Rugged Defense?

[El Caballerion]

So we all know by now that CIV 5's combat system is largely inspired by the Panzer General series from the 90s. I used to love playing PG 2, and think it's a great game to emulate.

One great feature from PG2, was RUGGED DEFENSE. Essentially, it would come about randomly (maybe once every 25-30 battles), and would assure the defender's victory against an overwhelming attacker. It makes sense, as sometimes in history, a small group of defenders have sometimes miraculously fought off a hoard of attackers (think of the Spartans at Thermopylae). I love randomness (kinda angry that there's no random events in CIV V anymore), and as it would happen only rarely, it would add an interesting edge to combat... though of course, I would hope it wouldn't allow a warrior to win against a modern infantry unit lol.

Those in favor, say 'aye'.

 

[krunsh]

That would be frustrating... Like RISK.

Lol, sometime I can realy hate that game.

 

[Souron]

Nay. Bad luck is enough.

It would just break immersion and frustrate the player, without any benefit.

 

[Zhahz]

Those in favor, say 'aye'.

Gotta vote "nay" as well. There's already a window for "heroics" via randomness.

In the 2K demo they said it's mathematically impossible for a spearman to beat a tank. I think it's better that way and no random event should lead to it happening.

 

[Scramble]

Random is a very risky thing to add to a game, because with random comes frustration. Sounds awesome to be the defender in this case, but as an attacker, this is needless, frustrating complication.
There is already plenty of random in the combat system (the entire system is % based), so technically it is not only possible, but likely that there will be the occasional "victory against all odds". Throwing in an additional wrench into the system is unnecessary and a bad idea in general.
The game is about micromanagement, tactics and strategy. Allowing someone to luck their way through the game is pretty much an insult to the system.

 

[El Caballerion]

you all speak with wisdom beyond your years.... I've seen the light.

 

[Scramble]

Lol beyond my years? I am turning 23... in omg 1 hour. WOW! That birthday snuck up on me quickly... completely forgot about that.

And no i'm not kidding, sept 15 1987 was national "Scramble" day...

 

[smileylad]

I understand what you're saying, but I think that would be really frustrating.

 

[SeismoGraf]

I love randomness [...]

Most strategy players don't like randomness, at least not too much of it. Randomness is good, where predictability would be a bigger issue. A strong relation between cause and effect is generally desirable.

A lucky dice roll can lessen the player's feeling of achievement, when he has the upper hand, whereas an unlucky dice roll in an already precarious situation can increase the player's frustration and make him think, that the game is unfair.

Of course, above situation can be reversed, but the human brain is programmed to have a different assessment and better memory of negative experiences, than positive ones.

 

[thungrim]

So we all know by now that CIV 5's combat system is largely inspired by the Panzer General series from the 90s. I used to love playing PG 2, and think it's a great game to emulate.

One great feature from PG2, was RUGGED DEFENSE. Essentially, it would come about randomly (maybe once every 25-30 battles), and would assure the defender's victory against an overwhelming attacker. It makes sense, as sometimes in history, a small group of defenders have sometimes miraculously fought off a hoard of attackers (think of the Spartans at Thermopylae). I love randomness (kinda angry that there's no random events in CIV V anymore), and as it would happen only rarely, it would add an interesting edge to combat... though of course, I would hope it wouldn't allow a warrior to win against a modern infantry unit lol.

Those in favor, say 'aye'.

I say nay. I believe this kind of dynamic is already factored into terrain, technology, and promotions. A unit on a hill will defend better than a unit on the plains. A more advanced unit will defend better because it is more modern. A more experienced unit will defend better because it will have "promotions" which is really just a abstraction for unit experience.

I believe any examples of tremendous defenses have nothing to do with "randomness" or even ephemeral supermotivational essence the troops felt that day. Thermopylae was an epic defense because of
(i) terrain - Spartan units were densely packed in a narrow mountain pass, completely unflankable, which magnified the effectiveness of their formation, armor, and spears.
(ii) technology - Forget The 300. Spartans wore bronze plates in addition to their huge bronze shields. Compare that to the wicker, leather, and less armor of their Persian adversaries, and Spartans were figurative tanks amongst light infantry.
(iii) unit experience - Spartans were bread for war and possibly the world's greatest and most disciplined formation fighters. The specific Spartans at Thermopylae were also exclusively veterans, which only served to multiply the first two factors.

I believe you'll find a combination of these three factors in every storied tale of masterful defenses. All three are also accounted for in existing game mechanics.

(Its also worth noting that Thermopylae was a tactical loss for the Spartans, despite the herculean defense the Spartans executed)

 

[mmix2000]

I hated rugged defense! It really was frustrating.

What I actually would like to see from PG series is suppression (by artillery and bombers). IT would require a unit morale (which btw is not such a bad idea for expansion pack ). Still you could have some suppression mechanics even with the current game engine. Maybe by forcing a suppressed unit to fight its next attack turn as if injured even if its not?

 

[thungrim]

I hated rugged defense! It really was frustrating.

What I actually would like to see from PG series is suppression (by artillery and bombers). IT would require a unit morale (which btw is not such a bad idea for expansion pack ). Still you could have some suppression mechanics even with the current game engine. Maybe by forcing a suppressed unit to fight its next attack turn as if injured even if its not?

Or counting a suppressed unit as flanked, even if it not.

 

[slinkysi]

So we all know by now that CIV 5's combat system is largely inspired by the Panzer General series from the 90s. I used to love playing PG 2, and think it's a great game to emulate.

One great feature from PG2, was RUGGED DEFENSE. Essentially, it would come about randomly (maybe once every 25-30 battles), and would assure the defender's victory against an overwhelming attacker. It makes sense, as sometimes in history, a small group of defenders have sometimes miraculously fought off a hoard of attackers (think of the Spartans at Thermopylae). I love randomness (kinda angry that there's no random events in CIV V anymore), and as it would happen only rarely, it would add an interesting edge to combat... though of course, I would hope it wouldn't allow a warrior to win against a modern infantry unit lol.

Those in favor, say 'aye'.

Whilst I agree with what you say the example you give is flawed. Although the Spartans fought heroically and held off the Persian hordes for several days, they were eventually defeated at the battle of thermopolaye. A more saliant example would be the British victory at rorke's drift where less than 150 men defeated several thousand Zulus.

Sorry to be picky

 

[thungrim]

Whilst I agree with what you say the example you give is flawed. Although the Spartans fought heroically and held off the Persian hordes for several days, they were eventually defeated at the battle of thermopolaye. A more saliant example would be the British victory at rorke's drift where less than 150 men defeated several thousand Zulus.

Sorry to be picky

Another excellent example accounted for by currently existing game mechanics.
i) Superior technology
ii) Fortified position
iii) Unit experience.

 

[Stile]

Another excellent example accounted for by currently existing game mechanics.
i) Superior technology
ii) Fortified position
iii) Unit experience.

Perhaps its the exception that proves the rule, but what about the Battle of New Orleans? Americans had mostly conscripts against some of the best troops on Earth. I guess you could claim terrain and the prescence of a Great General, but I bet it felt like an unlucky dice roll to the Brits.

 

[silentknight111]

Kinda off topic, but kinda not. - They mentioned that they removed random events, because people felt like the computer was purposely doing bad things to them. I think the problem there was that there were "bad" random events. Rather than removing them completely, maybe they should have modified the system so that all random events had good consequences, like the prarie dogs, and quest events. People like when they get random good things, they don't like random bad things.

 

[thungrim]

Perhaps its the exception that proves the rule, but what about the Battle of New Orleans? Americans had mostly conscripts against some of the best troops on Earth. I guess you could claim terrain and the prescence of a Great General, but I bet it felt like an unlucky dice roll to the Brits.

Hello there!

You bring up an interesting scenario. If I might be allowed to suggest a friendly rebuttal, consider the following.

i) The defenders were fortified and on favorable terrain (the Brits had to cross water and rough terrain to engage)
ii) Assume both units (in Civ terms) were equal tech units.
iii) Great General on the American side

Once again all concepts handled with currently existing mechanics. You could even throw in a bit of "lucky dice roll" in there for good measure if you want, but I don't think this real life scenario would be a justification for the Rugged Defense mechanic proposed in the OP.

 

[Kruelgor]

I don't think I would say it was inspired by the Panzer General series. Panzer General was released in 1994 while Civilization was released in 1991. Also, the Panzer General units would typically display a strength number on the icon with 10 or sometimes 12 being full strength, but yeah there is some similarity there.

edit: Ahh, you're claiming the battling in CiV 5 is inspired by the panzer general series. Ok, now that I can understand where you're coming from. Possibly. Hexagon war gaming is much more popular on table top war games than Panzer General ever was. Just because they both use hexagons doesn't necessarily mean it was inspired by PG.

 

[silentknight111]

I don't think I would say it was inspired by the Panzer General series. Panzer General was released in 1994 while Civilization was released in 1991. Also, the Panzer General units would typically display a strength number on the icon with 10 or sometimes 12 being full strength, but yeah there is some similarity there.

edit: Ahh, you're claiming the battling in CiV 5 is inspired by the panzer general series. Ok, now that I can understand where you're coming from. Possibly.

It's been stated in interviews that the Civ5 1upt was inspired by panzer general.

 

[12agnar0k]

If you defend a chokepoint well, you can simulate this Rugged Defence effect without actually screwing the game up.