 |
| |
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I also suggest some sort of stacking penalties
like have 2-5 units in a square be the normal stacked square
show the icons for these units in the square in miniature
if there are more than 5 units in hte square, just show an army encampment
these units cannot attack as one or defend as one (if there are units that can do this, they should be built special as armies, and be limited as I have discussed earlier)
their defense is penalized as so
if artillery misses one unit, it attacks the next unit (until it has attacked all units and missed, or hit one unit)
if a unit gets destroyed, there is these chances out of 10
10% - death of anoher unit (due to moral failure/route)
20% - injury of another unit (similiar causes)
70% - unit is fine
for every unit
so if there are 5 units in a square, and one gtes destroyed, this percentage is rolled for every one
army encampments have the additional disadvantage of only allowing 5 units to leave that square per turn
there would be none of these stacking negatives in cities or fortresses
JOn Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
the attacker actually is what gets support, you could probably give the defender support as well, but it wouldn't be as fun
I don't see how having armies adds anytihng, peopel will spend there production to build a single huge stack like in civ and that will be that
Jon Miller |
And then they will lose to somebody who actually spent the time to craft a balanced and intelligently designed fighting force, featuring combined arms and support units that work in a synergistic way with each other. That is the fundamental thing that army-style combat allows over unit vs. unit - even a u v. u that allows us to move units in stacks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Fosse
I consider Civ3's armies more limited than CTPs
I would prefer something more limited at Civ3's levels
(I would also like it, if in, dependent on tech. in reality organization is tech just as much as the printing press is)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
And then they will lose to somebody who actually spent the time to craft a balanced and intelligently designed fighting force, featuring combined arms and support units that work in a synergistic way with each other. That is the fundamental thing that army-style combat allows over unit vs. unit - even a u v. u that allows us to move units in stacks. |
no
battles are fought on, and have been fought on fronts
it is not a single battle of all my manpower versus all your man power as seen in Civ3 (and it is similiar in CTP)
also, you will spend time crafting a battle force once, maybe twice
from than on you will know what is the best way to do it and will do it that way every time (TEDIUM)
in Real life units work with eachother on a front
also, you don't think that Civs tanks are just takns do you? I am sure that like the USs tank divisions that they are combined arms (the US has both mechanized and armor divisions, the armor divisions are not all armor, and the mechanized divions also have armor, everything is mixed up, at the Unit level, I would prefer not to have to do that)
if you can't tell, I personally want to get rid of stacks in favor of broader base combat
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I will tell you why I don't like stacked combat
it gets rid of any reason to have squares or tiles
because most of them are meaningless
all combat turns into is takinga bunch of troops in one province, and throwing them against another province
sort of like in EU
there is none of the moving troops arround to try and get an advantage
none of the punch and counterpunch as both sides try to lure the other in to traps, or to find an area of advantage
instead all htere is, is ammasing troops in your province a little faster than you enemy (Fast enough that by the time your troops get ro his province, you still have more troops than him)
that is boring, and devising the content of armies is ok, but you can do that in nonstacked combat also
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
Fosse
I consider Civ3's armies more limited than CTPs
I would prefer something more limited at Civ3's levels
(I would also like it, if in, dependent on tech. in reality organization is tech just as much as the printing press is)
Jon Miller |
I'm still not clear in what way you consider Civ3's armies to be more limited than CtP's. Because they are random? Because you can only put three or four units in? Because they don't really attack all at once?
I would be all for technology impacting the possiblities and effectivness of armies. Instead of just providing more types units to be fodder, various military applications could provide all sorts of neat little bonuses.
That's a good idea. Now, how would you apply it to Unit vs. Unit?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
because they don't attack all at once
because you can only put in 3 or 4 untis
I wouldn't apply it in unit versus unit
I am just saying that if armies are in, this would be the best way to have them
as well as, if armies are limited enough, they will still be fun
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
I will tell you why I don't like stacked combat
it gets rid of any reason to have squares or tiles
|
Well, I don't agree. But even so, I would personally see the elimination of tiles as a positive. But that's for another thread.
quote:
all combat turns into is takinga bunch of troops in one province, and throwing them against another province
sort of like in EU
|
Sort of like Civ 3. Take your fifty MA - throw in twenty artillery - and march to their city.
quote:
there is none of the moving troops arround to try and get an advantage
|
Why not?
If I bother to put my units into advantageous positions then I will defeat the player who doesn't do so because they are organized into armies.
quote:
none of the punch and counterpunch as both sides try to lure the other in to traps, or to find an area of advantage
|
Again... why not?
quote:
instead all htere is, is ammasing troops in your province a little faster than you enemy (Fast enough that by the time your troops get ro his province, you still have more troops than him)
|
This is no different than the current Civ 3 system, though.
quote:
devising the content of armies is ok, but you can do that in nonstacked combat also
|
True, but in unit vs. unit it will eventually all come down to moving your units one at a time into the other guy's, one at a time. Even if you do try to organize 'armies' of different units and unit types, if the combat engine doesn't support them working as a cohesive unit, then they won't.
And regarding the Fronts issue.
Yeah, battles are fought on fronts... but you wouldn't simply put all of your units into one unit and try to find out where the other guy put all of his units. You would design more than one army, and send them all to the front. Then, let the maneuvering begin.
And I know that "a tank" doesn't mean One Tank All By Itself. It still wouldn't in what I'm proposing. Think of the units as representing Divisions. Several divisions make up an army. Perhaps 10-20 divisions would be it for one full sized army. Then you could have a few dozen mobile army units out there on your front, each one designed by you to be the most effective they can be on that particlar front, against the kinds of armies your enemy is sending you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
did you miss the part where I said I didn't like the Civ3 system?
and that I am descrobing the civ3 system's problems (And through it the probelms as a whole?)
civ3 had stacks, and stacked combat
while I like its stacked combat better than CTPs, it is still truoblesome
stacks are troublesome
BTW, have you played these games recently?
there is little need for maneuvering, all it is is trying to get your stack to your opponents cities while only taking on smaller stacks of your opponents
there is no finess, no choices, nothing of interest going on at all
all there is is building more units than your opponent, and building the right variety of unts
both things that my view has, but my view has so much more
my view has grand strategy, some tactics and some local strategy
and is a much more interesting game
yours is EU
which is terrible as a war game (EU is worse than Civ3 or CTP as far as waging war is concerned)
JKon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
you missed my point of that within a week, most players who have brains will have the perfect army setups and that choice will no longer exist
it will only be optimization (doing the same thing over and over again)
this is not fun for me, it is only fun for spreadsheet managers
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
did you read my idea?
my idea most assuredly does have units working togther
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
did you miss the part where I said I didn't like the Civ3 system?
|
No, but I confess that nearly everything you say you want for a combat sytem sounds lot like the civ3 system to me.
quote:
there is little need for maneuvering, all it is is trying to get your stack to your opponents cities while only taking on smaller stacks of your opponents
there is no finess, no choices, nothing of interest going on at all
all there is is building more units than your opponent, and building the right variety of unts
|
This is what I think will be solved by armies. Why won't this be solved by armies, in your opinion? For future reference: If I am asking you a question you feel you have already answered it is not because I didn't read your previous posts, but because I honestly have great trouble working through all the statements of what you don't want in order to discover what you do. Until the post I am responding to I thought you were arguing that Unit vs. Unit did provide a need for more than just amassing troops and moving them towards cities.
quote:
both things that my view has, but my view has so much more
my view has grand strategy, some tactics and some local strategy
and is a much more interesting game
|
Again... I have no idea what your view is. Each time you post it makes my notion of what you want even cloudier.
quote:
yours is EU
which is terrible as a war game (EU is worse than Civ3 or CTP as far as waging war is concerned)
|
Never played EU.
Civ isn't really supossed to be a wargame, so if I make a "terrible" war game, that's okay with me. What I want is a good grand strategy game. Incidentally, I don't think that the combat system I want - and have explained - would be a terrible one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I want a grand strategy game
that is why I am against tactical minigames
but I am for a fun representatino of combat
and while I have survived Civ3's one
I do not find it that fun
in fact, combat is the worse part of the game for me
and civ3 deffinitely does not have ideas of flanking and stacking limts as can be seen in the first post of this page and the last post of the last page
they are both good size posts if you missed them
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Jon Miller> I'd like to rebutt a couple of points you've made regarding stacking combat...
First its patently absurd to say that you only learn to build a stack once or twice... and that there is only One True Way (TM) to do it.
There are different statistics involved which complicate the process significantly... not only attack, defence... but in addition, ranged attack, bombard, movement, firepower and HP's too.
Combined with flags like flanking and elite, you'll NEVER find a one size fits all army.
Following this... while you don't have a conveyor-belt-of-death ala Civ3, you absolutely DO have strategic movement, and tiles absolutely ARE important. This can be demonstrated very simply from the CtP2DG save games...
A major advantage of stacks in CtP2 is their reduction in micromanagement, allowing you to focus on the big picture better. How? Why?
You compose armies (and yes, can shuffle the units around) and name them. This allows you to find units quicker, and look at statistics on an epic scale.
A number of features in CtP2 significantly reduce the micromanagement problems of Civ... in addition to army formation. Those include the nation manager, and expanding city radii, allowing for spreading metropolis (more of the map used, ergo less cities, ergo less late game entities, ergo less micromanagement)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
give me an example where tactics is needed in CTP
do it out like I did it, in ascii
stacks reduce micromanagement, sure
but they also reduce fun, by taking out a huge portion of what should be in the game
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Tactics is an inappropriate part of Civ... why?
Civ is an abstracted empire strategy game TBS. Tactics are a function of in-combat maneuver. You can't have simultaneous manuever, since you only move one "piece" at a time. To simulate war the way you're talking about, you need to introduce the concept of time, and thus have a RTS, instead of a TBS.
or... you have a conveyor-belt-o-death... like Civ3 (truely unrealistic, IMO)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Oh.. and I'd say its more important for Civ games to be strategic than tactical. The entire scope of the game is strategic... NOT tactical.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
tactics have been in Civ from the beginning
I enjoy them
since they have been part of the game, I think that they are appropriate
you can't use that argument to say that they should no longer exist
and if you are getting rid of tactics, than you shuold get rid of tiles and the like too, because they serve no purpose (all we would need is provinces)
and we might as well be playing EU 3
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I Am getting from you and the other CTPers a lot of words
but nothing hard
you just say
no, it is not like that
but don't back it up
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
*chuckles* Crafty that... my using words to debate. WOW... what a concept.
So.. back to the subject.
Do you care to debate the fact that Civ ISN'T a strategy game? Do you have an answer as to how simultaneous movement can be shown in a TBS game without use of stacks?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
civ does have strategic elements, and tactical elements
and those have been a lot of the fun, through out it;s 12 year history (i got Civ1 when it first came out)
andI have given what I consider to be an interesting unit/combat model
where stacks are deemphasized
noone has read it yet
JOn Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
strategy and tactics in civ3 and ctp has been decreased to
choose your force composites
and amass more of your units than your opponents
you and others have claimed that this is not the case in CTP
the last time I played CTP was over a year ago
so give some examples where this is the case
show not only that stacks and armies decrease tedium
but that they increase fun
the ball is in your court now, I am not going to keep asking you to back your claims up and have you not do so (I am refering to you as CTPers as a group)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
I absolutely disagree that civ has (in a military sense) tactical elements.
Tactics can be defined as "the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat"
Firstly... Civ has always abstracted both time and distance... turn lengths are both variable, and obviously encompass abstracted movement. Tiles are massive... a single tile holds an entire city. There isn't any actual definition of scale, but a tile can be thought to be at least several square miles in area.
This abstract granularity of time and distance (and thus manuever) preempts tactics.
The definition of tactics also specifically states forces in the plural... thus making the obvious point that combat forces don't move in isolation, but in unison.
An isolated unit based system, rather than a stack system cannot simulate simultaneous movement. They are mutually exclusive. A TBS system cannot simulate tactical movement. You have either simultaneous movement... or individual movement, and never both.
---
I did scan your post at the top of this page. You don't make it clear why its less effective to have larger forces.... and you tacitly agree to the concept of stacking, which is contrary to your arguements for tactics (and against stacking.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I dislike making huge stacks, and having wars fought between 2-4 stacks
that is boring, and not a good simultation
I know that there is a lot of reason to make them, which is the main (and most important part) of combat in Civ3 and CTP, and that is to have the most troops at the point of conflict
therefore, inorder to make it reasonable to spread out (As happened in real life), you need reasons to do so
such as in Civ2 and Civ1, where you lost your whole stack when 1 unit lost
that is what the post at the top is trying to add some of
problems for over stacking (having more than one unit in a tile)
if you have played Civ2 or Civ1 you will know examples of Civ games with tactical elements
if you have not played them, I would recommend them highly as I feel that they are the best of the series (although there are some things that Civ3 does better (like borders, and culture, and resources))
tiles existing is synominmous with tactics
without tactics, there is no reason to have tiles, all you would need is provinces, as in EU2
JOn Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
IThe definition of tactics also specifically states forces in the plural... thus making the obvious point that combat forces don't move in isolation, but in unison.
|
man
I want to have a discussion, please cut the bullshit
Chess is the quintesential tactical game
and peices do not move simulateously
I play a lot of tactical board games, and computer games
and the number of games where moves are simuiltaneous is very low
and actually, excluding RTS, most of them are strategic simulations
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Having huge stacks is not a good simulation?
Pardon me?
So... your school of generalship supposes its better to spread out forces, rather than to concentrate them?
I'd say thats the best way to get isolated and destroyed piecemeal.
It seems that your reasoning is very much your own sensibility than any real-world reason for why you shouldn't have large stacks.
As for Civ1 or 2 being tactical... they weren't tactical either... still abstracted distances and times... and still non-simultaneous movement...
As for stacking... we are discussing real CtP stacks... not Civ1 or 2 "stacks".
You can't destroy an entire CtP stack by defeating a single defender... so your point is entirely moot.
As for your last point... there absolutely is a reason for tiles, even without tactics (and you still haven't directly responded to the fact that tactics don't exist... in Civ 1, 2 or 3, or ANY TBS for that matter)
You still have strategic movement AND strategic placement of cities. The granularity, in this case, is several miles, in a regular pattern... although you could use, as you point out, regions. Tiles are just another valid choice... not proof of tactics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
man
I want to have a discussion, please cut the bullshit
Chess is the quintesential tactical game
and peices do not move simulateously
I play a lot of tactical board games, and computer games
and the number of games where moves are simuiltaneous is very low
and actually, excluding RTS, most of them are strategic simulations
Jon Miller |
Bad analogy...
Chess has one piece per tile. Civ has many per tile... possibly.
Chess isn't technically tactical in military terms... if we wish to be pedantic... or unless you wish to disagree with the dictionary definition.
Or are you saying M-W and the Oxford English dictionaries have incorrectly defined the word?
Oh... and you've hit the nail on the head... TBS games... are called TBS games for a reason. The "Strategy" bit is significant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
did you read my post at all?????
I have already shown your definition of tactics to be crap
so please stop using it
and while troops mass, there are limitations to it which are not taken into account at all in the CTPs or Civ3 (please check late post in page 1 for some more ideas of how to model this), but where better handled in Civ2
I don't think that you have a clear idea of strategy or tactics
would you please stop, and read my posts before you respond?
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-12-2003 10:01
But thanks for the quick response to the specific question!
|