 |
| |
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
A few additional points. I think the Civ3 concept of defensive bombardment should apply to stacked combat, if it is incorporated in Civ4. This would encourage you to have a decent number of ranged units in your stacks, especially in the ancient and Middle Ages.
Secondly, when the combat screen comes up, you should be able to select each individual unit, on the screen, and give it very basic tactics and a priority target. So, for instance, you might want some of your units to retreat, others to make a tactical withdrawl, whilst others might harrass or charge the enemy. Different units would get different attack/defense bonuses (and penalties) for both the maneuver they use AND the unit they target! If you don't select anything, then all of the units would have a 'default target' and 'default tactic'!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
OK, as an option to the tactical 'minigame' style of CtP 1 and 2, another possibility would be to have
i) A maximum stack size, which grows with each age.
ii) When a large stack attacks a much smaller stack, there should be a 'size ratio' combat bonus for the larger stack. In certain terrains, however, a large stack might give you a combat penalty due to fighting in a tight space.
iii) Each unit has a specific type such as defender (ranged and melee), 'brawler', ranged attacker, assault and flanking.
iv) A stack which comprises more than 50% of one unit 'type' would suffer a combat penalty. At the same time, certain combinations of unit types would give you a bonus to attack and/or defense for the entire stack.
v) Certain units AND unit types would grant stack bonuses when fighting in certain terrains, whilst other units and unit types might give stack penalties (like horses in forests or tanks in cities).
vi) You can give each stack a general tactical stance, from fortified, through defensive, all the way up to frontal assault. This might give each unit in your stack a specific bonus/penalty to its attack, defense and firepower. If you don't set this stance, then it will remain in a certain 'default'! You could even have specialist stacks, like artillery which, as has been suggested, might be set to a 'counterbattery' stance-thus this particular stance is 'specialised for elimination of enemy artillery stacks.
vii) Lastly, you can bring multiple stacks into combat, and indicate what unit(s) or stack(s) you want to attack!
In ALL other ways, though, the combat proceed in much the same way as it does in civ3-i.e., no mini-screen!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
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'!
|
Non lethal bombardment is *the* big improvement that Civ3 brought to bombardment options.
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
A few additional points. I think the Civ3 concept of defensive bombardment should apply to stacked combat, if it is incorporated in Civ4. This would encourage you to have a decent number of ranged units in your stacks, especially in the ancient and Middle Ages.
*SNIP*
|
Already exists in a CTP2 mod (the CTP2 equivalent of a patch or expansion pack  )... Hex's Cradle for example.
It works just great with CTP2 stacks. No reason to avoid it, if you implement CTP2 stacked combat.
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
OK, as an option to the tactical 'minigame' style of CtP 1 and 2, another possibility would be to have
*SNIP*
ii) When a large stack attacks a much smaller stack, there should be a 'size ratio' combat bonus for the larger stack. In certain terrains, however, a large stack might give you a combat penalty due to fighting in a tight space.
iii) Each unit has a specific type such as defender (ranged and melee), 'brawler', ranged attacker, assault and flanking.
iv) A stack which comprises more than 50% of one unit 'type' would suffer a combat penalty. At the same time, certain combinations of unit types would give you a bonus to attack and/or defense for the entire stack.
*SNIP*
|
Firstly, there is no CTP minigame. Its a combined battle display, and has no effect on the battle outcome... except if you retreat. I disagree that you should avoid having this screen in the game. Its a welcome atmosphere addition. I've never wanted or needed to turn it off.
For (ii)-(iv), if you're talking about implementing CTP2 style stacked armies/combat for Civ3, these concepts already exist in CTP2.
The combined arms effect ensures that mixed armies are better than unmixed, and that bigger armies have advantages over smaller armies.
Units are already categorized.
Last edited by MrBaggins on 09-02-2004 at 18:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
ii) When a large stack attacks a much smaller stack, there should be a 'size ratio' combat bonus for the larger stack. In certain terrains, however, a large stack might give you a combat penalty due to fighting in a tight space.
iii) Each unit has a specific type such as defender (ranged and melee), 'brawler', ranged attacker, assault and flanking.
|
Makes sense to me. 
quote:
iv) A stack which comprises more than 50% of one unit 'type' would suffer a combat penalty. At the same time, certain combinations of unit types would give you a bonus to attack and/or defense for the entire stack.
|
That seems really artificial. A penalty for not using combined arms doesn't sit well with me. If the system is designed well - as it should be - then the player should be rewarded for using them.
Much as this would allow:
quote:
v) Certain units AND unit types would grant stack bonuses when fighting in certain terrains, whilst other units and unit types might give stack penalties (like horses in forests or tanks in cities).
|
That is incentive to use different unit combonations, without feeling artificial. People might argue that I'm just being picky here, but I hate when systems are designed to force you to do the strategic thing because you're "supposed to," rather than being designed to reward doing the intelligent thing. It feels artificial and forced, and dumbs down the strategy.
On the whole, Aussie, I like your approach. I agree with MrBaggins that the Miniscreen (NOT minigame) is nice, because it allows you to see, and therefore understand, the results of your army compositions. Turn it off if you like, but it's a valuable tool.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord_Davinator
|
|
Kathmandu
Nov 2000
time: 11:02
|
|
stacked is fun... but hope it doesn't slow down the game too much
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
Stack damage is only marginally better than Civ 3. It still doesn't solve the fundamental problem of all combat being 1 on 1, even if one side has an entire army present.
Stack damage is a non-compromise between single unit or stacked combat. it's just a different flavor of single unit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mars
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Sep 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
This is the way combat's got to be in civ4:
1) relatively simple
2) less tedium
3) allowing units to behave in a more strategical manner (combined arms)
With the above criterea the CTP style seems to be the ultimate solution; unfortunately we all know friaxis can never implement a CTP clone combat system. So the challenge is to come up with something that behaves like the CTP system but is fundemetely different at the same time.
So criterea 4 ) not a CTP clone
Tactical minigames are out by criterea number 1. They are simply to complicated for a grand strategy such as civ. Unit vs. Unit is out by number 2.
Now regalur stacked units is the most acceptable option but it still violates number 3, which I, and seemingly a large number of others, would like to be in place in civ 4.
Idea: 5 tier combat system of sorts. 1st tier being the main line, 2nd tier being the ranged line, 3rd being artiellery, 4th noncombatants, sort of 5th being flankers (though they'd actually be right next to the main line).
- Artiellery would be bombers, cannons, howitzers and the like
- Ranged would be archers, Jets, rifleman, infantry etc,
- main line would be hoplites, legionaries, marines, infantry, etc
- Flankers would be Cavalry, helicopters, mechanized infantry, tanks
- non combatants would be anyone who couldn't fight
What category each troop would go to would be selected by the computer. Instead of having units attack one by one they would attack in phases. First the artillery of each side would fire at the main line. Depending on the tech would determine how this worked. From catupults up to field artillery the unit attacked would be randomly picked for each piece of artiellry. for radar and howitzer and precision bombers all the artiellery would be able to fire on the strongest unit(s).
Next the ranged phase of combat would start. All the ranged combatants would be paired with a corresponding unit on the enemies main line and then they would all fire. Some calculation would occur to determine if they hit or not and then damage is done.
Now the main line also pairs with an enemy unit on the main line. If one side has a larger main line than two units are allow to gang up on one unit and have their offense scored added together and then multipled by .75 (so as not to make such a stupendous advantage). If the advantage is more than 2-1 then the enemy is forced move one of their ranged units to the front lines. If their still isn't enough then a flanker has to be moved to the front. If their still isn't enough then the artiellry is moved to the front where it is promptly sacked. Still not enough, then the rest of the main line just sits around. Each unit combat is done in effect simultenously.
Finally the flankers get their turn. This is the most complicated part for the computer that is. if both sides have flankers it operates the same as main line with each flanker being paired up with an oposing flanker. If the enemy has no flankers and its entire main line is occupied by enemy troops (that is the side with flankers main line is > the side's without main line) then the flankers attack the ranged line. and if the side with no flankers main line is larger the flankers attack the main line.
Phew, that's really complicated right. Well true if you're the computer but not to the player. See the player just gets to sit back and watch as all this war business is beautifully taken care of by his field general (the computer) Making this system relatively simple to the player. On the downside this is stil pretty much the CTP combat system the only difference being that combat happens all at the same time rather than unit by unit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deathmerchant
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joseph
I want stacked units. In CTP 2 you can turn off the battles. I also want to be able to remove or add to a unit to a stack just like in CTP 2.
|
Exactly, I loved the CTP system, it simplified combat so much. It was just one army vs. the other, not my 150 tanks vs. your 150 tanks. And of course you must have a limit somewhere, just to avoid large game deciding battles, the limit in CTP was 12. That seemed to work for that game. It is just so much better then the CIV single unit battles, it easily makes a system able to handle different types of units, melee units, long range, artillery, flankers, etc.
To avoid some kind of stacked combat in Civ4 would be a bad decision.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
Good idea Mars, but with one problem.
Flankers should be able to hit the Back as well as the Front,
and Artillery should be able to hit behind the front line.
The unit classes make sense, though.
Meatshields (front line), Short-ranged, Long-ranged, Mobile and noncombattant.
Thing is, where would you put a guided missile in there? You could use it as artillery in a forward launch OR fly it around the battle and attack from the sides.
I propose an addition:
Front line, Ranged, Artillery, Ground Flankers, Aerial, noncombattants
With each section being set up to be able to strike at different possible section(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deathmerchant
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Thing is, where would you put a guided missile in there? You could use it as artillery in a forward launch OR fly it around the battle and attack from the sides. |
I would think I guided missle wouldn't be in a battle as such, wouldn't you just select it to bombard before the battle? I supose it could happen if you were attacked off guard or something, but then shouldn't you just be outa luck? When nukes are attacked in Civ2 they don't explode, they just die as defenders.
quote:
Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
I propose an addition:
Front line, Ranged, Artillery, Ground Flankers, Aerial, noncombattants
With each section being set up to be able to strike at different possible section(s). |
So are we favoring a mini-game where you can actually say for your artillery to attack their artillery? As soon as you get options for one unit to attack with more then one opposing unit to decide on you can never trust the A.I. to do it right. Maybe you wanted to destroy the spy in the back, rather then the troops in the front. So you would have to tell your flankers to attack it, rather then just letting the battle play out.
Because if you wanted different sections to have more then one option to attack, you have to be able to tell them what you want, and you've created a mini-game. And many people are not in favor of that. I, for one, would be in favor of that, but it might get to tedious for others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grandpa Troll
|
 |
I owe..I owe..it's off to work I go
Jul 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
Please give me a real example of tactics in civ 3. Is it deciding when to attack a certain unit in the field and how to move your attackers? If so, that also exists with the stack system.
I've mentioned many times I prefer stack combat, and diversity is another reason. In CtP2, late Industrial Age I use:
Machine Gunners - very decent all-around infantry
Artillery - bombarding and very strong ranged attack
Cavalry - for quick raids and pillaging
Infantrymen (Musketeers) - cheap defensive infantry that I can mass
Spies - intelligence, enough said
This is not to mention the different types of ships...
In Civ 3, early Industrial I use:
Cavalry - attack.
Riflemen - defend.
Then, Infantry replaces Riflemen (at which time it's near impossible to take a city, Infantry defends better than Cav attacks). Then, Tanks replace Cavalry - but that remains two units at all times. With then possible "speical" support from Marines, but there's a ton of those in CtP.
Stacked combat is better, all, all the way. |
Ok..I poking around some and found this post.
Solver, my buddy from Hosting me at his detention camp to Modererating most of the Forum's I am involved posting in to the observing me as perhaps the absolute worse EVER Call To Power PBEM'er..
But I am really enjoying my CIVIII:Conquets Experience and look forward to what is in store for CIVIV!
I have an opinion about this stacked versus single attack:
I like in CIVIII Conquests where some units attack and fall back. What i dont like is the idea of single attack one after another. In reality an army wouldnt attack a single unit at a time, they would bum-rush a fortified position to overwhelm it.
I would just like the option is all and having come from CTP and some CTP:2 like the idea.
i would like to have a certain number capped though..not like a 20 stack of Tanks that wouldnt be too sweet.
maybe say a battalion of 9-12 tanks or whatever per stack
Thats my vote and oh in defense of Jon..he has that right to want single stack attacks..
Maybe I can play him one day..and one at a time he loses his military might!!
Ok
Thats my input
S*T*A*C*K*E*D A*T*T*A*C*K*S!!!
It was good enough for my man Wyatt and its good enuff fer me!
Gramps
 Attachment: ok corral.jpg
This has been downloaded 113 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
One the main arguments that I'm hearing from the "Stacked" camp is that pushing 50+ units around is boring.
How about looking at this from a different angle: what is it about the game that makes you produce so many units?
Answer: units need to be cheap because gamers have a low attention span and want to see things built quickly (over 10 turns is too much for any Civ3 unit, IMO). But cheap units means plentiful units. And this in turn leads to tedium.
Solutions:
1. Return to production-based upkeep (i.e. the more units you build, the fewer you can support, so the fewer overall). Although the Civ3 system of using Commerce for upkeep has the advantage of being intuitive and simple, it's also has the major disadvantage that Commerce is plentiful so it's relatively easy to field a huge/tedious army.
2. Introduce an artificial unit cap system à la RTS genre, and make surpassing it very expensive (as in, an inefficiency % loss to everything - Commerce, Shields, Culture, Happiness, etc.). I'm thinking of the tiered system of Warcraft 3 here, which I believe is exemplary. For those of you who are not familiar with it, bigger/badder units cost more "upkeep points", so for example a Tank would cost more to have around than a Spearman. In Warcraft 3 this favors having a bunch of weaker (low upkeep) units around, but the power of the units could be arranged in Civ4 so that a Tank would always be worth more than, say, 10 Spearmen (in combat and in upkeep).
Of course, this is already present in a more primitive form in Civ3, where upkeep is based on the number of cities you control. This runs into ICS-type problems (more cities = more units = more tedium). Upkeep needs to be disassociated from cities entirely.
3. Increase the cost of units so that fewer get built. In Civ3 you can have 200 Cavalry running around half way through the Medieval era. It's not unusual for late Ancient-era stacks to be some 30 units strong. The upgrade option amplifies the problem (again, because Commerce is too plentiful). The problem here is that, as mentioned above, the cost of the first unit will seem too high; imagine waiting 20 turns to build every Pikeman!
Somehow, the first units need to be relatively cheap, while subsequent units need to be more expensive. Not as upkeep, but as an up-front cost. I imagine that such a staggered cost system would be both more and less intuitive than the upkeep-based solutions above.
4. I'm sure there are other options that I'm not thinking of right now. Sorry if I've repeated something that appears higher in the thread.
Last edited by Dominae on 06-07-2004 at 21:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grandpa Troll
|
|
I owe..I owe..it's off to work I go
Jul 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
One the main arguments that I'm hearing from the "Stacked" camp is that pushing 50+ units around is boring.
How about looking at this from a different angle: what is it about the game that makes you produce so many units?
Answer: units need to be cheap because gamers have a low attention span and want to see things built quickly (over 10 turns is too much for any Civ3 unit, IMO). But cheap units means plentiful units. And this in turn leads to tedium.
Solutions:
1. Return to production-based upkeep (i.e. the more units you build, the fewer you can support, so the fewer overall). Although the Civ3 system of using Commerce for upkeep has the advantage of being intuitive and simple, it's also has the major disadvantage that Commerce is plentiful so it's relatively easy to field a huge/tedious army.
2. Introduce an artificial unit cap system à la RTS genre, and make it very expensive (as in, an inefficiency % loss to everything - Commerce, Shields, Culture, Happiness, etc.). I'm thinking of the tiered system of Warcraft 3 here, which I believe is exemplary. For those of you who are not familiar with it, bigger/badder units cost more "upkeep points", so for example a Tank would cost more to have around than a Spearman. In Warcraft 3 this favors having a bunch of weaker (low upkeep) units around, but the power of the units could be arranged in Civ4 so that a Tank would always be worth more than, say, 10 Spearmen (in combat and in upkeep).
Of course, this is already present in a more primitive form in Civ3, where upkeep is based on the number of cities you control. This runs into ICS-type problems (more cities = more units = more tedium). Upkeep needs to be disassociated from cities entirely.
3. Increase the cost of units so that fewer get built. In Civ3 you can have 200 Cavalry running around half way through the Medieval era. It's not unusual for late Ancient-era stacks to be some 30 units strong. The upgrade option amplifies the problem (again, because Commerce is too plentiful). The problem here is that, as mentioned above, the cost of the first unit will seem too high; imagine waiting 20 turns to build every Pikeman!
Somehow, the first units need to be relatively cheap, while subsequent units need to be more expensive. Not as upkeep, but as an up-front cost. I imagine that such a staggered cost system would be both more and less intuitive than the upkeep-based solutions above.
4. I'm sure there are other options that I'm not thinking of right now. Sorry if I've repeated something that appears higher in the thread. |
Well, I am headed to bed now work tommorrow
But many interesting points brought forward with your reply
Thanks
Gramps
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
Yes, a plain "every unit needs so-and-so much gp for maintenance" would be better. Plus, at the current system despotism is so much better than monarchy: Unless the number of your megalopolises is at least half the number of your towns, despotism is cheaper. Often much cheaper. Yes, despite higher corruption, I've seen it so often.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Hmm, well, to advertise my own idea, my idea here could handle this pretty well.
The problem with Civ II's system is that your individual cities had to handle the troop cost of any troops they made. If my idea was used, then excess shields could also go to support costs on troops.
However, I am a strong advocate of stacked combat, as it makes things have a much, much more realistic feel. When you outnumber the enemy 10-1, you shouldn't lose anyone attacking them on an open field, but non-stacked combat makes that happen. It is silly and anti-immersive.
A CtP-like system would be best, probably. Flanking and some other considerations would be nice, but not as essential as a basic stacked combat system. The Army system is Civ3 was better than nothing, but not nearly as good as the CtP system. Anything that made me feel like my Archers were *Archers* and not some sort of early legion would be nice. There needs to be something to encourage unit diversity. Hmm, perhaps even the classic Civ model needs to go too, but that might be too drastic.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
Hmm, well, to advertise my own idea, my idea here could handle this pretty well.
The problem with Civ II's system is that your individual cities had to handle the troop cost of any troops they made. If my idea was used, then excess shields could also go to support costs on troops.
However, I am a strong advocate of stacked combat, as it makes things have a much, much more realistic feel. When you outnumber the enemy 10-1, you shouldn't lose anyone attacking them on an open field, but non-stacked combat makes that happen. It is silly and anti-immersive.
A CtP-like system would be best, probably. Flanking and some other considerations would be nice, but not as essential as a basic stacked combat system. The Army system is Civ3 was better than nothing, but not nearly as good as the CtP system. Anything that made me feel like my Archers were *Archers* and not some sort of early legion would be nice. There needs to be something to encourage unit diversity. Hmm, perhaps even the classic Civ model needs to go too, but that might be too drastic.
-Drachasor |
my thoughts as well
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Quezacotl06
|
|
Stacking doesn't make a large difference in the overal turnout of combat.
If you have 4 units, and ur surrounded by 3 enemy units, 2 things can happen.
Stacked: you move ur wad of 4 over to the 1. Naturaly, they're crushed. Then the 2 attack you, and they die too, while you suffer some loss yourself.
Individual: you move 1 against 1 of them. If you lose it, send another, say the 2nd 1 wins. Then you send ur other 2 to take out the remaining 2. And let's say that you win.
In the end, you end up with the same turnout. Unstacked means that u just have more control over ur battalions, and combat is more fluid.
Armies in civ3 are unrealistic anyway. When u build spearmen, you're not building 1 spearman taht will take over a city of 10,000 (population size 1) by itself. The individuals obviously represent armies already, right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grandpa Troll
|
|
I owe..I owe..it's off to work I go
Jul 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quezacotl06
Stacking doesn't make a large difference in the overal turnout of combat.
If you have 4 units, and ur surrounded by 3 enemy units, 2 things can happen.
Stacked: you move ur wad of 4 over to the 1. Naturaly, they're crushed. Then the 2 attack you, and they die too, while you suffer some loss yourself.
Individual: you move 1 against 1 of them. If you lose it, send another, say the 2nd 1 wins. Then you send ur other 2 to take out the remaining 2. And let's say that you win.
In the end, you end up with the same turnout. Unstacked means that u just have more control over ur battalions, and combat is more fluid.
Armies in civ3 are unrealistic anyway. When u build spearmen, you're not building 1 spearman taht will take over a city of 10,000 (population size 1) by itself. The individuals obviously represent armies already, right? |
In an abstract sense yes, I mean it could mean a platoon, a company, a battallion, a Brigade or a Division....
Gramps
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
Well, I feel that the place where stack limits should be MOST important would be in cities. Lets face it, how would any of US feel if there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers deployed on our streets? Yet this-and even worse-is allowed to happen frequently in Civ! Having a barraks should allow you to store more units within a city, but ultimately the numbers should be very few. This would NOT, however, stop you from having units in nearby forts-to come to the city's defence when needed.
Ultimately, though, most military forces DREAD city combat, and as such we should be aiming at having most battles occuring in the open, with resort to city combat being more of an act of desperation.
Also, though, I love the idea of cities (not forts) having intrinsic defenders. When enemy units enter a city, there should be a quick 'resolution' to see how much damage the units recieve (if any) based on the size of the city, its level of happiness, the strength of the invader etc etc.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grandpa Troll
|
|
I owe..I owe..it's off to work I go
Jul 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Well, I feel that the place where stack limits should be MOST important would be in cities. Lets face it, how would any of US feel if there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers deployed on our streets? Yet this-and even worse-is allowed to happen frequently in Civ! Having a barraks should allow you to store more units within a city, but ultimately the numbers should be very few. This would NOT, however, stop you from having units in nearby forts-to come to the city's defence when needed.
Ultimately, though, most military forces DREAD city combat, and as such we should be aiming at having most battles occuring in the open, with resort to city combat being more of an act of desperation.
Also, though, I love the idea of cities (not forts) having intrinsic defenders. When enemy units enter a city, there should be a quick 'resolution' to see how much damage the units recieve (if any) based on the size of the city, its level of happiness, the strength of the invader etc etc.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker. |
good points
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Well, I feel that the place where stack limits should be MOST important would be in cities. Lets face it, how would any of US feel if there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers deployed on our streets? Yet this-and even worse-is allowed to happen frequently in Civ! Having a barraks should allow you to store more units within a city, but ultimately the numbers should be very few. This would NOT, however, stop you from having units in nearby forts-to come to the city's defence when needed.
Ultimately, though, most military forces DREAD city combat, and as such we should be aiming at having most battles occuring in the open, with resort to city combat being more of an act of desperation.
Also, though, I love the idea of cities (not forts) having intrinsic defenders. When enemy units enter a city, there should be a quick 'resolution' to see how much damage the units recieve (if any) based on the size of the city, its level of happiness, the strength of the invader etc etc.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker. |
Without Zone of Control, this does nothing. The reason you put defenders in the cities is that if you try to engage them on the field, a fast unit could go right around you to the city and burn it to the ground. Stacked combat does nothing to alleviate this problem. In fact with limited numbers you'd actually have to make MORE moves. If a fast enemy has say 10 stacks all within range of your city, instead of being able to concentrate all your units in the city you now have 1 in the city and a bunch of defensive stacks surrounding. This is actually MORE micromanagement.
Also, this idea that stacks will somehow magically cut down on the micromanagement is IMHO bunk. Stacks by themselves don't cut down on anything. Its the ratio of unit cost to total economic output that determines the number of units. Depending on this balance you could have a game with stacked combat with twice as many stacks as there are units now, or you could have a non-stacked game with one tenth as many units as there are now.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-02-2004 10:17
|
