 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
quote:
they are not just for your edification
but rather for those who click on this thread and wish to see past ideas and discussions
|
And those who want to see all ideas would rather see them in one thread. |
yep
but you made a new one
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
erm.. it's his job to make a new one.
But I think the links are a fine idea, to allow people who are just coming to the conversation to review the past discussions while Solver sorts through the reams of back and forth arguments to put into the top post.
Here is a basic summary of what I've talked about, and want:
Simultaneous Movement
This is a huge deal to me, and would be a huge step forward in my opinion. Turns have an orders phase, which is just like a current Civ turn, except that [i]units given orders don't move, just give a visual cue to show they have orders.[i]
Then, when everyone is done with their orders, the Resolution phase begins, and the computer moves all of the units at once, and any that come into contact with each other engage in combat (or not, depending on any number of factors).
During the Orders phase you can tell units to attack any enemies, only enemies they outnumber, nobody at all, etc. Of coruse, if you say don't fight but the enemy wants to fight... 
I think this makes for a better system that supports more realistic and strategic combat, and requires more long term planning (a good thing, to me) for the best combat results.
Other possible side effects:
*Increase AI abilities. Since the AI could be threaded to let it issue orders during your turn, like GalCiv's is, this might very well make for a stronger and smarter AI with fewer cheats. Something that I think is universally wanted.
*Battles can last several turns. Since battle resolution doesn't have to be RIGHT NOW a system like this could be designed to allow for multi-turn battles. This would let players retreat from bad situations, reinforce battles, and tie up enemy troops while sneaking another army behind the front. This isn't a must of my proposal, but sure would be a great addition.
*Smoother Multiplayer. The game sould be designed as single player first, but when a great single player change makes for a huge multiplayer improvement! Well....
Possible negative side effects:
Oh, I'm sure someone will have some. )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
Army Combat
I want to organize several units to fight as a signle, cohesive entity. They would move together and fight together until I break up the army.
This style of combat is widely supported in the current poll on these boards - though there is a very vocal minority in opposition - and is also well regarded as one of the best features of the Call to Power series.
This system has two huge effects, of what I consider nearly equal importance.
First of all, virtual elimination of tedium from combat. No more moving units one by one, and having them fight defenders one by one, then occupying the cities one by one by one by one... ARGHHH!!
Vastly huger armies than in Civ 3 could be managed with a huge reduction in tedium. Let's say that your standard Civ 3 army is almost 600, not counting garrissons, and you want to fight a war with them...
Better warm up your fingers, because you have a lot of shuffling to do.
Now, with the ability to organize armies, you can have the same sized force, but only about, say, 20 or 25 units to move around. All of them in thoughtfull composed organized entities that would feature combined arms.
How could it go wrong?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
1. Standoffs
As it stands currently if one unit attacks the other it is always a win for one of them (unless the attacker has retreat). I would like to see the ability for a defensive unit to "hold off" an attacker without killing it. Essentially a tie. This would allow a defensive unit to make a stand to allow reinforcements to arrive.
2. Flanking
If a unit is attacked from two different directions on the same turn the second attacker gets a bonus.
3. Connectivity Defense Bonus
If a city is connected to that civ's Web of cities, it gains a defense bonus. This makes bombarding the roads more important.
4. Intelligence bonus
Having a scout unit with your army gives a small bonus
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
While I agree that a point comes at which further discussion becomes moot...
as this is the "official" list thread on the issue it is only natural that such discussions will come into this thread, and the thread you mention has scrolled off of the boards.
A lot of decisions about the combat system will rest on the decision of whether it is in armies or not, so I don't think that the issue will be successfully avoided here (at least for long).
Besides, the poll on this issue is over 70% in favor of stacks with 67 voters... that makes me think that most of the people in this thread will be thinking of combat in terms of stacks, which means that we'll have to either assume it is a given (in the threads) or continue to discuss its pros and cons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sore Loser
|
|
Aarhus, Denmark
Sep 2003
time: 06:32
|
|
Reconnaisance and camouflage values. Large stacks should be possible to detect several squares away, whereas small bands of raiders could get right next to you and do hit'n'run tactics.
This should be coupled with non-decisive combat, ie. each combat lasts a number of rounds, after which each side has suffered so much damage. I really hate the notion of always having one side destroyed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sore Loser
|
|
Aarhus, Denmark
Sep 2003
time: 06:32
|
|
I think it's important that there are drawbacks to huge armies and uses for small bands. This is the most obvious one, I think, inspired by Emperor of the Fading Suns (which had many good ideas but pretty much failed to put it all together).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
A new way to figure attack counter attack. Right now it is attack value versus defense value and one looses a hp. Instead it goes in rounds of attack and counter attack with the attacker getting the initiative. On the counterattack the defenders defense rating becomes his attack rating and there are as many rounds as there are combined hp in the two units battling. It sounds complicated but it works out like this:
Unit G(aGressor)- A/D/Hp=4/2/4
Unit F(deFender) - A/D/Hp=2/3/3
That means that there are 7 rounds in which Unit G has to kill off F after which the turn is over in a draw.
Attack = G(4)vsF(3)
CounterAttack = F(3)vsG(2) note defenders attack value is actually its defense value on counter-attack.
Why would I want such a complicated change?
Ranged and Melee flags for units.
Ranged have drastically worse defense values but when you attack with a stack that has melee units in it, the melee unit defends against the counter-attack. It breaks down like this.
Unit Gr(aGressor Ranged) - 4/2/4
Unit Gm(aGressor Melee) - 2/4/4
Unit Fm(deFender Melee) - 2/3/4
If Unit Gr attacks Fm we have 8 rounds of combat
Attack Gr(4)vsFm(3)
Counterattack Fm(3)vsGm(4)
The upshot of all this is that it makes it extremely important to used MIXED stacks.
Last edited by wrylachlan on 18-12-2003 at 20:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
wrylachlan... that's great. It's a system that gets around the old "Why are we just letting them kill us?" situation when a high attack/low defense unit is attacked.
And Sore Loser... a drawback to too huge stacks is certainly a must. I don't know what what size the optimal number of units for a stack should be (playtesting should decide that, but I'd guess around 24 or so), but this idea is MUCH better than hardcoded limits.
You CAN stack your units, with diminishing returns... but you might be wiser to split them up.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Attack units SHOULD die if put on the defensive. If they can go into "counterattack mode" while being attacked, it removes tons of strategy from the game. A major part of strategy should be to gain the initiative. |
They do die on the defensive. If you looked at the above post, you'd see that when a unit gets its counterattack it uses its Defense value for an Attack value. So an "Attack Unit" (higher attack than defense) is largely ineffective on the counter attack. With the proper balancing of Attack/Defense values for units, you could achieve the exact same unit balance under this system as under the current system. The only real differences are that this system confers a strategic benefit to using mixed armies, and it allows the possibility of a stand-off which makes strategic reinforcement possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kirastos
|
|
1) I think we should introduce in civ the SMAC morale scale and it's consequences (+ or - xx% in attack/defense) rather than just having more HP at each upgrade.
2) We should be able to build armies (I really get pretty f***ing bored moving hundreds of units across the map at each turn). And not limitate to 9 or 12 units per tile, but each type of unit, according to its size, would occupy a number of place, and the number of places available in a tile should be determined by the nature of the terrain (e.g. 20 slots available in prairy or grassland, 15 available in hills, 5 in mountains, etc...). This requires more uniform landscapes (not excessivly so).
3) Keep the helicopters. They are more than useful when you know how to use them. They should also be able to carry infantry units.
4) We should have land transportation vehicles.
5) I would like more diversified sea units.
6) More anti-aircraft units like in CTP or SMAC (as well as automatic anti-aircraft improvements, whether in the landscape or in cities).
7) Ability to fortify coastlines (like in WW2).
|
|
| |
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 19:06
.
.
Sore Loser, I like those, especially the recon idea.
|