units - combined arms?

[Jaca]

I guess Sickman meant that Stack-of-Dooms will contain a mix of an equal amount of different units to tackle any situation rather then the former stack of identical units, so "in principle" it still can be called an SOD. However, by being forced to group different units, by the different levels of promotions and terrain related bonuses, this SOD concept or definition looks rather thin now. Combat strategy and realism seem to get improved.

Kind regards,
JaCa

 

[Sickman]

I guess Sickman meant that Stack-of-Dooms will contain a mix of an equal amount of different units to tackle any situation rather then the former stack of identical units, so "in principle" it still can be called an SOD. However, by being forced to group different units, by the different levels of promotions and terrain related bonuses, this SOD concept or definition looks rather thin now. Combat strategy and realism seem to get improved.

Exactly, Aussie Lurker missed my point.
I don't want to have any stack with 15 units (all the same or mixed). That was the point I was trying to make.
Both options take all strategic options away especially if the computer picks the best ones to use in stack combat limiting choices. Maybe the artillery collateral factor is so signicant enough to kill the stack of doom and make people spread their forces but it can lead into serious side effects.

I want to spread them out, have more tactical options rather than just build up army and rely that computer takes care of the rest. I want to see panzer general type of strategy with flanking rules and such instead of putting all units into one stack and waiting for computer to calculate results.

Maybe the new options will lead into these strategic options and maybe I'm making judgements too soon.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Maybe the new options will lead into these strategic options and maybe I'm making judgements too soon.

Yes, Sickman, yes you are . I, for one, want to wait for more info before I pass final judgement. However, simply based on what I do know, it is clear that they have implemented new mechanics which moved us away from the types of SoD's which worked so well in Civ3. The type, skill level and strength of unit-as well as terrain-will be more important than sheer numbers. Also, once any bombardment units come into play, then sheer numbers actually become somewhat of a liability. Also, it seems fairly clear that a player can still opt to choose what unit attacks what-with the stack attack/defense system being more for player ease.
Personally, I get a feeling that SoD's will also be limited by other factors, unrelated to their performance in combat. Though I cannot prove it, I get a strong sense that building units will have a much more realistic impact on your city populations, meaning that SoD's will simply be much harder to create-and where each unit will be a heck of a lot more valuable to the player.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sickman]

Yes, Sickman, yes you are

meaning that SoD's will simply be much harder to create-and where each unit will be a heck of a lot more valuable to the player.

Self-criticism is always way to make you look just silly or one with lot of personal character.

Firaxis presenter in the E3 demo show did tell that there are "fewer units so the game won't bog down"...
Did this mean there are fewer units in tech tree and in overall or is it harder to make units?
Through promotions and with other of course each unit definately will feel unique.

But having fewer units doesn't mean the element of SoD is gone.

But as said maybe I might jumping into conclusions here.
Maybe the playtesters do their job and promote variety of strategies rather than linearity and it will show also in the actual game.

It wouldn't hurt of course AI to have knowhow to use these new elements.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, don't think its the former, Sickman, because they gave a list of units in the game in another preview-and I am pretty certain that it was close to the number of units in Civ3 (Vanilla at least). Plus, having fewer units in the tech tree won't do anything to stop the game bogging down, because you simply build more of the ones you have.
No, I think its got something to do with how unit building effects population growth, the maintainance cost of units, and the incentives in building fewer so that they have more chance of getting promoted. In fact, on this last point, we know that units which win 'against the odds' have a far better chance of recieving a promotion-so that represents another incentive for not building SoD's. As I said previously, all the info we have really does seem to suggest that having really huge stacks of units-regardless of the mix-is a really, really bad idea.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sickman]

it was close to the number of units in Civ3 (Vanilla at least). Plus, having fewer units in the tech tree won't do anything to stop the game bogging down, because you simply build more of the ones you have.
No, I think its got something to do with how unit building effects population growth, the maintainance cost of units, and the incentives in building fewer so that they have more chance of getting promoted.

I think you are in the right track on this one...

I think the fatal flaw in Civ combat system regarding that there fewer units and that invidual units have bigger role is that in single combats in one turn always end into one's fatal death. In this sense it's kinda sad to have experienced unit that just because of bad luck dies in single combat. You might lose numerous experienced units in one turn and that's too much emotional carnage to anyone to handle LOL

Even though effects of "pikeman" vs "armor" -events are lessened there's still the element of chance always present when weaker and stronger units meet each other. Example in Panzer General which I now use as an example because I think with promotions and stuff is closest thing, units gained promotions and you came "attached" to them over time (key/killer game element)and you knew they would hang in there whatever opposition they faced for more than just one turn so you could retreat them if necessary. Only in extreme circumstances they did die leaving you only option to buy new green units.

There's always of course option that in Civ IV there is percentage chance to units even in normal circumstances to retreat (were promotions add just bonus to) and this could mean several combats could end into "draw". This also offers certain kind of "realism".
In my opinion this would be great addition to the strategy of game and it would also make you really think when to put your reserves up front when you are holding enemy with your more experienced units. This would mean the difference between life and death. Other strong point to support this is that because units take so much resources (as you point out) to produce it would be shame to just let them die because of bad luck rather than chain of bad luck.

Other fatal elements missing from Civ when it comes to warfare in my opinion are supply rules and the different circumstancial modifications effecting the combat (flanking rules and such), let alone morale even though war weariness tries to simulate this (in a bad way).

 

[ThERat]

I think you both analyzed the new elements very well, the new concept of SoD pros and cons.
Also, the 'higher' value promoted units have now.

But, we do not know how it all plays out in the end, and especially we don't know how the AI will be able to handle it. that's the most crucial factor IMHO. An AI like in Civ3 and the human will be too superior with all the new little nuiances.

 

[Texan General]

I find the most crucial aspect missing in civ militaries is the lack of a form of supply simulation. In the real world this becomes an all important factor. In the gulf war for example (the first one) we almost struck down our plan for invasion due to the supply difficulties of supplying that much armor across a desert with no roads and that catastroph almost occured stopping a whole armored division at one point. This improvement would lead to the others mentioned. The importance of flanking and other tactical advantages may lie more in the access to the enemy's rear (and thier supply lines) than in the immediate fire advantages. It would also lead to real tactics and military strategies in civ because it would become a general's objective to both protect his rear and to surround his enemy in order to force thier surrender (or eliminate thier ability to fight at the very least). This would also lead to the necessity of combined arms because it would necessitate having strong defensive, offensive, and support troops to achieve such objectives.

 

[Sickman]

I find the most crucial aspect missing in civ militaries is the lack of a form of supply simulation.

The importance of flanking and other tactical advantages may lie more in the access to the enemy's rear (and thier supply lines) than in the immediate fire advantages.
This would also lead to the necessity of combined arms because it would necessitate having strong defensive, offensive, and support troops to achieve such objectives.

I agree about supply rules and and my thoughts are that:
Firstly the main point of "my flanking rules" is that if unit is attacked the unit turns into facing this direction (also if attacks a tile after which he faces the tile he attacked in the following opponent turn) and will suffer penalties attacks coming from the sides and from the rear of the direction he is facing. This would mean units would have to protect each other and cover their backs.

Secondly my proposition of combat taking more than single turn to decide would mean people could use reserves better than ever. Also after unsuccesful combat you would have to know how to retreat (very important part of strategy and also military history so your precious little veteran army won't get crushed => American Civil War)

Thirdly there would be supply line created from closest military installation (city/unit/terrain improvement) which could be cutted. The main problem is that it should be clearly defined because the amount of units in the new Civ IV is fewer than before so there will be hard to find units in order to cover those supply lines (into this the units proposed in another thread as "national guard" could be used to protect the supply lines) In overall supply rules should be simple just like blocking the traderoute should be.