access to resources, a factory for the machinery, and a military building (barracks?) for the training. Number of turns to upgrade = numbers of eras the unit is outdated.

Camikaze · Sep 11, 2009

CarlGustaffa said:
I think I like this last idea the best, but I would also remove the possibility to endlessly promote units in the field. In the field, you only get to choose a single promotion. If you have more experience points to spend, you have to visit one of the buildings to get that promotion (instructor, academy, west point).

So is this like the idea of units having to undergo mandatory training every x turns in order to gain promotions or bonuses?

I would also like to see the requirement of certain buildings for producing/upgrading certain units. Take out the drydock to prevent him from building a navy. The barracks/academy still determine the level of the built unit. To change a pikeman into a mechanized infantry, you'd have to have access to resources, a factory for the machinery, and a military building (barracks?) for the training. Number of turns to upgrade = numbers of eras the unit is outdated.

That makes sense. What exactly do you mean by the bolded part? Should there perhaps be an ability to destroy buildings in a city in order to prevent an opponent from giving promotions to their troops? That could be a way of giving promotions more importance, which would, I guess, have mixed benefits.

dlrch · Sep 12, 2009

Hi, new user and this is my first post. Been playing Civ as long as i can remember but only previously viewed the forums.

I agree that some promotions should only be available after winning a battle. Once x units had gained a certain victory promotion then this should be available from the barracks.

I aslo like the idea of losing some capability over time when at peace. This could be represented by being 'combat ready'. When not 'combat ready' units would lose some of their base strength and some of the additional promotion strength. For example if infantry were to go straight into battle (following 50 years of peace) on a surprise attack their base strength would have decreased to 15/20.

Combat readiness would take x number of turns once DoW had been made. Or 'mobilization' in prep for war, with an increased cost of course.

I would also like to see Zones of Control, increased naval warfare (carriers must have more power), ships/artillery being able to bombard non-city tiles, expanded air warfare (to include varied use of helicopters), supply routes / logistics (which should be a nightmare behind enemy lines but no so bad on the 'front line') and revamped spy missions.

Any thoughts?

CarlGustaffa · Sep 12, 2009

@Camikaze:

No need to "stay current". Once you learn how to ride a bike etc. I think that would be too tedious. I play on marathon, and setting up for an attack takes ages. Forgetting what you've learned would be too much pain in the butt. Rather you have to go there to advance more than one level. Nobody gets from privates to majors in so short time. In the field, you might get promoted from private to sergeant at the most. Anything else require a certain degree of dedication.

As for the bold, I think the idea at the time was that you have to have a drydock to build certain types of advanced ships. Not sure anymore tho

I would love the idea of being able to "sell" buildings. Cash reflects only the amount of scrap collected. Not only for the "denying the enemy" factor, but also because my plans tend to change a lot. I.e. my unit producing city eventually turns out to be crap for unit production maybe due to culture shrinking on me.

Should there be a cap on the number of buildings allowed? Increases per era and/or city size. Just thinking loudly.

@dlrch:
I like your idea of combat readyness. It would (for me at least) be very painful, maybe too much so? Most DoW's against me has been complete surprice. Not even a word from my friendly neighbour that someone is pushing troops my way. Nice friend! If I have a stack of decent enough proportions (I'm a peacemonger usually, until harrassed too much), it will always be at the wrong location to where the attack is coming from.

Personally I think carriers work ok. What I do want is better rocketry. Guided missiles for hard hits against the toughest units. Other missiles for less damage but collateral damage. I have no objections for collateral damage for tanks, but maybe less damage and less number of units? Except when the target is another armored unit. I'm thinking the tank using sabot rounds against tanks and HE rounds against personell. Advanced artillery should have ranged bombardments, with the same system; hard target or units in the open demands different munitions, but here maybe user selective?

Camikaze · Sep 13, 2009

CarlGustaffa said:
@Camikaze:

No need to "stay current". Once you learn how to ride a bike etc. I think that would be too tedious. I play on marathon, and setting up for an attack takes ages. Forgetting what you've learned would be too much pain in the butt. Rather you have to go there to advance more than one level. Nobody gets from privates to majors in so short time. In the field, you might get promoted from private to sergeant at the most. Anything else require a certain degree of dedication.

Sure, once an individual learns something, they don't need to keep relearning it (although even with riding a bike, you need to do it every now and then to stay good at it), but the same does not apply to units, which really represent a general grouping of a particular type of soldier, made up of people that change from turn to turn. i.e. with turns taking 40 years, the actual people comprising a unit in one turn would not be the same as the people comprising the unit in another turn. I don't think forcing fortification in a city, for example, in order to maintain promotions would be all that tedious. All it would require would be a display somewhere on the units stats of how many turns it has left before losing its promotion, and a subsequent move to a city to fortify for one turn.

I would love the idea of being able to "sell" buildings. Cash reflects only the amount of scrap collected. Not only for the "denying the enemy" factor, but also because my plans tend to change a lot. I.e. my unit producing city eventually turns out to be crap for unit production maybe due to culture shrinking on me.

How would buildings be sold? If there was some complicated and realistic market apparatus or economic system instituted in the game, I can see it being a possibility through privatisation, but otherwise, how would it work?

Should there be a cap on the number of buildings allowed? Increases per era and/or city size. Just thinking loudly.

I don't think so. City size already limits the number of buildings you can have through how many hammers a city can generate. It isn't like there isn't realistically enough room for 20ish buildings on one tile, so I would see no reason to limit the number of buildings.

Silurian · Feb 9, 2010

Promotions

Built – original upgrades when built – costing production

Combat – earned via combat – no cost

I think we should add

Refit – Currently represented via upgrading units for example. knight to Cavalry costing gold
There should also be an option ton up grade units in a dry-dock, barracks or arsenal and airport when cert techs are reached.

For example destroyers were built with steam engines then diesel then gas turbine
So you build a destroyer with a diesel engine (because you have that advance when you build the destroyer). When you discover jet engine – gas turbine – new destroyers are built with this and existing ones can be refitted. The destroyer has to go to a city with a dry dock then spend two turns having the old engines ripped out and new ones fitted. This would cost gold plus production in the city. Other upgrades could take place at the same time for more gold and production. So do you upgrade your destroyer with “gas turbine” +1 movement; for say 2 turns and at the same time “helo deck” 1 turn (included in one of the two) or build a new destroyer and sell the old one.
Or when your spies discover that the enemy is refitting now is a good time to attack.

Training – Units should be able to train to get certain advances.
Training for certain upgrades could be undertaken in barracks others would require a tile with a “range” tile(s) improvement. Only one unit could train in a tile at once. Training would cost gold and would take a number of turns towards each step towards upgrade. Training upgrades would be limited to the number of combat upgrades plus one. ( Or may be certain techs could increase this) Units would have to have the “training” button pressed. They would have to complete the step before they stopped training or the training would be wasted. So a Rifleman built with “drill 1” could train for “drill 2” in a barracks by pressing “train” then “drill 2”. A cavalry in a “range” tile with a river beside it could train for “amphibious assault 1”. A stationary destroyer within the BFC of a city or airfield with a fighter in could train together – the destroyer would press “Train” then “intercept 1” and the fighter “train” then “Anti ship” and click on the ship. If the destroyer trains in the BFC of city then that tile can not be used for production. Two adjacent “range tiles” would be required to train against other units for example ”anti armour” tank on one tile anti tank unit on adjacent tile.

Training should be able to be combined with combat promotion. So if a cavalry has trained 5 of the 6 steps to “amphibious assault 1” then war starts and it makes an assault across a river and gets the promotion.

Promotions: The Final Solution...

Ruler. Visionary. Pimp.

Prince

Emperor

Ruler. Visionary. Pimp.

Moderator

Ruler. Visionary. Pimp.

Prince

Moderator

Ruler. Visionary. Pimp.

Heh...

Satan's minion

Moderator

Chieftain

Mk Z on Steam

Chieftain

Moderator

Chieftain

Chieftain

Moderator

Deity

Similar threads