 |
| |
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian Then all you need to do is impliment a penalty that would nullify your flanking bonus based on the terrain type (possibly including the surrounding terrain and the terrain that you attacked from) Again, this does not hinder using your premise in s CTP stacked format. |
Then you're dealing with the complexity of certain terrain having both a movement cost, and a "flanking bonus penalty". Is the penalty of forests as much as the penalty for mountains? What about rivers?
I think this is much less intuitive than simply to ask the player to move the unit to do the flanking. If I have to move the horse, and I know the horse is incapable of crossing the river with enough movement points left to get around into a flanking position, I'd know that I can't flank on that side. If I knew that the mountains on either side use up so many movement points that I can't get to the enemy in time to do any damage, I'd know I can't flank in the valley. This seems a much more natural and fluid way of viewing the battlefield than having to deal with remembering that in certain situations I get a penalty to my bonus...
It just makes more sense to me to put some of the tactical decisions on the main map.
Just out of curiousity, what besides flanking does CTP's mini-map combat model factor in that you couldn't factor in on the main map?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
Your scenario is based solely on the use of strategic movement points, something that is exactly the same for both setups. Terrain such as mountains will limit movement.
If what you want is some kind of combat bonus if a unit is able to use its movement points to move into position and attack a defensive unit from a side tile or from the back instead of the front, then I see this type of bonus as somewhat unwieldly to figure out because you have to specify exactly what is the front of a unit - given that it's entirely possible that there will be units on multiple tiles surrounding the targeted tile.
Or maybe, I'm missing the direction of your post... Do you want to set up combat in such a way that you give orders from multiple unit/stacks to target an enemy force? Say you have a stack of 5 horse and 4 swords. You order the 5 horse on a flanking manuver (and it gets a bonus for flanking) and then order your 4 swords on a frontal assault. |
Not quite. I'm saying that flanking can be represented by a percentage bonus for a "flanking attack" which would be any attack after the first from a different direction (lets just say over 90 degrees) So if you have the tiles:
ABC
DEF
GHI
And E is the defender, If I send my main force to attack from tile H, and another force to attack from tile F, the units attacking from tile F get a bonus. Its simple, it makes it so that faster units are better able to flank without having to assign specific flanking bonuses to specific units, and the same game mechanism can do double duty to allow for a "pincer" or "strategic flanking" bonus. And it does it all without having to assign a new set of stats to every type of tile, nor necessitating a mini-map.quote:
Mid-ranged units (archers, etc.) Cannon/Artillery can work as a mid-ranged or a bombard unit. |
This can be simply modelled by the mechanism I proposed in the Combat thread. Its a little long, but the jist of it is that when a "melee" unit is in the same tile as a "ranged" unit, the counterattack which the defender gets is directed at the melee unit instead of the ranged attacker. This models "lines" without necessitating CTP style stacked combat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ThePlagueRat
|
 |
Insert banana to play...
May 2002
time: 06:32
|
|
Ok, so what if the "front" is diagonal... C,E,G, or B,E,D, a "spearhead" ?
They you should have units on both two opposite sides regarding E, when attacking from H, in order to get the flanking bonus, because the defender E would then be in a broken front. However, the defender should get a front bonus when it has two or more adjacent units on either sides.
In the B,E,D, "spearhead" situation both bonuses could apply, and that would be more balanced. Do you see it? 
Answer:
.G dna C htiw I morf kcattA
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wrylachlan
So if you have the tiles:
ABC
DEF
GHI
And E is the defender, If I send my main force to attack from tile H, and another force to attack from tile F, the units attacking from tile F get a bonus. Its simple, it makes it so that faster units are better able to flank without having to assign specific flanking bonuses to specific units, and the same game mechanism can do double duty to allow for a "pincer" or "strategic flanking" bonus. |
That is what I thought your setup was trying to accomplish with the third paragraph of my post - the flanking manuver was to come from the horses with their ability to move multiple tiles and thus attack the defenders from a tile from the side of the defenders, rather than from the front.
Several questions...
So if the units on tile 'F' are infantry/archer-type, do they also get a flanking bonus because they are coming in from the flank position? Or is the flanking bonus only applied to mounted units?
Since combat in the current civ3 setup is unit-by-unit, will you have to send in a unit from the front and then from the flank (repeating the sequence of front/flank) to continue getting a flank bonus for that turn?
It seems to me that in your setup, it would be rather easy to get a flanking bonus, since all a player will have to do is delay his attack for a single turn until he gets units in position to get that bonus. In fact, if I had to subdivide my stacks to establish a two-tile flank setup, I would make sure all of my heavy offensive units were coming from the flank tile to get the maximum benefit. I would also only need to establish strength on a second tile, since the flank bonus only needs a second tile that is more than 90 degrees to establish the bonus.
The main question is whether the AI will recognize the importance of flanking, not only from a attacking standpoint, (something that may not be hard to get the AI to handle) but also from a preventative defensive standpoint. (something that may be hard to get the AI to handle)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
Several questions...
So if the units on tile 'F' are infantry/archer-type, do they also get a flanking bonus because they are coming in from the flank position? Or is the flanking bonus only applied to mounted units? |
The flanking bonus applies to everyone. In real life the reason horses are used in flanking is their movement speed, but if you're dumn enough to let a bunch of slow moving swordsmen get around and flank you, you're equally screwed. quote:
Since combat in the current civ3 setup is unit-by-unit, will you have to send in a unit from the front and then from the flank (repeating the sequence of front/flank) to continue getting a flank bonus for that turn? |
In my mind flanking means "getting into the backfield" so I think that in order to get a flanking bonus you would need to have all the defenders "commit" to the front first. So if there are 5 pikemen in a tile, you need to attack the tile 5 times before you can flank. The nature of the flanking bonus is that it forces the worst defender to defend against you. Example:
Defender has 5 spearmen, 2 archers, 1 catapult
Attacker has 5 Javelin Thowers and 2 Ancient Cav.
Attacker attacks with 5 Javelin Throwers. Spearmen Defend.
If the 2 Ancient Cav attack straight on, the remaining spearmen get to defend against them, and on their next turn the catapult and archers will probably get off a shot.
Instead, the Ancient Cav flank, which allows them to attack the worst defender first - the catapult, then the next worst defender - the archer. quote:
It seems to me that in your setup, it would be rather easy to get a flanking bonus, since all a player will have to do is delay his attack for a single turn until he gets units in position to get that bonus. In fact, if I had to subdivide my stacks to establish a two-tile flank setup, I would make sure all of my heavy offensive units were coming from the flank tile to get the maximum benefit. I would also only need to establish strength on a second tile, since the flank bonus only needs a second tile that is more than 90 degrees to establish the bonus. |
The balance to that is the way ZOC would work. Essentially it needs to be balanced such that the ranged defenders get a pot shot every time you move in the ZOC. Therefore, for fast moving units, the flanking bonus outweighs the downside of getting shot at, since you move through it so quickly. Slower units would be hit multiple times.
Another possibility would be to make mounted units the only ones who can make the diagonal move into flanking position. All others must make the L.
quote:
The main question is whether the AI will recognize the importance of flanking, not only from a attacking standpoint, (something that may not be hard to get the AI to handle) but also from a preventative defensive standpoint. (something that may be hard to get the AI to handle) |
I don't disagree with you that the AI might have a hard time with this, but by the time Civ4 comes out I'll have a PowerMac G7 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Perhaps you guys didn't know it was not possible to flank a front line? wrylachlan's suggestion is a nice one, but I noticed some flaws, as I said. This flanking system would only be realistic if there are two units on each opposite sides from the defeder... |
erm... double huh?
ABC
DEF
GHI
If E is the defender and H the attacker, the front line is the line between E and H. The mounted unit moving from H to F is moving around the edge of the front line. The attack from F to E is the flanking attack around the edge of the front line. Where's the issue?
P.S. Apparently porcine aviation is in vogue again as skywalker and I agree on something else...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian Sounds like a lot of additional micromanagement to me...and what you are proposing is basically the same idea as a mini tactical screen. |
I don't particularly like the idea of an entrenchment bonus. But I would like to point out that your comment above kind of indicates to me that you don't really understand what my, and other peoples beef is with the tactical mini-game. The entrenchment idea that skywalker put forward is very much NOT the same as a mini-tactical screen because the decision making is done on the main map If I'm on a tile with mountains on either side I'll entrench all my units forward. If I'm surrounded by plains it would be in my best interest to entrench some units straight ahead, and a few to the sides to prevent flanking.
What I, and I assume others, have against the tactical mini-game is not that it incorporates things like flanking, combined arms, etc. I, in fact, would like all those elements incorporated. What I dislike is the way it incorporates them in a seperate screen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
CTP(2) doesn't use a separate screen. Thats merely a way to display the battle progress and outcome. You can turn it off, and battles are negotiated exactly the same way, on the main map, just without a progressive display.
As for including directional entrenching.
K.I.S.S.
Last edited by MrBaggins on 22-01-2004 at 21:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Initially, I had said that a tactical minigame was a (potentially) good idea and should be considered, but I have also said that it is something that I do feel is not needed in civ4.
As time goes on, I am becoming less in favor of a tactical minigame.
I have used the CTP setup as an example of taking the basic concepts of tactical elements such as flanking and mid-ranged attacks, and applying them in a broad way that does not force the player to establish these tactics on a tactical minigame screen.
Where we differ is that you want to establish the use of tactics like flanking on the mainmap through the use of bonuses based on where you position your troops and from what direction you attack the enemy - and I think I've understood that basic concept from Day 1. I may have not completely grasped the the implimentation, but I did get the concept...
I do understand the aspect described below though...
The complaint I''ve heard over and over again about the use of a tactical minigame is that it will increase the micromanagement aspect of the game, in that every time you enter a battle, you have to issue a series of commands - and I have played games where this is the case. It's fun for a few days, and then its the same old thing, ad naseum.
Your proposal does exactly the same type of thing in adding these additional levels of micromanagement. Couple that with unlimited units in stacks, the fluid nature of troop positioning on a turn-by-turn basis, and the continued use of the worker system, and I see civ4 potentially becoming an even greater tedious micromangement nightmare.
Perhaps that is what players want though...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian Your proposal does exactly the same type of thing in adding these additional levels of micromanagement. Couple that with unlimited units in stacks, the fluid nature of troop positioning on a turn-by-turn basis, and the continued use of the worker system, and I see civ4 potentially becoming an even greater tedious micromangement nightmare. |
I think the tediousness of micromanagement is not a factor of the different combat techniques (flankning, combined arms, etc.) but rather a factor of the total number of units.
Doing a straight up fight with 30 units is significantly more tedious than having to think about the tactical movements of say 5 units. As such I think that there are two totally seperate issues:
1) Make sure that the number of units stays low
2) Make the combat with those units that remain as dynamic and tactical(ergo fun) as possible.
Additionally, I think that a cure for tedium is to allow stack movement, and group commands. If I could drag a box around units in multiple tiles (a la starcraft & war3) and give them group orders (attack this city, move to this tile, form a line at this tile, retreat to the nearest city, etc. etc.) that would cut down on tedium.
P.S. for an answer to worker tedium check out my suggestion in the Terrain Improvement poll forum: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=106007
Last edited by wrylachlan on 22-01-2004 at 22:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
CTP(2) doesn't use a separate screen. Thats merely a way to display the battle progress and outcome. You can turn it off, and battles are negotiated exactly the same way, on the main map, just without a progressive display. |
Yes, and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to understand the separate mechanics of the battle screen in order to make the decisions about which units to put together as an effective stack? So even if you aren't watching the battles, you have to learn the rule set in order to be successful. The only difference I'm suggesting is that the rule sets should all apply to the main map.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The ruleset DOES apply to the main map in the CTP system.
As for the learning curve... from a basic standpoint, its trivial.
You stack attack and defensive troops with ranged troops, to gain a combined arms advantage. Mix in a few flankers and bombarders when available for additional advantage.
The great library tells you that much... no battle screen depiction required.
There are, of course, many combinations of troop compositions, and theres no such thing as a perfect stack (well... they set Tanks ranged ability too high, being that it can flank too... but thats another story.) You can tell the outcomes of battle just by looking at the survivors. The battle screen is optional.
Furthermore, it's never gotten in the way... since its quick and non-interactive. Its actually quite gratifying, in fact... a nice "flavor" addition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
I just looked up the CTP rules and I'll admit I was wrong about some of my issues. Mea Culpa.
However there are a few issues still outstanding for me:
1) The de-emphazing of terrain. I think that my flanking implementation makes much more dynamic use of the terrain than CTP.
2) This is more of a question than anything else, but are your armies movement points used up in an attack? If so, then your ability to press the attack on the same turn is taken away which de-emphasizes the dynamics of "overextending".
3) The CTP system has a few too many "basic numbers" for units. I think that my system of using the movement of a unit to implement its flanking capability is inherently simpler.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ThePlagueRat
|
|
Insert banana to play...
May 2002
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wrylachlan
erm... double huh?
ABC
DEF
GHI
If E is the defender and H the attacker, the front line is the line between E and H. The mounted unit moving from H to F is moving around the edge of the front line. The attack from F to E is the flanking attack around the edge of the front line. Where's the issue?
|
Ok. I understand what you mean. I see the situation a bit differently, though... if you read that post above? quote:
...In the B,E,D, "spearhead" situation both bonuses could apply, and that would be more balanced... |
Ok, so the frontline could look like this:
ABC
DEF
GHI
or this:
ABC
DEF
GHI
Lets say it's the straight diagonal one. In your case E would be attacked from two directions giving that bonus, but it should be negated by that unit in E having two or more friendly units on it's sides. It is not possible to flank a frontline like that, you must break through it first!  So this diagonal one allow us to go into D and B and flank there too, so they should also be covered by either artillery or more units, like this:
ABC
DEF
GHI
Would allow for more interresting gameplay in terms of front wars.
Sorry I was not all clear in the other post, but you understand now?
Last edited by ThePlagueRat on 23-01-2004 at 01:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Your entire proposal is based on the premise of resolving combat on a unit-by-unit basis - and those units are sent into battle one at a time. IMO, this system is the most primative and simplistic method to resolve combat - (its also interesting to note that many games that fall into the TBS genre have moved onto a more complex stacked-combat resolution.) It's really a carryover from hex-board games, where combat was set up this way because there was no real way to simulate simultaneous combat on a board game - something that is not a limitation to the computer.
quote:
Originally posted by wrylachlan
I just looked up the CTP rules and I'll admit I was wrong about some of my issues. Mea Culpa.
However there are a few issues still outstanding for me:
1) The de-emphazing of terrain. I think that my flanking implementation makes much more dynamic use of the terrain than CTP. |
Not necessarily - its just that your proposal is based on the use of surrounding tiles as part of the equation, whereas the current CTP setup uses the tile where the combat takes place. For instance, using the CTP format, you can take away any attacking flanking bonus if a stack attacks a mountain tile. Or you can even use your proposal of using those factors to incur an additional flanking penalty/bonus when you move into combat from different directions in a CTP format. It's really the same concept in both situations - you are merely adding a numerical modifier into the equation once you commit to battle, and the computer then resolves the battle. And as it has been pointed out, the CTP screen is a only a representation of battle result.
quote:
Originally posted by wrylachlan
2) This is more of a question than anything else, but are your armies movement points used up in an attack? If so, then your ability to press the attack on the same turn is taken away which de-emphasizes the dynamics of "overextending". |
I tend to favor the loss of movement points for all units when combat is initiated, but again, the CTP system could allow mounted units additional movement after a battle. This is more of a 'implimentation' question rather than a 'basic concept' question.
Last edited by hexagonian on 23-01-2004 at 02:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
Your entire proposal is based on the premise of resolving combat on a unit-by-unit basis - and those units are sent into battle one at a time. IMO, this system is the most primative and simplistic method to resolve combat - (its also interesting to note that many games that fall into the TBS genre have moved onto a more complex stacked-combat resolution.) It's really a carryover from hex-board games, where combat was set up this way because there was no real way to simulate simultaneous combat on a board game - something that is not a limitation to the computer. |
Simultenaiety can only be truly achieved if you create a system where all movements happen at once and the defender has equally as fine control over his units in real time as the attacker.
CTP's system is no less an aproximation of this than Civ3's is. Can you attack a single tile from 3 other tiles simultaneously and gain the force multiplier that such an attack would give you in real life? No. The attacks from each of the 3 tiles are sequential.
If we accept that anything other than some sort of RTS implementation will always be an aproximation, then the question becomes reframed:
"How do I structure the game mechanics in terms of penalties and bonuses such that result of sequential attacks as closely as possible aproximates the results that would happen in real life if those attacks were simultaneous."
Thinking along those lines, you realize that there must be some sort of "strategic flanking" bonus to represent a pincer move. Again with my little square:
ABC
DEF
GHI
If E is the defender and I attack from D and I in the same turn, there ought to be some sort of bonus. If you're going to implement a bonus for that situation, it just makes sense to me that you would reuse the same game mechanism to implement flanking, instead of implementing flanking as a bonus in a mini-map game.quote:
I tend to favor the loss of movement points for all units when combat is initiated, but again, the CTP system could allow mounted units additional movement after a battle. This is more of a 'implimentation' question rather than a 'basic concept' question. |
But the hard-coded tile limit makes it impossible to bring enough units with you that you could attack and quickly press on with the units that weren't involved in the attack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Ok, seems fair enough. Since you mention those, I would also bring up the idea of archers and other ranged units being attachments to melee units instead of being separate units.
That should give the melee unit more hp, values and bombarment ability... Almost as they did in Hearts of Iron and Victoria. Would IMO be the best alternative when not using CTP-style armies. |
How about just giving ranged units a much lower attack value but giving every ranged unit in a tile a "free shot" every time a melee unit attacks or defends? Or alternatively give them a bonus to a certain number of melee unit's attack. For instance, every archer can give its bonus to the first 2 melee attacks per turn. Rifleman to the first 3, etc. etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
Sounds like a lot of additional micromanagement to me...and what you are proposing is basically the same idea as a mini tactical screen. |
No, not quite. Plus, this is completely optional, so it doesn't add all that much MM.
quote:
For instance, if there are several surrounding tiles with enemy units next to your stack, you will have to indicate the orientation of the 'front'. And given that the front often can and will change on a turn-by-turn basis, you will have to reorient that front on a turn-by-turn basis. |
This is just an individual unit order, like fortify - just when you do it, you get to select the direction.
quote:
And if you have 30 units on a tile, will you have the freedom to select different orientations for units within that stack? Logically, you should have that option to deploy your forces against multiple threats based on direction - especially since those attacking forces will be visibly deployed on tiles as an indication of their attacking direction. |
Yes, they can fortify in different directions. However, that means that you only have 3/8ths of the units defending effectively in each direction. 1/4th will have no bonus, and another 3/8ths will have a penalty.
Plus, this wouldn't be that useful for big single stacks anyway - it's better for deploying your troops all along a front.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wrylachlan
Simultenaiety can only be truly achieved if you create a system where all movements happen at once and the defender has equally as fine control over his units in real time as the attacker.
CTP's system is no less an aproximation of this than Civ3's is. Can you attack a single tile from 3 other tiles simultaneously and gain the force multiplier that such an attack would give you in real life? No. The attacks from each of the 3 tiles are sequential. |
Granted, its not true simultaneous...but it is a step in the right directon regarding a simultaneous situation because it takes a numerical group of units (as opposed to a single unit), sends them into battle, uses unit abilities such as flank and range as part of the equation, and resolves that battle with a push of a button.
Personally, I wouldn't mind taking it a step further - similar to what is in EU2. Select all the units in a surrounding tiles that can reach that tile on that turn, issue your attack order(s) and then let the computer resolve it. That order can only be a simple 'Attack this tile' commmand too - you don't need to muddy it up with additional commands.
quote:
Originally posted by wrylachlan
Thinking along those lines, you realize that there must be some sort of "strategic flanking" bonus to represent a pincer move. Again with my little square:
ABC
DEF
GHI
If E is the defender and I attack from D and I in the same turn, there ought to be some sort of bonus. If you're going to implement a bonus for that situation, it just makes sense to me that you would reuse the same game mechanism to implement flanking, instead of implementing flanking as a bonus in a mini-map game. But the hard-coded tile limit makes it impossible to bring enough units with you that you could attack and quickly press on with the units that weren't involved in the attack. |
If you limit the game to single-unit combat resolution, you can only have the strategic level flanking ability, but if you make stacked combat part of the equation, you can actually have both as part of the equation (read my post above...) I don't see why the game cannot have both a strategic flanking bonus (that is what you are proposing) and a tactical flanking bonus.
Ultimately, the sticking point for me is single-unit combat resolution. You had mentioned that if the player had the ability to group his individual units and send them into battle as a cohesive whole, that would be workable. And to give the player incentive to group his units into armies, you give those armies combat bonuses that they would not have if they fought individually. Grouping and ungrouping units can be done for an attack on a side panel that would not obscure the map. If you decide to attack a tile, a checklist would show up on that panel where you can check off individul units that would simultaneously attack that tile when you give the final order (in civ3, you already have to select units with the pulldown menu). In fact this 'grouping' does not have to be permanent either, but only for that turn. If you go to this format, you open the door for a wide range of possibilities in your combat model. If you retain the current civ3 setup, that door is never opened.
Doing stacked combat in this way does not mean that you have to have a unit cap either. (IMO, this is why Skywalker seems to be against stacked combat, as he sees it in CTP - I am for some kind of cap because not having a cap dumbs down defensive considerations)
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-01-2004 00:43
|