Real Stacked Combat

[Nuh Uh]

Although, I personally like the idea of a smaller map with units able to fight it out on another scale, the following system run by the AI would make it quick, effective, and tactics enabled:

 

[Nuh Uh]

Another point of the system is that it would allow for better organization of combat modifiers. For example, units of a higher classification than Melee should be given a very good chance of retreating when attacked by Melee troops possessing a combined superior strength.

 

[ConnorstheGreat]

I like the Idea

 

[Kushan]

Very good. Keep up the good work, cant wait to see this in action.

Kushan

 

[Nuh Uh]

Creative ideas... I have no plan of programming it, as I haven't the modifcation experience, but hopefully the many people who do have the ability will avail themselves to the many issues related to combat that are so very sub-par. The really odd thing is that none of these few minor, yet vitally important and as yet undeveloped, aspects to the combat system are inherently difficult for a programmer. They simply don't do them...

 

[Dale]

Combat resolution can only be done through the SDK. Sorry guys, you'll have to wait till next year.

 

[Coopa]

I like it, I really don't like it how its always one on one combat, however many reinforcements are there

 

[Steenreem]

Em, corcerning balance:
Units with a 'fast' classification have their strength reduced a bit? Since 'fast' is better than 'slow'.
And em, doesn't it suck that you 1 unit can attack multiple ones in 1 combat round? That is not realistic imo.

 

[Nuh Uh]

I like it, I really don't like it how its always one on one combat, however many reinforcements are there

The game's combat system is half-baked, because its developers 'think' they can get more money from the RTS crowd, IMO. Therefore, it has this one on one format, as if to say one unit represents one person in real time, and makes no attempt at formulating realistic guidelines for the scale of the game.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Combat resolution can only be done through the SDK. Sorry guys, you'll have to wait till next year.

Hi Dale. What is the SDK? And, why is that a problem, per se?

 

[snarko]

Hi Dale. What is the SDK? And, why is that a problem, per se?

SDK = Software Development Kit. It will allow us to modify much of the game code (more than what we can do with python). It's a problem because we won't get it until January or so.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Em, corcerning balance:
And em, doesn't it suck that you 1 unit can attack multiple ones in 1 combat round? That is not realistic imo.

No. Because, its not rts. Its simulating a scale of 10 sq. mile + tiles and units consisting of regiment through division level (2,000-20,000 or more men) engaged in hours/days of warfare. That's why its 'stacked' - to simulate combative ability through the weight of ratios. And, that's why its tiered - to simulate the fundamental abilities of each kind of unit. The AI could then simulate archers raining down however many rounds of arrows before it sends in the knights. Something you can't do with the current system. If I want to soften up the enemy with my archers, I have to literally engage my archers in Melee with the enemy. Such limitations prevent you from developing tactics based upon the ability of the units.

 

[Nuh Uh]

SDK = Software Development Kit. It will allow us to modify much of the game code (more than what we can do with python). It's a problem because we won't get it until January or so.

Thanks Snarko.

 

[Karhgath]

The game's combat system is half-baked, because its developers 'think' they can get more money from the RTS crowd, IMO. Therefore, it has this one on one format, as if to say one unit represents one person in real time, and makes no attempt at formulating realistic guidelines for the scale of the game.

What? Combat has been 1v1 since the original Civilization, which was released in 1991. Dune II, probably one of the first real RTS came out in 1992. Only recently with Civ3(Stacks and Army) is it slowly changing. I really don't understands your comment. Civ3 even introduced multiple figures and HP. It's slowly changing, but I don't see how it is half-baked and that it was made because of the RTS crowd, that doesn't make sense at all.

Anyway, yeah, Stack Combat is a goal for TAM CIV4, but since we don't have the SDK yet I'm working more on promotions and such to make the combat system more interesting for now.

Obviously, when the SDK comes out, we'll see how viable is Stack Combat.

 

[Nuh Uh]

What? Combat has been 1v1 since the original Civilization, which was released in 1991. Dune II, probably one of the first real RTS came out in 1992. Only recently with Civ3(Stacks and Army) is it slowly changing. I really don't understands your comment. Civ3 even introduced multiple figures and HP. It's slowly changing, but I don't see how it is half-baked and that it was made because of the RTS crowd, that doesn't make sense at all..

Its totally half-baked when it comes to the playing interests of a certain percentage of the Civ players. Its a matter of interest and opinion, ultimately.

Anyway, yeah, Stack Combat is a goal for TAM CIV4, but since we don't have the SDK yet I'm working more on promotions and such to make the combat system more interesting for now.

Obviously, when the SDK comes out, we'll see how viable is Stack Combat.

Its not a question of viability. The system has well established precedence and logic. Rather, its a matter of execution. What is TAM-Civ 4?

 

[Karhgath]

Its totally half-baked when it comes to the playing interests of a certain percentage of the Civ players. Its a matter of interest and opinion, ultimately.

Depends, it's not half-baked since it was mostly the same since the first one. Half-baked points to hastilly done and such, which isn't the same.

However, I do agree it is seriously lacking in historical and realistic depth.

Its not a question of viability. The system has well established precedence and logic. Rather, its a matter of execution. What is TAM-Civ 4?

The system was primarly made to be fun, and it achieves that goal well. It's not really about execution, it's about tastes. People like us likes to have depth, realism and historical accuracy in strategy games, and such we demand something 'more'. That's why CIV is so great, we can mod it to our liking. I wouldn't call that a problem, we're just really demanding =)

TAM (The Ancient Mediterranean) for CIV4 is the followup to TAM for CIV3, a mod I helped create, which concentrates on the history of man from its infancy up to the fall of Rome and the rise of Europe. Historical accuracy, and realism was the motto, but keeping the fun part was more important. With the limited(compared to Civ4) modding capabilities of Civ3, it was pretty good. I hope to do the same for Civ4.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Depends, it's not half-baked since it was mostly the same since the first one. Half-baked points to hastilly done and such, which isn't the same.

However, I do agree it is seriously lacking in historical and realistic depth.

Half-baked in your context would be inappropriate. Agreed. What I mean by half-baked is they kept only the combat feature of the game at a pre-adolescent level of development on purpose, because #1 - they didn't know how to institute a good combat system without micromanagement #2 - they were afraid of changing an appeal that was hinged upon novelty alone (the novelty of seeing the little people run around and grunt has worn off, guys).

The system was primarly made to be fun, and it achieves that goal well. It's not really about execution, it's about tastes. People like us likes to have depth, realism and historical accuracy in strategy games, and such we demand something 'more'. That's why CIV is so great, we can mod it to our liking. I wouldn't call that a problem, we're just really demanding =)

TAM (The Ancient Mediterranean) for CIV4 is the followup to TAM for CIV3, a mod I helped create, which concentrates on the history of man from its infancy up to the fall of Rome and the rise of Europe. Historical accuracy, and realism was the motto, but keeping the fun part was more important. With the limited(compared to Civ4) modding capabilities of Civ3, it was pretty good. I hope to do the same for Civ4.

For me, playability (not swamped with micromanagement) and historical realism in whatever venue have everything to do with enjoyability. Right now, I'm working on a 1500 bc to 1500 ad game, as I find the combat system for modern warfare is completely inappropriate without supply and situational combat tactics (no Blitzkrieg potential, ie.). The game itself has 3 month turns.

TAM sounds like fun, and I'll look forward to it. Let me know if you need help on the critical analysis end of the spectrum.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

First of all: I think that you're just plain wrong about your interpretation of the how and why of the designing of the Civilization combat system. The game is played on the large scale, it is played on a strategic level... not on a tactical level. That is why it's set up the way it is.

Secondly, I've played with this system before in CtP... great stuff considering I never had to replace a single unit and was completely able to capture city after city with just one single stack of units throughout the course of the game because the defenders never had as many troops as I did, and with all those units firing at once, they made extremely short work of the enemy. Not only that, but I could take out every city in a single turn since it did me the favor of killing all the city's units at once.

That said, I do indeed find it frustrating that outnumbering my enemies 2 to 1 simply means I can replace my losses much more easily instead of using my overwhelming numbers to prevent losses, but considering the alternative...

 

[EdCase]

Nuh Uh ..I think your playing the wrong game

There are many fine TBS hex wargames out there for the true grognard. Civilization is not one them though..Combat is a facet of the game true..but not the only one.

 

[Nuh Uh]

First of all: I think that you're just plain wrong about your interpretation of the how and why of the designing of the Civilization combat system. The game is played on the large scale, it is played on a strategic level... not on a tactical level. That is why it's set up the way it is.

The game is not on a purely strategic scale. If it were, you would have units that say "army", "airforce", and "navy". Strategy implies a grand design of engagement achieved through tactics. You can have a game that is mostly tactical (cards). And you have a game that is mostly strategic (chess). With regard to "wargames", or games that employ war as a venue, and on this scale, you actually need both. The combat modifiers lend a little bit of tactics, but its still an anemic system for simulating WW2 (for example), and which just happens to be the focus of many.

Secondly, I've played with this system before in CtP... great stuff considering I never had to replace a single unit and was completely able to capture city after city with just one single stack of units throughout the course of the game because the defenders never had as many troops as I did, and with all those units firing at once, they made extremely short work of the enemy. Not only that, but I could take out every city in a single turn since it did me the favor of killing all the city's units at once.

I'm not sure what the point is, here. I hope you are not boasting of the 'stack of doom' which just happens to be 'the doom' of any half-way realistic, thought-provoking, intelligent, and thereby interesting approach to warfare.