Visions of the Seventh Civilization

[Bonyduck Campersang]

When it takes several centuries in the ancient era to dest roy a single Barbarian Camp, my suspension of belief gets suspended

You could think of it as a long, century-spanning effort to destroy an entire network of tribes, and to (forcefully) assimilate survivors while rooting out the last-remaining resistance groups, all represented by a single barbarian camp on the game map, if that helps

 

[ezzlar]

I think that making a game that is both playable on the average computer and comprehendable by the average gamer will always require a compromise on the 'ground scale'. Let's face it, even the most ardent Wide player in any Civ game has never managed to replicate the scale of the Roman Empire, where a simple listing of the cities runs to several pages, and even at its height of extent that empire was only a small fraction of the (playable) global area. And as long as we are 'compressing' the world to a playable size, individual movement rates/turn are also going to be out of scale. As mentioned, in a single year, even stopping to gather food, a military or civilian unit can cover hundreds or thousands of kilometers, and for most of the game that year is only a fraction of a turn!

So, I can grit my teeth and put up with wildly out of scale movement rates. I am not so able to put up 1UPT, which is grossly out of any ground scale and also makes any 'battle' grossly out of ground and time scale. When it takes several centuries in the ancient era to dest roy a single Barbarian Camp, my suspension of belief gets suspended. This is why I've been advocating for a multiple-unit Army system to resolve battles on a sinvle tile, in one turn, to at least come closer to a realistic` time scale if nothing else.

I am also starting to think about Variable Movement. That is, the old board game/miniatures mechanic of a Strategic versus Operational movement rate for units, representing the fact that a civilian or military group moving over a half-decent road within their own country and no conceivable opposition can move much, much faster than a military unit moving through unknown or hostile country while hunting for supplies, which describes most of the movement from 4000 BCE to 1900 CE. A multi-tier set of movement rates based on Conditions on the map would at least come closer to bringing the movement into line with the notional map scale - although as long as we want to play a game covering the entire planet and 6000 years, we are not going to get 'realistic' movement and ground scales for anything on any computer I can foresee being available to most of us in the near future.

But, to quote Gorshkov, "Perfect is the Enemy of Good Enough", and in the case of game design, what is Good Enough will be different in some particular for each and every Gamer.

Regarding movement I was thinking about some changes, what if:

* Increase the number of tiles
* Variable unit size. Scout takes up one square. Military unit four squares. Army of military stacked units take up 8-15 squares.
* Variable unit speed. Scout moves many tiles a turn. Military unit average. Army a few squares every turn.
* Variable unit ZOC. Army has huge ZOC.
* Cities are spread over several squares (like Old World)

Don´t know if it would create realistic movement, but maybe.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Regarding movement I was thinking about some changes, what if:

* Increase the number of tiles
* Variable unit size. Scout takes up one square. Military unit four squares. Army of military stacked units take up 8-15 squares.
* Variable unit speed. Scout moves many tiles a turn. Military unit average. Army a few squares every turn.
* Variable unit ZOC. Army has huge ZOC.
* Cities are spread over several squares (like Old World)

Don´t know if it would create realistic movement, but maybe.

I'd like to keep all units in a single tile, as well as all armies until, possibly, the Mass Armies of the 20th century.

Unit speed across the map can be modified heavily by both the units size and capabilities and the unit's requirements in food and sustainment to move at all.

For example:

An early Scout unit, I've always thought, represents at most a company of lightly-equipped, lightly-armed men moving fast to search out the country. In the game, they can both have a higher movement rate per turn, but also be exempt from any supply requirements - they can live off the land better than anyone, and even later don't plan to get into any major firefights and require a lot of ammunition resupply.

Any military unit represents, at least, several hundred, thousand, or even 10s of thousands of men. They require a lot of food, and so do their horses, and even when the horses are retired, the vehicles require even vaster quantitied of fuel, spare parts, lubricants, etc. A late-game infantry division, even if the infantry are marching on foot, requires several hundred vehicles to move its artillery, signals, supplies, and also requires several hundred tons of supplies Every Day to keep moving. They cannot 'live off the land' - even if they are moving through extremely rich agricultural country at the right time of the year, food is less than 10% of their supply requirements by weight, and the land will not supply ammunition, fuel, and spare parts. That means any military unit not part of the 'reconnaissance line' requires Supply, a supply line of some kind, and so to an extent is tied to that supply line rather than free to gallop off anywhere it wants. Even if they had the same Movement Rate in tiles/turn, they could not get from Point A to Point Z as fast as the Scouts. In fact, they will not usually have the same movement rte as the scouts, unless they are a completely motorized unit, and then they will be tied even more securely to a supply line delivering fuel.

And note that none of this applies in your own territory, where usually you will be within a short distance of the neaerst friendly city and infrastructure: units and armies will, therefore, automatically slow down in enemy territory, even if unopposed by an enemy army or units.

The best thing about implementing this kind of Variable Movement Rate Based on Logistics in a computer game is that the gamer does not have to calculate all the supply factors every tile and turn - the computer can do all that, and even give you a chart-type display of what is slowing your movement down: terrain, lack of roads, lack of supplies, weather, Friction, etc. If you are in a hurry, you click on the tile that is your objective, the game tells you how many turns it will take to get there, you drop the Bombard out of your army stack, and that speeds up the movement of the rest of the army enough to reach the 'target' faster. Of course, without siege equipment you may not be able to do much to it when you reach it, but that's the kind of decision generals make IRL and the kind of consequences real armies have to face . . .

Variable unit/army ZOC definitely.

ZOC to me represents the ability to inhibit enemy acyions at a distance, which means either very long range surveillance and attack or very mobile units that can intercept enemy movement and action.

Specifically, Mobile Units - scouts, light cavalry, helicopters, armored cars, etc would give your Army stack a larger ZOC. Modern Artillery with satellite and drone surveillance available - an Enormous ZOC, because anything they can spot, they can kill, which tends to discourage movement anywhere they can reach. Same dynamic applies to Aircraft, and how they operate in the game needs to change dramatically, because the most lucrative combat mission as far as influencing the battlefield was found to be (in World War Two) intercepting reserves, troops and supplies moving up to the front, not attacking the front-line positions and units. In other words, an Aerial ZOC hindering movement behind the enemy front.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You could think of it as a long, century-spanning effort to destroy an entire network of tribes, and to (forcefully) assimilate survivors while rooting out the last-remaining resistance groups, all represented by a single barbarian camp on the game map, if that helps

Well, each one is their own clan, according to the Barbarian Clans mode.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

'Clan' is just the game's term of endearment for 'confederation'.

I will not let mere words get in the way of my immersion

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Wolf clan? No, that's just the Göktürks!

 

[ezzlar]

I'd like to keep all units in a single tile, as well as all armies until, possibly, the Mass Armies of the 20th century.

Unit speed across the map can be modified heavily by both the units size and capabilities and the unit's requirements in food and sustainment to move at all.

For example:

An early Scout unit, I've always thought, represents at most a company of lightly-equipped, lightly-armed men moving fast to search out the country. In the game, they can both have a higher movement rate per turn, but also be exempt from any supply requirements - they can live off the land better than anyone, and even later don't plan to get into any major firefights and require a lot of ammunition resupply.

Any military unit represents, at least, several hundred, thousand, or even 10s of thousands of men. They require a lot of food, and so do their horses, and even when the horses are retired, the vehicles require even vaster quantitied of fuel, spare parts, lubricants, etc. A late-game infantry division, even if the infantry are marching on foot, requires several hundred vehicles to move its artillery, signals, supplies, and also requires several hundred tons of supplies Every Day to keep moving. They cannot 'live off the land' - even if they are moving through extremely rich agricultural country at the right time of the year, food is less than 10% of their supply requirements by weight, and the land will not supply ammunition, fuel, and spare parts. That means any military unit not part of the 'reconnaissance line' requires Supply, a supply line of some kind, and so to an extent is tied to that supply line rather than free to gallop off anywhere it wants. Even if they had the same Movement Rate in tiles/turn, they could not get from Point A to Point Z as fast as the Scouts. In fact, they will not usually have the same movement rte as the scouts, unless they are a completely motorized unit, and then they will be tied even more securely to a supply line delivering fuel.

And note that none of this applies in your own territory, where usually you will be within a short distance of the neaerst friendly city and infrastructure: units and armies will, therefore, automatically slow down in enemy territory, even if unopposed by an enemy army or units.

The best thing about implementing this kind of Variable Movement Rate Based on Logistics in a computer game is that the gamer does not have to calculate all the supply factors every tile and turn - the computer can do all that, and even give you a chart-type display of what is slowing your movement down: terrain, lack of roads, lack of supplies, weather, Friction, etc. If you are in a hurry, you click on the tile that is your objective, the game tells you how many turns it will take to get there, you drop the Bombard out of your army stack, and that speeds up the movement of the rest of the army enough to reach the 'target' faster. Of course, without siege equipment you may not be able to do much to it when you reach it, but that's the kind of decision generals make IRL and the kind of consequences real armies have to face . . .

Variable unit/army ZOC definitely.

ZOC to me represents the ability to inhibit enemy acyions at a distance, which means either very long range surveillance and attack or very mobile units that can intercept enemy movement and action.

Specifically, Mobile Units - scouts, light cavalry, helicopters, armored cars, etc would give your Army stack a larger ZOC. Modern Artillery with satellite and drone surveillance available - an Enormous ZOC, because anything they can spot, they can kill, which tends to discourage movement anywhere they can reach. Same dynamic applies to Aircraft, and how they operate in the game needs to change dramatically, because the most lucrative combat mission as far as influencing the battlefield was found to be (in World War Two) intercepting reserves, troops and supplies moving up to the front, not attacking the front-line positions and units. In other words, an Aerial ZOC hindering movement behind the enemy front.

Sounds reasonable! But what I dont like about giving a unit a more realistic movement during a turn (you reach far in 20 years) is that you get the situation where you can easily move around the few enemy units and attack somewhere behind the enemy lines and hit artillery/archers. This wouldnt have been possible if it wasnt for turn based games, the enemy would probably try to block your manoeuvering. If units were several tiles with good ZOC a one unit outflanking wouldnt be possible (unless you truly did outflank, not starting the turn in front of the other units).

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I'd like to keep all units in a single tile, as well as all armies until, possibly, the Mass Armies of the 20th century.

Unit speed across the map can be modified heavily by both the units size and capabilities and the unit's requirements in food and sustainment to move at all.

For example:

An early Scout unit, I've always thought, represents at most a company of lightly-equipped, lightly-armed men moving fast to search out the country. In the game, they can both have a higher movement rate per turn, but also be exempt from any supply requirements - they can live off the land better than anyone, and even later don't plan to get into any major firefights and require a lot of ammunition resupply.

Any military unit represents, at least, several hundred, thousand, or even 10s of thousands of men. They require a lot of food, and so do their horses, and even when the horses are retired, the vehicles require even vaster quantitied of fuel, spare parts, lubricants, etc. A late-game infantry division, even if the infantry are marching on foot, requires several hundred vehicles to move its artillery, signals, supplies, and also requires several hundred tons of supplies Every Day to keep moving. They cannot 'live off the land' - even if they are moving through extremely rich agricultural country at the right time of the year, food is less than 10% of their supply requirements by weight, and the land will not supply ammunition, fuel, and spare parts. That means any military unit not part of the 'reconnaissance line' requires Supply, a supply line of some kind, and so to an extent is tied to that supply line rather than free to gallop off anywhere it wants. Even if they had the same Movement Rate in tiles/turn, they could not get from Point A to Point Z as fast as the Scouts. In fact, they will not usually have the same movement rte as the scouts, unless they are a completely motorized unit, and then they will be tied even more securely to a supply line delivering fuel.

And note that none of this applies in your own territory, where usually you will be within a short distance of the neaerst friendly city and infrastructure: units and armies will, therefore, automatically slow down in enemy territory, even if unopposed by an enemy army or units.

The best thing about implementing this kind of Variable Movement Rate Based on Logistics in a computer game is that the gamer does not have to calculate all the supply factors every tile and turn - the computer can do all that, and even give you a chart-type display of what is slowing your movement down: terrain, lack of roads, lack of supplies, weather, Friction, etc. If you are in a hurry, you click on the tile that is your objective, the game tells you how many turns it will take to get there, you drop the Bombard out of your army stack, and that speeds up the movement of the rest of the army enough to reach the 'target' faster. Of course, without siege equipment you may not be able to do much to it when you reach it, but that's the kind of decision generals make IRL and the kind of consequences real armies have to face . . .

Variable unit/army ZOC definitely.

ZOC to me represents the ability to inhibit enemy acyions at a distance, which means either very long range surveillance and attack or very mobile units that can intercept enemy movement and action.

Specifically, Mobile Units - scouts, light cavalry, helicopters, armored cars, etc would give your Army stack a larger ZOC. Modern Artillery with satellite and drone surveillance available - an Enormous ZOC, because anything they can spot, they can kill, which tends to discourage movement anywhere they can reach. Same dynamic applies to Aircraft, and how they operate in the game needs to change dramatically, because the most lucrative combat mission as far as influencing the battlefield was found to be (in World War Two) intercepting reserves, troops and supplies moving up to the front, not attacking the front-line positions and units. In other words, an Aerial ZOC hindering movement behind the enemy front.

1. what would battle scenes be?
2. What shapes of tiles should it be? square or hex?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1. what would battle scenes be?
2. What shapes of tiles should it be? square or hex?

Give me a couple of days. I'm going through the combat systems from Millennia, CtP and a few other games with 'tactical displays' in them to find a workable compromise with the following characteristics:

1. Deployment of units on the battlefield is Automatic: it's not the job of the Grand Poobah of the entire civilization to place individual companies, battalions, cohorts, etc in Line of Battle. It will be the Grand Poobah's (i.e., the Gamer) job to create an Army that isn't disadvantaged as soon as it deploys, but that will take place before any Battle Display commences.
2. There are certain simple rules for basic placement of units/deployment to avoid Grossly Unrealistic battles. That means (probably) dividing the battlefield into Sectors with rules for what type of unit goes in each Sector barring Special Circumstances (Unique Units, Unique Tactics which can now be modeled, Great Generals, etc). Any Sector System will have to include not only the Line of Battle and places for Ranged and Flanking units, but also Reserves which would NOT be available until probably the Classical Era.
3. Units will be divided for deployment not by their weapons, but by a more generalized category indicating their common tactical function: Line, Ranged, Mobile. The advantage of this is that it allows more discrimination and distinction among units: a Heavy Cavalry unit would be Line normally, but a Nomad/pastoral heavy cavalry unit might be Mobile, which allows it more freedom in deployment. The only Mobile unit at Start of Game might only be your Scouts. Later they might be Light Cavalry, Armored Cars, Helicopters, or Special Forces types.
4. Since you the High Level Decision Maker have little control over how a battle is fought, any Combat Display is strictly decorative. That means it should try to make a good mini-movie, but also it can be turned off if you don't want to spend the time watching mini-movies over and over in the game.
5. Any set of Deployment and Categorization of Units rules must be flexible enough to cover everything from the 4000 BCE Scout Rider and conscripted peasant spearman to the 2020 BCE Drone-supported terminally-guided tactical missile and Main Battle Tank.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

1. what would battle scenes be?

Combat System for Civ VII

 

[I was NC]

Very few, if any of these are originally my ideas. The themes are realism and allowing options.
-deep water ports and navigable rivers are important
-create roads by paying X gold per tile to be built
-espionage starts turn 1, limited by tech and funds
-also have spy as a unit (Civ Rev concept)
-Civ 5 diplomacy and congress, plus emergencies
-allow trading maps (Civ 2 concept)
-Civ 5 city state relationships, could add Envoys as a mechanic
-effect of appeal on housing is happiness, not # of citizens
-any two units per tile, regardless of classification
-ranged units and cities have a one-hex range
-siege can reach two
-less predictability in combat outcomes
-Great Generals and Admirals appear after surprising wins (Civ Rev concept)
-Great Artists can plant monuments
-archeologists can create... monuments? (forgot the term)
-Great Prophets are relevant all game, including holy sites
-Apostles do less
-workers promote to regular Engineers (Civ 2 concept)
-game ships with excellent giant TSL world map

 

[GeneralZIft]

Appreciate the thought put into this.
For the battle system, I think tactical warfare as it is in Civ5/6 is really fun, even if it doesn't suit the rest of the "timeline" that events occur in.
I would actually be kind of upset to see a future Civ just shove everyone into a single group, and all the gameplay just involve choosing posture or general strategy.

Did I understand it right?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Appreciate the thought put into this.
For the battle system, I think tactical warfare as it is in Civ5/6 is really fun, even if it doesn't suit the rest of the "timeline" that events occur in.
I would actually be kind of upset to see a future Civ just shove everyone into a single group, and all the gameplay just involve choosing posture or general strategy.

Did I understand it right?

Got it.

The point of the whole exercise was to give some agency to the gamer while trying to put battles closer to their proper place in the 'chain of command' and time/distance scales of a Grand Strategy game.
- And after playing Millennia's system giving the gamer absolutely NO agency on the battlefield, I am absolutely convinced that some compromise between doing all the tactical moves and having only Strategic Control is necessary.

Freely admit it will never satisfy everyone - but then, no system will.

Since I posted this, have been fiddling with modifications such as:

*Millennia's categorizing all units as simply Line or Ranged, plus Mobile, and then largely specifying where each can set up on a stylized 'battlefield'. Since categories can change with Unique Units and Great Generals can change the 'required' deployment, that would give a lot more agency to the player in setting up the battle BUT it would also be far more time-consuming for each battle, which could get prohibitive in the late game when you could easily have several battles in a single turn.

* Allowing your Leader, in some cases (like a Monarchial government) to become a Great General and, if present, allow you the gamer, playing as the Leader, to control the entire battle - with, of course, a chance of getting Leader killed and forfeiting all his Leader Bonuses for X turns.

* Allowing Generals and Great Generals as units that provide you more control over the Battle. - And Generals who have been through a Military Academy even more control, and perhaps a Wonder or two (Kriegsakademie, St Cyr, Frunze Academy - there are a bunch of potential candidates) that allow even more control. Those that just have to have the Tactical Battles can have them, but they have to work for it!

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I love the tactical battles as well, it's my favourite part of the game which is why I almost always go for a Domination Victory, but in the later stage of the game it becomes a logistical nightmare, not just with the increase in number of units but also when you're trying to do naval invasions. And I see Boris Gudenuf's point that it is completely inappropriate for the game's scale. Wars take too much time relative to the progression of in-game time. A Punic War scenario in the game would take up multiple Eras.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Got it.

The point of the whole exercise was to give some agency to the gamer while trying to put battles closer to their proper place in the 'chain of command' and time/distance scales of a Grand Strategy game.
- And after playing Millennia's system giving the gamer absolutely NO agency on the battlefield, I am absolutely convinced that some compromise between doing all the tactical moves and having only Strategic Control is necessary.

Freely admit it will never satisfy everyone - but then, no system will.

Since I posted this, have been fiddling with modifications such as:

*Millennia's categorizing all units as simply Line or Ranged, plus Mobile, and then largely specifying where each can set up on a stylized 'battlefield'. Since categories can change with Unique Units and Great Generals can change the 'required' deployment, that would give a lot more agency to the player in setting up the battle BUT it would also be far more time-consuming for each battle, which could get prohibitive in the late game when you could easily have several battles in a single turn.

* Allowing your Leader, in some cases (like a Monarchial government) to become a Great General and, if present, allow you the gamer, playing as the Leader, to control the entire battle - with, of course, a chance of getting Leader killed and forfeiting all his Leader Bonuses for X turns.

* Allowing Generals and Great Generals as units that provide you more control over the Battle. - And Generals who have been through a Military Academy even more control, and perhaps a Wonder or two (Kriegsakademie, St Cyr, Frunze Academy - there are a bunch of potential candidates) that allow even more control. Those that just have to have the Tactical Battles can have them, but they have to work for it!

Have you played Crusader Kings II? You can adjust the composition of your army's centre and flanks, and assign a commander to each. I was thinking it would be neat if Great Generals had traits like the military traits CK2 commanders have: Mountain Warrior, Trickster, Unyielding, etc.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Have you played Crusader Kings II? You can adjust the composition of your army's centre and flanks, and assign a commander to each. I was thinking it would be neat if Great Generals had traits like the military traits CK2 commanders have: Mountain Warrior, Trickster, Unyielding, etc.

What I'm looking at currently, for a more 'involved' but still (hopefully) not maniacally micromanaged Battle, is a Stylized Battlefield display which would be divided on each side into a 5 x 3 layout:
Center, Left and Right Flanks, Left and Right Wings from middle to sides of the layout
Front to Rear: Front, Ranged, Reserve lines

All combat units divided into Line, Ranged, Mobile

Line has to be deployed in Center Front first, then in Front on the flanks and wing
Ranged deploys in Ranged Center, then Ranged Flanks and Wings
Mobile deploys on Front Wings first, then in Center Reserve, then Reserve flanks and wings.

Some unit Always has to be deployed in Center Front space. If you have no Line units, then Mobile, then Ranged in that order, Ranged only if theere are only Ranged Units in the Army.

Each space on the battlefield could be occupied by more than one unit, and units could be combined into 'fixed' larger units, similar to Civ VI's Corps and Armies, but more specific. For example, 2 Musketmen (Arquebussiers) and 1 pikeman could be combined into a Tercio, or, later, 3 Fusiliers and 1 field artillery could be a Corps d'Armee, or, in gthe Atomic Era, an Infantry unit, a Tank unit, and an Artillery Unit could combine into a Panzer, Tank, or Armored Division, all moving at the speed of the Tank unit. This means that by the late game the 'battlefield' nominally represents 100s of square kilometers of maneuver space, automatically expanding as the size of military forces also expands.

A Great General could modify the 'required' deployment.

I would, parenthetically, like to see General promotions that would allow for specialization: a Great General who won, say, a defensive battle might get a Defensive Promotion, a General who won a battle with largely Mobile units might get a Promotion related to faster movement, etc.

As always , the task is to find a compromise between tactical micromanagement and a grand strategy game scale that is acceptable to the greatest number/percentage of gamers.

 

[ezzlar]

I was thinking of battle in Disciples 2. Maybe too much micro? It's 3x2 on both sides. Front row and back row.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I would, parenthetically, like to see General promotions that would allow for specialization: a Great General who won, say, a defensive battle might get a Defensive Promotion, a General who won a battle with largely Mobile units might get a Promotion related to faster movement, etc.

What would you say to the idea of Great Generals having intrinsic bonuses: like Napoleon having a bonus to field guns, Subutai having a bonus to cavalry/flanking, Skanderbeg having a bonus in hilly/mountainous terrain, etc.?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

What would you say to the idea of Great Generals having intrinsic bonuses: like Napoleon having a bonus to field guns, Subutai having a bonus to cavalry/flanking, Skanderbeg having a bonus in hilly/mountainous terrain, etc.?

Thought about it long and hard, because I probably know more about such bonuses/general than most people here. There are some problems with it in the current game configuration, though:

1. Right now, Great Generals come up more or less at random - you cannot be sure who is 'next on the list' for you. That means any intrinsic bonus they have is also Random for you as a gamer, and it may be completely inappropriate for your situation, army type, Unique Units, etc. A Napoleon with an Artillery Bonus (completely appropriate IRL) is not much good if you haven't built any Siege Units of any kind yet.

2. IF we change the Great People system to make the next Great General appropriate by his/her intrinsics for your situation, that requires a complete re-orientation of the Great People system, and, frankly, would be a bear to code: what criteria do you use to pick the next GG? How do you keep us Humans from Gaming the system? I would not want to try to solve those problems myself, and given Firaxis' track record I'm not sure they could, either.

3. IF we simply present all the Great Generals for the appropriate Era at the start of the Era and let the AI/Gamer choose which one they get when they get the chance, that turns the GG into a Massive Race to get the one that is appropriate and you want. And winning or losing that race might be critical to how you want to or can play the Era. If you are facing a mass of walled, fortified enemy cities and you were hoping for Sebastien Vauban as a Great General and instead have to settle for von Seydlitz* it is likely to be a much, much harder war for you, and to me seems to put far too much emphasis on the GG compared to the rest of the game.

The last thing we want is a single system that is OP compared to all the other components.

* = Vauban perfected the 'Renaissance Wall' and also the technique for taking them: he never failed to take a city or fortress he besieged. Friedrich von Seydlitz, on the other hand, was a brilliant battlefield tactician and one of the best cavalry commanders of the 18th century: a battle-winner in the field at the head of a mounted force, but practically useless against a walled city.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I was thinking of battle in Disciples 2. Maybe too much micro? It's 3x2 on both sides. Front row and back row.

The 'gridded layout' has been used in several games: the one that inspired me was from the old Conquest of the New World, which was larger than Disciples with multiple 'lines' of depth on each side, and the simplified system of identifying units in Millennia, which was about the only thing from that combat system that I thought worth pursuing.