08-11-2004 01:57									#1
	Civ battle system Enter the AD-FREE zone

Let's face it: Civilization 3 battle system is boring.
As it has always been boring in Civilization series.
At least in Civ2 it was easy to war lately with 1. howitzers (google translation) and 2. railroads, and one must say it is boring to move all the units in Civ3, the most when battle system requires even more units than Civ2 or Civ1.
Well, i don't know, war in Civ3 is more difficult, well more interesting, but unit moves ends up to be boring in any way anyway.

	08-11-2004 02:08									#2
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The fact that howitzers and railroads made it very easy to win quickly is not a plus, IMO.

	08-11-2004 02:47									#3
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Combined arms with stacked combat is the way to go, but they wont.

	08-11-2004 04:15									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I second that. Let's just hope they actually DO it.

	09-11-2004 17:32									#5
	Suffering from ads?

my votes for units and combat would be:

1) Operational Range and Stack Limits.

2) A call to power combat mini-screen which allows you to resolve combat between multiple units.

3) Within (2) the ability to alter unit tactics between combat rounds.

Well, fingers crossed eh?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	12-11-2004 03:07									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

CTP had the best combat system... I wish Civ could integrate something like it.

	12-11-2004 05:53									#7
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

CTP was good, I also liked its model for army upkeep where better units cost more to maintain.

	12-11-2004 05:57									#8
	Remove this text

I (gasp!) really didn't like the CTP combat system. It just felt so artificial having certain units always lined up in certain ways and a maximum number of units available for each battle.

	12-11-2004 07:15									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Look, Trip, I will be the first to say that the CtP system had some flaws-and could readily do with improvement. That said, though, it is a darned sight better than Civs 'Lets all line up, in an orderly fashion, and take a shot at that unit' approach. It's like some really bad Martial Arts movie !! I will give them credit, though, by saying that at least civ3 got rid of that 'kill one, kill all' stack system and introduced a seperate bombardment system-these two things alone (not to mention cool graphics ) made the civ3 combat engine WORLDS better than that of civ2! That does not mean, however, that the best elements of the CtP and Civ3 battle system could not be intergrated.

	12-11-2004 07:42									#10
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Civ3's one unit vs one unit combat system sucks and needs to be changed to something better.

	13-11-2004 00:32									#11
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Panzeh Civ3's one unit vs one unit combat system sucks and needs to be changed to something better.

	13-11-2004 09:12									#12
	Support Apolyton

I like the civ3 battle system. Yes it requires more time especially during battle compared to earlier versions but i see this as added functionality. I feel with the wider spectrum of units i can control my wars better. Makes things more interesting.

	13-11-2004 09:24									#13
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Look, Techdegd, I'm not complaining about whether or not one system is more or less time-consuming than the other! My sole problem is that the current system does not allow for the degree of massed combat that we have actually seen throughout history-just as it does NOT allow for a truly tactical combined arms system-instead encouraging a fairly lazy 'stack o' death' approach! A tactical mini-screen, OTOH, allows for much greater tactical control of your battles, whilst also making the game more immersive!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	17-11-2004 17:06									#14
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Maquiladora Combined arms with stacked combat is the way to go, but they wont.

Even if they don't want to implement a completely upgraded comabt system using a mini-screen, a modifier bonus for a combined arms stack should be a fairly simple thing to implement.

Categories of foot soldiers, mounted, mechanised and ranged units shoudln't be too hard to do. Air and naval support might be more problematic though.

	17-11-2004 20:17									#15
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Why do people want stacked/army combat so much?

	17-11-2004 20:54									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Trip Why do people want stacked/army combat so much?

A) less micromanagement. It's easier to move 6 or 7 big armies around that 40 separate units.

B) more interesting combat. Instead of having each unit attack separately, you can have combined arms and have 1 battle between two armies like in real life.

	17-11-2004 21:00									#17
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat A) less micromanagement. It's easier to move 6 or 7 big armies around that 40 separate units. B) more interesting combat. Instead of having each unit attack separately, you can have combined arms and have 1 battle between two armies like in real life.

Both of these can be accomplished without stacked combat.

Stack movement was already in Civ 3 and I anticipate that there will be even better functions available in Civ 4, as one of Soren's mantras is to reduce micromanagement.

Combined arms can also be done. Just expand the system that existed in Civ 2 where units like Pikes had advantages against Knights and such.

By using an HP bar instead of single 2-5 HP units the combat can become much more balanced because you won't end up with situations where weaker units will do 1 or often 0 damage to an opponent. Instead every one will take at least something off of the bar, meaning having the advantage in numbers is more important.

	17-11-2004 21:46									#18
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Trip Both of these can be accomplished without stacked combat. Stack movement was already in Civ 3 and I anticipate that there will be even better functions available in Civ 4, as one of Soren's mantras is to reduce micromanagement. Combined arms can also be done. Just expand the system that existed in Civ 2 where units like Pikes had advantages against Knights and such. By using an HP bar instead of single 2-5 HP units the combat can become much more balanced because you won't end up with situations where weaker units will do 1 or often 0 damage to an opponent. Instead every one will take at least something off of the bar, meaning having the advantage in numbers is more important.

But isn't it better to have stacked combat where all units in a stack can attack at once rather than have each unit attack one at a time?

	18-11-2004 00:09									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I would say that Civ2 handled combat better than civ3 with the exception of air missions- if air missions in SMAC had worked like in Civ3 then SMAC would have without a doubt the best combat system of these games.


That said, combat by armies is vastly superior than unit vs unit- an army combat with a better set of possible commands would allow for more exiting combat- more diverse outcomes, and end the whole notion of say, just mass producing one type of unit and throwing them into battle.

It also reduces micormanagement significantly, and would allow for say the implementation of something akin to heroes. Finally, it would make historical scenerio making much better- imagine making a Civil War scenerio in which you are able to actually recreate the orders of battle by having modelled each division, instead of lots of units with no rhyme or reason?

I think for example that MOO2 had the most fun war system of all- fleet movements were strategic decisions, and when fleets met, you were able to wage classic tactical battles.

	18-11-2004 00:16									#20
	Support Apolyton

My suggestion, which won't happen, is this:

players would make units, but when done, units need to be assigned to a command. By default they get placed in the local garrison. To move units about the map, you assignt them to an army or fleet.

Now, commands then are given to armies: you can order an army to defend a particular tile (garrisons only do this) or a region of tiles. Or they can be ordered to move to another tile, or move and attack every enemy army on the way, or to attack a specific enemy command. You could then tell them how important it is: by this I mean how hard and important the issue is-essentially, how much damage an army is willing to sustain in order to carry out the mission. If holding a tile is life or death, you tell the army to hold it no matter what- and they will fight until exterminated. If you just want to slow the enemy down, you make it low priority, and your army fights only for a bit, backs down,fights again, so forth. Same for attack.

How combat is resolved can either be done by complex calculations of the units involved, the terrain, neighboring commands, morale, leadership, so forth- or in a minimap.

	18-11-2004 01:33									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat But isn't it better to have stacked combat where all units in a stack can attack at once rather than have each unit attack one at a time?

Yes...

	18-11-2004 02:50									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Stacked combat is particularly needed when you wish to take over a position by overwhelming numbers and attrition. The point of bringing numerous units is that they can all press at one point together. Ten units attacking in a row, is far easier to counter than ten units attacking at the same time.

	18-11-2004 04:23									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Akka Stacked combat is particularly needed when you wish to take over a position by overwhelming numbers and attrition. The point of bringing numerous units is that they can all press at one point together. Ten units attacking in a row, is far easier to counter than ten units attacking at the same time.

I agree, although if they allowed that sort of combat, would it be sensible to limit the number of units allowed in a stack?

Maybe stacks over a certain size would need to be under the control of a leader. I realise this is similar to the current use of armies, but it would allow more units to be under the one command.

Maybe having a variety of leader types - the ones with greater ability being able to control more units.

I don't think any of us would want to come up against an AI with a juggernaut containing a couple dozen modern armor!

	18-11-2004 04:54									#24
	Increase Your PM Length

They could use the principle of attrition and supply line to limit the number of units in a stack. It would also make good sense, and make logistics, at least, part of the strategy.

	18-11-2004 05:31									#25
	Inflate your Upload Space

Supply lines AND stack limits would be needed if stacked combat were included-IMHO! Perhaps, as was suggested, you can have a relatively small stack (say 3 units max) without a 'leader' but require an 'army' unit to have, say, up to 6 units in a single stack.

As for bomber/naval support. I think it would be easiest if there was a specific 'order' to combat. So

(1) All units are moved first.

(2) Then air-missions (and their targets) and targetting of nuclear missiles occurs.

(3) After everyone has moved and assigned missions (if any), combat is resolved between any units which end up in the same square-in the following order:

Air vs. Air (so units who 'cross paths' en-route to missions will 'slug it out' for supremacy');

then Air vs. Naval (if applicable);

then naval vs naval;

then aerial bombardment of ground units (if applicable);

then Naval bombardment of ground units (if applicable).

Then the ground units go head-to-head.

None of these combat situations would HAVE to be to the death, as either side should be able to surrender the field at any point (though this would give the enemy a 'free shot' at their backs!) Also, though, bombadment would not result in the death of a unit, merely soften them up prior to a ground assault.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

	18-11-2004 22:39									#26
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Anyone else despise tactical mini-combat? It would lengthen the game sooo-much, it's not even that fun, and it's so un-civ, a game meant to be played, let's not forget, at the STRATEGIC level.

	01-12-2004 02:36									#27
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

My take on the issue

See the attached image to get a general feel of my ideas for civ4 combat. The numbers and the layout are not particularly important - as they are in a rough form - but are there to give you a visual example.

First off, I see the need to increase the range of attack/defend combat numbers - possibly from 1-50 or 1-100.

Unit selection will allow you to pick multiple units at one time and indicate that you want to send them into combat. The colors are to designate the type of unit (red - flank, blue - range, green - melee) - and units are broken up in the pulldown menu by category - all melees are in one group, and so on.

When you select the units and send them into combat, you will get additional bonuses (possibly (+1) per unit) based on the number of units you bring into battle. If you only bring in one unit, no bonus. Bring in 6, and you may generate a (+1) attack for two units - bring in 12 and you may get a (+1) for four units. Same with the defender - a fully defended city may generate (+1) bonuses for a lot of units. The bonus will increase based on the unit type too. A tank may get (+3) instead of (+1) because it is a more advanced unit and its attack/defend number is higher.

The goal here is to provide the means to manage your forces and eliminate the need to send units into battle one at a time. There is nothing more tedious than having a stack of 80+ units - select stack, search for unit in pulldown menu, send unit, repeat...

It rewards a player that chooses multiple units for attack with a potential bonus for some of those units.

In a nutshell, combat can either be resolved as in civ3 (unit vs unit) or it can be broadened to a combined arms format. (This is up to the designers to determine).

In a combined arms setup, when you select the units and send them into combat, they will show up on the the box on the left of the pulldown menu. You have a number of slots that you can fill - 2 flanks, 6 melees and 4 ranged, plus an additional 12 reinforcements. (this setup can vary, based on what the designers want, but I'm using a total of 24 units as an example)

When combat starts you have the following
melee vs melee
with range firing on melee
with flanker attacking end melee

When melee units are destroyed, then the ranged units come up on the front line - after that, the reinforcements come in play, taking the place of those defeated units. (or ranged units do not come up on the front lines until all reinforcements are destroyed - this is up to the designer)

Range units - both attacker and defenders - inflict damage on frontline melee units without taking hits themselves until they end up on the frontline - but they have very weak attack/defend, so they will get crushed by a conventional melee unit.

Flankers only get their bonus if they are not faced with an opposing flanker. They hit the end melee unit in the row. Flankers also have weak attack/defend numbers, but they generally are not as weak as the ranged attack/defend numbers.

This system - whatever version (civ3 or combined arms) is streamlined, and does not require a unit stack cap. The beauty of this system is that you can select and send up to 24 units into combat at one time, and it allows your forces to stay in a fluid stack.

Taken a step further, you can preset units to stay locked via the checkbox on the left on the pulldown menu. Select multiple units in the right checkbox, select the far left checkbox of one of the units, and it will designate that stack as a sub-army. Select that army via the right checkbox and you will get a pulldown menu that will tell you what is in that sub-army.

This also will allow a player to handle movement in a streamlined manner, and it can be broadened to include the means to effectively group your worker force.

It probably needs finetuning, but this is the gist of it.

Attachment: civbattle.jpg
This has been downloaded 101 time(s).

Last edited by hexagonian on 01-12-2004 at 20:16

	01-12-2004 03:14									#28
	Tired of ads?

quote: Anyone else despise tactical mini-combat? It would lengthen the game sooo-much, it's not even that fun, and it's so un-civ, a game meant to be played, let's not forget, at the STRATEGIC level.

I don't despise tactical mini-combat in general, but I agree it wouldn't work in Civ.

	01-12-2004 03:22									#29
	Support Apolyton

I agree with Oncle Boris: combat should remain strategic. It would be nice if Soren took some cues from Paradox games, games like Europa Universalis. I would like to have actual armies, with the number of men displayed (instead of hit points), with a leader, who gives bonuses or not, depending on his talents. Mind you, it doesn't have to be an exact replica, but some elements would be interesting.

	01-12-2004 17:23									#30
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

No no no no!

Please not lots of stats and actualy numbers. I can't stand it and nor can the mass market. The Civ combat model works well for the ancient to gun powder era and when there are few units, but starts to fall appart as you get more techs & more units. Stacked combat in CtP was not bad, but maybe something more visually pleasing would be good.

Please keep this a game and not a simulation!

Last edited by Slip_Oz on 01-12-2004 at 23:09