What do you think Combat and Combat movement will be like on the Hex grid?

[Dunkah]

There has been a lot of talk about the combat system, some people saying they like it or don't like it... What I want to do since there really isn't a way of deciding if I like it until I actually get a chance to try it out is ask:
What do you think Combat and Combat movement will be like on the Hex grid? Let's try and get a feel for what you think it will really be like.

Let’s keep the conversation to the topic. Let’s not turn this into an “I like the combat system” or “don’t like the combat system” thread. I know there are other games out there that are similar, assuming that people reading this thread have not played them, what would combat look / feel like? What would happen with equal / lopsided troop numbers? How about strong units versus swarms? How about fast moving units running up the flanks? Artillery or Archers? Reserves moving in?

Going to try and start with some basics. I'll try and update if there is something I missed.

What we know:
Units move two hexes as a base.
Units can change places with another unit.
Only 1 unit is allowed per hex.
Archers/ Ranged units can fire up to two hexes away over the top of other units.
Units may survive through a combat.
Number of units will be limited by resources available.
Roads will be limited.
With Hex based maps lines of troops will line up just to the left or right of its counterpart line, so there will always be the potential of a 2:1 odds at any given point in the line.

What may be: (Not confirmed)
Units can move through friendly units but cannot stop on top of another unit.

What we can assume: (Possibly)
Some units like Horses/ Vehicles must be able to move faster than ground troops (3 or more hexes) and or
Movement on roads and perhaps later rail will increase movement of at least some troops.
Combat will center around roads as this will be needed to bring up reserves quickly.
Combat will more likely be out in the fields rather than centered around cities.
Units must have Hit Points that diminish as combat goes along.
Modern units will be able to cause more damage or have some advantage over less modern units.

What we don’t know: (No need to speculate)
Is there a random to hit number based on terrain and defense skill or armor? (probably)
Does damage dealt diminish as the Hit Points a unit has go down? (maybe)
If the defenders decided to run away would the attackers get a chance to cause a departing blow? (maybe)

Basic example of combat based on what we know: (purely speculation)
If you have 3 units in a line and your enemy has only 2 units then all three of your units may be touching or have a front to the enemies two. Like so:

- D - D -
A - A - A

Let’s assume each has 4 hit points and can dish out 1 hit per turn on average.
If the A’s hit first then there would be 1 hit on one and 2 hits on the D’s.
-Choice- Do you strike at individual units or concentrate on one unit?
D’s strike back causing 2 hits on the middle A.
-Choice- Do you choose to kill a unit or do you weaken both first?
The A’s distribute hits in the same manner killing one of the D’s and the other has 2 hits.
Remaining D strikes the same center A for its 3rd point.
A’s kill remaining D
Combat over.

Let’s assume each has 3 hit points and can dish out 1 hit per turn on average.
If the A’s hit first then there would be 1 hit on one D and 2 hits on the other D.
D’s strike back causing 2 hits on the middle A.
The A’s distribute hits opposite killing both D’s.
Combat over.

Let’s assume each has 2 hit points and can dish out 1 hit per turn on average.
If the A’s hit first then there would be 1 hit on one D and 2 hits on the other D Killing it.
D’s strike back causing 1 hit on the middle A.
This would leave only two A’s in contact.
Each strikes a blow of 1 hit killing the remaining D.
Combat over.

Pretty much all of the results are similar. Numbers prevail in an attack of equal strength/ defense.

Let’s have some fun with this. Give me some examples… let me know if I missed any assumptions.

 

[Ahriman]

Units can move through friendly units but cannot stop on top of another unit.

I'm pretty sure this was confirmed somewhere.

Movement on roads and perhaps later rail will increase movement of at least some troops.

I seem to remember this getting at least semi-confirmed.

Modern units will be able to cause more damage or have some advantage over less modern units.

They could easily have any mix of more hp, more damage, higher probability of winning a combat "round", or other mechanics.

Is there a random to hit number based on terrain and defense skill or armor? (probably)

Where do you get probably from?
There is no indication that there will be a defense skill (separate from attack skill or overall strength) or an armor value.

Does damage dealt diminish as the Hit Points a unit has go down? (probably)

Where do you get probably from? In fact the only thing we have is something like "damaged units will still defend at full strength".
We don't know if this means both attack or defense, but this seems to be something just the opposite of what you say here; much more like a pure dungeons & dragons style hit point system, where you fight at full effectiveness until you're dead.

D D
A A A

To make clearer:

-D-D-
A-A-A

Hexes.

A lot depends on how reinforcement works. If healing works for free like in previous Civ, then the overwhelming strategy is usually to try to concentrate fire in order to get complete unit kills.
Which is why placement becomes important, because it makes fire concentration more difficult.

In two lines of troops facing each other, no more than 2 units can attack a single enemy unit at a time.
So you have a good advantage to sensible formations.
Which is why bombardment can end up being really *really* strong, because it overcomes that limit on concentration of force. I hope bombardment attacks are very weak in terms of how much damage they deal. Like, on average 3-4 bombardment attacks needed to be equivalent to one melee attack.
[Will also be interesting to know if bombardment units can counter-attack when attacked with a bombardment.]

Some other things to add:
There has been announcement of some kind of defensive bombardment/attack of opportunity mechanic announced (no details).
They've said naval units will have long bombardment ranges.

 

[Dunkah]

Comon Ahriman. Lets see your version of how combat will look and feel...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well My prefered version that would be compatible with what they have mentioned already

All units have a "Range" attack... for most the range =1 (ie melee) for some early units and most later units it is 2.. even more when talking about later 'artillery' units

Units have a Strength and Hitpoints... all units have a base of 100 hitpoints when built

The Strength that a unit has is modified my a number of factors like terrain bonuses, unit type bonuses, etc. Current hitpoints does NOT affect strength.


When two units are in combat

If one of the units cannot fire back (it is a defender being bombarded) then the unit with shorter range is Unit A
If both units have enough range to hit each other, Unit A is the Stronger unit.

Unit A takes 30 hp* (Str of unit A)/(Str of unit B) damage
Unit B takes 30 hp of damage IF unit A has enough range to reach it

Each unit then has 50% chance of taking double damage, and the combat is over
Any unit that went to 0 hit points dies.



Restoring Hitpoints would be costly in terms of gold... it would be the mechanism of Maintenance/Repair. (Essentially a unit would take 'damage' every turn even out of combat and you would have to pay to restore the damage... so if you Didn't have the money for maintenance/repair, your units would slowly lose hitpoints... and eventually start dying.

There would also be a maximum number of hitpoints that could be healed per turn.. depending on location

Upgrades would be automatic... any obsolete units at full health in friendly territory would automatically change into damaged versions of the upgraded units.

Units would be Bought with Gold, but would require particular buildings in the city they are bought at (and when the unit is bought it would be unable to move from the city, allowing only one purchase per turn)

 

[The_J]

I'm pretty sure this was confirmed somewhere.

Nope, it's from a google translation out of spanish (here).

 

[EditorRex]

I'm theoretically fine with what's being described for open-country warfare. From a gameplay style standpoint, I'm fine with this when I'm on defense in open country. From an offensive standpoint, also. Because I never spend much time going after open country. But Civilization is by definition a game of CITIES. If this works exactly the same way for cities and cities occupy one hex, then I do have a problem. It will be too easy to attack and too difficult to defend cities. This will add up to a chaotic game than will be unpleasant for players who like the "Civilization" aspects of the game.

Has it been confirmed that the one-unit-per-hex rule will function the same way inside cities and that cities will occupy one hex? I've seen some discussion of alternative defensive combat systems for cities. Anything confirmed there? To me, this is the key question on whether I'd consider buying the game.

 

[Ahriman]

Because I never spend much time going after open country.

In Civ5, you'll kindof have to. They're changing the whole structure of warfare to force you into the field. Wars will be fought in field battles, not city assaults.

Has it been confirmed that the one-unit-per-hex rule will function the same way inside cities and that cities will occupy one hex?

Cities will be able to defend themselves, and defensive buildings in the city (walls, castles, etc) will boost ability to do this.
We don't have much info on how units and cities will interact - there was some comment about being able to "merge" a unit with a city. But unclear what that means.

But yes, you're not going to be able to stack units in cities. To defend a city, do it in the field. Make it part of your defensive line to stop you from getting surrounded, but you have to beat the enemy army, you can't just cower in the city while the AI suicides units against it.

 

[EditorRex]

In Civ5, you'll kindof have to. They're changing the whole structure of warfare to force you into the field. Wars will be fought in field battles, not city assaults.


Cities will be able to defend themselves, and defensive buildings in the city (walls, castles, etc) will boost ability to do this.
We don't have much info on how units and cities will interact - there was some comment about being able to "merge" a unit with a city. But unclear what that means.

But yes, you're not going to be able to stack units in cities. To defend a city, do it in the field. Make it part of your defensive line to stop you from getting surrounded, but you have to beat the enemy army, you can't just cower in the city while the AI suicides units against it.

Your explanation is good and makes me feel a bit better about this, however, I probably didn't explain my concern well. When I say I focus on cities, I'm talking about my OFFENSIVE strategy. And if it works the way you say, then I'm fine with attacking the defensive units AROUND instead of IN a city. It's a more tactical approach to the same idea. (It would be even more logical if cities added hexes over time, but that might not be practical for other reasons.) My point about gamestyle is that I believe in defeating the enemy by taking his cities rather than defeating his armies. But I've always been willing to defeat armies in the field as a means to the end, so that will be how gameplay evolves. Everyone will have units clustered around cities, rather than stacked inside. Should definitely make for interesting gameplay.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Well I am assuming that instead of strength units have attack/defense. This is due to the fact when it was mentions somewhere where it would be common to have spearmen at the front line and archers behind as they are week when fighting up up close. So here is a basic battle I predict may happen. It may be hard to follow, but try. This is the start:

-A-A-A-
S-S-S-S
-S-S-S-
A-A-A-A

A would be archers and S would be Spearmen. The red are one country and the black are another.

Round 1a) The blue archers would gang up on the middle black spearman, almost killing him. Then one spearman would finish him off, lose some damage, and stay to heal. Then another spearman would move in and just barely take out an archer. The battle would soon look like this. Green is injured red.

-A-A-A-
S-S-_-S
-S-S-S-
A-A-A-A

Round 1b) First the two end archers attack the red spearman in the middle. Then the left spearman attacks the blue middle and it dies but the attacker is injured (blue is black injured). Then it moves in on it's position. The middle two archers attack the injured spearman and the remaining black spearman moves in and finishes it off. THe battle then looks like this:

-A-A-A-
S-_-S-S
-_-S-_-
A-A-A-A

Round 2a)The right spearman kills the blue next to it, injuring it's self. Then the right archer attacks the middle spearman, killing it and moves closer. Then the middle and left archers attack the far left archer. Then the left spearman finishes it off, injuring it's self. The battle then looks like this:

-A-A-A-
_-_-_-_
-S-_-S-
_-A-A-A

Round 2b) The two right archers attack the left spearman, killing it. Then the left archer attacks the right spearman and it is severely injured . Then the battle looks like this: Severly injured would be purple for red.

-A-A-A-
_-_-_-_
-_-_-S-
_-A-A-A

Round 3a) The spearman attacks the right archer, injuring it, but dies. Then the right archer moves and finishes the injured archer off, but is injured itself. Then the he left and center archer move and kill the left enemy archer and one is injured. The battle now looks like this:

-_-_-_-
_-A-A-_
-_-_-_-
_-_-A-_

Round 3b) The archer attacks the left archer and kills it but injures itself. The battle now looks like this:

-_-_-_-
_-_-A-_
-_-_-__-
_-_-A-_

Round 4a) The archer attacks the enemy archer, killing it, winning the battle, but is injured. The battle now looks like this:

-_-_-_-
_-_-A-_
-_-_-__-
_-_-_-_

____________________________________________________________--
This seems like a basic battle that could happen in civ5. The red one, simply because black did not have enough defense to cover its offense.

 

[Ahriman]

When I say I focus on cities, I'm talking about my OFFENSIVE strategy.

I think taking cities will still be the main objective of warfare, though I predict that with spread out armies, economic damage from pillage could also prove more important.

Well I am assuming that instead of strength units have attack/defense. This is due to the fact when it was mentions somewhere where it would be common to have spearmen at the front line and archers behind as they are week when fighting up up close.

I don't think this follows logically. Archers could just be low strength units, but with a bombardment attack. No need for separate attack/defense values.

 

[tom2050]

I think taking cities will still be the main objective of warfare, though I predict that with spread out armies, economic damage from pillage could also prove more important.

I don't think economy will work any way even remotely similar to Civ 3 or 4. They have stated that roads will be very rare (or that they won't be like spaghetti or something). If this is the case, you probably won't have mines, farms, and barns plastered all over the place either.

I don't think the pilliage option will be in the game anymore. Wouldn't make sense for 1 unit to destroy the one road and cut off everyone from everything trade-wise.

 

[kurtkage]

I see some comments in here on the amount of damage that ranged units will do and thought I'd post this quote from another thread I had started about units dying. It seems to me that Archers are fairly powerful judging by screenshots.

Thread link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=364233

3) The screenshots we have of archers firing across the lake. In the before picture:
http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2773&c=36
we see the warrior has 8 "men" showing on the unit (full str appears to be 12 judging by other units around so it looks like this warrior has taken a few hits from archers or was in other combat)
In the after screenshot: http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2775&c=36

You can see the warrior now has 6 "men" showing on the unit. My point here being that while we do not know percentage of str/hp the men represent, it appears that an archer can do a signifigant amount of dmg in an attack, again leading me to believe that units will not be the super hard to kill things that people are imagining.

Edit: hmm looks like the screenshot links were changed... looking for new links hehe. Ok fixed I think

So edit again, judging by this it would seem that a full str war at 12 "men" could be killed in 1 turn by 6 archers bombarding, if range attacks can kill

 

[Ahriman]

I don't think economy will work any way even remotely similar to Civ 3 or 4. They have stated that roads will be very rare (or that they won't be like spaghetti or something). If this is the case, you probably won't have mines, farms, and barns plastered all over the place either.

This makes no sense. Having fewer roads does not mean that you won't have farms, mines and cottages. They are unrelated. It would be amazing if most of your economy didn't come from citizens working tiles that had improvements built on them.

I don't think the pilliage option will be in the game anymore. Wouldn't make sense for 1 unit to destroy the one road and cut off everyone from everything trade-wise.

Again this doesn't make sense.
a) It might well be the case that you need to protect roads to keep trade benefits
b) Even if roads were unpillagable, this doesn't imply that regular improvements wouldn't be pillaged.

It seems to me that Archers are fairly powerful judging by screenshots.

I wouldn't too much weight on graphical implications, but 1/6 of total health from a bombardment against the weakest unit in the game dosen't sound like that much.
Seems borderline right though, and could still be half the damage of a melee attack.

 

[Never]

How many times do you suppose one can 'swap' a unit with another one? If a Swordsmen wanted to change places with an Archer I'm assuming it could be 2 or more tiles away and aslong as movement cost allows the Swordsmen would be able to swap tiles with the archer. Do you suppose that after this 'swap' another unit would be able to swap himself with the Swordsmen?

Basically my question is do you suppose there is a cost for swapping a unit? For example you can only swap once per turn in a tile?

 

[Ahriman]

How many times do you suppose one can 'swap' a unit with another one?

I am guessing that a "swap" will take up the movement points of a normal move into each tiles.
So if unit A is on grassland and unit B is on a hill, then A will lose 2 movement points swapping with B while B will lose 1 movement.

Do you suppose that after this 'swap' another unit would be able to swap himself with the Swordsmen?

Only if the swordsman still had movement points left. I'm guessing that a unit with no movement points left can't be swapped.

Basically my question is do you suppose there is a cost for swapping a unit?

Yes. There are a lot of exploits possible otherwise.

 

[Tylerryan79]

If we are able to spam some basic units, and workers can be in the same tile as warriors ect, then people will make rings around cities, with range closest to the city, and stronger units in the outer edge, and keep that as a wall of men. Then constantly switch units, so whatever side the attack comes, you can have fresh guys to take the blows, while having archers constantly bombard. Depending on how many units/cost per unit, you could easily just turtle up around your cities, and then have elite forces out causing a muck.

Edit-i just drew it out, inner ring would be 6 archers, then 12 warriors, so it may not be easily done.

Btw after doing this drawing i came up with an unrelated question. Now that cities work 3 tiles out, after seeing it on my paper, its seems like there will be a lot of tiles to work, and its hard to picture how it will be shaped, think bfc, minus squares? I cant picture this. Also with all these tiles I wonder how food and hammers scale, they have said things will take longer to build, but with these extra tiles, maybe it all evens out eventually. Just a thought.

 

[akinkhoo]

i really hope they copy koei's romance of the three kingdoms... the ability to push enemy unit back would make it more realistic else it would be trench warfare from 4000BC to 2000AD...

 

[PieceOfMind]

I don't think this follows logically. Archers could just be low strength units, but with a bombardment attack. No need for separate attack/defense values.

I doubt that would be right either.
Rather, I think they're just going to give archers a penalty for fighting up close i.e. "melee". Because of this penalty, their optimal use would be as ranged units, firing without risk of counter attack or perhaps (less likely IMO) acting as ranged support units when other melee units attack. Call it a pedantic re-wording of what you already wrote, if you will.

I agree it's unlikely we're going to see separate A/D values. I'm pretty sure Firaxis believe it was progress when they got rid of those. Modifiers like class bonuses, defense bonuses, situational bonuses like melee/ranged etc. are very likely to make a return IMO. If not all of them, at least some of them. Especially the bonuses that will be apparent from a glance at the interface. For example, class specific bonuses are less likely than others to make it in because it depends on more than just the position of units and the underlying terrain, even on the appearance of the units. Class bonuses require either selecting the unit to see which units will have a bonus or penalty or prior knowledge of the class bonus system (e.g. spearmen having a large bonus against mounted in civ4 is a class bonus).
[note: I think in civ4 modding unit class has a slightly different meaning, and what I was talking about was combat type but I don't want to bring that complication here].

 

[Ahriman]

If we are able to spam some basic units, and workers can be in the same tile as warriors ect, then people will make rings around cities, with range closest to the city, and stronger units in the outer edge, and keep that as a wall of men. Then constantly switch units, so whatever side the attack comes, you can have fresh guys to take the blows, while having archers constantly bombard. Depending on how many units/cost per unit, you could easily just turtle up around your cities, and then have elite forces out causing a muck.

I am guessing that it will be difficult to spam even weak units, that unit maintenance costs will be higher making this economically prohibitive, and that it will be easy to use medium strength units to team up to get complete kills on weak units with focused fire making this tactic ineffective.

Rather, I think they're just going to give archers a penalty for fighting up close i.e. "melee"

Either is possible. But it seems far more likely to me that there will just be different combat mechanics for bombardment vs adjacent tile attack. Eg: adjacent tile attack lasts 4 "rounds", while ranged bombardment attack lasts only 2 rounds (so can only do at most half of the total damage output per turn).
So I could have for example a strength 5 axeman, and a strength 3 archer with a bombardment attack (and no extra melee penalty).

But yours is also plausible.

Modifiers like class bonuses, defense bonuses

These, yes.

situational bonuses like melee/ranged etc

I'm just guessing that these are less likely.

For example, class specific bonuses are less likely than others to make it in because it depends on more than just the position of units and the underlying terrain, even on the appearance of the units. Class bonuses require either selecting the unit to see which units will have a bonus or penalty or prior knowledge of the class bonus system (e.g. spearmen having a large bonus against mounted in civ4 is a class bonus).

I understand what you mean by class (melee, gunpowder, armor, etc.).
I don't follow your logic here though.
I can easily see how a what-you-see-is-what-you-get design philosophy could easily include a system where cavalry were good vs ranged units, spearmen were good vs cavalry, missile troops were good vs aircraft and armor, etc.
You had to select a unit (or know what it did) to see the specific class bonuses in Civ4.

I don't think it is an unreasonable burden to expect players to look at the details of each unit once before building to figure out what they do.

A combat system without class-bonuses is likely to be very boring IMO; it is one of the prime factors of unit variation, and a 1upt system is a way to finally make class-based specialization useful (because of no more best-defender-fights mechanics).

 

[Dunkah]

So far I have seen some good comments… Remember this thread is about movement in combat situations.

Heard a lot of talk about the “swap” movement. This seems like it can be a very powerful tool but there is a twist in it that I’m not sure everyone is thinking about.

First let’s look at the strength of it. Assuming each troop is a melee type and deals one damage and has 4 hit points. We know that if they simply go head to head there will be casualties on both sides with the attackers coming out ahead. (This assumes there are no misses and everyone is even strength). However lets assume the attacker has 2 reserve units.

They line up like this:

_ - _ - A5 - A6 - _
- A1 – A2 – A3 – A4
D1 – D2 – D3 – D4 -

Attacker strikes first.
*A1 - A2 atk D2 = 2 pts
*A3 - A4 atk D3 = 2 pts

Defender strikes next.
*D1 - D2 atk A2 = 2 pts
*D3 - D4 atk A3 = 2 pts

Pretty even fight so far. Start of next round A5 and A6 swaps places with A2 and A3.

_ - _ - A2 – A3 - _
- A1 – A5 – A6 – A4
D1 – D2 – D3 – D4 -

Attacker strikes first.
*A1 – A5 atk D2 = Dead
*A3 – A6 atk D3 = Dead

Defender strikes next.
*D1 atk A5 = 1 pt (2 pts if strikes are done simultaneously)
*D4 atk A6 = 1 pt

Round 3 continues the combat
_ - _ - A2 – A3 - _
- A1 – A5 – A6 – A4
D1 – xx – xx – D4 -

Attacker strikes first.
*A1 – A5 atk D1 = 2 pts
*A6 – A4 atk D3 = 2 pts
A2 and A3 heal one point.

Defender strikes next.
*D1 atk A5 = 1 pt
* D4 atk A6 = 1 pt

Next Round attackers kill defenders. Attacker ends up with 4 slightly damaged units and 2 undamaged, rather than 2 undamaged, 2 damaged and 2 dead units.

Things to think about:
Do units attack simultaneously so that no matter if you kill them or not they get to deal damage?
Do units that swap get to strike blows? Perhaps One movement Point to move and another to strike? Or perhaps they get to strike at half damage?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The twist:
Let’s say we have a line of ranged units as well. (m=melee r=ranged). How do the reserve melee units get in?

_- Am – Am - _
Ar - Ar - Ar - Ar - _
- Am – Am – Am – Am
Dm – Dm – Dm – Dm -
- Dr - Dr - Dr - Dr -

The reserves would have to swap with the Ranged units... Then swap with the front line units... then the units pulled out of the front line would have to swap with the ranged units again. The process would take three turns where the ranged units wouldn't get full shooting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of you talking about roads:
If you look at the graphics of Farms etc it looks as if the roads are built into the graphic. Which to me implies they come with the improvement you install, but don't have any further effect on the game. "Player Useable Roads" appear to only be able to be run between major points in the system. City to city. City to fort. City to edge of border. (For trading purposes).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranged Units:
My guess on ranged units is that they will have a maximum number of points they can do, damage wise, like catapults in CivIV. Perhaps increasing as technology gets better. Archers do maybe 50% max, Catapults 55%, Artillery maybe 75%.