 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I personally don't like the mamoth stacjs in civ3
I would prefer civ2 or smac style methods of keeping units from being overstacked
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shogun Gunner
|
 |
Potomac Falls, Virginia
Oct 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
I'm not a CTP person. I bought and played Civ 1, 2 and 3.
However, I did buy CTP 1 and played five or six games before putting it away for good. One thing that did make an impression was the improved combat handling over Civ 2.
I would like to see a carryover of this, like Trifna mentions, into the next version of Civ.
What about choosing actions for each of your units? A bombards G; D assaults G; E assaults G; F defends against H and I. B and C opportunity fire. Orders entered first, then actions carried out concurrently.
Your Troops......Enemy Troops
...B...D--------------G...J
A......E--------------H......L
...C...F--------------I...K
Actions could be:
Frontal assault (ala Kamakazi)
Assault (move, fire, move, fire)
Ranged attack (stay in position, fire)
Opportunity Fire (like cav/tanks when you pass by the position)
Defend
Fighting withdrawl (retreat, fire, retreat, fire)
Retreat
Flee (drop your sh*t and haul a55)
Different choices produce advantage and/or vulnerability. For example, choosing opportunity fire means nothing if the enemy doesn't advance on your position (out of range). Frontal assault is very costly when the enemy is in "opportunity fire mode"
Another example, counterbattery fire could be an option for artillery to artillery combat which we haven't seen at all in Civ. I love reading in the Civlopedia about Radar Artillery's ability to locate enemy artillery by tracing back the trajectory of the fire and destroying the enemy artillery. Can't really do that in Civ, can we? This new combat system may be able to incorporate those changes.
This would finally bring some "combined arms" concepts into the game, hopefully without too much micromanagement, because the additional work is the downside here.
Bottom line, adopting something like this would overcome one of my greatest objections to combat in Civ. Too much knowledge of the enemy reduces the combat into a decision tree analysis exercise of probability. What ever happend to "THE FOG OF WAR?" We all have seen the threads How come three of my Modern Armor units got destoyed attacking a Rifleman on a hill? People whine and complain a lot. Someone inevitably posts an application they compiled in C++ that will tell you when you should attack and when you should defend taking into account all bonuses of terrain, etc. Boring  It's time for something new.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
I really don't want to see a tactical minigame included. I know it could be optional... but that would be like saying automated settlers are an option.
What I'd like are to give general orders before a turn begins from a list of reasonable strategies, such as Divide and Conquer, Dig in and Hold on, Full Frontal Assault, and then have those orders and my troops fight it out against the other guy's orders and troops.
I can't imagine any tactical minigame included being good enough to warrant having it, while at the same time being "mini" enough to get on with the turn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I hate the idea of a tactical minigame
I don't want to even see battles (as is seen in the pick)
I definitely don't want any control of them
I do want it so that it is advantageous to have no more than 50-60 moveable troop peices at any one point in the game
in the bad ideas area see some more points against stacked combat (especially as in CTP, I don't mind what is in Civ3 as much)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I ahve played tactical minigame games (like AoW, MoM, Heroes, ect)
and while they were all fun, they were much more limited in scope than civ
if something is to have as grand of scope as I would like Civ to (And as Civ has had in the past)
than Tactical Minigames would be a terrible idea
when you have more than 50-60 moveable peices, than the forward momemtum gets lost and you lose the one more turness
at elast I do
I almost always quit games of Civ3 at that stage
also, in the past there were real, good reasons to not concentrate troops too heavily
these were:
logistics/supply
vulnerbility to flanking action
vulnerbility to artillery
like
bombard should work better against stacked units
stacked units attacked should get -1 to their defense for every other side where their are enemy troops (this should be tech dependent)
losses should occur in a square after the stacking limit has been reached
this is probably too complicated
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I like yuor idea Darkcloud
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TimeTraveler
|
|
I'd prefer stacked units myself.
However, I think if it's possible, there ought to be a rule option at the start of the game as to whether or not the stacks would be allowed. That way, those that prefer stacked units get them and those that don't prefer stacks don't allow them.
My two cents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
oh
I love moving units at the same time
that and having your units attack one right after another
but if there was less stacking in the game, it would not be as needed
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TheBirdMan
|
 |
A real Master of CTP-PBEM - together with all the others.....
Sep 1999
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
............. Of course this problem could also be solved by not setting a limit units per tile, but again we have the unrealistic Civ2 system with the possibility to place infinite units on one tile.
-Martin |
Stacked combat as in CTP, no doubt about that in my mind.
I still halfway remember a game of Civ2 I played, where I sunk a whole AI-fleet (can't remember the exact number of ships, but it was a rather large fleet) with one lucky attack from a battleship. That could never have happend in a CTP-game.
Edit and added:
See this too:
Units - bombarding from the distance. It is not really a part of stacked combat, but I would like if it was possible, to weaken an ememy with relative cheap-only-use-once weapons. At least from modern times and forward.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...075#post2544298
Last edited by TheBirdMan on 09-12-2003 at 19:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think everyone know's my vote
having the tactical element is an integral part of civ
if it isn't there, than it isn't civ, it is some other game (like europa universalis), now that game might be good, but it isn't civ
Jon Miller |
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
I hate the idea of a tactical minigame
I don't want to even see battles (as is seen in the pick)
I definitely don't want any control of them Bolded for empasis
Jon Miller |
So let me get this straight...
On the one hand, you want tactical control.
On the other hand, you do not want tactical control.
I'm still unclear about your ideas about what constititues 'tactics'?
Civ tactics are VERY simplistic - it takes little thought, if you are on the attack, to use your bombard units first to soften up the target, and then use your most powerful offensive units - going down the line until the enemy is eliminated.
In fact, all you need to make sure is that you have enough units. Brute numbers rule the day. I remember a poster here who limited his own tech in a civ3 game to the lowest class unit (spearman) and he won the game because of sheer numbers.
Personally, I find it exciting to go down my army list of 60-70 civ3 military units, selecting each one to send into battle, and then watching it either die or win. 
That's not tactics, that's tedium. I guess I will send in another offensive unit - maybe he will win (sigh...)
And once railroads come into play in civ3, throw all consideration of tactics out the window because it becomes a matter of making huge stacks, taking cities, and then flood-moving units into those newly-captured cities on the same turn because of your newly captured rail system that the rival civ most likely has in place.
I'm not even going to go into the lack of use of variable HP based on unit type in civ3 that makes tactical decisions even less important. The creators of CTP2 were smart enough not to repeat their mistake regarding HP that they made in CTP1.
At least in CTP, the fact that your forces have a cap size (12 units) and that combat elements like range and flanking make a huge difference in whether you win or lose a battle, make decisions more than a 'how many units can I throw against the enemy'.
All computer games have that element to some extent, but it seems to be the overriding tactic consideration in civ3.
And make no mistake - range and flanking is important in CTP2.
Not to mention that because of the size cap, army composition is suddenly very important - more so than in civ3 because placing a limit on what you can do as a player forces you to put some thought into what needs to be done.
Here's an analogy - in one situation, you have an unlimited amount of funds to build the perfect army - in another situation, you only have $10,000.
Which situation forces you to think more carefully about what you are going to do???
I do agree that there are problems with the CTP2 system. (The main one is that the AI does not handle it as well as it could - placing a cap on army size works in the player's favor - but in Chariots of War which has a similar setup as CTP2, the developers did make some steps in improving the AI use of the cap, so there is hope.) It's not perfect - but at least there is thought given to elements such as flanking, and the concept of range has a much deeper application. (After all, you can bombard in CTP2, as well as have units that have good attack strength in a ranged situation during a battle - but once those units get on the front line, they are toast).
I would be in favor of adding a tactical minigame, whereby you can set basic commands and then run the battle. (and once commited to battle, the die is cast and you can't change anything) Of course this would not work in the current civ3 setup.
Last edited by hexagonian on 09-12-2003 at 22:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shogun Gunner
|
|
Potomac Falls, Virginia
Oct 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
Well, there are obviously two schools of thought on this. I submit, why couldn't both systems be available to players?
This could be a setting in the preferences at startup. Simple battle resolution or complex battle resolution. The simple setting would be what we have now. The complex would be some variation of what exists in the CTP series. You choose one.
Better yet, both options are available during gameplay. You could select which battles you want to get involved in. Maybe you feel confident enough the default computer choices to handle some battles and you never see the subroutine for complex battle resolution - just the results. But for critical battles, you will take the reins from the computer and make your own choices.
Unless the objection is "scarce R&D resources being diverted from things I want" to this "complex tactical battle resolution" feature -- I don't know what all the fuss is about.
45,000 uses at 'Poly and 45,000 different ideas about the priority of new features. Let's face it, people want different things.
I wouldn't mind better leaderheads and improved graphics, Heck, I even miss the wonder movies -- but I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on that one...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote:
This could be a setting in the preferences at startup. Simple battle resolution or complex battle resolution. The simple setting would be what we have now. The complex would be some variation of what exists in the CTP series. You choose one.
|
In CtP2 you can change in the settings whether to watch the battle or you can just see your units live or die on the normal terrain, not in "zoomed combat". If you lose all troops then the fog of war descends quickly and you dont see how damaged or how many your enemy has left, so its sensible to watch the battle, unless its an archer attacking a settler, which can be turned off too "simple battles".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yaroslav
|
 |
Madrid, Spain, Europe
Jun 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Well, there are obviously two schools of thought on this. I submit, why couldn't both systems be available to players?
This could be a setting in the preferences at startup. Simple battle resolution or complex battle resolution. The simple setting would be what we have now. The complex would be some variation of what exists in the CTP series. You choose one.
Better yet, both options are available during gameplay. You could select which battles you want to get involved in. Maybe you feel confident enough the default computer choices to handle some battles and you never see the subroutine for complex battle resolution - just the results. But for critical battles, you will take the reins from the computer and make your own choices.
Unless the objection is "scarce R&D resources being diverted from things I want" to this "complex tactical battle resolution" feature -- I don't know what all the fuss is about.
45,000 uses at 'Poly and 45,000 different ideas about the priority of new features. Let's face it, people want different things.
I wouldn't mind better leaderheads and improved graphics, Heck, I even miss the wonder movies -- but I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on that one... |
I like COMPLEX battles - complex in the sense that they include many factors, like terrain, veteran grade, parameters like FirePower (in Civ3 I miss FirePower a lot), etc. But I don't want to be bothered with details - I want them to be transparent. A very different game that takes in account many factors transparentely to users is Panzer General (IMHO).
And moreover, the more micromanage the system needs, the bigger the advantage of human over AI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
in civ I am interested in big scope
that is why Id on't want any tactical minigames
I like having tactics in the big scope
that is why I am against stacks (note I include stacks in the civ3 and cvi2 sense as well)
I don't even like hte time it takes for the fighting animations in civ3
after a certain point, they are just delaying what I want, which is the results
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
stacked combat always takes more ai work
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-12-2003 00:23
A bit like the BotF system. If not for Civ4, I will certainly keep it in mind for the CtP2 Source Code project...
Maybe the limited number of arrows/bullits/missiles could be used to show the fatigue of the troops 
|