Thoughts on army units (not a flame/whine)

[Maleficence]

This just occurred to me, but armies in Civ3 are just like bad guys in action movies. There's several of them, but instead of all of them ganging up and helping eachother kill their enemy they all just stand around and go one by one to get killed. Cheesy to say the least.

So I was thinking, and it occurred to me armies should work more along these lines:

Attack:
All members in an army attack at once. If there are two members they will each go in succession, and attack the enemy twice in one movement. If there are three, then the enemy unit will receive three attacks, and so forth.
In addition, any unit in the army that has been reduced to one HP will not attack, unless all units in the army have one HP left.

Defense:
Members in an army are all vulnerable to attack. Who gets attacked is determined randomly depending on the number of units in the army. 2 members, 50% chance of either getting attacked, 3, 33% chance, and so forth... Whoever gets attacked will defend in the normal fashion, for one round of fighting (ie one attack, counter-attack round). Defense will continue to be divided between members of the army in this fashion until army defends succesfully or dies.

Retreats:
An army will retreat when its last unit has reached one HP. Meaning, the army will still fight with one unit left until this last unit would normally retreat.

Army vs Army tactics:
An army attacking another army will attack the army, but it's attacks will go through the random process described above for defense.

For example: ArmyA attacks ArmyB (both are armies with 3 units)

1) ArmyA attacks ArmyB
2) Random roll to see who in armyB gets attacked. It comes up 2
3) unit1 in ArmyA attacks unit2 in ArmyB. Combat resolved as usual. but for one round of fighting only.
4) Random roll to see who in armyB gets attacked. It comes up 1
5) unit2 in ArmyA attacks unit1 in ArmyB Combat resolved as usual, but for one round of fighting only.
6) Random roll to see who in armyB gets attacked. It comes up 1
7) unit3 in ArmyA attacks unit1 in ArmyB Combat resolved as usual, but for one round of fighting only.
8) Repeat steps 2 through 7 until there is a victor or a retreat.
9) ArmyA finishes it's attack turn.

Benefits of this system, imo:
a. Armies recieve the benefit of increased firepower due to numbers
b. Damage in an army is spread out so as to maximize power output in the long run, and highlight the chaotic nature of battle.
c. Increases value of army units, given their cost
d. More accurately portrays the disadvantage of being attacked by a larger force being led by a military leader.
e. Increased healing rate of army units in the long run. Units in the army (correct me if I'm wrong) heal independently, so having damage spread out between them will lead to more hp's being replenished per turn, due to the increased number of units healing simoultaneously.

Disadvantages:
a. Graphics. The graphics would have to either show all units going back and forth during their attacks and defenses, which would slow down army combat considerably. Or we would have to settle for the first unit fighting at the helm, even though damage is being dealt by and to the different units in the army. An army's HP's should still decrease accordingly, though.
b.Possible difficulties implementing, though most of the code is fairly simple and most of it can be copied from other sections in the program to create the army fight code.
c. Would need playtesting.

Thoughts, comments?

 

[NY Hoya]

I think those are some good suggestions on how to increase the value of armies. Right now, they are too weak for me to consider wasting a leader on. I would also suggest allowing each unit in an army to heal one HP per turn, instead of healing one HP per army per turn.

 

[Pearman]

Good ideas, I've found that I would rather have 3 cavalry attacking seperately than having one army filled with 3 cavalry. The 3 cavalry lets you move around more, and you heal faster. No point to an army really.

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Your thoughts are good,but the explanation is simple,as always it´s game balance,now if an army would attack with all it´s force at once no other unit would stand a chance either than an army itself,but since the game isn´t based on armies but rather on single units,there was no other choice than solving it this way.

The entire concept of armies is a bit half hearted if you ask me, they were thrown in the game for some reason I haven´t discovered yet,we´ve had a thread on this not too long ago,a good chat about armies,they are useful,but far from perfect, think of games like Imperialism 1+2 and Conquest of the New World for good army implementations.

*Advertisement*!!! *Advertisement*!!!

Or just skip all of it and support the implementation of the Panzer General combat system into Civ3!

*Advertisement*!!! *Advertisement*!!!

 

[Maleficence]

What's the Panzer General combat system like? Just curious

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Uuuh am sooo glad you asked Maleficence [dance]

Some examples;

~Difference between Hard(armored)/Soft(non armored)/Air/Naval Targets,and units defense/offense ability towards them

~Supplies,ammo,fuel

~Units gained experience up to 599 points,not just 5hp,thus creating a proper diversity between conscripts and elites and gave units a tradition,making the player like them.Also units fight according to their status(elites would inflict heavier casualties and suffer less,higher attack initiative with more experience (the ability too shoot first) etc.

~Units could have elite or normal replacements,think this makes the most sense for civ since it would reflect a militaristics civs advantages,and the replacements would get worse if money ran out,due to less training etc.

~Proper Air/Naval units,and difference in height levels

~Naming units,I´d love to see tradition in my army,you´d call a unit 1st Infantry Division for example and this unit would remain with you throughout the campaign,on a table it would show the kills it inflicted,the battles it took part etc.All these details had a lot of impact on "caring" about ones units.

~Concerning elite units,these units are tougher to destroy,but looking at history were so often elite units really held out against great odds,it makes all the more sense,oh morale would be cool too.

~One of the most important things,the fact that units would not have to be destroyed,they would try to retreat, take or create heavy casualties,all units were well balanced,a Stuka dive bomber would most likely take heavy pounding attacking a battleship for example,it was all calculated by initiative,A&D values, it just had so much more detail.

~Defensive units could be placed next to other units and support them with defensive fire when the AI attacked,ofcourse only till they ran out of ammo or got surpressed by attacks,a fighter next to a bomber would have to be intercepted before one could succsessfully attack the bomber,artilellery would defend friendly ground units in squares within range.

Could go on and on,think it would be pretty easy to implement too,and would create a much better game,consider ammo running out because one is cut off from saltpeter,or tanks being stranded because lacking oil.It would have to be combined with a proper trade system.Hope they take this into account one day.

Thanks for asking

(Oh and could you maybe ask me about the Panzer General combat system on every thread we meet,totally coincedental ofcourse? )