what about draws as battle outcome?

[SenJarJar]

It's been a little jarring to learn that when two land units do battle there can be only two outcomes: complete victory or occasional retreat. But what about the draw? I would like to see one common outcome of Civ battles be the draw in which neither aggressor nor defender is completely obliterated and neither gains nor loses ground. It should be as common as an obliteration of a force. They could both lose health, but if the aggressor wants to finish off a weakened battle unit, he should throw in a fresh reinforcing unit against the defense. Give the battle units more than three hit points and let the battles of attrition commence. A surviving battle unit should be allowed to rejuvenate itself at a barracks or town.

I'm sure this has been discussed by many here and by the teams of Civ designers. I would like to know why the draw is a bad idea.

Beside the fact that the draw is a realistic outcome, the biggest advantage to having it is that it is one way to add much needed flavor to Civ warfare without hurting or drastically altering the gameplay.

 

[Chibiabos]

Ummm, there are things in between "complete victory" and "complete defeat" ... based upon the videos showing the combat, you can have a costly victory in either attacking or defending -- your unit may lose hit points which is shown by one or more of the 'soldiers' in your unit getting killed before you ultimately win.

In warfare, generally its either you or them. A unit will keep fighting until it either wins or (if it is mobile enough) retreats.

 

[Chibiabos]

It might be interesting, however, to have the possibility of capturing POWs when defeating an enemy.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, though not confirmed, it definitely appears as though unit retreats are going to be more common in Civ4, and not merely for those units on 2+ MP vs 1 MP units. If this proves to be the case, then I think we will see MANY more battles which end up in essentially nil-all draws. I agree that this will be good to see !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Guagle]

Well, though not confirmed, it definitely appears as though unit retreats are going to be more common in Civ4, and not merely for those units on 2+ MP vs 1 MP units. If this proves to be the case, then I think we will see MANY more battles which end up in essentially nil-all draws. I agree that this will be good to see !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I don't know, all battles shown on that movie had one side completely wipe the other. It could simply be that unluckily no battle ended in a draw or that this result doesn't exist.

It would be good to have this feature, though.

 

[Chibiabos]

Its always been that one side wins and one side loses. Either the aggressor pushes forward and drives out the defender, or it suffers too many casualties and is either destroyed or forced to limp a retreat.

There is only a 'draw' if neither side attacks, in which case ... you can do that all you want (presuming the enemy doesn't try to advance).

 

[Commander Bello]

As history is full of examples when armies met and engaged in combat, with not one of them being totally massacred, it would be a good option to have a retreat chance for any unit. As the retreating unit would retreat in the direction of the least direct threat, this would allow for more tactical decisions as well, as you would try to direct them by placing other units appropriately.

 

[stormbind]

There is no such thing as a draw in battle!

However, both sides could claim victory - which happens

 

[Vael]

I think there is only (for the most part) complete victories is to reduce management issues. Imagine having to fight a single unit 5 times before you can actually kill it. Yes, it's true that historically one side rarely demolished the other, but we're talking about Civ-abstracted units, not actual armies. Maybe if Civ modelled armies more realistically that would work but as long as Civ continues to use units I don't think it's really a good option.

To summaraize, when units die it makes it seem like something is happening. If 9 units out of 10 retreat with minimal damage only to fight again the other day you'll end up with a huuuge number of units and a lot of tedious battles where it doesn't seem like anything is happening.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Vael does make some good points. What you also need to remember is that a UNIT 'dying' isn't the unit being killed to a man. It represents the destruction of that unit's organisational capacity-thus resulting in a complete ROUT of that unit. I don't think that video proved anything about combat-one way or another-with the possible exception that it LOOKS COOL ! I certainly can't wait to hear more about the combat engine!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[SenJarJar]

Oh, I see that I have not clearly explained what I meant by the draw so let me apologize.

No, by draw, I do not mean that the culmination of an entire battle results in stalemate, only the battles between the individual units involved in the battle.

So for example, let's say that five agressor units went to battle against one strong unit deeply entrenched on a hill. The aggressor begins the melee by throwing his first unit into the fight. It's not unsusual for the first advancing unit to fail to either dislodge or obliterate the defense. And at the same time, it is not unusual for the advancing unit, due to massive loss, to retreat back to their own front having taken heavy casualties, but also not completely obliterated. The defenders would not be able to stop even an unmounted force from retreating because the survival of the defenders would depend on their staying in their fortified position. But this does not mean that the entire battle has ended in a draw, it only means that the first wave has ended in a "draw." The aggressor still has four more units to throw into the fray. If by the fifth wave, the defenders are pushed out or destroyed, then the aggressors would be the victors of the battle.

But if by the fifth wave the defenders still have not been either obliterated or forced to retreat, then this shouldn't have to mean that the aggressor's entire army get wiped out because the defenders still would not be in a position to counter-attack. And thus you would have a "draw" for the turn. It would now force each side to reinforce these weary battlers so that in a future turn, one side could then obliterate or force off the battlefield the other side.

But here's another case for the draw. Let's continue with this example of the beseiged on the hill. Let's say that after the defenders have withstood the five waves of attack. After the battle, it would not be unusual for the defenders to realize that they had incurred too many casualties and slink out the back door knowing that the besiegers are in no condition to pursue. When the defender's turn comes up, he should be allowed to retire his brave defenders, leaving behind the aggressor's force camped nearby un-annihilated but neutered.

And in this way, Civ could simulate protracted battles of attrition and especially siege/trench warfare. It shouldn't always take one turn to annihilate a town's defenses and on the flip side it shouldn't always take one turn to annihilate the besiegers. In other words, every battle need not be Cannae; there should be drawn out Gettysburgs and Sieges of Orleans too (a proper siege, that is). But I will grant that on plains and grasslands (except for WWI, there could be a nice option to develop trenches which take time to dig, are hard for foots and mounted to assault, but easily demolishable with armor) perhaps it should be made highly unlikely for two foot units to battle to a draw. But even here I don't think the draw should be made impossible.

And again when I say draw I am referring to my desire for the allowance of stalemate between two Civ units and not necessarily the outcome of an entire battle which could consist of dozens of units in SOD-style gameplay.

Now because it would still be common for one side to absolutely take the otherside to the woodshed, we wouldn't lose the Pyrrhic and total victories from gameplay by implementing what I am calling the "draw."

The purpose of the draw is to add flavor, drama, and complexity to the gameplay without losing the appeal of core gameplay or being non-historical.

 

[SenJarJar]

Vael: Your argument is good; this should make it harder to do battle. And it should be. Right now, the outcome of most of my mid-late game Civ3 "wars" (the ones where I can actually interact with the enemy) is decided on the first few turns. I don't think this is what I want. If there is to be war, I want it to be hard. A harder war would make the decision to go to war more difficult thereby strengthening incentives to find alternate game victory solutions. And at the same time, a more difficult war would make victory sweeter. It should be hard to annihilate every single unit. But complete victory in battle would not be that much more difficult. As I have been insisting, I am not asking that the odds of a draw be better than the odds of obliteration-obliterating, I'm just asking for the draw to be a common and possible outcome to a battle.

 

[SenJarJar]

Vael: Also, in my concept of the "draw," defending units would not "retreat" from their position, they would still occupy the same ground and be subject to further direct assaults. You wouldn't have to chase them as you would "fast" units; having to do so would not be a "draw," that would be a definition of a rout.

 

[Jaybe]

I would like everyone having the ability to withdraw after suffering losses. I grew up on board wargames where "Defender Retreat" and "Attacker Retreat" were common battle results.

 

[Craterus22]

nice idea - I would add (unless someone already mentioned it) that perhaps when two opposing forces whittle each other down to 1hp each that it be considered a "draw"

it would also be supportive of a reduced total number of units type game.

 

[SenJarJar]

Aussie-Lurker: your explanation of a unit's victory as representing the loss of "organizational capacity" is satisfying. So let me explain myself even further. The simple fact is that a unit which has just one hp left is pretty much a spent force; such a unit could also represent a unit that has lost its "organizational capacity" too. But an important difference is that this unit, which could be any land or sea unit, can be saved to fight another day. And carry on its proud tradition--that is, your emotional involvement with this unit. What do I mean by "emotional involvement?"

Well, when I play, I tend to attribute personalities to some of my veteran units that have performed splendidly. It's foolish, but letting myself become emotionally attached to a Civ military unit is just one of the more immediate ways I naturally stay emotionally involved with the game. The survival of a favored unit adds to the stakes when engaging in war. So it would be nice for future editions of Civ to allow some of these units to survive. The fact that most times a battle between two units end in the destruction of one forces us to view every single unit as nothing more than fodder and tool. This has the effect of distancing us emotionally from the game because it numbs us to the reality of Civ war by always taking away the hope that a clearly losing unit can survive.

But rightfully, there should be some penalty for having lost too many to casualties, the solution is to not allow the unit to rejuvenate its health to its former levels. The replacement soldiers would be green in real life, and the game should acknowledge this. In Civ3, an elite unit defending a town with barracks could quickly restore much of its health. This is not right.

Ps: could someone tell me what SMAC stands for? I do not play many games so I am not familiar with this acronym. I just ask because everyone on this site seems to know what it is.

 

[SenJarJar]

Craterus 22 & Vael: Vael, I do not believe that the "draw" feature would create more units on the field simply because units cost upkeep. And Craterus, I'm not sure what you mean by "supportive of reduced total number," but if you mean that Civvers wouldn't constantly be forced to produce new units, then I believe that this would be a good thing. It would be nice if I could build things other than non-fighting units to thrive.

 

[SenJarJar]

Jaybe: Unfortunately, I am against your wish to give Civvers the option to retreat. Having the option to retreat is situational; it's not common for losing sides to have the ability to try an organized retreat from the battlefield. And many times in a rout, the winning side has the ability to run the runners down. So I like the way retreat is handled in Civ3 for the most part.

But I do think that the game should allow players the option to have naval ships retreat. Throughout history, a naval victory could mean the sinking of a couple of ships out of a fleet of hundreds. But as it is now, Civ ships are too easy to sink and too costly to build, which adds to the general weakness of naval battles in the game. I'm certain that what many Civvers want is for the opportunity to engage in an armada vs armada battle. Allowing for the option of naval retreat would greatly help make this happen.

 

[NP300]

I am in favor if this idea. It would be particularly useful in naval battles, since decisive battles are less common in the seas. For instance, when submarines attacked merchant ships during WWII and failed to sink the merchant, it didn't mean that the submarine was sunk by the merchant. Most often it meant that the torpedoes missed and/or escorts came to the rescue and the submarine was forced to dive and flee. In naval wars it is quite common for ships to simply flee and avoid destruction.

For land battles, draws would simply represent how some battles are drawn out and not completed decisively in a short period of time. Sometimes neither side is completely defeated and they are both able to continue the fight, albeit in a weakened state.

The implementation of draws might also add a whole nbew dimension to gameplay sicne certain units could be more likely to pull off a draw. For instance, a submarine might have a better chance to pull off a draw, since it is able to dive when its attack fails. Thus, submarines could be given a weak attack but an enhanced ability to survive a failed attack through draws.

The game Panzer General implemented a system like this. While, I do not want Civ to become a tactical game, I believe Panzer General could be a source of ideas with which to improve Civ's combat system. Another good idea from that game is that once your unit attacked it could not use whatever movement points it had left. You could move your unit as much was you wanted before you attacked, limited only by the "fuel". But once your unit atacked it had to stay put and could move no more. The result was that when your unit attacked the enemy it could not escape unharmed. The next turn it would be by the enemy unit it had attacked, which gave the enemy a chance to counter-attack your unit on his turn.

The possibility of a draw shouldn't overly complicate warfare. It could be made rare enough. And in the case of a draw one or both of the units would lose a lot of strength, which makes your next attack on the unit to be very likely to completely destroy the unit. In the game Panzer general a full-strnegth unit had much better chance of retreating and surviving than a weakned unit. A weakened unit was very likely to be completely destroyed. The system of unit bonuses earned through experience made it very costly to have one of your experienced units completely destroyed. You also had to "pay" in order to get replacements to restore the "hitpoints" of your weakened units; and this had to be done in a city or base or some such, not on the battlefield.

The possibility of a draw is already implemented to a limited extent in Civ in the way in which bombardment works. When a unit bombards another it may cause no harm to the defending unit. Nevertheless, the bombing unit is not necessarily defeated upon a failed bombardment. This already-existing system could be extended to the battles. For example, let's say you are attacking an infantry defender with your infantry. Your attacking infantry gets the first shot and bombards the enemy. Then the enemy gets a shot back at you. Then you get another shot back. The number of shots back to each other could depend on the number of hitpoints.

Hopefully, if Civ is as moddable as they say we will be able to mod this in.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Trust me SenJar Jar, I am totally on your side in this. I have long argued that there will be times when a fortified unit in mountains (or other difficult terrain) is just too 'strong' to dislodge, and that in these circumstances it would ridiculous for an attacking unit to fight to the death to dislodge it.
I feel, though, that given that we have Multi-Units, and that each individual within a Multi-Unit can take a certain amount of damage before dying, that there will be much more chance of seeing units Retreating (though, by retreat, I mean hold the position they were in PRIOR to attacking) rather than fighting to the death.
Also, we still don't know how combat works in Civ4. In previous versions it was the attackers attack strength-and the defenders defense strength-which was important, with the unit which won each pulse of combat doing damage to the other. What I am hoping for in Civ4 is that each unit will get to attack AND defend in a single pulse-increasing the likelihood of 'stalemates' in this regard (i.e. where NEITHER unit loses a HP). Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.