29-06-2004 07:57									#1
	Master Zen's War Suggestions Thread Inflate your Upload Space

Being an avid wargamer in days of yore I feel it is a must to make some comments regarding what I would like in the new military engine of Civ4. Frankly I have never been truly satisfied by this aspect of Civ and I think it can be greatly improved without being overly-complex (I doubt Civ4 would hit the mainstream if it had the complexity of TOAW for example).

My main inspiration is that old lovable fun-yet-simple mother of all wargames: Panzer General (the original). PG was fun because it included practically all basic elements of wargames yet made it incredibly simple and fun. Sure it wasn't very historically accurate but it more than made up for it in its strategic challange which did not over-burden the player with those details that us grognards love but most grand strategy gamers would probably detest.

Anyway, here is the list:


- HEXES

Not even worth explaining. Hex-based grids are far better at representing distance and for good reason have been employed in every decent wargame since the dawn of time.


- HIT POINTS & DAMAGE.

The Civ3 hit point system is terrible. Makes combat too unrealistic yet there is no way around it since adding more HP would only make it impossible for some units to win out against others. The main problem I see is the limitation that one unit must necessarily die in each combat. My first suggestion is that each individual act of combat not necessarily kill off units but damage them. Thus it would take more than one attack to actually destroy them. Most real wargames are based on this premise. This also makes for some interesting tactical decisions: which units will attack this turn and which others will hold their ground? The more you make the player think, the more fun it will be. Note that this would also erase the line between normal combat and bombardment. Normal combat would simply be bombardment with a range of 1, attacking the next tile (hex)

Optional effects would be things like morale which after damage cause the unit to retreat or even to surrender if it is cornered (this was called suppression in PG).


- STACKING

The main problem in Civ2 combat was that an entire stack could be wiped out thus making it more usefull to spread out units. In Civ3 the reverse occured, with stacks being the ONLY practical way of amassing units. Civ4 should pursue a middle ground: give the player the tactical decision whether to stack or not. This can be done by including stack damage, in other words, when your stack is attacked either by direct combat or bombardment, the possibility that other units may be damaged is ever present. This will present the player with a choice with each situation necessitating a decision whether to stack or not.


- UNIT TAGS

Units should have more tags, say "mounted", "armored", "motorized", "submarine", "artillery", etc. Other tags should specify special rules between these units or with improvements. The idea is to make certain units more effective than others under different situations. Tanks, for example, should be slaughtered if they take on fortified infantry in a city, but infantry, even if perhaps nominally weaker in attack values should be far more effective. This would also allow for specialized units like Anti-Tank guns, Pikemen more useful against Cavalry, etc. Combat should be like one big chess game where you coordinate your different unit types against your objective, and not just use brute force to obtain it.


- NAVAL COMBAT

With the new unit tags, naval combat would be much improved. Aircraft with special naval attack rates could be far more usefull to wreck havoc on ships. Ships might also have "critical kill" probabilites which would mean, for example, a lucky hit on the other's magazines (kind of like the Bismark's hit on the Hood). Subarines would be particulary adept at this simulating a crippling torpedo hit. Since there is no distinction between normal combat and bombardment now, ships could also have a "counter-bombardment" range which would allow, for example, Battleships to return fire on defense even if attacked at ranges greater than 1.


- SUPPLY

This one is simple. Units not directly in any transport route which leads into your terriotrry or controlled territority should suffer some form of supply penalty, perhaps making it require $$ to resupply. Supply should also be an expendable factor which means that units may not engage in combat or movements if supply runs out. This will require your armies to always be with some supply route open making deep penetrating thrusts very risky as well as cutting supply routes valuable defense strategies.


- AIR COMBAT

Air combat is the only aspect of war I would not like to see turned PG-like. I like it as it is, based on unit orders and launched from cities or airbases. The only change would be to use the unit tags to make some units like true airborne artilleries (like Stukas were in PG). Modern units might also be equipped with some type of stand-off missile capability.


I'm probably missing a couple of stuff which I'll post once I remember.

	29-06-2004 09:37									#2
	Suffering from ads?

You have some pretty interesting sugestions in there. Ynfortunately I don´t think many will be implemented, but if they were they´d allow for some pretty interesting situations, namely wars in democracy games and scenarios (the all-loved civ2 WWII scenario comes to mind)

	29-06-2004 09:50									#3
	Got spare money?

yep, I suspect most of these things won't be included either, but at least I suggested them

	29-06-2004 10:20									#4
	Re: Master Zen's War Suggestions Thread Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen - STACKING The main problem in Civ2 combat was that an entire stack could be wiped out thus making it more usefull to spread out units. In Civ3 the reverse occured, with stacks being the ONLY practical way of amassing units. Civ4 should pursue a middle ground: give the player the tactical decision whether to stack or not. This can be done by including stack damage, in other words, when your stack is attacked either by direct combat or bombardment, the possibility that other units may be damaged is ever present. This will present the player with a choice with each situation necessitating a decision whether to stack or not.

Stacking is required in Civ2. Are you just going to let Howitzers go undefended without Mech Inf?

	29-06-2004 10:29									#5
	Re: Re: Master Zen's War Suggestions Thread Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Apocalypse Stacking is required in Civ2. Are you just going to let Howitzers go undefended without Mech Inf?

A Mech Inf in open terrain gets easily taken out by an enemy bomber/tank/howitzer. Bye bye stack.

	29-06-2004 10:34									#6
	Re: Re: Re: Master Zen's War Suggestions Thread Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen A Mech Inf in open terrain gets easily taken out by an enemy bomber/tank/howitzer. Bye bye stack.

Yes, but that limits what can attack the howitzer. Otherwise everyone and their mom can take out a howitzer. And the Mech Inf can take out enemy howizters so that's one less thing to worry about.

	29-06-2004 10:37									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Everyone and their mom COULD take out a howitzer in Civ2. How many stacks would the human player destroy in Civ2 with proper use of air power? The AI never stood a change (let alone at sea where the entire enemy fleet could be sunk in one turn with one attack)


How many times did you stack your entire fleet into one tile?

When you bombed a city how many times did you leave all bombers in the same tile?

When you attacked a city still within range of enemy bombers or units, how many times did you leave all the attackers on the same tile?

	29-06-2004 23:37									#8
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I think the unit system should be fundamentally reformed. War should be between commands made up of units, not between units themselves.

The player would desing commands with whatever units they wanted. Obviously commands with a mixture of units would fight better. Each command would either be controlled directly by the player or assgined a command and execute it independently.

Battles would not be to the death but until one command disengaged. That might not happen before it is wiped out, but the notion of one command having to die would end.

Commands would suffer from attrition based on terrain and distance from supply centers. Commands on the field would eat of the land, so an army on a tile would use up that tiles food-this applies at home or in foreing land.

	30-06-2004 07:39									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

One thing I would like to add:

How many times in a scenario, do we see generals added, particularly in historical scenarios? That to me suggests that Civ could use some kind of generals.

To me, a general ought to boost the abilities of the group they command. However, only having a stack to command is rather unrealistic.

This should change depending on how advanced the units they can command. For example, a general in the modern day has much more command over a wider area, than general in Ancient times.

Secondly, generals are immortal. They may be captured by the enemy, they can be released with an exchange, or by capturing the city where your general resides.

Generals can have 4 types, expanding to 5 with the modern age. Admirals would command only sea units, whereas land generals would command infantry, calvary and artillery forces. Each land general would have their speciality, strengthening one of these groups, though commanding all the groups at once. The last type of general would command your air force.

Generals cannot be built, but are rather promoted from veteran units. You may only have one general of each type (up to 5 generals) in your entire army.

Captured generals count towards your total.