01-12-2004 20:43									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

well, as said before, I support an army system- it maintains the strategic sense of the game and makes it simpler to wage war, since you need to spend less time moving forces and so forth- an army system also allows for the whole "leader" angle.

Personally, I think it should not bee TOO complex.

My system would necessitate the addition of 3 new piece of info and the changing of 2 of them.

All units would have a melee attack, melee defense, ranged attack, ranged defense, movement, hitpoint, and morale.

Battles would go as follows:

Each battle would have multiple turns:
Innitiative would be decided based on who attacked, terrain, whether someone is fortified and tech level.

Whichever group got the innitiative does one ranged attack-then the other side range attacks-then the attacker melee attacks, then the defender does a ranged attack.

This continues until one side breaks- either the attacker can't keep going or the defender leaves the field.

This means a player can still have a good sense of what a likely outcome for a battle is by comparing morale, army size, combat values, and positioning, while still making it more vivid.

	02-12-2004 00:20									#32
	Tired of ads?

quote: Please keep this a game and not a simulation!

Can't agree more. But as it is, combat in Civ 3 is not very fun. (The combat in SMAC was better imo.) And the fact that combat is not very fun in Civ is a problem, since it's a huge part of the game. Moreover, combat in Civ 3 is not immersive in the sense that you don't have the impression of controlling huge armies.

	16-03-2005 03:25									#33
	Inflate your Upload Space

With differing speeds on meele vs flankers, ctp made the flanker also the quickest to get to the front line, if you were expecting tough resistance. A full stack for me in the ancient age would be 6 hoplites,5 archers, and a slaver. I'd build Knights when I needed to get to the front line fast, and right before they became obsolete IMHO they were a better build than cavalry.

	16-03-2005 15:43									#34
	Support Apolyton

I´d also support a system like that of CtP.

Maybe you could inclue the ideas of hexagonian and GePap in it,
by assigning units to armies (as GePap mentioned) and, if combat occurs let choose the player which position (either ranged Attack, melee, flank or reserve) takes within the battle and at the same time not allowing more than 12 units from your side being involved into battle, even if the army you have is larger.
Which position a unit can take in combat would, of course, be dependand on the type of unit, units like swordmen could only use the Melee-Position, whereas units with ranged attack, like archers, infantry and cannons could also be put into the bombard position and fast units like tanks, chariots or mounted units could be put into flanking positions.
Into the reserve positions you could put up to 3 or 4 units wqhich get activated if losses occur on your side (thereby giving you 15/16 units which could fight in the battle, but only 12 units being involved in the battle at the same time)

As for combat, you could have it somehow other than in CtP, for example allowing breakthroughs if the enemy has more Melee or flanking attack units than your side, thereby being able to get to the artillery positions and damage/kill them.

You could also give the player the option either to fill losses manually with units from the reserve roster (giving you more control), or let the computer decide which reserve units fill the positions (making the combat faster as the combat occurs automatically after the initial setup (just as in CtP), you only have to watch it and maybe decide if you want to retreat)

	16-03-2005 18:33									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

As an Addition to my previous thoughts:

Just like in MOO3 you could have the option to use NBC-Weapons in the combat (if certain technologies are already discovered [for example "poisonous gases" or "tactical nuclear weapons").

Give the player checkboxes for Nuclear, biological and chemical Weapons use
and as a result (if he wishes to use any/all of them) any artillery shells his side fires is much more effective than a conventional artillery shell.

You could also have technologies, which lessen the effect of non conventional weapons, for example "Gas masks" which lessen the effect of chemical weapons and "NBC-Protection suits" which lessen the effect of all three types (to a certain degree, as for example only a part of the effect of a nuclear weapon [the radiation] could be blocked)
Some types of units could be even immune to some types of non conventinal weapons, for example chemical weapons could show little effect on modern tanks as they probably could be sealed against the environment.

But the use of these weapons should also have severe consequences.
It could for example lower the opinion other civilizations have of you (especially if you have entered some kind of Anti-NBC-Treaty) and it also should effect the hex for which is fought, turning the tile into a desert or polluted tile (with all tile improvements being destroyed) or, if the battle is fought for/within a city, it should rewsult in a rapid loss of population points and, especially if nuclear weapons are used, should result in a severe destruction of city improvements.