1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Would you like too keep the current combat system in Civ 6?

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Bliss, Feb 2, 2015.

  1. daft

    daft The fargone

    Dec 19, 2013
    New World
    Of course, most players do. I'm sure once CIV 6 comes out, if it does, you will be able to create realistic armies(stacks) consisting of several different types of units.
    The tactical battle screens, once combat starts taking place, should be the way to go, battle resolved in the same turn, unless sieging a city which might take a couple of turns in later eras.
    I imagine as a result of each battle if victorious or defeated battle results would be displayed, showing the amount of units/soldiers killed on both sides, the wounded, imprisoned and how many had fled.
    By allowing the players to strategize when fighting a battle the game would add even more strategy into play, I'm sure resulting in waves of new players and followers, besides the already existing ones.
  2. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Mar 17, 2008
    Moderator Action: Two combat for Civ VI threads merged
  3. Zulose

    Zulose Chieftain

    Apr 15, 2015
    There are 3 issues I´d like fixed in Civ 6

    1. 1UpT, while better than SoD, is too far in the other direction
    2. Ranged units too powerful
    3. Combat not varied enough as meat shield with ranged behind always best tactic.

    My solutions, building on what others have put forward in this and other threads, are:

    1. Allow 1 ranged to share a tile with 1 melee or mounted. The doubled up units would both take damage if the tile is attacked though. Melee attacks would do more damage to the ranged unit, ranged attacks would damage both equally.
    2. Ranged attacks over two tiles are 50% less powerful (25% less for siege units) than attacks on units in adjacent tiles.
    3. Great general promotions that allow the general to order multi unit attacks. For example, Engage/Charge: requires melee unit and mounted unit in adjacent tiles. The melee engages the enemy while the calvary attacks his flank (an attack that´s more powerful than the two separately). Or Feint and fire: a mounted unit pretends to attack a melee so the troops bunch together, the following ranged attack then does more damage.

    While the great general is active buttons could appear showing available attacks, hover for a preview, click to execute. This could potentially make combat faster, provided you have your units lined up in the right places. It would also reward having a varied army rather than the standard spamelot of archer-spearmen.

    What do you guys think?
  4. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Aug 8, 2003
    I don't like your first solution... multiple units per tiles would be confusing and a nightmare to manage.
    However I do like you third solution very much.
  5. daft

    daft The fargone

    Dec 19, 2013
    New World
    Could the combat become a bit more bloody/realistic? CIVV's combat seems a bit like playing a board game, always in the PG rating. Make it more badass!
  6. ViterboKnight

    ViterboKnight King

    Feb 6, 2006
    1UPT, although a nice idea, has proven to be quite hard to be implemented, both for the AI, and even for the human play (sometimes, even a human player has a hard time to find his way across a carpet of doom!).

    Whatsmore, in my opinion, Civ is NOT a war game, and it's not worth to become an extremely detailed war simulation with complex warfare tactics and strategies. War should be implemented, in a relatively easy (and realistic) way.

    However, apart of my opinion, I'd proceed with analyzing the past solutions (1UPT and SOD) to find good and bad aspects, and find what can be improved.
    I beg other forum posters to avoid too generic wishes like "I'd like a better AI". Of course we would, but it is like a Chimera. A well done AI requires a tremendous effort, perhaps out of the range of a computer game. So, if we are thinking of how our game should be done, we'b better NOT rely too much on this point.

    Stack of doom characteristics:
    • Very easy to implement and to play with (no unit jams)
    • AI very effective to play with
    • Tends to be abused (a well formed stack of doom is quite impossible to counter)
    • Tends to vanify the rock-scissors-paper mechanics of the game, with specialized attackers NEVER fighting with their best opponents (eg., an attacking axeman almost never fights against spearmen, but archers instead).
    • Dull combat: two stacks just keep attacking each other. Not too much to decide, apart of the sequence of the attackers.

    1UPT characteristics:
    • Strategic combat: each unit attacks just the unit he intends to fight
    • Importance of deployment: units must be deployed in a strategic way (eg., melee on first line, archers on second line, cavalries to chase a particular dangerous enemy unit).
    • Tends to form carpets of doom, hard to move around with.
    • Extremely difficult to be handled by AI (and easy to abuse by a human)
    • Forces some other game mechanics to limit some weakness of this solution (eg., units movement of 2 to be able to move across carpet of dooms, archer range of 2 to be able to shoot from the backline, high unit maintenance to limit the number of units in the game and limit the carpet of doom, etc...)

    I think that 1UPT has a single feature that is QUITE hard to be solved: AI!
    If Firaxis decides that CIV will become exclusively a multiplayer game, this could be the final solution. However, i DO hope that single-player will remain the core of the game, so I don't think that 1UPT (as it is in Civ5) could be a valid solution.

    Maybe, the easiest solution could start from the Stack of Doom.
    Most of the bad aspects of SOD could be resolved by encouraging player to SPREAD his units, with some mechanics working in a way that, although SOD is possible, a spreaded army is MORE effective. How? A possible way is a recall of Civ1, where a losing stack is COMPLETELY destroyed. Maybe it's too extreme and powerful, but the basic concept is valid: SPREAD your army, and your risks will be lower. For example, a losing stack could be damaged, so if you want to lower the damage suffered by your units, you'd better deploy them on different tiles. Another way could be a game mechanic so that bigger and more crowded stacks are less effective in combat, or heal at a lower rate, or suffer higher collateral damage, or have a higher maintenance cost (for logistics and supply). There are plenty of ways to encourage spreading an army.

    The other problem of SOD is the vanification of the rock-scissors-paper concept. It is valid when a single unit fights another single unit, but with stacks it almost never happens: the defender will always HIDE and PROTECT the target that the attacker wish to fight against, eg., if the attacker is an axeman (and he of course wants to fight spearmen), the defending stack will always protect spearmen and send archers to counter the attack.
    It's difficult to find a way (or even an abstract idea) to solve this problem of SOD. Maybe, there could be some sort of combat modificator that computes the strength and the composition of attacking and defending stacks: so, back to the previous example, an attacking axeman (in a stack with lot of cavalry) will be more effective against a stack with spearmen and archers: he will still fight against the archer, but he will have some combat bonus for the presence of cavalry in his stack (since cavalry counter archers quite well). How you can see, it risks to be a complex mechanic, also hard to be well understood by the player; not too sure whether it could work.

    Annyway, in my opinion, if we want to determine WHICH solution is closest to our ideal, SOD is closer than 1UPT, since SOD limits are somehow manageable, while 1UPT has a MAJOR limitation (AI) with UNRELIABLE solutions (improve the AI!!).
  7. twilson1972

    twilson1972 Warlord

    Apr 6, 2015
    Personally i want limited stacking, i like the idea of smaller hexes, but im not sure how that is different to simply making maps bigger

    SOD could be annoying, especially if i had to sit and watch 100 attacks on say a mech infantry by berserkers etc.

    But, civ v plays too 'small scale' for me nowadays. It feels like a tactical rather than strategic game, and i think the 'tactics added by 1up' is over sold, it is not rocket science really

    Also i feel that production of units/buildings is too slow for tech advances and i think this is because they wanted to avoid the carpets we sometimes see.

    Oh and yes the AI complete inability to use 1upt is an issue.
  8. Kid R

    Kid R Emperor

    Jan 26, 2009
    +1 for stacks while just moving around with 1UPT for combat.

    Units can be moved around in SODs on the main map and when at peace (SOP = stack of peace?) but they split out for combat on more detailed version of the terrain at the battle location.
  9. aldonius

    aldonius Chieftain

    Jan 11, 2015
    I'm also for limited stacking.

    - Civilians (including Generals & Admirals) can stack indefinitely.
    - Military Units can stack (say) 3 to a tile by default...
    - Generals or Admirals increase this to (say) 5, as do Citadels and Cities
    - some buildings could add additional garrison slots to Cities

    Melee units would fight the 'best defender' 1v1, which I believe is how things used to happen. Perhaps a 'skirmisher' promotion to select the target?

    Ranged units would be single-tile range only by default. For bombardment damage, each unit in the stack would calculate its 'solo' damage taken, then divide by the total number of (military) units in the stack to get actual damage taken. There would be a 'sniper' promotion to select the individual target.
  10. Ikael

    Ikael King

    Dec 2, 2005
    I have already peddled my suggestion in another treads, but I will do it again: Limited stacking according to terrain / specific bonuses is the best option possible, me thinks:

    - Rought terrain: One unit max
    - Flat terrain: Two units max
    - Armies: Can stack up to 3 units, needs roads in order to traverse rought terrain
    - Cities: It can only stack one unit initially, but buildings / wonders / social policies / techs can add up more unit capacity to your cities (up to 3 units max, that is)
    - Ocean: Can stack up to 3 units max by default with no great general needed or whatsoever, thus making coastatal cities extremely vulnerable to sea assaults and navies extremely vulnerable to bombardement, just like it happened in real life
    - Guerrilla units: Can stack up with other regular, non-guerrilla units in forested areas regardless of the rough VS open terrain consideration

    That way, you archieve several things:

    - Flavourful, meaningful differenciation of combat according to terrain. Rough terrain will keep a heavy "rock, paper, scissor" factor and chockepoint advantages, flat terrain will allow you to play with unit composition and flanking, armies will be powerful city-breakers but very dependant on infrastructure (roads), while sea warfare will be all about logistics and industrial output

    - More units in the field, thus avoiding carpets of doom in the late game

    - Increasingly complex city siegues as the game progresses (gotta make these late era air units count for something!)

    - Better representation of irregular warfare (guerrillas)
  11. historix69

    historix69 Emperor

    Sep 30, 2008
    Unit stacks are very useful to quickly move large number of units ...

    I think they should try a hybrid system of 1upt and SoD (e.g. like in Hearts of Iron) :

    To avoid SoD, apply a Stacking Penalty, e.g. Stacks with 1-10 units have no penalty, 11-20 units get an increasing combat-penalty up to 50% and stacks with 20 or more units stay at 50% Combat Efficiency. (In peacetime you might have unlimited stacking or a higher absolute limit.)

    The usefullness of stacks in combat can be reduced even more by applying a flanking bonus, e.g. :
    - Give the attacker +20% combat-strength for every tile adjacent to the target tile which is occupied by own units (max +100% for full encirclement).
    - Give the defender +20% combat-strength for every tile adjacent to the attacker's tile which is occupied by own units (max +100% for full encirclement).

    To optimize the combat bonus, the stacks will have to split to form realistic working frontlines, otherwise they are soon encircled and defeated.

    If you want more realism, allow strong attacks to push back the defending stack ... by this way you can concentrate enemy units in a small encircled area with negative combat modifier (stacking penalty, encirclement) and annihilate them ...
  12. aldonius

    aldonius Chieftain

    Jan 11, 2015
    historix69, I love the way you think: No outright limits, just increasing levels of combat strength penalty.

    We'd probably want somewhat smaller stack sizes though, if the production:science ratio is anything like in V.

    Could combine with my idea about Great Generals increasing the permitted stack density - double the 'no-penalty' cap, halve the mid-density penalty, for double the total units?.

    No special cases needed for peace-time, I think. If you're not at war then the combat strength penalty for some massive (temporary, in-transit) stack doesn't really matter, does it? And in any event you're always at war with the Barbarians...
  13. historix69

    historix69 Emperor

    Sep 30, 2008

    This can be easily scaled as it is usually done for the different Game Speed types, e.g. :

  14. Lazybones

    Lazybones Chieftain

    Jul 4, 2015
    I've been playing Civ 4 off and on for years but I only managed to stand Civ 5 for about a week. I guess I don't mind SoDs (it's convenient) although I can see why people don't really like them. The problem I have with #5 is too much stick and not enough carrot eg

    1. Roads cost maintenance. Is it really that bad that I build roads all over my empire? I don't see the problem. Sure roads in reality cost to maintain but this is a game, shouldn't we picking fun choices where we can? IMO fun > > > realism in games.
    2. Cannot stack units. One unit per tile is just annoying.

    So I'd prefer they try something to encourage smaller stacks rather than to stop SoDs altogether. eg off the top of my head maybe give movement bonuses to smaller groups or increase their "efficiency" ie pikes in smaller groups get a slightly bigger bonus vs mounted because they fight harder.
  15. Matthew.

    Matthew. Deity

    Sep 14, 2011
    Somewhere in between is the dream.

    The reason I like 1upt is it places more emphasis on where armies are at on the map. The problem with it is the maps are entirely too small, and as army sizes increase, the micromanagement factor becomes too high and it overtakes the fun factor.

    I wouldn't mind a system where the game starts out as 1upt, and as the game progresses you can add units to a stack. The game would maintain the same feeling as early on, but as army sizes increase it wouldn't get bogged down with micromanagment. Especially the nightmare when trying to move armies near allies/city-states with their armies, where the term "carpet of doom" is fully realized.

    Performance would be much better as well. Poor AI would still be an issue, but at least it would cut down on moving a billion individual units each turn (often just shifting back and forth). The increased performance would also mean larger maps would be possible (to make 1upt play better) and not suffer as much because of it.
  16. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Nov 22, 2007
    * individual units should be able to be combined into armies like in civ3.
    * units should be able to be 'quartered' in cities (like planes) for less maint
  17. poom3619

    poom3619 Ping Pang Poom!

    Oct 1, 2009
    /r/civ battle royale
    Endless Legend or Galactic Civilization II (or 3) That would be my answer.

    ie. Stack of maximum X units.
    Start the game with, say, maximum 3 units per stack. and limit will increase with tech and "policy" or tenet or whatever that give bonus. If they have integrate 1upt battle as optional battle between stacks like Endless Legend (or HoMM3) and make it fun. Then it would be great for me because I can't see how to make it fun to play in Civ game.

    I think every new iteration of Civ is to experiment with new things. If Civ6 having system that's identical or resemble Civ5 without significant improvement or alteration, then it would make part of Civ6 feel like an expansion or 50$ mod, and people would easily compared it to calibrated Civ5 system and return to Civ5. :)
  18. zaint

    zaint Chieftain

    Aug 1, 2003
    I would like to see a change in how cities are captured. Today, when you capture a city, it's yours. I would rather see that the cities instead become occupied and you can demand cities ( or just land areas ) during peace negotiations.
  19. dunkleosteus

    dunkleosteus Roman Pleb

    Aug 17, 2015
    Toronto, Canada
    EU IV (not that I've ever played it) has a system where units can be combined and even though each "tile" can only contain one unit, the strength of each force can be adjusted by splitting troops up and moving them around. Maybe a unit as produced by a city could be 1000 soldiers (talking more ancient history) and a max of 16000 or so. You could spread your army out to take on multiple enemies or just have one big stack. I think it would make an interesting mechanic.

    So for example when you produce a spearman unit, you'd have your spearmen with their 11 combat strength and 1000 soldiers (sort of like health I guess). Producing more spearman would create a separate unit of 1000 but those two units could be combined into one tile. The units still maintain their individual upgrades but attack as one. This would mean you could fortify all your troops in a city if you needed to (oligarchy probably wouldn't work for more than one unit though) and if you were being attacked you could split your army up as you needed. Maybe you have a 10 000 soldier stack and are attacked on three sides by smaller forces. You could split your soldiers into groups of 3000, 4000 and 3000 to coordinate a counter on all fronts and utilize your forces where they'll be most effective. This would only let you stack units of the same type, but could open new ways of fighting, such as healing some of the units within the army while the others defend. Imagine options on the side bar for attack, defend, etc as normal and a menu icon which would let you individually select a unit or units to separate into a new army or be controlled individually within the army.

Share This Page