 |
| |
|
|
Francis
|
|
NY NY
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Re: Stacks. Realism aside, it definitely would make war easier. Here's a proposal for those who fear a stack would be too powerful, based partly my dim memories of playing board wargames:
1. Limit the size of stacks. Perhaps no more than 5 units together? Stacks must combine before any unit has moved, i.e., they must be in the same square at the beginning of a turn, and not in enemy ZOC unless in a city.
2. Units move together, but attack individually, though perhaps they do get a combat modifier if the stack combines, say, inf/armor/artillery; additional bonus if there's air support. All, some, or none of the stacked units may attack. No slipping past ZOC with a partisan or spy for stacks--that would be silly. I suppose you could still do this with the individual units, but they would not be able to re-combine as a stack while in enemy ZOC, or after they had moved, and so would lose the stack bonus.
3. No more than, say, two or three units in a stack can defend. And it won't necessarily be the strongest units. Say two units defend individually against attackers. if they are both defeated (one way or another-see point 4) the stack "breaks."
4. Non-defeat combat resolution should be implemented. Perhaps vets (being smarter)have a chance to retreat after taking >50% damage. Green (non-vet) units may simply be smashed. Retreat should be a player option--maybe you're yellow and the attacker is red, and you like your chances. Or maybe you really need to hold that pass. If you decide to retreat, you choose where to go, as long as your unit has the MP to go there. The MPs used will be deducted from next turn's movement capability. If a unit cannot retreat because of limited movement, or because there is no square not covered by enemy ZOC, the unit must stand and fight until it wins or loses. Units may retreat into square held by friendly units, even if they are in enemy ZOC. (Note that the situation might change--a unit takes 50% damage, but has nowhere to retreat. Defender then defeats attacker 1. Attacker 2 initiates combat, but because your unit is below 50%, you immediately get the option to retreat. The elimination of Attacker 1 has opened up a square free of enemy ZOC, so this time you can retreat, and do so.) Attackers should also have the ability to break off combat when they hit 50% or less--perhaps even at, say, 75% or less for mobile units and air units, which can make quick getaways.
5. "Broken" stacks: Once the units in the stack that can defend have been defeated, the rest of the stack MUST retreat. If they cannot do so, they are destroyed. Retreating onto a transport is an option ("Dunkirk" if you have one nearby. The transport's movement capacity next turn is reduced by the number of MPs expended in the rescue.
So what do you think about that? Preserves the "ease of play" rationale for stacks, gives them an offensive benefit but does not give them an overwhelming attack advantage, and provides a way to take out these armies by surrounding them. Implementing a "retreat" option helps the defenders, and makes the attacker think twice about running deep into enemy territory--a clever player can deploy units to surround a stack or stacks, attack selectively with the best units available, and destroy powerful armies.
6. Units in the same square but not "stacked": Attacker chooses which unit to attack. For each unit in the square which is defeated (destroyed or retreats), there's a chance the rest of the units will scatter in disarray (i.e., retreat). Maybe it's 25% after the first unit defeated, 50% after 2, 85% after 3, 100% after 4.
Reactions?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mo
|
|
Theben:
In SMAC I've had to launch up to 4 cruise missiles to kill a 1-6-1 AAA. If the defender was in a city with an aerospace complex it would take even more. Smac missiles aren't a sure kill.
Non-defeat combat:
I would also like to see a stale mate. Both sides damaged but niether is destroyed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eggman
|
|
While the concept of routed stacks sounds nice, remember that the "fight to the death" combat of Civ2 and CTP simplifies the game greatly. If units can be routed, it has to be easy to implement as to not make the game too complex.
The choice to retreat should be out of your hands. Let the stack retreat or fight to the death on its own. Civ is not a tactical combat game.
If you can put multiple stacks on one square, a size five might work (though it seems too small to me). If you can't, then five is too small. Nine, like CTP, seems reasonable.
And stacks should fight like a group (not one big unit, but as a group of units), not just one or two units. Otherwise, what's the point of the stack? It's an army. However, having a couple of key units destroyed cause a retreat is a good concept IMHO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mr. Bigglesworth
|
|
Pennsylvania
Jun 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
I think that the stacked combat of CtP works great, and is a great improvement from Civ 2. It adds a lot of strategy. I do believe that a retreat option would add to the game, but only for the attacker. This attacker only option worked great in the old Axis and Allies board game that i had, it added suspense for the defender and a tough choice for the attacker. Say there was a stack of five, and you had no idea what composed it. If you gave your armies the order to attack, and they did and then saw that there were fortified mech infantry, the commanders would have second thoughts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Diodorus Sicilus
|
|
Steilacoom, WA, USA
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Some of this is a rehash of things I posted some time ago, when the Threads were young and so were we all...
The ability to see what your stack (army?) is going up against could be covered by a 'recon ability' in the units: similar to the variable vision thing in the CtP system, where if you had a Light Horseman (ancient) or Hussar (Early Modern) or Ranger (Modern) units in the stack you could tell what number and possibly what type of units were in the stack ahead.
Retreat option was suggested long ago since very few battles result in the complete annihilation of either side. I suggested that using the Battle Screen (done right!) of CtP, if one side hit a number of casualties or "negative morale points" (entire front line is wiped out in the first round, rest Think Again about the whole battle idea) it starts to retreat. If the other side has a mobile unit (same or better mobility than the enemy) that is fresh - no losses - that unit can be launched in Pursuit. A pursuing unit that is unopposed by a fresh enemy mobile unit inflicts casualties all out of proportion to its strength or size - "saber 'em down!" as the old saying goes. This makes the retreat option not just a way to avoid having anything decisive happen to you - it's still a gamble to go into battle.
Varying sizes of stacks. If there were supply rules, they would go a long way towards making large stacks effectively impossible for most of the game: simply not possible to supply htem unless they stay on the coast where ships can haul in bulk food. The other possibility is to reflect in the Tech Tree the organizational advances that led to Mass Armies of the Napoleonic era and afterwards:
Divisional Organization
Conscription
Military Academy
General Staff
All of which led to the massive increase in army size (stack size) between 1790 and 1815 and afterwards. These were combined, of course, with the invention of Macadamizing (cheaper all-weather hard-surface roads, beter supply), Canned Food (better storage of bulk food for depots and transport), and, the big one: railroads, which allowed the multi-million-man armies of WWI to be deployed and supplied.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkstar
|
 |
Huntsville, AL, USA
May 1999
time: 23:14
|
|
If you allow stacking, then it shouldn't be limited to just 9. Those are some mighty big land area tiles. And a Carrier Group quite capable of having more than 9 (Civ/SMAC style) units in it. With stacks group move and what not, its a lot more convienent to move things around.
So up stack limit. However, the best thing to do might to be to have primary attacker + half #2 + 1/3 #3 + 1/4 #4 strengths added together... contining until you have run out of attackers. Then do something similar for the defenders... This would represent that while you can always draw support (for attacking or defending), sometimes that support is so ineffectual as to be non-existant (a pat on the back, a pack of smokes, whatever). And you can only focus your attack on a couple of defending elements, so it makes sense on both sides of the combat.
Collaterial damage (SMAC style) would then be limited proportionally to the amount of support that unit could provide to the defender.
Routing of defender or attacker could be interesting, but it would lengthen the game. you'd end up having those hunt and seek attacks that chased someone back to a city. No telling how much longer it could make a game though...
-Darkstar
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flavor Dave
|
|
"Defending units normally can be repaired very easily and cheaply (free).
This could be corrected by making repairs cost gold proportional to the shield cost to repair units."
"Corrected?" Please explain. Unless you're addicted to AofE;-), I don't see what's wrong with the Civ2 method.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ember
|
 |
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Apr 1999
time: 00:14
|
|
As it stands now, one unit is always destroyed in combat, free repairs are not a big problem.
Many suggestions involve having stalemates of somekind or much more artillery ability.
If you can repair free this gives a Huge advantage to defenders in cities, because they will often be at full strength again next turn, making sieges with artillery and some stalemated assults have no positive effect. If they had to pay for repairs then you could drain their tressury if they supported a besieged city long enough, giving anouther interesting tactic, When do you abandon the cost of supporting a besieged city?
------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Knight_Errant
|
|
Clovis, NM USA
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Knight_Errant (edited June 19, 1999).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Knight_Errant
|
|
Clovis, NM USA
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Sorry, just found a place for the above topic. Please ignore it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Diodorus Sicilus
|
|
Steilacoom, WA, USA
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Stacking Limits should vary with technology and military organization. No matter how big the ancient armies got, without a chain of command most of them were just on the battlefield as spectators. Therefore:
Initial Stack would be no more than 4-5 units. Add the advance of Generalship (or an actual general unit, which has been suggested elsewhere) and that limit goes up. Have units that require an internal organization, like Phalanx or Legion, and the limit goes up again. Bureaucracy might also increase it.
Add the early modern and modern military advances of Conscription, General Staff, Divisional Organization, etc. And the limit effectively goes through the roof. Early 18th century battles got out of hand with more than 50,000 on a side (Malplaquet had 150,000 and 75,000 and neither commander could keep track of what was happening) - which may be the effective upper limit for a 'pre-modern' force to be controlled. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars, with Conscription and Divisional Organization the limit was about 150,000-200,000. Add modern General Staff, and the European Wars of 1866-1870 saw 250,000-300,000 on the field.
In other words, about a 500-600% increase in 'stacking limit'. In game terms, perhaps an initial limit of 6 or 8 by Medieval or early Gunpwder times, rising to 40 before radio and telephonery raise it again in the 2th century. Since 40 is effectively 'off the chart' in the current games, use a sliding scale so that the limit goes from perhaps as low as 4 at the start to 30 max with all the modern improvements. This means, in effect, that we use a sliding scale for the size of the units, but that can be justified by the huge size of the individual tiles: they'll hold almost anything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flavor Dave
|
|
ember--I agree that siege warfare should be more effective. Your idea is one way to accomplish that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theben
|
 |
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Jan 1970
time: 00:14
|
|
This fits under 3 categories-units, combat, and radical ideas-so I'll post this at all 3:
I've suggested before-and this would work great with the SMAC workshop-the attack/defense values should be scrapped and replaced with the following: land/air/sea/space (or LASS for short). Both attack and defense would be based off of the appropriate terrain. FE, a phalanx would use it's air rating vs. a fighter (none or low) while the fighter would use it's land rating vs. the phalanx (low to middle for modern units, but still much higher than the phalanx. Also with more hp's and firepower). Reasons:
1) Combat in CIV/SMAC/CtP is on a strategic scale; although tactics are a part of the combat, you don't make those decisions (thankfully). Combat consists of charges, feints, counterattacks, etc., so the idea of attacker & defender on this grand scale is lessened unless the defender is in a fortification of some sort (which can be taken into account).
2)This is regarding SMAC unit construction mostly, but it appears it will be used in civ3. In SMAC combat is resolved by comparing the weapon strength(attacker) vs. the defender's armor. This is ridiculous; the defender's weaponry and the attacker's defenses aren't taken into account but I think anyone would agree that they should.
3)It would work very well with a modified workshop. The player could buy each attack level for each category when the appropriate technology is gained. FE,
Fighter(WWII era): land=low, air=high, sea=low, space=none
Dive bomber: land=medium, air=low/medium, sea=medium/high, space=none
Torpedo bomber: land=low, air=very low, sea=high, space=none
phalanx: land=low/medium, all others=none
musketeers: land=low/medium, all others=none
marines(20th cent): land=medium/high, air=low, sea=none, space=none
Each category would also be divided by their hit points, and the strengths of each would overlap. FE, Ancient units (1 hp) can have a a strength from 1-5 land(approximately). Gunpowder units (hp 2)would have STR's from about 4-7, modern(hp 3) 7-12, etc. The weapons, etc. for the graphics would change when the hp level is selected in the workshop (where the reactor is now).
To differentiate between similar units, such as legions vs. legions, there would be modifiers:
-Terrain, which would apply to both attacker and defender (infantry bonus in cities; horsemen, tanks in open; special units-alpine, marines-in their specialized terrain); forts could count as terrain that only benefits the defender, but allows attackers to retreat easier & defenders less easily
-Morale, social engineering(happy soldiers fight better than unhappy soldiers), & tech bonuses (techs that would give a minor advantage to combat that are otherwise too small for the workshop; i.e. writing, telegraph, satellite mapping).
-The Random Combat Events: RCE represents the things that happen in combat that are unforseen and out of your control. Applied each and every time units engage in combat. Using a scale from 1-100, whereas 1=disaster for the attacker & 100=disaster for the defender. Most of the time results fall in the middle, which has no effect on combat. Other results give a minor bonus to the attacker or defender. Can be modified by military "leader" units & attacks launched from surprise(to be discussed later). Allow a toggle at game start to turn this effect on or off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eggman
|
|
That combat system has possibilities. However, you may wish to add a couple of other variables into the equation:
Ranged attack: The ability to hit units before they can hit back. Like archers and artillery. As seen in CTP. This encourages the use of combined arms. Done properly, range bonuses should disappear when facing more advanced units (for example, musketeers are a ranged weapon against pikemen but not riflemen).
Bombard: The ability to smack around units with long range attacks but leave the attackers safe from counterattacks (unless the enemy also has bombard units). This is different than ranged combat as some units which are good on a tactical battlefield cannot bombard (like archers) while other units are lousy on the tactical battlefield but good at bombardment (like catapults and maybe submarines).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Combat may be more unpredictable by allowing rock-paper-scissors type of attribute built to a unit. A civilization can specialize in one sort of technique but can produce unit of other attributes by building an improvment (barracks perhaps). This can simulate something like cavalry Vs infantry Vs cannons. There may be some leaders which gives bonus to units of a certain attribute as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AXM
|
|
Siege tactics
The computer opponents should understand this type of warfare where appropriate.
For example, I would enjoy seeing an enemy come set up base on a mountain next to one of my cities, or near it if connected by roads or rail. They could set up a fortified base and use it to mount a protracted campaign of attrition.
I know this has already been said, but military units should definitely not be able to take advantage of a spy's immunity to ZOC. This is time wasting and unrealistic.
------------------
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you." Jung
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AXM
|
|
Ability to destroy city improvements
Air units, not just spies, should be able to pick and target city improvements, even before conquering a city.
This is the type of "smart" war waged by NATO in Yugoslavia. NATO air forces limited the vast majority of their attacks to infrastructure, or city improvements. This had devastatingly successful results.
Not only did it effect a diplomatic solution, but Yugoslavia's GDP has been reduced by 50% as a result of the loss in infrastructure!
Any game must be able to synthesise this type of warfare.
------------------
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you." Jung
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NotLikeTea
|
|
HRM, NS, Canada
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
I like this idea.. Similarly, there should be weapons to only destroy population, or only destroy millitary units. Smart bombs.
Speaking of Yugoslavia, I'd like to see diplomatic random events. Bomb only improvements, and you may hit an embassy. Uh, oh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flavor Dave
|
|
"I know this has already been said, but military units should definitely not be able to take advantage of a spy's immunity to ZOC. This is time wasting and unrealistic."
This ability may be too much of an advantage for the human, but it IS NOT UNREALISTIC!! The spy acts as a scout, ensuring that the unit slides thru the square without the enemy's knowledge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eggman
|
|
I would agree for the most part on bomb damage of buildings and reduction in population. However, even if you aim solely at military targets, you are definitely going to hit civilian targets even with smart bombs. WWII Bombers would cause even more unintentional damage. Any sort of bombing should have the chance to cause building damage and population reductions.
As a further twist, perhaps buildings should have hitpoints which are lost anytime the city is attacked (even if the attack is repulsed, some sort of damage in likely) or sacked. If the HPs drop below a certain level, they lose some of their effectiveness. If they fall below another level, they just stop working. However, the buildings can be repaired for less than the cost of building a new one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agent 000
|
|
Confidential
Apr 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Some of these issues, I'm sure, have been addressed, and I havn't played AC yet, so pardon me if I say something stupid, k?
1.Allied troops should be able to move into the same square as each other, as well as allied troops being able to enter allied cities. If the alliance is cancelled, they all go back their seperate ways, just like it is already. Awfully annoying that you can't help an ally defend one of its cities directly.
2.Addressing the "stack" ideas: The other units should add a defensive bonus to the stack. The best defender should add its full bonus, the second, half its defense, the third should add a fourth, etc. If this idea were used, you'd also need to be able to call a joint attack, using the same rules, and if this made stacks too powerful, you could reduce the second unit bonus to 1/4 or whatnot. Another way of handling this is only allowing a certain number of units of a type to participate in combat. For instance, using civ2 units, only 2 melee units could assist, and perhaps 3 missile units, and 1 or 2 air units. Otherwise, units should be killed one by one. It's a little ludicrous to say that just because the front line broke, all the units die.
Addressing post-war situations: All cities should have a variable to indicate its original owner at the beginning of any war. If an enemy of the original owner takes the city, and then an ally of the original owner re-takes it, the city should immediately be given back to the original owner. After all, this is how it is done in war. It would be awfully amusing if this hadn't been done after World War 2...the Americans and English would own almost all of France right now.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-06-1999 15:15
). Perhaps in civ3 sneak attacks & prolonged bombardment will cause unhappiness to start to shrink in the enemy cities. No idea how to implement, tho.
|