 |
| |
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Responding to the following...
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Stacked combat. There are enormous problems with this, but I'd like to detail a few:
1. Limit to the number of units on a square
This is bad. Really really really bad. It is a HARDCODED limit, even, and can be incredibly annoying. If I want the best defense in a city, no units can enter it. |
Not true, because you can rearrange your stacks easily, based on unit strength. Simply move out the units you want elsewhere and replace them with the units you want to defend.
The (potential) problem lies in the fact that since you are limited to a certain amount of units in a city, the attacker can bring in multiple attacks to wear down that stack. But that is what you already have to do with the civ3 model. (Generally, you have to bring in a lot more units than are in the city to take it). The key though is to allow the defender to build buildings that will greatly increase defensive bonuses and thus greatly increase the resistance strength of those units - something that CTP2 does have in place.
(And look at history and the difficulty of fighting within a city, and the use of buildings as defensive modifiers within a city is very plausible.)
Plus completely surrounding a city in CTP2 is very unit-intensive (as it should be), so you would have to really place an iron grip on the city to prevent reinforcements from punching through to relieve the defenders.
To be honest, CTP2 does not do this second factor half as well as it could, but my point is that I really believe that coding can be created to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Moreover, it limits the size of my ATTACK forces. It places huge limits on the game and even really hinders scenarios. |
Again, not true because you still can bring in a vast amount of units to a target. A city is surrounded by 8 tiles - 12 units per tile - that makes for a potential force of 96 units. This is certainly not a huge limit, at least in my mind...
And if you want to take it a step further, add in the next ring of tiles around the city as possible tiles that can hold additional units.
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
2. Air units + bombardment
Civ3's current air unit system (which IMO is a huge improvement over Civ2) would function poorly here. |
Again not true because it would be easy to give those types of air units a coding designation that places them outside the normal unit restiction. Since they automatically fly out and return to their base on their turn, they would never be part of the stack.
CTP2 uses air units with a set number of turns in the air before they have to refuel. They have the capability to bombard a target, the same way that a land bombard can. I would agree that the civ3 model is better because it is more streamlined, but again, my proposal would work within the framework of stacked combat.
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Ditto for bombardment. |
Again not a problem since your bombards are part of your land units. With the 96 unit limit around a target, some of those slots can be filled by land bombards. CTP2 already uses bombards effectively, since there is a counter-bombard flag that automatically allows a bombard unit to fire back automatically when it is bombarded.
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Plus, scenario issues - Civ3's system offers infinitely more possibilities. |
Not without a scripting language - already in place in CTP2.
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
3. Ugliness
Combat in CtP2 (the only version I bought) was just plain UGLY. I hated it, it was tedious in a way that Civ3 combat isn't (not that Civ3 combat can't get tedious, but it does so in its own way). |
A matter of opinion based on a preference...so it is not worth the time to argue...(although I have yet to hear it explained to me just why CTP2 combat is tedious. I've certainly been trying to explain why the civ3 model is.)
My point all along is that despite its problems, the CTP2 setup is superior in just about every way over the current civ3 setup.
And I believe that it can be improved upon - I do not believe that retaining the current civ3 setup allows for much improvement, but that is just an opinion. It's just that I have yet to hear any compelling arguments to the contrary.
And based on the poll, there is a lot of others who feel the same way.
Last edited by hexagonian on 11-12-2003 at 00:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
still doesn't change the fact that I
and most others
did not find CTP combat fun
I am sorry that I have not been able to exaplin that to you
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
youcan look at sales and other such means
just because most the people here like CTP does not mean that here is not an outlier
also, maybe most people like Civ3 style limited stacked combat (I like this)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Theyre voting on the combat system, nothing else, and the voting is leaning heavily towards stacked combat.
Im sure if the voting had gone the other way youd have a different opinion on the value of the poll, Jon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I really enjoy your thoughts on my character
now, how well do you know me again?
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Wrong. The limit on the number of units on a tile is an ENORMOUS problem, especially for scenarios (CtP's scriping language is not a part of this argument), and does severely limit the forces you can bring to bear (and with which you can defend). You can't shuffle things around in the enemy's turn. |
OK, I'm game...
I explained how this doesn't have to be a problem, based on the fact that surrounding tiles allow for more than 12 units in the area that can be brought in for an attack. Some other solutions involve the use of buildings that can greatly add to the bonus of defending units - making a defending stack incredibly strong.
You can also create special unique garrison units within a scenario that have a lot of hitpoints - effectively doubling or tripling (or even more, based on how many hitpoints) the number of units in a tile if you use the parameter 'hp=manpower strength'. (all you have to do is title that unit a division, for example) In fact, if you want these units purchasable, you can assign a price to it in relation to the weaker unit. In a scenario, modders generally create their own unit types as part of the process, so this is not a stretch.
All of these solutions are viable and easy-to-impliment workarounds to the limitation of number of units that can occupy a tile - in fact I've already used these in my CTP2 'War of the Ring' scenario.
What stacking, stack unit limits, and stacked combat do is streamline gameplay, plus it simulates a more realistic format of battle. No general sends his units into battle one at a time.
Now please clarify your statements. You spend a lot of time explaining the 'what', but not a lot of time explaining the 'how' and 'why'.
A question...
What do you mean by shuffling things around in the enemy's turns? If you mean that the AI cannot bring in reinforcements, I've already explained how with a stack limit this is accomplished.
Last edited by hexagonian on 11-12-2003 at 23:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FinnishGuy
|
|
Finland
Jun 1999
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
This is easy to fix - it's in an ini file. |
What? Civ4 has an .ini file already?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:32
|
|
What I don't want to see in Civ 4:
1) Tactical movement on the strategic map. This means stacked combat among many other things. Armies should be what are placed on the map, units should only exist as things that can be carried by armies or held by cities and fortresses. I hope I never see another catapult limp along for a few centuries in order to eventually launch an unsupported attack on an enemy city.
Movement should be simultaneous, with orders given to commanders of armies who try to carry them out and who are affected by the enemy's armies and their orders. This obviates the need for any player intervention in the tactical phase and keeps the focus on strategy, where any game that spans hundreds of lifetimes should have its focus.
Assuming that each turn will comprise a year or more of "real" time, there should be no limitation (or very little limitation) on how far a unit can move across the map. Instead distance from supply points will determine whether a unit can keep moving or must stop. This limit will increase over time due to improvements in transportation tech (like heavy horses with proper harnesses), infrastructure like roads and rails and of course the actual supply points themselves, cities and fortresses and perhaps supply depots.
Map functions would make this system a breeze to use. Hitting the key would show immediately the areas which are in supply for your armies. Exploration units would have increased range of course, and it would be possible to build a network of bases in order to give yourself global reach. In fact it would be necessary, though as ranges increase fewer bases would be necessary.
2) I don't need 3d, don't want 3d and would hate to see any effort wasted on making the game 3d. It simply wastes resources in what is essentially a 2 dimensional universe.
3) I like pretty graphics as much as the next guy, which is why the graphics in Civ 3 were such a disappointment. I don't want to have animated cabbage patch dolls as opponents. Nor do I wish to imagine my forces as composed of cartoon cavemen. Even SMAC's horrible caviars were better than Civ 3's units.
4) I'd like to see a rich and complex strategic game unlike Civ 3 which gutted the strategic aspects of the game in favor of an immense amount of tactical dancing about. I want the opposite. Clean up the map by removing those thousands of units and replacing them with armies, and then clean up the game by giving those armies over to your generals to use. Not only is this an immense improvement in realism, but I think it will be a lot more fun to concentrate on the bigger issues. Once the huge and dull tactical game is cleaned up it is time to breathe some life into the essentially linear strategic game that Civ 3 is. This means a complex tech tree and social engineering. It doesn't have to be SMAC style SE necessarily, I think EU2 did a fantastic job with their SE settings of paired opposites.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
I really enjoy your thoughts on my character
now, how well do you know me again?
Jon Miller |
For a start you didnt expect the voting to go that way, by asking "where do all you people come from?" meaning the ones voting for stacked combat, so i think that shows you were interested in the result, and participating in the "stacked - single unit combat" poll itself and being first to reply shows you give some credibility to the result, i dont need to know you personally, Jon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
hmm
I asked where did all you people come from because I did not think so many people liked CTP (and I was hearing a lot of references to it), this does not mean that I viewed the results as pertinant
I am interested in stacked versus single combat, if you will check other posts made by me arround that time you will see that I was making a number of posts on that subject before the poll was created
so posting in a thread about stacked versus single combat somehow makes me think that the poll in the thread is credible?
or does it just mean that I am being involved in the discussion?
while I admit that I don't know you personally, you do seem to be trying real hard to be an ass
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
I asked where did all you people come from because I did not think so many people liked CTP |
From the CtP sections?
quote:
so posting in a thread about stacked versus single combat somehow makes me think that the poll in the thread is credible?
|
So vote banana next time.
quote:
while I admit that I don't know you personally, you do seem to be trying real hard to be an ass |
It comes naturally.
If you want to continue then PM me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
What I don't want to see in Civ 4:
1) Tactical movement on the strategic map. This means stacked combat among many other things. Armies should be what are placed on the map, units should only exist as things that can be carried by armies or held by cities and fortresses. I hope I never see another catapult limp along for a few centuries in order to eventually launch an unsupported attack on an enemy city.
Movement should be simultaneous, with orders given to commanders of armies who try to carry them out and who are affected by the enemy's armies and their orders. This obviates the need for any player intervention in the tactical phase and keeps the focus on strategy, where any game that spans hundreds of lifetimes should have its focus.
|
quote:
Assuming that each turn will comprise a year or more of "real" time, there should be no limitation (or very little limitation) on how far a unit can move across the map. Instead distance from supply points will determine whether a unit can keep moving or must stop. This limit will increase over time due to improvements in transportation tech (like heavy horses with proper harnesses), infrastructure like roads and rails and of course the actual supply points themselves, cities and fortresses and perhaps supply depots.
|
Sounds pretty unwieldy to me. Why not simply assume that turns represent a year of real time, while turns represent only a month or a week of Military and Diplomacy time? I know the old argument about a tank not being able to drive 500 miles in a year... but it would basically be infinite movement withing a supply zone in what you explained... also known as railroads, which are well despised.
quote:
2) I don't need 3d, don't want 3d and would hate to see any effort wasted on making the game 3d. It simply wastes resources in what is essentially a 2 dimensional universe.
|
What about just enough 3d to make the map sphereical?  If it is no longer a "2 dimensional universe" then the game is more accurate, realistic, and IMO fun.
And agreed to strategy in place of tactics!! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
filix
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
Hmm, you don't have control while the battle happens, but you don't have it in Civ 3 really, either. There are also similar tactics in CtP2, by forming stacks with different abilities and stuff.
The upside is, it will never take you 5 attackers to wipe a single defender. |
Hello
im a ctp1 player and i hope that there will be the option to form stacks with different abilities and stuff.
I dont like to move every single unite without groups.
IMPORTANT
Futhermore i hope that the corruption problem of civ3 will be sloved, its no fun to play civ3 with a lot of citys which produce almost nothing because of distance to the kapital.
IMPORTANT
And i like the ctp1 city manager very much its very important for me that i have the option to let my worker work on plains,wood or montains, without that a big part of the civ gameplay is gone.
IMPORTANT
+ I like the idea of building caravans for trade. The ctp trade system is a little bit unlogic (with the monopolies) but i like it much more than the trade at civ3 with the simple road system.
greetings to all "ctp1like game" players
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-12-2003 22:37
|