War tactics

[Lennon]

A lot of people are complaining that it's too much a case of "the guy who builds the most units wins" in Civ. This is true, and one thread has been discussing the elimination of SoDs, another the issue of numerical advantage. Personally I would like to see supply lines (simply as road connection) and limited railroads introduced.

But another idea to deal with all this is to have separate 'war branches' in the tech tree. It isn't exactly unheard of that numerically inferior armies win battles, and this is due to better tactics, discipline and training. I am currently reading about Karl XII of Sweden, and his early victories over Russia and Poland. He was always outnumbered and rarely bothered waiting for his artillery to arrive, yet he always prevailed. This was due to the superior leadership and execution in battle on the Swedish side. You should therefore be able to put emphasis on strengthening the quality of the armed forces you have, not just inventing new weapons. You could instead invent new tactics and such, where the enemy who gets defeated would be able to see and learn from it faster than those who didn't participate.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I definitely feel that the way in which units will apparently gain experience in Civ4 will go a VERY long way to placing greater emphasis on 'tactics' over sheer numbers. Also, rather than have great leaders for the building of armies, I would rather see them have different kinds of 'special abilities'-perhaps dependant on how the were created. For example, if a great leader is created from a unit which has just managed to withstand a massive onslaught, then this leader may give a defense bonus to any stack of units he/she is joined to (up to a 'leadership' limit). Also, though, great leaders in a stack might generally improve morale and firepower.

Anyway, just a thought!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I like the war-branch idea, it fits the big-picture concept of civ.

But what about instead of researching it you would receive it through an occurence which 'creates' an abstract great leader. "By a series of successful battles Karl XII of Sweden has redefined the art of war in such and such way..." - which gives you a bonus to "...." .
After this breakthrough other civs have the opportunity to research the same doctrine.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

no comments?!

edit: *bump*

 

[dh_epic]

This is a really important discussion, although I'm not necessarily full of ideas to contribute to it.

I had a crazy idea to move away from integer numbers and finite unit types and more towards real numbers with dynamic units. The way that two nations can invent Nuclear weapons, but one can invest lots of time and money into improving the range of their Nuclear weapons, while another improves the effectiveness or stealth of the weapons.

This way no two units will be alike, so it's not merely a question of who can build more. Nor is it a question of who has the obviously superior unit.

But you'd need to have an impact on more than attack/defence/movement, otherwise it's really just complicating the old system for no real reason. Units would need unique flavor for there to be any difference between units that isn't already accomplished with the current system.

Maybe the new experience system offers hope?

 

[zealus]

I can remember the old war game (something about French vs. German, WWI), where the experience was rated on a scale from 1 to 4, next level awarded to the unit that survived the battle. It didn't go quite well, because you can throw in new units all the time then collect those who survived and collect an "elite" army in addition to "newbies"... And both sides did this, so it didn't really make sense to focus on this, since it worked this way in any case. What I like in dh_epic post is the idea of having different qualities for the same unit... more like an RPG system, where you earn "quality points" that get spend on either attack skill or defence, or dexterity or whatever else. This would be fun

 

[Albow]

so, like in SMAc, where there was the issue of Morale (quality), and then special abilities (like gas, or free upkeep, or police duties etc) ...

yeah, that would be cool ... esp if it was an experience thing, so that an elite unit could actually "gain" an ability for having won a specific type of battle ...

 

[Trade-peror]

an elite unit could actually "gain" an ability for having won a specific type of battle ...

This would be especially interesting. This feature would not increase the micromanagement workload of the player, and would still be headed in the general direction dh_epic has suggested.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, what I would also like to see are military leaders that grant bonuses to their stack based on the manner in which they were created. So, for example, if a leader were created during a combat in which the unit/stack was on the defensive, then said leader would give a 'defense' or 'armour' bonus to any stack it was joined to. A leader generated from a unit/stack that was on the offensive, OTOH, would grant a bonus to 'attack' or 'firepower'. A leader generated from a combat in which the unit/stack was deep in enemy territory might grant a bonus to operational range for any stack its joined to, and so on! Of course, regardless of how they are created, a leader joined to a stack will give a morale bonus!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Turtleneck]

I dunno. Mixed opinion on this since I see plenty of strategy in Civ 3 wars. The last bit of which I did was splitting my attacking units to attack neighboring Japan on two fronts from across mountains securing the two cities I wanted and ended the war nicely since mountainous terrain provided an excellent barrier.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ahhh, Turtleneck, you have just shown a perfect reason WHY we need the system that has been put forward here!
You achieved your objective by attacking OVER mountain terrain. Therefore, you should be eligable to spend XP to 'upgrade' one of the attacking units-to give it a bonus to fighting (or moving) in mountain terrains!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

It's not that the strategies aren't there. It's that there aren't strategic choices. If a mountain is right next to a city, there's every reason to use it -- and no reason not to use it.

The player should be able to pursue a strategy and see it work famously one time, and be anticipated by an opponent the next time. A player should be able to defeat superior forces because they were a much better commander.