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

[PieceOfMind]

It has always annoyed me (not greatly though!) that units healed for free. As Ahriman has noted, it encourages concentration of force and narrows any tactical depth I think. I mean, we had the best use of great generals, for the most part, being super medics. Some have argued that is realistic but I still think it's kinda weird that ended up being one of the most efficient uses of them, when so much effort and emphasis was put into the unique promotions and other abilities they unlocked.

Personally I like what they did in the Advance Wars games, where if you had 2 of the same unit and one of them had less than 10HP (10 was healthy unit), you could join them together, combining the sum of their HP (to a max of 10) and getting back money for any leftover hitpoints based on the unit's value.

I don't expect they will have changed much at all about how healing works - I doubt they consider it a high priority. You could argue the current system involves less micromanagement.

I do wish it would cost something more than just unit turns to heal a unit though.

 

[Aeon221]

Have you guys never really played PG or even the freebie stuff like Westnoth? If you have one objective in seriously tight knit country, yes, you can make lines.

You try that in wider terrain, the enemy is just gonna go around you and hit the guys in the back.

In PG, the worst thing that could happen was you got bogged down into line fighting. It means just sitting there back-and-forthing with damage, getting all your troops smashed up to accomplish basically nothing.

The best strategy was flying columns of mobile units that got the enemy to spread out to counter so that you could use local superiority to wipe them out in a few places, then concentrate for victory.


I dunno, I think the real issue is that you people don't understand how limited troop numbers is a standard component of 1upt games. CiV has already signaled pretty heavily that you're not gonna be able to get massive swarms of dudes. And that means you won't be able to create continent spanning lines of doods slowly advancing over everything in their path -- which, point of fact, they wouldn't, because you'll still be lacking for local superiority even against small groups of enemies due to frontage issues -- until seriously late in the game.

Which means that you'll leave gaps, or you'll leave your sides unguarded, and where you've left holes is where the enemy is gonna poke through. At which point you'll either leave your cities and terrain undefended to keep the line together -- in which case, you'll die one way or another -- or you'll break up your line to fight the enemy, in which case it was a waste of time to make it in the first place.

Now, just because lines are a stupid way of thinking doesn't mean you won't be interposing main battle units between the enemy and your ranged units. It just means that that interposition will be limited to a situational necessity rather than a permanent feature -- as soon as the enemy stops advancing towards the ranged dudes, you'll go back to using your main battle units aggressively.


When you get right down to it, 1upt is about maximizing the frontage of your units. More frontage means being able to attack more units means more options means easier to create local superiority situations. And lines don't do that. Independently operating columns do.

You'll get it if you play some of the offerings in the genre that have large maps and small numbers of units. Like Panzer General. Local terrain that prevents the enemy from getting up in your flanks is way more important than overwhelming hordes of dudes who mostly can't hit the enemy.


edit:

I'm fairly certain there were a few mentions in some of the huge number of articles about how healing in general is far slower, and healing in enemy territory might even be disabled.

Regardless, I'm going to be heavily modding combat in this game -- to the point that I've been studying C++ pretty intensively -- because it's possibly the only non-grognard abomination 1upt hex game that is also heavily modifiable AND will have a huge number of amateur artists providing all sorts of units for the use of other people.

It's basically the best base for a wargame sim ever, so long as the engine isn't slower than a fat kid on a trike.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Regardless, I'm going to be heavily modding combat in this game -- to the point that I've been studying C++ pretty intensively -- because it's possibly the only non-grognard abomination 1upt hex game that is also heavily modifiable AND will have a huge number of amateur artists providing all sorts of units for the use of other people.

It's basically the best base for a wargame sim ever, so long as the engine isn't slower than a fat kid on a trike.

Awesome. I'll have to keep an eye out. Were you in to modding civ4 by any chance?

 

[Aeon221]

Awesome. I'll have to keep an eye out. Were you in to modding civ4 by any chance?

I was more involved in Civ3 as a play tester for Rhye's stuff, and with a bunch of Loulong's scenarios (biggest thing I miss from Civ3 is LL's scenarios!), but most of my Civ attempts have ended in confusion -- I never knew enough code to do what I wanted to do! Civ4 I was busy with college, so I pretty much bowed out of what little involvement I had.

I do have a moderately popular Mount&Blade: Warband mod ( http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=1829 ) which some people seem to really enjoy, and has gotten some notice for how it improves the balance between cavalry and infantry without adding like ten billion troopers.

But I've stopped developing it due to my being in the process of remodeling and moving into a new house which, as anyone can tell you, is super happy fun time to the MAX.


Still, I should be settled in when Civ5 comes out, and done with the stuff I'm working on IRL by then, so I'll be free to toss myself into Civ5 -- no doubt failing spectacularly once again, but, hey, that's half the fun.




Back on TOPIC, I'd really suggest people checking out Vicky2 for some seriously creative economic and combat models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_2

If you check the dev journals in the forum, the key military concept as time passes and technology improves is that of frontage -- individual units are capable of bringing more firepower to bear, so fewer and fewer of them are needed in a given fight. Which, when coupled with defensive advanced, inevitably creates situations where a single unit is capable of holding off large numbers of enemies in a WW1 scenario.

I imagine Civ5 being very similar. In the beginning, you won't be able to dominate much frontage, so lines will just be a joke and you'll mostly need to concentrate on mobile columns and fighting at or around cities. But as technology advances and economic might grows it will be possible for more and more units to be maintained on the field, enabling larger and larger conflicts that consume more and more of the countryside. Once you've got enough troops on the field, the line does indeed inevitably result.

At which case, you're going to need to focus on breaking the line either by going around it (Gallipoli or Inchon) or through it (Blitzkrieg) or attacking before it can be formed (Eastern front of WW1).

Or you have to use economic warfare in the form of embargoes and blockades to crush the ability of the enemy to support their massive army.

And now I'll go back to learning about arrays.

 

[Ahriman]

or even the freebie stuff like Westnoth?

In Wesnoth, you make lines, or you get focus-fired to death and then they rush off to heal.

In Civ, it will be very difficult for them to just "go around" because base movement rate is only 2 tiles (or 1 tile on hard terrain).

If your whole objection to forming lines is that they can "go around" to hit your vulnerable units, how do you think you're going to protect your vulnerable units from spreading out? Then they don't even have to go around, they can just go through.

It also depends massively on whether there is a "zones of control" mechanic or not. If there is, you can still screen with a broken line. But otherwise, a broken line just makes big holes everywhere.

I'm fairly certain there were a few mentions in some of the huge number of articles about how healing in general is far slower, and healing in enemy territory might even be disabled.

The only places I have seen this is in the various thoughts of forum-goers discussing their own preferences as if they were fact. Never seen this from developers.

that have large maps and small numbers of units

It remains to be seen if Civ is this kind of game or not. There's no reason to think it will be.
And in nearly all of these other games, movement rate of units is much faster. Which makes a huge difference.

Anyway, its too early for us to be sure either way.

More frontage means being able to attack more units means more options means easier to create local superiority situations.

To some extent it depends on offensive doctrine vs defensive doctrine.
You *may* be able to attack more by being more spread out... maybe.
Though if the enemy is all bunched, spreading your stuff out means you will be able to attack less, since some won't be in ranged when contact is made.
But spreading out massively increases your own vulnerability.

If I am bunched and you are spread, when I encounter any of your force I can surround it and kill it getting complete unit kills. And your army will be spread, so it will be hard for you to respond immediately because many units will be too far away.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to finding out which style works better.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'm fairly certain there were a few mentions in some of the huge number of articles about how healing in general is far slower, and healing in enemy territory might even be disabled.

No only that healing your units is more important.

That Implies that it might be costly... but not necessarily.

Also, for getting a flanking bonus from a non-attacking cavalry being 'gamey' there is a simple solution... the Flanking bonus is dependent on the strength of the Flanking unit

Ie
German Rifle=Str 14
French Rifle=Str 14
French Cavalry=Str 16

set up
FR-GR-FC

The FR (when attacking the GR) has a Strength of
14 (base)+ 16/4 (flanking bonus)=14+4=18

The FC (when attacking the GR) has a Strength of
16 (base)+ 14/4 (flanking bonus)=16+3.5=19.5

So if it is a
German Panzer =100
An Aztec Tank=90, and a
Jaguar Warrior=4

Tank-Panzer-Warrior

Then the Tank would have a Str of
91 instead of 90 (flanking bonus of +1)

The Warrior would have a Str of 26.5 (flanking bonus of 22.5)

 

[qwerty25]

I think would be simpler to allow only certain units to flank (dealing more damage than normal). Most units wouldn't be able to flank (warrior, spear, sword). While fast moving units (horse, chariots) would have flank. You would use your fast moving units to go around them and attack from behind.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well 'unit flanking bonus' would depend on two things

1. The unit attacking (that would Get a bonus)
2. The unit providing the bonus (that doesn't actually attack)

If Either of those is "Flank enabled" then the flanking bonus from the 'flanker' should be provided to the attacker.

 

[Alki]

You can't flank unless the unit is 'engaged' with another enemy or surprised as the unit will just turn and engage the flanker.

I see no good mechanic to surprise in the Civ combat system.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You can't flank unless the unit is 'engaged' with another enemy or surprised as the unit will just turn and engage the flanker.

I see no good mechanic to surprise in the Civ combat system.

Unit A can be considered 'engaged' with Unit B if Unit B is in a position to easily attack it (because Unit A must be prepared for such an attack). This should give Unit C a bonus in attacking Unit A.

This allows positioning to be important.

 

[Ahriman]

Unit A can be considered 'engaged' with Unit B if Unit B is in a position to easily attack it (because Unit A must be prepared for such an attack). This should give Unit C a bonus in attacking Unit A.

But this mechanic is what allows the kind of exploits I've discussed before; two lines of infantry facing each other, I run a single cavalry unit down the back of the enemy line, granting the flanking bonus to every one of my infantry units (move cavalry behind enemy unit A, attack it with a unit opposite, move cavalry behind enemy unit B, attack it with unit opposite, move cavalry behind enemy unit C, attack it with unit opposite, all without the cavalry actually having to engage).

 

[Alki]

The cavalry should get the bonus not the infantry as they are the ones already engaged. The cavalry will get one flanking bonus v one infantry unit per turn.

 

[aziantuntija]

http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6265330/civilization-v-qanda-first-e3-details?tag=topslot;thumb;1

When you watch this video it really looks like that the units are being destroyed pretty easily and they really look like they are fully intact before encaging battle with another unit. Yet they are destroyed and the winner occupyes their hex just like before.

Im surprised that this happens in the video, after all they said that we are going to maintain our army more carefully because units are more valuable now than what they were before and they are not going to be destroyed as easily as before. Well, thats not what happens in the video!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

But this mechanic is what allows the kind of exploits I've discussed before; two lines of infantry facing each other, I run a single cavalry unit down the back of the enemy line, granting the flanking bonus to every one of my infantry units (move cavalry behind enemy unit A, attack it with a unit opposite, move cavalry behind enemy unit B, attack it with unit opposite, move cavalry behind enemy unit C, attack it with unit opposite, all without the cavalry actually having to engage).

The cavalry unit was in a Position to engage and so (in the civ world) would have forced the enemy unit to turn slightly away from the main threat (the other infantry) to be Able to deal with the cavalry.

Essentially that model is using 'facings' but 'facings' determined by the presence of enemy units (a unit is Always facing its enemies.. based on how strong they are)... so really My infantry are the flankers, the cavalry is the force thatgets them to 'face' a certain way.

Making it all the more important not to let that cavalry unit behind your enemy line.

The significance would depend on the amount of bonus.

You could also have the 'flankers' taking damage. ie in every one of those, the Cavalry itself could take slight damage.

 

[EditorRex]

The extremely obvious and widely used solution to this exploit is to require a minimum of two attacks to gain the flanking bonus. So, in your example, the cavalry would have to attack the defender for the infantry attack to receive a flanking bonus. Thinking back to Panzer General (the original, I never played the sequels), I'm fairly certain this was how it was handled there.

It's unlikely that your horse dude would be able to do that four times in a single turn.

The other common requirement of flanking systems is that the two units in question be on opposite sides of the enemy, preventing goofy 'two dudes in the front, one flanks' situations.


Trip has been on this forum longer than me, and you can be damn sure he has a good understanding of how hexes and games like Panzer General work. I'm not worried about an obvious blooper like screwing up flanking.

Worst case scenario, it's not in -- not really a big deal, it doesn't make much sense on this time scale anyway. Best case, it's in and well designed.

edit: Also, lol at the people assuming that you'll be able to make a defense in depth like that. If you line up all your dudes four deep, I come around with my tanks/horseman/whatever and gangbang your archers from behind, then slow-kill your spears with my kiting archers. You aren't fighting in a closet, the landscape is big! You can't just pile all your dudes into a small space, stagger them, and hope for the best! That's stack thinking!

Spread. Out.

You raise a good point about attacking from the rear (or several sides at once). I play the Total War Medieval II a lot (I haven't played Empire or Napoleon), and like the way this is handled there. Many armor or spear bonuses exist only from the front. Knights should wreak havoc on pikemen if they are attack from the side or even worse the rear and the formation can't turn to respond. Units that get bonuses from shields will have nothing to help them from behind. And an attack from the flanks or rear causes psychological damage by creating fear, confusion and dampened morale. A related by slightly different issue, ranged units like Longbowman are deadly foes from a distance, but much less effective if the enemy is able to close and force melee combat. I realize Total War's approach is to have one game engine for the world-scale strategic gameplay and an entirely different engine for small scale tactical play, so that the tactical engine can handle all of these intricate details about each unit. It might not work in Civ. I'd like to see it given some thought, however.

 

[Ahriman]

Have you guys never really played PG or even the freebie stuff like Westnoth? If you have one objective in seriously tight knit country, yes, you can make lines.

It sounds to me like the bonuses from having an adjacent unit are going to provide very strong incentives for tight battle lines.

Also, the kind of exploit I was talking about is a nonissue due to Zones of Control.

I play the Total War Medieval II a lot (I haven't played Empire or Napoleon), and like the way this is handled there. Many armor or spear bonuses exist only from the front.

Nothing indicates that units have facing. I strongly doubt that they will.

A related by slightly different issue, ranged units like Longbowman are deadly foes from a distance, but much less effective if the enemy is able to close and force melee combat.

From screenshots we see that units can have separate Strength and Ranged Attack values.

 

[Dunkah]

In this shot:

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2907&c=36
(Sorry I can't get it to show in the post).


You can see that the Cannon gets a 45% Flanking bonus!!!!!

Seems to me that bonus comes from the fact the Musketmen(?) are being contacted by two units? Or do you think that is inherent for ranged units?

Also appears to be levels of Combat Resolution. In this case a "Major Victory".


In this photo from the latest video:

Spoiler :

The Catapult is attacking a spearman(?) unit. Both the catapult and the Spearman unit get 15% for flanking. Catapult is facing the Spearman unit and is being contacted by another Spearman unit, but I'm not sure why the Catapult would get a flanking bonus?

Also notice the modifiers for Great General, (can't actually see him anywhere).

Another big one is the mods for having friendly units in contact. Seems that the Catapult has about 5 units in contact and the Spear only 1 yet they both get a 15% bonus!

Not sure why the catapult has two icons over it?

Lastly in both pics notice that there is only one number "Strength" that is compared with all of the modifiers for attacker and defender.

 

[Ahriman]

I think its bizarre that bombarding units get flanking bonus. I hope they fix this.

I'm guessing that the "adjacent unit" bonus is capped at 15%; you get bonus for one support unit, but not more than that. Seems good, would be too overwhelming if it stacked.

Not sure why the catapult has two icons over it?

Maybe one to show it is deployed? Siege units have to take a turn to deploy before firing now. like a Starcraft siege tank. [Maybe some modern self-propelled stuff won't have to.]

 

[Dunkah]

Perhaps it's because the unit is being attacked by or in contact with two units. One actually touching the other by ranged.

Meaning they have to concentrate on the close unit and can't "Take Cover" from the ranged unit?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think its bizarre that bombarding units get flanking bonus. I hope they fix this.

Perhaps it's because the unit is being attacked by or in contact with two units. One actually touching the other by ranged.

Meaning they have to concentrate on the close unit and can't "Take Cover" from the ranged unit?

That I think is the issue

The bonuses are
15% if I have a friendly military unit near me (ie capped at 15%)
15% per Other (not me) friendly military unit near the enemy unit (ie other units they must concentrate on)...
cap is at least 45%... possibly no cap 90% bonus for bombarding a unit totally surrounded

Regardless of the Type of unit or Type of attack

I'm guessing that the "adjacent unit" bonus is capped at 15%; you get bonus for one support unit, but not more than that. Seems good, would be too overwhelming if it stacked.

Not sure why the catapult has two icons over it?

Maybe one to show it is deployed? Siege units have to take a turn to deploy before firing now. like a Starcraft siege tank. [Maybe some modern self-propelled stuff won't have to.]

Well the Cannon doesn't have 2 icons... I think the second Icon (the Bow+Arrow) is actually the City.. notice it is connected to the city... either indicating the city attacks like an archer or there is an archer unit inside the city


The Great General is probably the unit with the Star symbol