What's the best set of parameters for a unit in civ?

[Hail]

atk = attack
def = defense
hp = hitpoints
dmg = damage (or firepower)

please note that defense and armor are not the same thing. the defense is how well is a unit at defending and armor how is how well is it armored (in other words if damage <= armor then the defending unit does not receive any damage).

only fighting parameters are considered (movement, upkeep, etc. are beyond the scope of this thread).

the choices are:

1) atk = def = hp (civ4 style: dmg is a linear function of atk=def=hp)
2) atk,def,hp (civ3 style: dmg = 1 barpoint per hit)
3) atk,dmg,def,hp (civ2 style)
4) atk,dmg,def,armor,hp (my style)
5) atk,def (civ1 style: hp = 1)
6) atk = def/dmg = armor,hp
7) atk = dmg/def = armor,hp (this != civ1 style with hp)
8) your own

 

[Camikaze]

I don't understand. By parameters, do you mean aspects of a unit that should be included when calculating battle odds?

 

[exhile]

There should be 3 bars
1) Health = (defense) reduced survivability for every attack taken (is affected by munnitions)
2) Munnitions = (attack) reduced hit points for every attack given (is affected by health)
3) Fuel or Food = (movement) reduced for every full movement points per turn

Introduce new units: airborne refueling, supply ship, logistics vehicle.

Cities replenish all 3 bars.

1) Unit is destroyed if not replenished
2) Unit attack/defense points are reduced if not replenished
3) Unit movement point is reduced to 1 if not replenished

 

[Hail]

I don't understand. By parameters, do you mean aspects of a unit that should be included when calculating battle odds?

no, by a "set of parameters" i mean projecting military entities in the real world onto civ. take a WW2 light tank and heavy. they differ in reality and fill different niches. how should (not if!) they be different in civ? what parameters should be there, that will allow us to differentiate them and [ultimately] make them fill different niches in civ?

There should be 3 bars
1) Health = (defense) reduced survivability for every attack taken (is affected by munnitions)
2) Munnitions = (attack) reduced hit points for every attack given (is affected by health)
3) Fuel or Food = (movement) reduced for every full movement points per turn

Introduce new units: airborne refueling, supply ship, logistics vehicle.

Cities replenish all 3 bars.

1) Unit is destroyed if not replenished
2) Unit attack/defense points are reduced if not replenished
3) Unit movement point is reduced to 1 if not replenished

that's complicated and again unit-focused. as i said elsewhere civ should move away from unit focus and/or individual battle scale. i would hate to cycle through units every turn to make sure that none of them runs out of ammution and/or fuel in a couple of turns. and yea, you forgot the "morale" bar and the "loyalty" bar.

 

[rysmiel]

Darn; hit the wrong button by mistake. I meant to vote for attack, defence, hit points and firepower; I would consider armour as incorporated in defence.

I do not want to see munitions or food supply represented explicitly by unit; I think this was got right initially, by having units cost shields and sometimes food to their home cities, and that should be reintroduced in Civ 5.

As for morale and loyalty, well, that could I think best be handled by a suitable city-based happiness system, where if a unit's home city goes into revolt for more than one turn, that city's units defect or become barbarians. And by reintroducing diplomats, and by converting units with culture as I have talked about before.

 

[Camikaze]

no, by a "set of parameters" i mean projecting military entities in the real world onto civ. take a WW2 light tank and heavy. they differ in reality and fill different niches. how should (not if!) they be different in civ? what parameters should be there, that will allow us to differentiate them and [ultimately] make them fill different niches in civ?

Well, then, as many as possible. Specific differentiation between a broad range of similar units would be good in the game, but I doubt it would happen.

I would definitely add mobility and flexibility to the parameters.

 

[Hail]

Darn; hit the wrong button by mistake. I meant to vote for attack, defence, hit points and firepower; I would consider armour as incorporated in defence.

I do not want to see munitions or food supply represented explicitly by unit; I think this was got right initially, by having units cost shields and sometimes food to their home cities, and that should be reintroduced in Civ 5.

As for morale and loyalty, well, that could I think best be handled by a suitable city-based happiness system, where if a unit's home city goes into revolt for more than one turn, that city's units defect or become barbarians. And by reintroducing diplomats, and by converting units with culture as I have talked about before.

you hit the right button.

homing units with the ability of unit rehoming is exploitable. imo units' supply should be interconnected with nation's economy unlike how it was in civ2.

Well, then, as many as possible. Specific differentiation between a broad range of similar units would be good in the game, but I doubt it would happen.

I would definitely add mobility and flexibility to the parameters.

"as many as possible" is not a viable option. in movies there is a "seven rule": there should not be more than 7 significant figures in the film.
"mobility" and "flexibility" what will it mean in civ terms? and what their gameplay effects will be?

 

[Camikaze]

"as many as possible" is not a viable option. in movies there is a "seven rule": there should not be more than 7 significant figures in the film.
"mobility" and "flexibility" what will it mean in civ terms? and what their gameplay effects will be?

As many as possible would be however many parameters are possible to include to enhance gameplay. Which would be more than your suggested five, IMO.

Mobility would be how fast units can move; their movement points.
Flexibility would be how fast a unit can adapt to a situation; their withdrawal chance.

Perhaps there could also be a parameter determined by the cost of a unit. You could change the production cost of a unit by ±10%, to give it a 'quality' modifier. This could also be applied to units that are drafted and rushed.

 

[rysmiel]

homing units with the ability of unit rehoming is exploitable.

How is strategic rehoming of units an exploit ?

Rehoming of all units that are supposed to cause their home city unhappiness by being out of them to a city which has Shakespeare's Theatre, in a version of Civ where Shakespeare's Theatre makes everyone in that city happy, I can see considering an exploit. Moving your units home cities around and rehoming them into the cties they conquer, much less so; particularly if you lose any units whose home cities is taken, so there's a corresponding vulnerability for every rehoming.

imo units' supply should be interconnected with nation's economy

I am all for having to pay them out of your nationwide treasury, but home cities seems a nice simple way of simulating all this logisitcal stuff that people her bring up again and again, and I want it back.

"as many as possible" is not a viable option. in movies there is a "seven rule": there should not be more than 7 significant figures in the film.

This would be why nobody went to see Ocean's Eleven and its sequels, right ?

I would submit that human beings vary; I would submit that some are better at keeping large amounts of information in mind than others. I would submit also that people who are better at being able to handle large amounts of information are more likely to find complex strategy games appealing than people who aren't. Therefore I think complex strategy games should not be pitching themselves at an average, or even worse a lowest-common-denominator, assessment of how much a human brain can handle. As I have said before, the ideal complexity level for Civ for me personally wiuld be about half as much again as it has now.

 

[rysmiel]

Mobility would be how fast units can move; their movement points.
Flexibility would be how fast a unit can adapt to a situation; their withdrawal chance.

Movement points we already have. Withdrawal chance seems to me best represented by a comparison of movement points with the enemy unit rather than needing a number of its own.

Perhaps there could also be a parameter determined by the cost of a unit. You could change the production cost of a unit by ±10%, to give it a 'quality' modifier. This could also be applied to units that are drafted and rushed.

Again, it doesn't need a separate number; just a small reduction in hit-points, attack and defence for a drafted unit would suffice.

 

[rysmiel]

It also occurs to me that one place where a more complex system would work well would be to make siege units, instead of a separate class of units, into regular units with a very high attack for their time, and a zero or very low defence.

 

[Hail]

It also occurs to me that one place where a more complex system would work well would be to make siege units, instead of a separate class of units, into regular units with a very high attack for their time, and a zero or very low defence.

that's exactly how it is in civ2.

a siege unit should have an attack of 0 and a defense of 0-2 and little hp and a bombarding ability. an antitank cannon may have a non-zero attack to represent it's ability to attack armored units by direct fire [versus artillery's ballistic bombardment].

 

[rysmiel]

that's exactly how it is in civ2.

Yep; don't change things that aren't broken.

a siege unit should have an attack of 0 and a defense of 0-2 and a bombarding ability. an antitank cannon may have a non-zero attack to represent it's ability to attack armored units.

Why should "attack" and "bombard" be different functions ?

 

[Hail]

Why should "attack" and "bombard" be different functions ?

"attack" is a melee/direct fire attack.
"bombard" is a ballistic fire attack.

i can't image a catapult having a direct attack. imo it should have a 0 attack a 1 defense, a bombard ability and a low accuracy, so it will only be used to siege cities. but, for example, a ballista should have a non-zero attack value, higher accuracy, but lower damage.

 

[rysmiel]

"attack" is a melee/direct fire attack.
"bombard" is a ballistic fire attack.

In a tactical combat game, these are different, sure. Civ is not and should not be a tactical combat game.

On squares that are, say, ten miles to a side, one "unit" attacking and destroying another is a simulation that to my mind, looks the same regardless of how they do it.

I still see no reason why they have to be separate mechanisms.

 

[Hail]

In a tactical combat game, these are different, sure. Civ is not and should not be a tactical combat game.

On squares that are, say, ten miles to a side, one "unit" attacking and destroying another is a simulation that to my mind, looks the same regardless of how they do it.

I still see no reason why they have to be separate mechanisms.

individual unit promotions is a tactical layer. the "siege" units in civ2 where imo overpowered. adding bombardment is a natural [and realistic] extension to gameplay to balance some issues. tile size depends on map size, but i see as a mere abstraction. if implemented, you would have to make strategic decisions as to create an army of heavy infantry with artillery with only a bombardment ability or an army based on [mobile] cavalry and light field artillery with direct attack and a [less damaging then artillery] bombardment attack with collateral damage. wether to build artillery or howziters or mobile artillery in the modern era.
artillery = alot of damage, a big (3 tiles or 49 tile coverage) bombard radius but 1 bombard attack per turn
howitzer = less damage, less radius (1-2 or 9-25 tile coverage respectively) but 3-4 bombard attacks per turn
mobile artillery = damage something like >howitzer but <artillery, 1 radius, 2 bombard attacks per turn, however it will have 2 movement points

notice: artillery and howitzers and mobile artillery will have a vision of 1, so there should be someone to spot for them if you want to shoot beyond their vision radius. hmm... maybe give them the ability to shoot at unseen tiles, but penalize?

the civ2 atk/def system is good enough in 1996, but left alot of room for improvement.

 

[rysmiel]

individual unit promotions is a tactical layer.

This is exacly why I very strongly want them removed.

the "siege" units in civ2 where imo overpowered. adding bombardment is a natural [and realistic] extension to gameplay to balance some issues.

What issues ? If anything, making units able to "attack" by bombarding without being destroyed if they lose makes them more overpowered, not less; and the Civ 4 model goes too far in the other direction.

the civ2 atk/def system is good enough in 1996, but left alot of room for improvement.

I still await any convincing argument for how changes since then have actually been improvements.

 

[Hail]

This is exacly why I very strongly want them removed..

i agree here

What issues ? If anything, making units able to "attack" by bombarding without being destroyed if they lose makes them more overpowered, not less; and the Civ 4 model goes too far in the other direction..

bombardment should be balanced. however this is offtopic. if you want i can send you a PM describing 1 way to balance it.

I still await any convincing argument for how changes since then have actually been improvements.

this is going to a discussion over preferences about which flavor of civ do you like more or which one is more a "dream" civ. some say they like the civ3/civ4 warfare model, some don't. for me i would build on civ2. some concepts will be added some extended.

 

[johnconor]

To say more strictly I even don't see the progress of commercial civ-like games. They are too simplified for feeding the wide masses of consumers, not for hard-core strategic players.

So when in 1999 year I found the PBEM version of Civilization, E-Civ, I was very sceptic. But the time is completely change my mind.

The game have unique economic and military model; one of the most impressive features is the correllation of almost all aspects in the game. You RULE the empire in the world of real players.

I suggest the real strategic players try this beatiful but very hard game.

The E-CIV based standard PBEM principles - client program for viewing the current turn and making orders, and server program for turn processing. So no single play, sorry.

If you are interested, visit the official game site.

 

[Argetnyx]

Civ3 forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!