 |
| |
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Merp
Okily Dokily...
Assuming that stacked combat holds the day, I would propose the following features:
An optional tactical mini-game
Whereby the same ruleset is employed whether you show the mini-game or not. ie it can be automatically resolved.
No player input required or allowed once actual combat has commenced (not including setup)
There are number of benefits from this.
a) keeps the player from micromanaging *too* much , thus its simpler for the AI to compete.
b) removes any benefit from having lightning reflexes
c) allows the mini-game to remain optional
Army-centric rather than Unit-centric
This obviously applies to more areas than stacked vs. unstacked combat, but it relevant here. By this I mean that there are no unit stacks, only armies (which, I suppose, could be stacked in a limited fashion). The game Medieval: Total War is a good example of this.
Armies have unit limits preventing more than a certain number competing in a battle. This says nothing about tile limits, thus preventing AI pathing problems. Army unit limits could be affected by the leader (see below), the units involved and the possession of tech advances.
Note that when I use the term 'army' I am equally referring to naval or (possibly) civillian formations.
Armies have a general / leader
On its simplest level this affects morale and provides a rating for the quality of automated tactical decisions, a talent for commanding certain units, bonuses, etc. Once again Medieval: Total War provides a good example of this.
On a broader scale generals or leaders can be produced from academies or other city improvements, gain experience from battle to battle and have a quantified loyalty to the current regime. IMO a great way of personalising otherwise generic formations.
Battlefield Maneuvers should introduce variability
Battlefield maneuvers would be generic changes to the way the battle is resolved.
a) Battle field maneuvers should be defined extensibly (see combat AI, below) and apply to specific situations depending on the commanding general, the units involved, tech advances etc.
b) are not necessarily shown in any great detail graphically
c) are always defined in the battle setup or left to the general
d) should be define a simple exclusive list of options with minimal user input. Example: Pin Down and Flank, Fighting Retreat, and Charge. Combinations - if desired, can be defined by modders (see combat AI, below). The point being that the player (or leader AI or rival AI) doesn't need to spend five minutes setting battle options that aren't understood.
e) can effect the location that units are in at the end of the battle. e.g. a player can 'win' a fighting retreat and end up in the square behind him. A successful flank might leave the player behind the position of the enemy. This could be optional
f) can have outcomes that are not completely win or defeat. Both armies could survive in some form.
Combat AI is flexible and moddable
Obviously AI is a broad topic not limited to the discussion at hand. I would however like to see the following relevant portions of an over-arching AI setup though.
a) Combat (and all other) AI defined in user-editable rules in text files
b) These rules can both provide both additional flexibility and choices (define a new 'flanking' maneuver, for example) and define automated AI and player behaviour (e.g. Retreat if only one frontal unit remains and if number of ranged units is over 1)
Combat AI handling of this type would be good, so that players who have no wish to see the minigame could still ensure that 'under the hood' everything is still happening exactly as they want it to.
The key objectives of this system
1. Ensure that the minigame remains optional
2. Introduce more depth and realism
3. Reduce micromanagement - if desired
4. Making sure AI is moddable, for both the lazy player and the AI.
Thoughts? |
nice
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Huh? You wouldn't be ABLE to put something like a CM or a ship in an army. You stick ground troops in there. (I hope we all agree that naval combat is more realistic unstacked, right?) |
I don't think that unstacked combat is necessarily more realistic. Think of it this way.
Say there are two ships which each deal 100 "points of damage" every minute. One ship has a hull which can sustain 1000 points of damage. The other can sustain 2000 points of damage.
You pit them against each other one on one and after ten minutes you are left with one sunk ship and one at half strength. If subsequently, another 1000 point hull ship attacks the victor, after another 10 minutes both ships are sunk. So two 1000 hull ships = 1 2000 hull ship. This is how civ works.
But in reality those two ships would attack simultaneously dealing a combine 200 points of damage per minute. At the end of 10 minutes the 2000 hull ship would be sunk, and either 1 of the 2 1000 hull ships would also be sunk and 1 unharmed, or both 1000 hull ships would be at half strength, or somewhere inbetween based on where the 2000 hull ship chose to concentrate its fire. But there is no way that both 1000 hull ships would be sunk. Civ currently has no way of modeling the difference in effectiveness of attacking simultaneously versus attacking one at a time.
This is the benefit of stacked combat. That it effectively models the overwhelming force multiplier. Which is not to say that a tactical mini-game is necessary to model that factor. I'm not in favor of a tactical minigame at all, and especially not for naval combat. But it does require some sort of "Naval Army".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
I just had a somewhat heretical thought.
Does Civ4 really need a new combat system or should it rather have a new power projection and diplomatic system.
I'm thinking that many conflicts are resolved without all out war and there should be a way of pressuring other civs into concessions without war. There still needs to be a combat system but I wonder if direct combat should be a smaller part of the game. Wouldn't it be more realistic just to bribe the head of state of a smaller civ to run a client state (and have a chance of a revolution throwing up an unfriendly regime).
More gunboat diplomacy and less World War III ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Actually, thats a fallacy. The common view is that trade was far more important to the foundation and growth of civilization, than war. War did happen, yes, but wasn't the primary means of empire growth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Actually, thats a fallacy. The common view is that trade was far more important to the foundation and growth of civilization, than war. War did happen, yes, but wasn't the primary means of empire growth. |
What in the world are you talking about? Or, more to the point, what world are you talking about? Not Earth, thats for sure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
Just another one of those elements that civ cannot simulate to the degree of realism that we all want. Sometimes realism has to be sacrificed somewhat to get better gameplay, which is why the ZOC rule is in effect. |
How does it improve gameplay? I can be convinced.
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
...And that is offset by the fact that defending is incredibly easy to the point being able to do it, (even if brain dead) once you get those infinite rails... At least you faced the prospect of losing an entire stack to a single unit (a la civ2) - not so the case in civ3... |
Oh, no doubt about it, defending industrial age onward is easy with rails. Insanely easy.  Until then, however, you either have to man every single square (expensive) or defend the more strategic points (risky). The infinite rail swung from easy offense in Civ2, ie engineers + howitzers to easy defense in Civ3, one move workers (though can still build rrs up to border, just can't start from scratch) and slow movement on enemy territory. Either way it sucks and should be changed.
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
I gotta say this much - Did Firaxis adjust the settings for AI trespassing in C3C, because it sure seems like the AI trespasses a lot less than it did in civ3 v1.29 - at least this is my impression. If so, this fixes one of my (big) gripes. |
I'm not sure if its more that they've changed it a bit, or that I've adapted to it  (no gaps in my territory, expanding to block AI paths, etc. )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
What in the world are you talking about? Or, more to the point, what world are you talking about? Not Earth, thats for sure. |
Huh? Trade has always existed, and has always been vital in civilization.
Without trade, cities are limited to the resources they can gather within the locality. Trade also facilitated the spread of ideas and technologies.
Not one significant culture didn't trade, even say, the mongols... who had elaborate trading networks. The Mongol's modus operandi was to use war to wipe out resistance, then establish advantageous trade terms, before retreating.
The greatest cities were (and are) trade centers. Trade gathered wealth, which became power and influence, which in turn supported larger populations, organized armies, and more far flung empires.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by asleepathewheel
How does it improve gameplay? I can be convinced. |
Here's my take on it - With no ZOC rule in effect (and this is in combo with the use of infinite-sized stacks), you have little need of establishing a front outside your cities (other than protecting a strategic good or a choke point), because the opponent can simply walk past your units to target cities (and let's face it...the priority in civ regarding the use of a military is to take cities.) Your cities are the fronts, not the land between you and the attacker.
Granted, your cities will generally be your most favorable areas of defense anyhow, because of their natural defender bonuses (due to size and buildings), but with a ZOC rule in effect, it opens up several more options for a player to consider on a strategic level. (For instance, it may be that access to a city can be better defended outside a city due to terrain bonuses.) It's this option of more strategic considerations that I favor...
With a ZOC, units can be used as shields out in the field to protect cities - to buy time for proper defenses to move into position. This is also historical, as cities were often considered to be the last line of defense.
It may not have been implimented as well as it could have been in civ2 (or for any other civ-style game for that matter) but the concept of ZOC makes for a better game, IMO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
ZOC's were largely eliminated as a design solution in Civ3, not because they are unrealistic, but because they increase the complexity of AI coding.
I, for one, like ZOC's. I'd consider their most valuable contribution to be reducing the number of entities necessary on the map. This reduces micromanagement, AI load and turn times in general.
Hexagonian, has brought up several other pertinent points, which I also agree with.
Last edited by MrBaggins on 09-02-2004 at 04:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
Thankyou for actually putting some time into your argument (a rarity around here I've seen), I appreciate it. My biggest problem with the Civ2 version was that it seemed bizarre that a unit could comandeer so much area. Thinking about your points, I think I would like it more as a compromise. Units by themselves would function like Civ3 ZoC (ie, not do muchother than pot shots) but forts would prevent movement on adjacent tiles. Seems more realistic to me anyway, and would cause the creation of forts, something that doesn't happen much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
OK, I think that a compromise between the Civ3 Armies and the CtP stack is the best way to go! The reason I say this is that I LOVE in civ3 how bombardment units can be used to whittle down defenders, but not to actually take a defended city (though I WISH the pre-C3C element of bombardment randomness was reintroduced!!), but I would also love to have the CtP system of flanking, and the like! So how about if we have stack limits, like Civ3 Armies, and make it impossible to put certain units into a stack, but utilize the CtP form of 'stack combat'!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-01-2004 00:18
|