Techathon's Army Idea

[techathon]

I always thought that armies on civ should have a number of troops in an army, like lets say you have an option to build 100 swordsman in possibly like 10 turns, and each one might have 5 strength so possibly they could have 500 strength total plus bonuses. All the units could do this and strength would be bigger, but this allows for supplies and disease and causalities. They could possibly recruit more troops at cities or gain some as slaves after they take over. This makes combat more real with causalities and disease weakening them... the 100 might turn to 95 after a lack of supplies, then 5 more abandon for that reason so there would be 90. The 90 then go to a city and are able to recruit 30 more solders and pick up supplies. They then join an army of 50 and now they have 170. They can attack an enemy city and take it over and suffer possibly like 90 causalities. They get more supplies and slaves (workers) come to work your land.

Certain promotions/techs prevent disease+abandonment+supply loss better.


This can hinder SoD, b/c of the supplies and add more realism to the game.

I posted this like a month ago on a diffrent thread, and decidet to start my own.

What do ya think, Ideas?

 

[CivMyWay]

Have a look at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8261911&postcount=18

My game has that concept of men instead of "health". See the image on the same thread - yellow represents "wounded" (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8216277&postcount=14)

 

[Camikaze]

I think that there is no need to depart from the unit model that is and has always been in civ. It works well, and changing to an individual soldier based model would result in no gains.

 

[CivMyWay]

I think that there is no need to depart from the unit model that is and has always been in civ. It works well, and changing to an individual soldier based model would result in no gains.

I think knowing that you have 10,000 troops marching onto the field is more fun than an unknown quantity...

 

[Camikaze]

But it would distort the battle system which is based upon units of varying composition and size. For instance, a warrior unit probably only consists of 100 or so warriors, whilst a tank unit can be thought to consist of 1000 soldiers, of which some are involved in logistics, some in infantry support, etc. So unless you are going to implement those logistical personnel and force the player to personally compose an army unit, with varying results, it probably isn't a good idea.

 

[techathon]

But it would distort the battle system which is based upon units of varying composition and size. For instance, a warrior unit probably only consists of 100 or so warriors, whilst a tank unit can be thought to consist of 1000 soldiers, of which some are involved in logistics, some in infantry support, etc. So unless you are going to implement those logistical personnel and force the player to personally compose an army unit, with varying results, it probably isn't a good idea.

No the armies would be 100, and they could gain #s bu joining w/ another group. the 100 warriors would have 200 strength (100*2=200). Idk the strength of a tank, but lets say its like 15 they would have 1500 strength (100*15=1500). Lets say that 2 tank armies joined, they would have 3000 strength. And they got a combat I promotion 3300 strength. Promotions would be like logostics. (supplier, medic, stuff like that.) The infantry would be their own group... Kind of like having spears axes and swords in a group to protect yourself from attack while attacking.

 

[CivMyWay]

So unless you are going to implement those logistical personnel and force the player to personally compose an army unit, with varying results, it probably isn't a good idea.

Yes (in my view).

The player will be able to either quickly build a single unit (as they can currently) and select from a few choices of how many men to add to that unit, or they can select multiple units effectively composing them into an army. Once the number goes over 100, then you start adding in troops for logistical purposes. This will effect the population cost of the "army", but not the overall fighting size. e.g. 1000 troops - for all combat calculations = 1000. For training purposes maybe 1100 persons. So logistics come in the expense, and you can also add specialists to the military unit (in the same way cities have specialists).

 

[flyingeye76]

I know it's a rather big change but I've thought about the idea of opposing armies facing each other on a battlefield screen. One could tactically deploy individual units on this battlefield and thus really employ the military strategy of this game. The way it is now most battles end up being random sieges.

 

[Camikaze]

I know it's a rather big change but I've thought about the idea of opposing armies facing each other on a battlefield screen. One could tactically deploy individual units on this battlefield and thus really employ the military strategy of this game. The way it is now most battles end up being random sieges.

Tactical = the devil. Well, not really, but tactics aren't what civ is about, and would be a major annoyance for most civ players.

 

[techathon]

Tactical = the devil. Well, not really, but tactics aren't what civ is about, and would be a major annoyance for most civ players.

Well it's better than sending your "swordsmen" at a city then your "axemen" This would both limit the SoD and you can use real stratigies not in the game. for example, to shutdown a city comepletely, you must have a unit in every tile of the fat cross. You could surround the city like in most cities, holing them inside instead of them being able to work a city while units are in the 8 squares around it. It also allows you to exploit weather, which played huger roles in both world wars.

Also allows for traps and feint attacks and decoys to be setup easier.

Ambushes =

Scorched earth goes w/ the supply principle

 

[Camikaze]

How exactly would scorched earth come into your system anymore than it would come into the current system? And traps and feint attacks are, again, too tactical. Civ isn't a tactical military game. It's a strategy game based on empire management. Sure, military things are important, but the unit system adequately works for the purposes of the game. Many improvements can be made within the unit system, but the general system itself is the best way to go. IMHO.

 

[Antilogic]

And traps and feint attacks are, again, too tactical. Civ isn't a tactical military game. It's a strategy game based on empire management.

I completely agree.

 

[techathon]

No, The game wont zoom in on the battles, and i just went through wikipedia and looked for tactics that woulden't work in civ. The options would be buttions and a screen would pop up like the gold trade thing that is already in, seeing how many troop you want to send on the feint or set up an ambush. The battles would still be faught automaticly, your not really controlling tatics excepting the buttons.

 

[Camikaze]

But the whole ideas of feint attacks and ambushes within individual battles (not as a separate feature themselves) are tactical. Currently, battle is simply a matter of Unit A entering into combat with Unit B, not of Unit A partially ambushing Unit B, whilst leading a feint attack on a particular flank. Any control of these things within individual battles is tactical.

 

[techathon]

No No No No... I do NOT think you should control INSIDE the battle. You could just set a # of units to set up an ambush or feint before you attack. The Unit A attacks unit B and the %ages are the same, except for the ambush, where unit A sets it up and B gets hit. They get a % damage, then normal fighting begins.

Btw did u change ur sig above ur picture just b/c of this thread lol

 

[Gamemaster77]

This can be fixed in a different way without changing the whole "civ concept".
First of all you must go back to at least seperate strength and health values. All units would have a large amount of base health like 20 or 100. I will go with 100. As a unit gets injured and goes past a certain mark, let's say 80, then it would not be able to recover. This represents unitd dying that can't be revived. Then it would happen again at 60, 40, 20, and die at 0.

 

[Camikaze]

No No No No... I do NOT think you should control INSIDE the battle. You could just set a # of units to set up an ambush or feint before you attack. The Unit A attacks unit B and the %ages are the same, except for the ambush, where unit A sets it up and B gets hit. They get a % damage, then normal fighting begins.

This is effectively the same thing, though, without the pretty graphics. It is still micromanaging aspects of battles, and is still too tactical. If the idea were for other types of movement options for individual units, like there currently is flanking for moutned units, and bombardment for siege, then it would be a much better idea, but I don't think that that is what you are suggesting.

Btw did u change ur sig above ur picture just b/c of this thread lol

Partially. Tactical ideas seem to be being thrown around a lot lately...

 

[techathon]

This is effectively the same thing, though, without the pretty graphics. It is still micromanaging aspects of battles, and is still too tactical. If the idea were for other types of movement options for individual units, like there currently is flanking for moutned units, and bombardment for siege, then it would be a much better idea, but I don't think that that is what you are suggesting.

YES IT IS. when the ambush is setup,and the other troops walk into it get hit a # of times, depends on (promotion?)before the battle. Like collaterial damage w/ seige units. Feint attack increases the retreat odds. THe only diffrence is the # of troops concept in an army....

This can be fixed in a different way without changing the whole "civ concept".
First of all you must go back to at least seperate strength and health values. All units would have a large amount of base health like 20 or 100. I will go with 100. As a unit gets injured and goes past a certain mark, let's say 80, then it would not be able to recover. This represents unitd dying that can't be revived. Then it would happen again at 60, 40, 20, and die at 0.

No the armies would be 100, and they could gain #s bu joining w/ another group. the 100 warriors would have 200 strength (100*2=200). Idk the strength of a tank, but lets say its like 15 they would have 1500 strength (100*15=1500). Lets say that 2 tank armies joined, they would have 3000 strength. And they got a combat I promotion 3300 strength. Promotions would be like logostics. (supplier, medic, stuff like that.) Kind of like having spears axes and swords in a group to protect yourself from attack while attacking.

 

[Colonel]

I can already see a few flaws. What happens when you roll around to the modern era, its not really realistic to have them rolling in and taking slaves\recruiting people in an enemy city you just captured.

However remove that part and I think I would like a basic build a unit for X number of turns get X number of troops therefore equating to X number strength value in combat. Of course there would need to a be a limit of say 5 or so turns for every unit otherwise you will end up with a unit with 8 bigillion strength and nothing would be able to stop it. Also instead of completely losing people, when the unit is damaged it would lose troops which would then be returned when you sent them to a friendly zone to heal, representing more recruits taking the place of the fallen.

Now for naval units you could implement this same idea just on a smaller scale so to speak instead of 5 turns getting you 50,000 troops it would get 1 ship per turn maxing out at 5, then they would be quasi little fleets.

 

[techathon]

However remove that part and I think I would like a basic build a unit for X number of turns get X number of troops therefore equating to X number strength value in combat. Of course there would need to a be a limit of say 5 or so turns for every unit otherwise you will end up with a unit with 8 bigillion strength and nothing would be able to stop it. /QUOTE]

Yes but + spies could cause troops to rebel or abandon if it gets anywhere near, lets say u have 100,000 warriors. They would have 200,000 strength, but then your civ (at this state) and how about they have 1000 units worth of supplies coming in per turn, (unrelistinc in that age, but whatever) and they can steal food from the farms and cities (where scorched earth comes in, preventing the enemy from aquiring food) and possibly get 100 per turn. as u can see there is a shortage. You now have 98,900 troops dying or defecting to the other empire. Diffulcalty levels would affect the levels of supplies.
This allows armies to get bigger as the country does as they can susain the burden of 100,000 troops out in the feild, but in the modern era, it is rather easier to support.

100,000 troops at that age would also spread disease. so if they get sick, diseas would spread fast and kill/weaken them. When they get to the other city, 90,000 are dead, 9900 are sick, so only 200 strength would be attacking the full and rested defenders.