 |
|
Kirastos
|
|
Don't have C3C, so don't really know all the improvements done to the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kirastos
|
|
Skywalker: That would make too easy. Using LTVs would give another dimension to infantry warfare (that includes fast transportation for spies and unconventional units right behind enemy lines, or diversion tactics by sending empty LTVs. They must be cheap as well).
By the way, I would like unconventional units like in CTP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
That system seems a bit weird - unless you changed the chance for a defender to hit to defender's attack/(defender's attack + attacker's defense), in which case you encounter the problem of "how do I kill offensive units?"
EDIT: btw, I'm opposed to any distinctions between "melee" units and "ranged" units, except for the bombard system. |
What about the melee/ranged distinction do you not like? The fact that it causes more micromanagement for the player? That you're afraid the AI can't handle it?
The reason I like it is that if you give them different properties, it opens it up for more disctinct units in each age, since you could have a 1.2.1 melee unit, and a 1.2.1 ranged unit, each with their own advantages.
You can do things like adjust the terrain bonus based on ranged versus melee - ranged get a better percentage bonus for having the high ground, but they have a penalty fighting in the woods because there's more cover, etc. This makes terrain a more dynamic factor in combat, a good thing IMHO.
That said, I totally agree with you that the system I proposed above is "wierd". It was my first stab at it. So I'm gonna step back and try again, and I'm gonna start with the places where the combat system is already wierd:
One of the things I don't like is the way initiative works. If I have a 2.1.1 unit, and I want to attack another 2.1.1 unit, I can't move next to him. If I do, he attacks me with the initiative, and I have a 2 to one chance of loosing what is essentially a square fight. I would like to "fix" this.
How would people feel about this -
Agressor's chance = Agressor's Attack/(Agressor's attack + the higher of Defender's scores either attack or defense)
Defender's chance = Defender's lowest score/(Defender's lowest score + Attacker's lowest score)
What this would mean is that a 2.1 attacking a 2.1 is an even fight. A 2.1 attacking a 1.2 is an even fight. But a 1.2 attacking a 2.1 is a loosing fight. Additionally a 2.2 attacking a 1.2 is a winning fight, where in the current system it's a draw.
This system would still make defensive units valuable, since fortification, city walls, etc. effect defense scores. A 2.2 attacking a 2.1 or a 1.2 in a straight fight doesn't make a difference. The both have the same chance. But the 1.2 fortified is much better than the 2.1 fortified.
It's too late and my eyes are crossing thinking about this, but I'll be back tomorrow to round out this idea with how it plays into the ranged vs. Melee thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
I'm back. To recap:
Aa = Attacker's Attack score
Ad = Attacker's Defense score
Ah = Attacker's highest score
Al = Attacker's low score
Da = Defender's attack score
Dd = Defender's defense score
Dh = Defender's high score
Dl = Defender's low score.
The attacker's chance to win is Aa/(Aa + Dh)
The defender's chance to win on a counterattack is Dl/(Al+Dl)
If you limit the total number of rounds of attack/counterattack there is the possibility of a standoff, where no one wins, since there is a new random number generated for each attack and counter-attack. My suggestion would be to have as many rounds as there are hp in each unit combined.
Note that this still gives an initiative bonus to the person who initiates combat, since they go first. The difference is that that initiative bonus is not as much of a massive game changer as it was before.
The above applies to any time a melee attacks a melee or a ranged attacks another ranged.
Melee attacking Ranged
How does this play into the melee vs ranged question that was my original goal? First off, charging a ranged unit with melee units shouldn't be a good idea. As you approach the ranged units are picking you off, however, once you get into the line, its an easy win. The game dynamic for that is that if a melee unit attacks a ranged unit, the ranged unit gets a "First Strike" whose chance is:
Da/(Ad+Da)
After the "First Strike" the combat with attack/counterattack pairs with the Normal formula:
Attack = (Aa*(1+.N))/(Aa+Dh)
Counter = (Dl*(1-.N))/(Dl+Al)
(where N is the number of rounds after the first.)
Thus the ranged unit gets a first shot, but every round from there on is ten percent less effective on counter, and the melee is ten percent more effective on attack which represtents the melee unit getting into the ranged line.
Ranged attacking Melee
IMHO a ranged unit with no supporting melee unit shouldn't be attacking a melee unit either, for the same reason's as above. If they break into your lines, you're dead. Granted you get the first shot off, but in the long run.
Therefore Ranged attacking melee should go.
First Strike = Aa/(Aa+Dd)
Attack=(Aa*(1-.N))/(Aa+Dh)
Counter = (Dl*(1+.N))/(Dl+Al)
Again the longer the battle goes on, the better the melee does as it breaks into the ranged line.
Ranged + Melee attacking Melee
Here's where the switcheroo happens. If you attack a melee unit with a ranged unit which is protected by another melee unit in the same stack you get:
First Strike = Aa/(Aa+Dd)
Attack = Aa/(Aa+Dd)
Counter = Dl/(Dl+Attacking Melee Unit's Defense)
A successful counter attack removes a hp from the attacking melee unit. If the Defender, through counterattacks manages to kill the melee unit, the formula changes to the standard ranged vs. melee equation above where N is the number of rounds after the Defender killed the melee unit.
This is obviously a huge advantage to the attacker, since he gets first strike, and the chance of being counter attacked is lower, since you are using melee as a shield.
Order of Attack
In order for this to work, there would have to be a rule that you cannot attack a ranged unit untill all the melee units in a tile are defeated.
Other Stuff
"Attacker Units vs. Defender Units"
The percentage bonus also helps to differenciate "defender units" vs. "attacker units". While a 2.1 melee is equal to a 1.2 melee in a straight fight, if you are trying to attack a ranged unit, the 2.1 unit is better, since the percentage bonus is on the Attack value.
Flanking
One way you could implement flanking, is that if all the melee units in a tile have counterattacked during their turn, an attack from a different direction is allowed to attack the ranged units directly. Example:
Defending tile has 1 melee and 1 ranged. It is attacked from direction A with a melee unit. The Melee unit defender counterattacks. In the same turn a melee unit attacks the same tile from direction B. This second attacker is allowed to attack the ranged unit directly, which, with its "N-bonus", is a significant advantage.
Conclusion
What I like about this system is that even though the individual formulas arent' really that complex. Most are 3 terms, just as they are now, only different values. But the permutations, and effect on game play is profound. You now have each unit much more individualized. Each one is powerful in a different capacity, and must be used strategically to get the most out of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
wrylachlan... I like your proposals a great deal. They are still straightforward enough to understand combat in game without having to resort to tables or calculators, while increasing realism. Way to go.
Whatever kinks might need working out can be (if not by us than Firaxis if they adopt it), but the idea is sound.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Not sure if wrylachlan isn't still saying keep individual unit attacks... and with a few to several hundred attacking units, thats about as fun as root canal, even if they move as one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
To add to Hex's question...
You mention Ranged & Melee attacking also. How would this work in terms of repeatability.
E.G. Does a melee attacker "cooperating" with a ranged attacker mean that the ranged attacker is "used" in any manner, by your method...
Do you only require one ranged attacker in an offensive group to gain this advantage? How would you keep track?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wrylachlan
What about the melee/ranged distinction do you not like? The fact that it causes more micromanagement for the player? That you're afraid the AI can't handle it? |
The fact that it really shouldn't be distinguishable in Civ. I view the rock-paper-scissors triange as being foot-horse-arty, not ranged-melee-horse or ranged-melee-arty.
quote:
The reason I like it is that if you give them different properties, it opens it up for more disctinct units in each age, since you could have a 1.2.1 melee unit, and a 1.2.1 ranged unit, each with their own advantages.
You can do things like adjust the terrain bonus based on ranged versus melee - ranged get a better percentage bonus for having the high ground, but they have a penalty fighting in the woods because there's more cover, etc. This makes terrain a more dynamic factor in combat, a good thing IMHO.
That said, I totally agree with you that the system I proposed above is "wierd". It was my first stab at it. So I'm gonna step back and try again, and I'm gonna start with the places where the combat system is already wierd:
One of the things I don't like is the way initiative works. If I have a 2.1.1 unit, and I want to attack another 2.1.1 unit, I can't move next to him. If I do, he attacks me with the initiative, and I have a 2 to one chance of loosing what is essentially a square fight. I would like to "fix" this.
How would people feel about this -
Agressor's chance = Agressor's Attack/(Agressor's attack + the higher of Defender's scores either attack or defense)
Defender's chance = Defender's lowest score/(Defender's lowest score + Attacker's lowest score)
What this would mean is that a 2.1 attacking a 2.1 is an even fight. A 2.1 attacking a 1.2 is an even fight. But a 1.2 attacking a 2.1 is a loosing fight. Additionally a 2.2 attacking a 1.2 is a winning fight, where in the current system it's a draw.
This system would still make defensive units valuable, since fortification, city walls, etc. effect defense scores. A 2.2 attacking a 2.1 or a 1.2 in a straight fight doesn't make a difference. The both have the same chance. But the 1.2 fortified is much better than the 2.1 fortified.
It's too late and my eyes are crossing thinking about this, but I'll be back tomorrow to round out this idea with how it plays into the ranged vs. Melee thing. |
The way I see it, a 1.2 attacking a 2.1 should be an even fight 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Not sure if wrylachlan isn't still saying keep individual unit attacks... and with a few to several hundred attacking units, thats about as fun as root canal, even if they move as one. |
I was thinking in terms of individual units, especially in the early game, since the melee/ranged distinction disappears once your infantry units all have a firearm of some sort. Then again a tank unit has a longer range than a rifleman... hadn't given it a whole lot of thought.
The micro of vast amounts of units, IMHO is a totally separate issue, which also desperately needs to be dealt with, but my above suggestion is not related to that.
That said, it does lend itself to the idea of stacked combat. If you have a stack with 2 catapults, 5 archers, and 10 swordsman, if would make sense to me to be able to to a stacked attack which would cause the cats to bombard first, then the ranged to attack the enemy melee, and if you manage to kill the enemy melee, the swordsmen would rush the enemy ranged units. If you haven't killed the enemy melee by the time it's your melee's turn to attack, you might get a pop-up saying "Do you wish to press the attack by charging their lines?"
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
A question
In a defensive situation, how many times does each defending ranged unit in a stack of units get to defend if involved a melee-ranged combo?
Say you have 1 ranged and 10 melees in your defensive stack. The attacker sends in his attackers on at a time. Does that ranged unit assist in every attack until it is destroyed? |
That's a great question. I'll have to think about it, but off the top of my head, I would say Yes. Then if you're the attacker, you need to use your ranged to kill their melee line before you even think of sending in the melee troops. Or alternatively you can try to flank them and attack their ranged directly.
I would say that once a ranged unit has counterattacked during a turn, it can't help the melee units out. Therefore if I run a flanking manuever, even if I don't manage to kill all the enemies ranged units, I've kept them busy which makes it easier for my melee units to attack their melee units.
One of the results of a system such as this is that it would make flanking very powerful. To counteract this, maybe "defensive units" require you to have a bigger angle in order to flank. If you are trying to flank a tile with no "defensive units" you only need a 45 degree angle. If there are "defensive units" you need 90 degrees, and if they are fortified it goes up to 135. There is no flanking a city. To give cavalry the advantage they historically had, and differentiate them in the game, cavalry have a 45 degree flanking bonus. So that they can flank a fortified tile with defenders from only 90 degrees.
A direct result of this is that terrain becomes much much more important. If you can control a choke point where its harder for the enemy to flank you, you have a real advantage. Obviously ZOC has to come back in some way to make this work.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Baggins You mention Ranged & Melee attacking also. How would this work in terms of repeatability.
E.G. Does a melee attacker "cooperating" with a ranged attacker mean that the ranged attacker is "used" in any manner, by your method... |
To clarify, the cooperation only comes into play in the form of the melee attacker recieving the brunt of the counterattack when the Ranged attacker attacks
When the melee unit attacks, the ranged unit doesn't come into play. This forces you to attack with your ranged first then your melee to get the best advantage, which is also the logical order of attack in a battle anyways.
quote:
Do you only require one ranged attacker in an offensive group to gain this advantage? How would you keep track? |
In an offensive group you would want as many ranged as possible coupled with good defensive units, since you only get the cooperation advantage when your ranged does the attacking.
On the defensive side, the ranged units become much more useful, as they get to cooperate as long as the melee line holds. This is also logical in realworld terms, since fortification is much more of a force multiplier for ranged units than it is for melee units.
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker The fact that it really shouldn't be distinguishable in Civ. I view the rock-paper-scissors triange as being foot-horse-arty, not ranged-melee-horse or ranged-melee-arty. |
Shouldn't? That's really not an answer to my question. Why do you feel it "shouldn't"? What civness does it violate? The simplicity? The micromanagement problem? The "This is the way it's always been done factor"?
Also I don't really think of it as a rocks-paper-scissors thing, so much as a combined arms thing. To my mind, a mixed army should be significantly more powerful than an army of only one type. Sure a horde of sordwmen will overwhelm a bunch of archers, but put a couple of swordsmen to stem the charge, and those archers become deadly.
Also note, its not an either or thing with foot, horse, arty, being changed to something else, so much as its broken out into melee,ranged,cavalry,artillery or even melee defender, melee attacker, ranged, cavalry, artillery.
quote:
The way I see it, a 1.2 attacking a 2.1 should be an even fight |
Maybe I see it different than you, but I see attack as the unit's total power, and defense as the ability of a unit to leverage the power of being "dug in". A 1.2 unit can face a 2.1 unit of the defense, because its dug in. But when it goes on the offense, even though the 2.1 is a worse defender, it doesn't need to be a great defender because on an open field, it's still twice as powerful.
Last edited by wrylachlan on 22-12-2003 at 20:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
I see attack and defense as numbers that show how good the unit is on offense or defense (duh). The reason some units have different attack than defense, despite obviously having the same "power", is because whether or not they are attacking or defending "modifies" it. An infantry unit is going to be much stronger on defense than offense because it is able to hunker down. A Tank is better on offense than defense because it is more effective when used to assault enemy forces. It seems to me the effects of the system you are proposing are either a) far too complex for civ or b) pretty easy to simulate with modified A/D values and zero-range bombard. Why should the attack value come into things when it is defending? If you want it to be better at defense, change the A/D values, don't mess with the entire freaking combat system. |
Real world scenario - you take enough guys with swords attacking pikemen to make it an even battle. Now take the same amount of pikemen and put them on the offensive against the same amount of swordsmen. Who's going to win?
This is analagous to the 1.2 versus 2.1 thing I'm talking about above. It just doesn't make sense to me that a better attacker would loose to a worse attacker because it was on the defensive. Why doesn't he come out from the fortifications and meet them head on? I don't think I'm alone in finding that peculiar.
And as for the complexity thing, I don't think that complexity is necessarily bad as long as its logical. As long as I know that having ranged units without some melee to defend them is a bad thing, I don't really need to care about the formula. Yes, it's more behind the scenes complexity, but the end result is that units behave in a predictable and logical manner.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
I heard someone say here that the combat system would probably not be so important to remake when they create civ4, because Sid Meier though that civ should be much more than a wargame. Will the developers listen to us at all?
Last time they did not...
So I suggest you guys spends some time finding ways of improving the diplomatic system, which is really lousy in SP games. That's really something I suppose the developers probably will remake and we should have a good plan for them... |
Um if war is in, then you want it to be as fun and realistic as possible. Therefore unless you plan on doing away with war altogether (never gonna happen) then we might as well float some ideas about how to make it better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
I was just looking over the movement supply thread, and I had an idea about supply as it pertains to combat. The reason you would want supply is to model the tactical play of "cutting off the supply lines" Which would involve either a fast attacker, or a sneaky attacker. How's this:
Units beyond a certain tech level require the accompaniment of a "Supply Unit" or they loose say 1 hp every 5 turns, or something like that the exact figures can obviously be changed for balance.
The "Supply Unit" is a 0.0.x+1 unit where x is your fastest non-scout unit's movement. For simplicity sake it can supply an infinite number of units in a radius of 1.
Here's where the tactics comes into play. Here is the field:
ABC
DEF
GHI
We're considering a stack of units at position E. 2 MA, 2 MI, 2 Artillery and 1 "Supply Unit"
If I attack tile E from tile H, I have to plow through the MI then the MA before I get to the Supply Unit. However if I do a flanking manuever (remember a flanking manuever is when the second attack in a given turn comes from at least 90 degrees from the first. In this example if I first attack from tile H and then in the same turn attack from tile F that second attack is a flank) I can attack the "Supply Unit" directly. Cutting off it's supply.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Awsric Armitage
|
 |
Dallas, Tx
Oct 2003
time: 23:32
|
|
No activity here in a while but I thought I would threw in my 2 cents.
I tried to accomplish some of the ideas discussed here regarding supply, ranged combat, melee combat, and ground transportation by modding the units behaviors in Civ3 before C3C unsuccessfully. All of these need to be present to bring the combat system up to snuff with other strategic empire builder games or this facet of the game will be woefully behind its competitors.
First off I have read the above posts and some of the ideas are intriguing. For ranged combat and supply we have to have a unit type or 'tag' called 'ammo' that is expendable and carried by other units that are capable of 'firing' or expending this ammo at range. Early 'ammo' units of arrows are 0 or 1 ranged possibly javelins and bolts also for this era, later gunpowder and ball shot and early cartridge small-arms ammo are range 1, and only larger caliber guns such as AT batteries or vehicle mounted guns like tanks would be able to reach a range of 2 spaces but no more. These ranges would include the ZOC for defensive fire if other units wander into the units ZOC. The number of 'ammo' units a ranged combat unit could carry would be low at say 2 or 3 before needing to be resupplied by returning to a new tile improvement add-on to the fortress called a magazine or armory OR the ammo would need to be transported to the units by an 'ammo' carrying unit. This 'ammo' carryng unit could be able to fire the 'ammo' itself and merely be trading part of its supplies to the other unit or the 'ammo' carrying unit could be one purely for that purpose like a horse, mule, donkey, camel, truck, halftrack, helicopter, transport plane etc. Point being once the 'ammo' unit has been fired it disappears forever from the game. This also opens up the possability for different types of 'ammo' load outs or grades for slightly different effects from early ball and powder charges to the invention of repeating arms and the centerfire cartridge to later revolver magazines and even later clips of 'ammo'. All this from the creation of a new unit type tag called 'ammo' that is expendable at range only by other units that also have another new 'tag' called 'capable of ranged fire'. The trick is to obsolete older ammo variants from being firable by newer units and the opposite as well. The supply implications I think are self-explanatory as either you have 'ammo' or you do not have 'ammo' and ammunition stores and supply depots can be captured and used against you or destroyed by artillery or aeriel bombardment putting off a good light show. Each unit of 'ammo' would have a corresponding attack value that is universal so that any unit expending that ammo would be firing the same thing. This part actually needs some more work. The combat values listed presently for the current Civ3 units would represent their Hand-to Hand or Melee combat abilities. So in effect a few riflemen could standoff and fire at the Cavalry if it was foolish enough to get within a range of 1 tile but the Cavalry if used properly could just stay at a range of 2 tiles and then charge on its move taking the ZOC shot from the riflemen but then gutting him once they are in Melee combat. Similarly the archer foolish enough to get close to a swordsmen would share a similar fate. Note also that 'ammo' units would be transportable by units unable to fire them to simulate supply caravans or later vehicles but in order to actually fire or expend the 'ammo' the unit in question would also have to have the tag 'capable of ranged combat' enabled. Also the 'ammo' types would change over time making older 'ammo' obsolete.
I got very close to this with the editor with enabling lethal bombardment and the 'ammo' unit were tactical missiles with corresponding range. The only draw back was that multiple units loaded or capable of being loaded with ammo could not then be transportable by another transport. With the introduction of a new unit type of 'ammo' this would disconnect the tranporting a transport code.
It is pretty easy to tell I also am a large proponent of portable resources for supply and economic reasons but that comment belongs else where but it also enables the 'ammo' resupply part of this combat system.
All ranged combat would require 'ammo' be it shells for deck guns to bombs and missiles for planes. This also economically creates more buildable war stores for peacetime build-ups in preparations for war and controlling supply lines becomes very important. Peacetime build-ups would be controlled by the already existant maintenance costs but the ammo would have to cost something like 1/10th the cost of a regular unit. No ammo no ranged combat capability only hand-to-hand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
While resupply and auxilary functions are very real world situations, its unnecessary to model them in a civ game, because Civ deals with abstracts... almost everywhere.
Civ has a perfectly acceptable form of abstracting resupply... support costs.
No one wants to move around X% more units, that do nothing on their own, except in their absence making whatever military unit useless.
Its just an unwarranted complexity.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-12-2003 03:52
It's just to rename the battleview(tm) to battlewatcher. 
|