Tactical Map

[Howard Mahler]

As was discussed by Sulla and many others, one could have combat occur on a separate tactical map. In my opinion, if you want tactical combat in Civilization, this is the way to go.

I want to outline vaguely how this would work for those who do not understand what is being talked about. I will use as my rough model Heroes of Might and Magic III.
(One of my favorite games, which I have not played in a while so I am hazy on a few details. This is not, not a thread for discussing Heroes of Might and Magic III.)

There are armies, with a limited number of slots available.
For example, there might be seven slots for troops, plus one for a general.
Each slot that is not empty would contain some number of units of the same type.

For example, an army might have: 5 longbowmen in slot 1, 4 swordsmen in slot 2, 3 horseman in slot 3, slot 4 empty, 6 pikemen in slot 5, 4 swordsmen in slot 6, 4 longbowmen in slot 7. (There is a user interface to allow you to move troops between slots, splitting or recombining troops of similar type. Also one can transfer troops between armies or where appropriate combine two armies into one, or split one army into two.)

When an army moves into a hex occupied by an enemy army, combat is either autoresolved or it goes to the tactical map. (player's choice which one.)
How ever big a single strategic map hex is, a tactical hex is much, much smaller.

For example, the tactical map might be 10 hexes by 10 hexes or 15 by 15.
There would be several different tactical maps for each type of strategic map terrain.
There could be different terrain features in the different hexes of the tactical map.

Each army would start on one side of the map.

Each slot of each army would get a chance to move and attack. The order would be based on initiative or "speed" or whatever. (An important detail that would have to be worked out for Civ.) So slot 3 of one army might have the first option to act. It can act or wait. It may now be that slot 4 of the other army has the next highest initiative, and would get the next chance to act.

The slots that have waited get to act during the second portion of the round, however, now those with highest initiative go last (get to wait longest to act.)

Attacks can be melee or ranged. Line of sight can be included as to whether ranged attacks can be made. Ranges can be used, so that longer range attacks do less damage. Movement can depend on tactical map terrain. Certain tactical map hexes may be impassable.

After a round is completed either side may try to withdraw. If successful, then the other army gets parting shots at the withdrawing army. If neither side tries to withdraw, then combat continues for another round.

There would be a slot for a general, which can be empty. Generals would not directly fight, but rather would add their abilities to all units in their army. For example, a particular general might add 10% hit points to all of its units, while another added +2 speed on the tactical map to each of its units. (Details would need to be worked out.)

There would have to be a somewhat different system for attacking/defending cities.
(Heroes of M&M has a different but similar system for assaulting towns.)
For Civ. there would also need to be a somewhat different system for naval combat.

Under this system, units would not be promoted, since we want identical units in each slot. There might be some way to have a simple regular vs. veteran troop system.

Each civilization could be limited to a certain number of field armies and fleets. (The number would presumably depend on map size. The later versions of Heroes of Might and Magic removed this restriction.) Each city can have its garrison of defending troops which do not count against the number of field armies. Perhaps in addition each field army commanded by a (great) general would not count against the total.

The limited number of armies and the limited number of slots per army should aid the programming of the AI.

Clearly, any such change would have to very extensively play tested.
A separate group of play testers could concentrate on the tactical battles portion of the game, which in some sense is its own subgame.

It would be a lot of work to get this all to work well. However, other similar games have done so.

I suspect that just making this change to tactical maps would be almost as much work as the typical changes from one version of Civ to another.

 

[Drakarska]

Interesting. I like the premise. It also sounds similar to ROTK's tactical combat ( I forget which version though, been a long time since i've played it).

 

[Howard Mahler]

There are several different games that use tactical maps. I am not claiming to be familiar with a majority of them. If this were to be put in a Civilization game, the designers should research what each of these other games did in order to get the best version that works with the rest of Civilization.

An example of a detail.
In Heroes of Might and Magic, each army can set up within a certain number of hexes of its side of the tactical map. (I believe attacker sets up first.)

In Civilization the defense gets bonuses for certain terrain (example forest) and for fortified units. It is unclear exactly how to translate these or somewhat similar ideas into the tactical map combat system.

Just an example of the many issues that come up whenever you propose big changes.

 

[code9]

Not a bad idea, but wouldn't this make Civ "too complicated" for the masses?

 

[duckstab]

I've also argued for much the same approach in this thread. One major thing I would want to do differently is, rather than having a handful of prebuilt maps of different types, I would attempt to generate them on the fly.

However, your initial point bears repeating: this is only worth contemplating if you accept Civ5's premise that more interesting tactics makes for a better game, and I for one am still unconvinced of that. For one thing, if the AI can't present the player with a fun and interesting challenge on the battlefield, then what's the point? I personally would like to see a Civ that made warfare less important, not more.

 

[BobTheTerrible]

Having a separate tactical map is a bad idea. It would compound the player's advantage since the AI would likely be much worse than a vet human. It would also be tedious to fight every single battle, and nobody would autoresolve because they'd take more losses that way.

 

[Howard Mahler]

Yes this is only for those who would like more tactics in warfare in Civ.

Personally I could do without it, but would probably find this type of implementation an entertaining change if done well.

Generating maps at random, would make it that much harder to program the AI.

The AI in Heroes of Might and Magic III did a reasonable job of fighting tactical battles.
(Magic spells are a complication not present in Civilization.)
Maybe the AI would get a grade of C+ or B-, where an experienced player who was good at this type of thing would get an A. The AI did not normally make stupid blunders and was reasonably competent.

It is a reasonable goal to get the CIV AI to the same or higher level of competence at fighting battles on a tactical map.

Again, as discussed elsewhere, this would be an option, with autoresolve available to those players who did not want to fight tactical battles.
Based on comments there seem to be many players who say they would like tactical combat and many who say they would not.

I've also argued for much the same approach in this thread. One major thing I would want to do differently is, rather than having a handful of prebuilt maps of different types, I would attempt to generate them on the fly.

However, your initial point bears repeating: this is only worth contemplating if you accept Civ5's premise that more interesting tactics makes for a better game, and I for one am still unconvinced of that. For one thing, if the AI can't present the player with a fun and interesting challenge on the battlefield, then what's the point? I personally would like to see a Civ that made warfare less important, not more.

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Moved to ideas and suggestions.

 

[Howard Mahler]

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

"It would compound the player's advantage since the AI would likely be much worse than a vet human."

However, the choice being discussed is tactical combat as per Civilization V versus separate tactical maps. I can not see how your statement even remotely applies to this.

"It would also be tedious to fight every single battle"

Would it be more tedious than moving units and fighting every single battle in Civilization V?
It need not be tedious to fight every single battle; I did not find it so in Heroes of Might and Magic III. The key is game testing to make the tactical combat system fun for those who even slightly like that sort of thing. A limited number of slots, combined with a relatively simplified user interface can make these battles not drag. Close battles would take a while, but this is OK if the player is continuously engaged and find it fun.

"nobody would autoresolve because they'd take more losses that way."

Many people play Civilization and are fine with playing at a somewhat lower difficulty level than if they "micromanaged" some detail of the game.
Any one who autoresolved all battles could just play at a slightly lower difficulty level.
As long as there is not too big of a difference between the average result of autoresolve and fighting out battles by an experienced player versus the AI, this should be acceptable to most players. This highlights the need to makes things simple and also put a lot of work into programming the AI.

Having a separate tactical map is a bad idea. It would compound the player's advantage since the AI would likely be much worse than a vet human. It would also be tedious to fight every single battle, and nobody would autoresolve because they'd take more losses that way.

 

[Howard Mahler]

Why did you move this thread and not the one on Sulla's ideas and suggestions?
This was just an expansion of one of his ideas and suggestions

Moderator Action: Moved to ideas and suggestions.

 

[Camikaze]

When an army moves into a hex occupied by an enemy army, combat is either autoresolved or it goes to the tactical map. (player's choice which one.)

Presumably for this not to be redundant, you'd have to be able to get more out of a tactical battle than out of autoresolving. That is, you would have to be rewarded for having tactical skill. But it's a strategic game, and winning is meant to be based on strategic skill, so implementing something tactical that is this prevalent would necessarily detract from that strategic focus.

I suspect that just making this change to tactical maps would be almost as much work as the typical changes from one version of Civ to another.

It's a far more fundamental change, though, and moving quite far away from both the 'TB' & 'S' in TBS, and from the focus of the game as being on empire building and management. IMO, it's not suitable for Civ, however fun it may be as a feature on its own.

Why did you move this thread and not the one on Sulla's ideas and suggestions?
This was just an expansion of one of his ideas and suggestions

FWIW, I posted the thread about Sullla's proposed game design in General Discussions because it was a follow up from previous threads about Sullla's postings, and because it largely pertained to problems with Civ5. On the other hand, this thread is more specifically centred on an idea.

 

[Howard Mahler]

To repeat, this whole discussion assumes one wants tactical battles.
Many people do and many do not.
As clearly stated, the purpose of this thread was to flesh out Sulla's idea of tactical maps since some people were unclear on how that might work.

I do not disagree with one of your remarks, but it really applies to Civilization V and those people who say they want tactical battles.

Many people would agree with "The one unit per tile and tactical battles in Civ V moves quite far away from the focus of the game as being on empire building and management. IMO, it's not suitable for Civ, however fun it may be as a feature on its own."

Your other comment is totally off the mark.
Tactical battle maps do not move away from a turn based game.
As implemented in Heroes of Might and Magic III, that is totally a turn based game.
One side moves and then the other.
Nothing is real time.
In a battle, when one of your slots has the opportunity to act, you think about what you want to do and then do it when you are ready. Nothing else happens until you act.

In fact, one could have a turn based game that consisted solely of playing out various interesting tactical map battles.
A different game than Civilization or Heroes of Might and Magic III, but still a turn based game.

P.S. Sulla's thread consisted of ideas and suggestions. I see a distinction without a difference.
One of his suggestions was separate battles on tactical maps.

Presumably for this not to be redundant, you'd have to be able to get more out of a tactical battle than out of autoresolving. That is, you would have to be rewarded for having tactical skill. But it's a strategic game, and winning is meant to be based on strategic skill, so implementing something tactical that is this prevalent would necessarily detract from that strategic focus.


It's a far more fundamental change, though, and moving quite far away from both the 'TB' & 'S' in TBS, and from the focus of the game as being on empire building and management. IMO, it's not suitable for Civ, however fun it may be as a feature on its own.

FWIW, I posted the thread about Sullla's proposed game design in General Discussions because it was a follow up from previous threads about Sullla's postings, and because it largely pertained to problems with Civ5. On the other hand, this thread is more specifically centred on an idea.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

How would air forces be incorporated into a tactical map combat system?

Clearly, land-based seige units (catapults through mobile artillary) would need to travel with the army, as they would be involved in the city capture as well as other combat. Yet it makes little sense to me that bombers travel with an army. Would air combat have to remain outside the tactical map system? Would some land-based or sea-to-land bombardment also be outside the tactical map?

Also, one "tactic" that I continually found annoying in the HoMM series was the tendency of AIs to spawn off large numbers of weak armies to go wander around being a nuisance. If Civ were to use tactical combat, I'd like to see an easy way to clean up pests that try to pillage my land, other than bringing in a major army.

 

[Howard Mahler]

Good point about how to include air combat.
It might be that one would bombard with bombers prior to the battle similar to what is done currently. Again this was intended just to be an outline of one portion of a possible new system as proposed by Sulla.

In Heroes of Might and Magic there was a limit on how many field armies one can have. (This was eliminated in later versions.) I do not think there would be a major problem with the AI spawning lots of small armies to pillage if there were such a limit on field armies. (The AI in theory is capable of this in both Civilization IV and V.) Again this is an outline that would have to be refined and game tested.

How would air forces be incorporated into a tactical map combat system?

Clearly, land-based seige units (catapults through mobile artillary) would need to travel with the army, as they would be involved in the city capture as well as other combat. Yet it makes little sense to me that bombers travel with an army. Would air combat have to remain outside the tactical map system? Would some land-based or sea-to-land bombardment also be outside the tactical map?

Also, one "tactic" that I continually found annoying in the HoMM series was the tendency of AIs to spawn off large numbers of weak armies to go wander around being a nuisance. If Civ were to use tactical combat, I'd like to see an easy way to clean up pests that try to pillage my land, other than bringing in a major army.

 

[HorribleHarald]

Whole Civ5 is ready one big tactical map and AI is still poor. This step should be done in this version but somehow it's not taken. I think that AI works better in smaller maps than in one huge battle map. It's not so bad idea but bad idea was to make civ5 like it's now. Otherwise it would be better to improve civ4 battle system.

 

[Diplomat32]

How would air forces be incorporated into a tactical map combat system?

Clearly, land-based seige units (catapults through mobile artillary) would need to travel with the army, as they would be involved in the city capture as well as other combat. Yet it makes little sense to me that bombers travel with an army. Would air combat have to remain outside the tactical map system? Would some land-based or sea-to-land bombardment also be outside the tactical map?

Also, one "tactic" that I continually found annoying in the HoMM series was the tendency of AIs to spawn off large numbers of weak armies to go wander around being a nuisance. If Civ were to use tactical combat, I'd like to see an easy way to clean up pests that try to pillage my land, other than bringing in a major army.

I think there should be a "call air support" button on the tactical map. When the player uses it, he/she would be able to use any fighters or helicopters from the nearest city in range for a one time strike on enemy units.

 

[Drakarska]

I think there should be a "call air support" button on the tactical map. When the player uses it, he/she would be able to use any fighters or helicopters from the nearest city in range for a one time strike on enemy units.

Given that idea, it would follow that the opposing player should be allowed the chance of air intercept. Additionally, wouldn't the 1x air strike be changed to missions available to number of aircraft?
Unless of course air strike power is based off the number of aircraft you posses and are able to use for the airstrike. Same could be said for the air intercept.

 

[Diplomat32]

Another way to do tactical combat is what I would call the "football game" model. The tactical map would be divided into 2 sides. Each side would have a slot for "center", "right flank","left flank", "rear right flank", "rear left flank, "rear center" and "reserve". Players would place their units in each slot. You could have multiple units in each slot. Each turn, players would pick a "tactical plan" similar to a football play. For example, the offence could pick "full frontal assault" or "left flank faints assault". The game would resolve what happens that round and then players would pick another plan. Tactical combat would play out until one army is defeated or retreats.

The advantage of this system is that players would not have to move individual units during tactical combat so it would be less tedious. And, this system could have a lot of fun strategy since different plans would have different effects depending on what the defense does.

 

[duckstab]

Generating maps at random, would make it that much harder to program the AI.

I disagree. The main issues with on-the-fly tactical map generation would be how fast you could generate the map and how you'd store it afterwards, in case you wanted to allow a later battle on the same terrain.

If you're going to have a handful of prebuilt tactical maps with few or no features, then yes, you've greatly simplified the problem of programming the AI to fight well. It might follow the "Hill Defense Plan" on Map 1 and "Urban Assault" on Map 2. But you've also made for a boring tactical game because the AI is probably going to become very predictable. And once the AI is predictable, it no longer plays well because the human will develop an effective counter.

If, on the other hand, you're going to have a map with numerous interesting features and you want the AI to fight well and with some degree of novelty each time, then your problem is equally tough whether you have 20 possible maps or 20,000,000.

 

[Diplomat32]

Given that idea, it would follow that the opposing player should be allowed the chance of air intercept. Additionally, wouldn't the 1x air strike be changed to missions available to number of aircraft?
Unless of course air strike power is based off the number of aircraft you posses and are able to use for the airstrike. Same could be said for the air intercept.

Yes, obviously, the other player should be allowed the chance of air intercept. Air strike power would be related to number of aircraft. Yes, the 1x air strike could be changed to number aircraft. Let's say, I have 5 fighter units available for an air strike. I could do 5 air strikes of 1 aircraft each or 1 air strike of 5 aircrafts. This would give players more tactics about how to use their aircrafts. Basically, I would choose how many aircrafts to use in each strike, the air strike option would be gone when I used up all my available aircrafts.