This is concerning the Great Battles in Civilization.

[kaoruchan]

They could make the system like it is in Masters of Orion 3, where the city management and building and stuff could be turn-based and the combat could be in real-time. Not very civ-like, but it could work.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

you know i think your concept can be already done(BTW i haven't tested this but it may work) in the editor. see what you do is either flag all the units except armies, leaders, artillery units(catipult, cannon, artillary, radar artillary), ships, aircrafts, and other units that cant be loaded into an army, immobile or you can give them zero movement. now make the army have a cost and buildable in city production without the Military Academy.
go to the Great Leader unit and unflag the "Build Army". Know when you play the game you have to load units into armies to make them move. so this kind of like HOMM which i personally think has an awesome combat engine be advised i haven't tested it so i hope someone can reply back to this. as for artillary units i'm not sure how you can load them into an army but if someone knows then please reply

this techqnice makes Military Academy useless to build so yu can remove it from the game. as for sea units you have to create a sea army unit that is the same as a regular army except is able to travel in the water. this will allow you to also make sea units immobile or have no movement

im not sure if its possible to load aircrafts but maybe you could by creating a air army by giving it the ability to be in the air and give it the same flags as the regular army has but also the "Transports only Aircrafts". this way you can have a land, sea, and air armies

hope this helped your gameplay but if not then oh well

EDIT: Forgot the sea and air armies have a capicitay of 3 units

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Ybbor... please, chill with the dramatics, you made your point.

 

[ybbor]

@blackbird: good idea, but the AI can't manage it

@Bronx: if i made my point, then why didn't you understand it the first time i said it?

 

[Bronx Warlord]

What diden't you understand about " I may be mistaken " on the same token then? Rahter than get all high and mighty about your superior game facts you could of just saix " Yes Bronx you are mistaken, please read here to find out why " but instead you felt like includeing rather obnoxius smileys and shouting... that is fine, if it makes you feel good to show you know more about this game than I do then by all means, knock yourself out. I'm a bit more worried about my possible deployment to Iraq or Afganistan in the comming months then what I do or don't know about a computer game.

Jesus loves you!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I don't care HOW they do it-whether as a 'tactical mini-screen', like CtP I and II and 'Birth of the Federation', or as it is done in Civ3-I just think that there should be greater incentive to rely on armies and/or combined arms tactics. Whether this is in the form of a penalty for stacks/armies consisting of a single unit type, and/or benefits for stacks/armies consisting of different unit types, and/or whether they introduce a simple 'strategy' system (like flanking) for different unit types within a stack/army. I look forward to a day when games do not consist simply of HUUUGE stack of cavalry/tanks bearing down on you-and nothing else! I should note though that, in C3C at least, the AI has made good use of combined Archer/Rider/Swordsman stacks against me-though almost as often they have sent 'Rider Hordes' against me too ! I guess what I am saying is that, irrespective of the AI's behaviour, it would be good to have something that ENCOURAGES more diversity in the make-up of stacks/armies!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[thestonesfan]

You can use the "move stack" or "move same unit" option.
I don't see how your idea would not be more time consuming in the way you describe it.

The point is to get away from the "unit by unit" idea warfare is based on. Even with the "move stack", you still attack with one unit at a time. Why can't I overwhelm the enemy and attack en masse?

 

[thestonesfan]

Well, I don't care HOW they do it-whether as a 'tactical mini-screen', like CtP I and II and 'Birth of the Federation', or as it is done in Civ3-I just think that there should be greater incentive to rely on armies and/or combined arms tactics. Whether this is in the form of a penalty for stacks/armies consisting of a single unit type, and/or benefits for stacks/armies consisting of different unit types, and/or whether they introduce a simple 'strategy' system (like flanking) for different unit types within a stack/army. I look forward to a day when games do not consist simply of HUUUGE stack of cavalry/tanks bearing down on you-and nothing else! I should note though that, in C3C at least, the AI has made good use of combined Archer/Rider/Swordsman stacks against me-though almost as often they have sent 'Rider Hordes' against me too ! I guess what I am saying is that, irrespective of the AI's behaviour, it would be good to have something that ENCOURAGES more diversity in the make-up of stacks/armies!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Yes, I see this as something that would help spice up warfare, and encourage a little bit of thinking.

 

[ybbor]

What diden't you understand about " I may be mistaken " on the same token then? Rahter than get all high and mighty about your superior game facts you could of just saix " Yes Bronx you are mistaken, please read here to find out why " but instead you felt like includeing rather obnoxius smileys and shouting... that is fine, if it makes you feel good to show you know more about this game than I do then by all means, knock yourself out. I'm a bit more worried about my possible deployment to Iraq or Afganistan in the comming months then what I do or don't know about a computer game.

Jesus loves you!

i said the exact same thing in both posts, the first time you didn't get it, so i had to do something different to get your attention, or least have you hear what i have to say, because what i was doing before clearly wasn't working

 

[thestonesfan]

Can we please drop this silly arguement?

 

[Colonel Kraken]

I think it's important to realize, even at Civ scale, military units fight together in support of one another. This, of course, wasn't always possible, but even in the ancient age it was not uncommon to have lines of spearmen/swordmen backed up by archers and possibly flanked by cavalry. This was a matter of course for even ancient leaders.

Yes, there were still Hoplite charges against only Hoplites and cavalry only against cavalry, etc. But the idea is to incorporate into technology, etc. the idea that when I put units together into a stack (perhaps depending on technology and the presence of special leaders), they support each other in combat and become more powerful as a result.

The "army" made up of spearman backed by archers, flanked by horsemen fight as a unit and are much more powerful than a big stack of just spearmen, etc. Now, it's always been true that if you have enough of something, you can probably overcome are well co-ordinated (advanced?) enemy, but the idea still remains.

This sort of thing can then be followed up with the idea of logistics. It can be as simple as only allowing so many military units per space (boosted by the presence of a great leader and/or new technology, whether or not you're in your own borders, near roads, etc.). Before modern food supply, military units needed to spread out to forage when on the move. This was a MAJOR concern for any military leader, and another reason the units could not remain in the field in enemy territory indefinitely. In addition, military units can only effectively fight when given the proper room to move and fight. There are some neat possibilities here, and it doesn't have to be complicated.

--CK

 

[sir_schwick]

Kraken, you are correct about most Ancient Combat. The Hellenes were the only people to solely use heavy infantry without missle or mobile support. Of course at the time the Hoplite was the best armoured and trained infantry unit until the Legionaires. I like leaders of some kind should always exist, since each individual unit has to be lead by someone. Whenever you form the battlegroup(should be free), the pecking order would be based purely on Experience and Command Rating(cheap stat that increases with battles won by a unit) during Modern and INdustrial times. The leader of a battlegroup would be chosen differently(automatically) by this sytem:

(1) The unit of highest nobility would be chosen as the general's unit.
Here are some example heirarchies(No UUs):
Cavalry < Knights < Medieval Infantry < Musketman < Pikemen < Ancient Cavalry < Swordsmen < Horsemen < Chariots < Archer < Spearmen.
(2) Once the nobility are set apart from the rest, the noble with the highest experience is chosen first.
(3) If there is a tie here, it goes to who has the higher command rating.

Command rating would somehow affect combat, encouraging you keeping your good generals.