22-12-2003 23:03									#1
	Civ 4 Combat Factors Increase Your PM Length

In the combat list, the stacked vs unit thread, and the Unit list, I feel like sometimes the conversation goes in a circle somehow, so I want to propose a different process for coming up with a new combat proposal for Civ 4.

I want to start a list of all the possible force multipliers or "Combat Factors" that could effect combat in real life. Then once we have a huge, as comprehensive as possible list, use that as the basis to try to come up with a new system of game mechanics.

This will be just a list. Any comments about "dude, it'd make it way too complicated to try to model that" don't belong here. Once the list is complete, then we can do a winnowing process to figure out which to try to include in the game mechanics.

To start:
Flanking
Fatigue
Morale
Firepower
Range
Accuracy
Overwhelming Numbers
Initiative
Element of Surprise
Supply
Combined arms.
Experience.
Training.
Fortifications.
Leadership.
Artillery (specifically vs. walls or other fortifications)
Troop Intelligence (troop location, etc.)
Tactical Intelligence (knowledge of an enemy civ's common tactics)
Strategic Mobility (speed getting to the battle)(mounted infantry who dismount to fight)
Tactical Mobility (speed with a useful aplication in battle)(cavalry)

Note: I am adding in suggestions as I get them. Since they are just terms I'm not going to put attributions on the list which I think would just clutter it. If anyone strongly disagrees with that I'm willing to listen.

Last edited by wrylachlan on 24-12-2003 at 01:57

	23-12-2003 00:33									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Combined arms.
Experience.
Training.
Fortifications.
Artillery.
Scouting/inteligence.
Weapons.
Mobility (at tactical level).
Leadership.
Knowledge of opponents strategies/tactics (think the first meetings between Incas and Spanish).

If you want something different from units/stacks, you could also decide to change the combat model into something similar to the culture spreading, except units would send military power around them the way cities radiate culture. When two unit meet, you compare the radiated military strength, which includes strength irradiating from other units nearby, thus representing support. An entrenched unit would radiate more power than a not entrenched unit.

	23-12-2003 01:16									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Artillery. Scouting/inteligence. Mobility (at tactical level). Knowledge of opponents strategies/tactics (think the first meetings between Incas and Spanish).

A couple of questions:
1)Is artillery fundamentally different from Range and Aim? Could you argue that an artillery unit is simply a unit with a big range and damage, but not enough aim to do damage to a specific target?
2)How is intelligence different from Knowledge of Opponents tactics?
3)What do you mean by at a tactical level? How is this different from the units mobility as a whole?

	23-12-2003 02:01									#4
	Suffering from ads?

Why can't we just keep A/D/M? It is FAR simpler and is PROVEN to work well.

	23-12-2003 02:09									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Why can't we just keep A/D/M? It is FAR simpler and is PROVEN to work well.

We can. In fact, if after exploring the options and debating back and forth different suggestions it seems to me that the pros of the current systems simplicity outweigh the cons of the best alternative system we come up with, I'll be happy to join you in advocating that we keep the current system. We're not at that point yet, however.

What bothers you so much about exploring the options?

	23-12-2003 02:23									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Because you make really long posts, and then I have to actually use my head and think about them

I think that all of these things can really be condensed into A/D/M anyways, so that the results will be basically the same as with the system you are proposing but the system will be simpler.

	23-12-2003 06:11									#7
	Support Apolyton

wrylachlan,

Great thread start. Hopefully we can keep this one as close to what you've asked for as is possible.

I'd like to address a point:

Leadership
Let each battle allow for the discovery of a great military leader, a la Civ 3. This leader has one function: To lead the army unit that generated him. He will increase troop morale, and provide various bonuses to the army. Every generated military leader will provide a different type or combonation of bonuses to their troops. Thus: leadership.


I'd write more, but dinner is ready!

	23-12-2003 06:39									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Why can't we just keep A/D/M? It is FAR simpler and is PROVEN to work well.

*coughs* Spearman *coughs* Tank *coughs*

	23-12-2003 06:40									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

*cough* 1 in 1000 chance *cough*

	23-12-2003 06:42									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

*coughs* fortified behind *coughs* city walls *coughs*

	23-12-2003 06:46									#11
	Support Apolyton

*cough* attack 24 *cough* vs. defense 4 *cough*

	23-12-2003 06:47									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

*coughs* 1 in 6 *coughs* without firepower or hps *coughs*

	23-12-2003 07:18									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

*cough* actually that's 1 in 7 *cough* and HP's exist *cough*

	23-12-2003 07:23									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

so... you meant to say A/D/M/HP then?

	23-12-2003 09:54									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

No matter how many times a spear beats a tank, the A/D/M system is overly simplistic, and something better can be devised.

The whole point of this thread was to talk about what could be done, not about what has been "proven."

	23-12-2003 13:21									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 1)Is artillery fundamentally different from Range and Aim? Could you argue that an artillery unit is simply a unit with a big range and damage, but not enough aim to do damage to a specific target?

Yes. The initial reason why you had catapults and ballistas, and later cannons, was to take out enemy walls. So the first goal of artillery was to shoot at fortifications. Modern times, it may be a bit different, but even in WWI, artillery was aimed at trenches (fortifications) to help the later assault by infantry.

quote: 2)How is intelligence different from Knowledge of Opponents tactics?

Intelligence means you know more or less the plans, but mostly the situation of enemy troops, where they are, what their supplies are, how their morale is.
Knowledge of tactics means you know that the English ships of the line will come in a line and attack the French/Spain fleet in the usual way. Suddenly, you realise they come perpendicularly, which was thought a suicidal maneuver, and lose half your fleet because of the wind. Trafalgar. Another example is to know how Spanish use horses. Sure, intelligence showed you they had horses, but they couldn't make any difference in a fight as they jsut allow the Spaniards to deal blow from higher. What do you mean 'charge', 'flank'?

quote: 3)What do you mean by at a tactical level? How is this different from the units mobility as a whole?

Mobility on strategic and tactical scale are different.
For instance, consider Hastings:
Harold came to Hastings with mounted soldiers (big strategic mobility) and then they dismounted to fight(low tactical mobility) while William wame on foot (low strategic) and then his knights fought on horse (high tactical). This battle shows that Harold had a great strategic move in managing to get to Hastings in time from Stanford Bridge. Well, it was actually silly as he was entering a trap without all his army, but the logistics were very impressive. Still mobility on the field was better for William, who could use his cavalry to chase Saxons who had broken the line, and to give orders and make sure his wings held (though you could say this is leadership).
Another example is Hannibal's elephants. In Zamua, the elephants had about 0 mobility. Once SCipio had tricked them into charging empty space, they were effectively useless for the rest of the battle. Now this might be modelled not only by mobility but also something else (morale?) but it could get very complex pretty fast.

	23-12-2003 19:14									#17
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Yes. The initial reason why you had catapults and ballistas, and later cannons, was to take out enemy walls. So the first goal of artillery was to shoot at fortifications. Modern times, it may be a bit different, but even in WWI, artillery was aimed at trenches (fortifications) to help the later assault by infantry.

Gotcha

quote: Intelligence means you know more or less the plans, but mostly the situation of enemy troops, where they are, what their supplies are, how their morale is. Knowledge of tactics means you know that the English ships of the line will come in a line and attack the French/Spain fleet in the usual way. Suddenly, you realise they come perpendicularly, which was thought a suicidal maneuver, and lose half your fleet because of the wind. Trafalgar. Another example is to know how Spanish use horses. Sure, intelligence showed you they had horses, but they couldn't make any difference in a fight as they jsut allow the Spaniards to deal blow from higher. What do you mean 'charge', 'flank'?

Gotcha

quote: Mobility on strategic and tactical scale are different. For instance, consider Hastings: Harold came to Hastings with mounted soldiers (big strategic mobility) and then they dismounted to fight(low tactical mobility) while William wame on foot (low strategic) and then his knights fought on horse (high tactical). This battle shows that Harold had a great strategic move in managing to get to Hastings in time from Stanford Bridge. Well, it was actually silly as he was entering a trap without all his army, but the logistics were very impressive. Still mobility on the field was better for William, who could use his cavalry to chase Saxons who had broken the line, and to give orders and make sure his wings held (though you could say this is leadership). Another example is Hannibal's elephants. In Zamua, the elephants had about 0 mobility. Once SCipio had tricked them into charging empty space, they were effectively useless for the rest of the battle. Now this might be modelled not only by mobility but also something else (morale?) but it could get very complex pretty fast.

I'm still iffy on this one. What you're calling "Tactical Mobility" sounds like speed to me, and what you're calling "Strategic Mobility" sounds like a supply/logistics issue. Because Harold didn't have the sense to use the horses mobility during battle doesn't mean it wasn't available to him. It sounds more like his forces suffered a penalty for having a low leadership score?

	23-12-2003 19:18									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You're sort of right on that score. "Strategic mobility" refers to how quickly you can cover large distances, whereas "tacticial mobility" refers to how, well, "mobile" you are in combat. Generally a high value in one category gives a high value in another, but not always.

	24-12-2003 01:38									#19
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Because Harold didn't have the sense to use the horses mobility during battle doesn't mean it wasn't available to him.

No. Being trained to ride and being trained to fight on horseback are two very different things. For instance, you can ride perfectly well wihtout stirrups. With them, however, you can use lances in a very deadly and efficient manner, which you could not without. Harold's men were not trained to fight on horseback, thus they could not do so. Several armies used mounted infantry, who used horses or mules to travel and dismounted to fight, thereby lowering their mobility (except in rough terrain where horses are useless).

	24-12-2003 01:54									#20
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare No. Being trained to ride and being trained to fight on horseback are two very different things. For instance, you can ride perfectly well wihtout stirrups. With them, however, you can use lances in a very deadly and efficient manner, which you could not without. Harold's men were not trained to fight on horseback, thus they could not do so. Several armies used mounted infantry, who used horses or mules to travel and dismounted to fight, thereby lowering their mobility (except in rough terrain where horses are useless).

Which brings me back to the original point I made which was that "Strategic Mobility" isn't really a seperate issue, so much as an aspect of supply/support logistics. In Civ terms, Harold's men where foot soldiers. The Horses were a separate supply unit that confered a movement bonus on the foot soldiers. When they got into battle, if was still a foot soldier versus cavalry battle.

I'll throw it on the list anyways, but I'm not convinced that its fundamentally different than supply.