The Problem with the Civ 3 Combat System and How Can We Fix it?

[Jon Shafer]

I remember reading somewhere (I don't remember where) that the main problem with Civ 3's combat system is that they're always piecemeal WWI style battles, from the dawn of time until the age of SDI. I started thinking a few days ago, 'hey, he's right'. The problem is that there's very little, if no tactical considerations that you have to take into account beyond 'don't attack mountains and try not to attack over rivers'... hmmm. Even if there's a 'little', each battle has the same feel, even when wars were fought very differently in actual history.

Have you guys noticed this? Do you think there's any ways to help fix this, or would it require a total revamp of the combat system (i.e. Civ IV wishlist)? I've been playing with some ideas, but I'm afraid there's no real way to alter the 'feel' of battles and wars without making an entirely new combat system, which, unfortunately, we cannot do.

 

[Vorlin]

The most common approach to this I've seen is where strategic encounters take you to a tactical combat map (like in Master of Magic). But does this really change the issue you brought up? In the end you still have units fighting other units, hitpoints, damage value, defense, terrain, etc. In fact, the history of strategic games with tactical combat systems (MoM, Moo, etc.) is that the tactical game becomes one where exploiting AI weakness can result in ridiculous wins. So increasing the complexity and realism of the combat encounters will almost certainly just put the AI in a worse position than it is already by opening up another front on which it can be exploited.

 

[Jabba Jr]

My thoughts on the subject:

Make each unit look like a small army marching along, make them more expensive(to make each one count) and give them more hitpoints and more emphasis on special attacks/skills/whatever.

Make roads in mountains take a long time to build so the terrain, roads and workers are more tactically challenging and interact better with combats. (this is just one of many possible changes one can make to make terrain more difficult to overcome. Maybe something like deny early units to move over mountains).

The thing that annoys me most is the oversized units. Looks like the units and cities/terrain was made for two different games....

I wanna controll armies marching along, not a horse with 4 "extra lives."

However, I've never seen these things in a mod so there's no telling if this would make the game more enjoyable.

Good ideas or just crap?

 

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Vorlin
The most common approach to this I've seen is where strategic encounters take you to a tactical combat map (like in Master of Magic). But does this really change the issue you brought up? In the end you still have units fighting other units, hitpoints, damage value, defense, terrain, etc. In fact, the history of strategic games with tactical combat systems (MoM, Moo, etc.) is that the tactical game becomes one where exploiting AI weakness can result in ridiculous wins. So increasing the complexity and realism of the combat encounters will almost certainly just put the AI in a worse position than it is already by opening up another front on which it can be exploited.

I hear what your saying here, but I think there ought to be some way to make each era of combat seem different, less 'charge into defense with better units and hope you win'. Perhaps unveil new unit abilities (and let the AI use them ) like an option to 'charge', which would be useful for melee units, but disastrous once you 'equip bayonets', etc. I'm sure people can come up with better things but my mind is occupied and I don't currently have the brainpower to come up with more ideas.

Originally posted by Jabba Jr
My thoughts on the subject:

Make each unit look like a small army marching along, make them more expensive(to make each one count) and give them more hitpoints and more emphasis on special attacks/skills/whatever.

Make roads in mountains take a long time to build so the terrain, roads and workers are more tactically challenging and interact better with combats. (this is just one of many possible changes one can make to make terrain more difficult to overcome. Maybe something like deny early units to move over mountains).

The thing that annoys me most is the oversized units. Looks like the units and cities/terrain was made for two different games....

I wanna controll armies marching along, not a horse with 4 "extra lives."

However, I've never seen these things in a mod so there's no telling if this would make the game more enjoyable.

Good ideas or just crap?

I definitely think you've got something going with the terrain... I've made terrain bonuses much more extreme, i.e. mountains give 200% bonus, rivers give 75%, etc. The problem is that the AI doesn't recognize how much more effective that defense in terrain other than plains and grassland can be, so it will sometimes charge aimlessly into heavily fortified defensive positions when a human wouldn't.

Making starting units unable to cross mountains might be a problem if you get stuck in a spot 3 tiles wide with mountains trapping you in (), but this is the kind of stuff that I was talking about that gives combat and wars a different 'feel' from era to era. Yes, there are currently a few options you can select in the editor, but there could be a lot more, which would give combat a lot more depth than it currently has.

 

[Vorlin]

It might be interesting if future Civ games borrowed a bit from the RTS genre and introduced the rock-paper-scissors concept to its gameplay. Something like pikemen have double defensive strength vs. knights, that sort of thing. As it is, if you know what tech your opponent has you can pretty much know what you'll be facing because there is usually a best unit for any given level on the tech tree. Having certain units do better/worse vs. others might force players into creating a more varied armed force. But I can see where Firaxis has stuck with the current system, it's been so well tested that implementing it is a safer bet than trying to come up with a new (and possibly worse) one.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I think you may be hoping for something that would definitely require a major overhaul to the system. You may be thinking of how combat is dealed in a game like Sid Meier's Civil War collection. But that is a real-time based game, but I supposed some of the aspects of the game could be applied to this game. But in my opinion it would make the game worse, by devoting too much time towards combat, thus other aspects of the game would be neglected.

In the Civil War series you had several choices of what to do with each brigade or group of soldiers. You could:
1. Line your soldiers up in a line, column, or skirmish formations.
2. There are different degrees/ways of attacking/moving such as Charge!, Advance, Double-quick, fall back, retreat, etc.
3. You had a few different options on how to handle the artillery/cannons.
4. You also could move some units away from the rest of the army, or 'attach' to regroup all the units back to the commander. You could also tell the units to 'halt' after they are done marching to the destination spot.

Another way is like how CTP set up combat with units that would all attack simultaneously. Your 5 archers and 3 warriors would attack the AI's 4 spearman and 2 catapults at the same time. The archers and catapults would 'normally' be lined up in the back so they can use their extra range to still attack in the same round (if they are in the back they are also protected, but are still succeptible to bombardment/long range attack). If a warrior was in the back he could not attack until he could move to the front or the warrior in front of him died. I say 'normally' because the problem was that you could not arrange the units the way you wanted it to be, you had to know ahead of time how much room you have on the front line so you don't have warriors in the back or catapults unprotected on the front line. Of course, the other difference was that each battle only took one turn. The battle wasn't over until someone retreated or one side was completely wiped out, unlike in Civ3 where it could take you several turns to take over 1 city. CTP's style of combat was different, but still resulted in just having the player tell the computer, 'I want this stack to attack that stack', instead of giving the player more control of exactly how the battle is fought.

 

[Jon Shafer]

The rock-paper-scissors concept would also be a good addition. :thumbs up smily that CFC doesn't have :

Bamspeedy, don't you think most of the game as it is now focuses on combat? My favorite saying regarding Civ 3 is that "you're either preparing for a war, fighting a war, cleaning up from a war, or preparing while fighting and cleaning up from one. Either that or adjusting the tax slider."

The non-combat parts of Civ also need a revamp (I'm not that much of a warmonger, but there's really not all that much to do aside from telling each worker what to do individually and build improvments). Though I don't like fighting non-stop, I like a bit of complexity, both in combat and outside of it. It's really not all that much fun designing strategic invasions when the game focuses on bashing units into fortified cities until they fall... oh well, back to EU.

Maybe I'm asking too much from a series of games that's always been successful due to its simplicity and the way it attracts people of all types. It's just that many aspects of the game leave me saying 'okay, now what'?

 

[ssmith619]

I agree with everybody, there definitely should be more emphasis on war. I think that it's a bit lacking with the current algorithms. I think that each unit should count more and the graphics should be changed to hammer down the fact that a spearman is a GROUP of men with spears. I like the ideas of formations, but think that would be going a little overboard. However, I think the idea of a single attack is GREAT!

 

[Daaraa]

Originally posted by Trip
The rock-paper-scissors concept would also be a good addition. :thumbs up smily that CFC doesn't have :

Would this one be sufficient?

 

[Jon Shafer]

Nahhh, that smily way too happy, I just want to give my seal of approval, not go into a giggle-fit.

 

[Daaraa]

Originally posted by Trip
Nahhh, that smily way too happy, I just want to give my seal of approval, not go into a giggle-fit.

I suppose you could use a message icon like I did. However you may need to break up your reply and you couldn't use the quick-reply box.