06-07-2000 06:12									#1
	OC3: Combat Ideas Increase the size of your Attachments

Cross posted from Civ3 List forum, originally posted a year and four days ago for civ3:

The following is the Combat Summary posted at the Firaxis forums. I apologize I did not have time to format it specifically for the forum, but rather posted it in pure HTML form.

Summarized by Victor Galis

COMBAT TYPES:

We will divide combat into several types to make the new model easier to explain. These will be Sea to Sea, Ground to Ground, Air to Air, and Surface to Air.

GROUND TO GROUND:

Each unit will have a certain number of men in it. They will function as the number of hit points, except that they cost actual resources to replenish, as opposed to repairs in the field. Mechanized units will also have a human cost to build, but the tanks, cannons, or whatever the weapon is, will be the hit points.

There will be three types of ground to ground attacks. Melee, ranged, and artillery. Each unit will only have one or two, but will have only one defensive value against all three. This way, musketeers for example, will always use their guns for the first few rounds, but should they engage a melee unit they will be counter attacked and have to use their bayonets (after a few rounds of ranged fire).

Units will have much larger attack and defense values than in Civ2 or SMAC. The reasons for this may become evident later.

Suppose our legion attacks a musketeer: (The following is a sample round based on stats that may or may not be accurate.)

LEGION:


Hit points: 1250 (This was an army made up of multiple legion units combined into one).

Melee Attack: 5

Defense: 3

Evasion: 2

MUSKETEERS:


Hit points 1000 (This was a single unit (more technologically advanced units will have more men.)

Range: 3 (This is the number of rounds they can fire at a target before it attacks them in melee combat. This would be divided by the number of movement points of the enemy unit, and then multiplied by the movement cost of the terrain. For example, a chariot would take 1.5 rounds to engage in melee combat. This means the musketeers would only have 1 round of ranged fire, but in the hills the chariot would take 3 rounds.)

Ranged Attack: 5
Melee Attack: 2
Defense: 2

Evasion: 2 (Infantry units will mostly have 2, 1 for their small foot speed, plus one for small size.)

Now regardless of who attacked whom, the following would happen: The legion would be attacked for three rounds by the musketeers. The legion would not be able to inflict any casualties back, but their armor (defense) plus evasion
(ranged defense) might reduce their losses from ranged fire (They can not avoid them altogether). Now on round four of the combat, the legion would engage the musketeers with their swords. The musketeers would have to use their bayonets (Melee attack). The units would now trade blows (melee attack against defense), until one dies or retreated.

Ranged vs. ranged combat would be much the same, except instead of closing into melee combat, the one with the smaller range would close until it was within range. For example, a unit of archers (range: 2) would close with musketeers for 1 round. Then they would take turns firing a volley. Each side would take casualties during a round. The round would have two parts. The shorter range unit fires (using its ranged attack vs. opponents ranged defense,) then the longer ranged unit would attack with its attack vs. the opponent's defense. This would continue until one unit was routed or eliminated.

Artillery would count as a special ranged unit. Artillery units could pound adjacent squares without engaging in actual combat. The number of rounds for this would depend on the unit. All these units would have a range of 10 if attacked directly. Unless stacked with a non-artillery unit, the artillery unit would not only be almost defenseless but also unable to retreat, due to the size and mobility of the artillery pieces. Against artillery, units would apply their defense plus twice the evasion. (To simulate the great joy of firing at a moving target;-))

Units with stronger melee than ranged attacks would close to attack. An example is a dragoon. When dragoons attack, they will charge. At the edge of their range they will fire a volley, but continue charging. They would continue firing volleys unit they had closed with the enemy then engage in melee combat.

SEA TO SEA COMBAT:

Would be the same as ground combat, except that all ships would fall into two categories: Long-range and Short-Range. The combat would function as on land between two ranged units. Long-range ships would be like artillery units, except that they would not be defenseless or easily defeated (after all, what was the last time a destroyer sank a battleship.)

AIR TO AIR COMBAT:

Again, same as ranged ground combat. The type of airplane does not matter. (Helicopters would count as a ground unit.) Bombers would fight the same as fighters (except their stats would be much worse). All stats used in Air to Air Combat are different for Surface to Air combat. Airplanes would have 1 defense. They would have only evasion to protect them (only works in the air).

SURFACE TO AIR COMBAT:

All airplanes will be able to attack their victims for a set number of rounds. An airplane can attack for 2 rounds (at the cost of one movement point), thus you have to attack your target over and over, (but be sure not to run out of fuel!)

All units will use defense+evasion to determine how much less damage they will take than the maximum (of course there will be other modifiers). The planes will all have an Air to Ground attack value (separate from their normal attack.) This is what they use. Their evasion value will serve as defense against ground fire. Units on the ground will be able to fire back if they have a Surface to Air attack. (Phalanxes won't, modern units with AA weapons (special ability) will). Additionally all air defenses in that area will fire at enemy planes. The planes and units will fight for two rounds (per attack made) or unit one unit is destroyed, whichever comes first. Damage from an aerial assault is inversely proportional with size. Small targets will take proportionally less damage than big ones.

Airplanes will also have the option to fly over the target, but any AA guns will be able to fire at the plane. The planes will have double evasion as defense.

Bombing runs: These would be what happens when one of your air units attempts to move into an enemy city. You get a menu, similar to the spy's menu, when it enters a city, but with different options.

*Carpet Bomb: This would take several move points, but damage virtually everything in the city a bit.


*Bomb installations: This would take one move point. The chance of fully destroying the target would be slim, but a second attack could finish the job. You could target a specific improvement.


*Target population centers: This would only take one point. The bomber would reduce the city's population a bit (unavailable to a Democracy or Republic) if population is represented by a large number instead of the old point system.


*Bomb airfields: This would also take one point. Unscrambled fighters and bombers would be hit, along with any airfields themselves. To do significant structural damage several attacks or several aircraft would be required.


*Bomb ports: This would attack any ships in a port. Again, only one point, but if you want to sink something bigger, or if there are many targets, you'll need multiple attacks.


*Strafe Units: This is a direct attack on units. It functions just like an attack in the field except units will have a maximum evasion of 2. Bunkers (a city improvement) would keep units safe.


*Neutralize Air Defenses: One point. This would target all AA defenses in a city including (units, ships, fighters, and actual SAM batteries and AA guns). This would function as a normal assault on those structures or units, just that you specifically hit targets that can fire back.

During a bombing run, air defenses in a city would have X rounds of fire at air units. X is equal to the number of move points expended to make the attack. Any scrambled fighters would also attack air units. If the attacking unit was an airfleet, the number of rounds of fire is equal to the movepoints expended by each aircraft, not the whole group total; in other words if there are 6 aircraft attacking for three rounds, the enemy would get three rounds of fire. If there were fighters in the airfleet, they would engage scrambled fighters first.

Collateral damage: When an air unit attacks any target, there is a chance some damage will be done to the surroundings. Normally, this in not much of a problem. It is very hard to destroy a road with bombs. You have to watch out when an enemy unit is in your territory because you might hit your own mines or farms. The chances of actually destroying them are slim. The only really worrisome part is when you attack an enemy city. If collateral damage kills civilians (hits population centers) you have just commited a minor atrocity. This becomes a major problem for a Republic or Democracy if done repeatedly or if a particularly severe blunder happens. In addition, it may rally enemy civilians into a militia, should you ever take the city, or simply make it harder to govern (more revolts if taken.)


ADDITIONAL COMBAT-RELATED CONCEPTS:

ARMIES:

Another major part of this combat system are armies. An "army" in Civ3 would be a group off different types of units. There would be a combine command, and this would combine those units into a single unit called an army. The army would have as many movepoints as the lowest of its components. It would have the sight of the highest of its components. When attacking it would attack as a whole. It would be in a formation where the units are organized by range. When in a battle the components of an army would become separate in the calculation again. Cavalry units would regain their extra move points. Melee units would charge in front, and ranged would advance to the edge of their range and fire at enemy melee units. An army might require a command unit, such as a general in order to be formed. A general would be trained in a city with some sort of improvement such as a Military College.

At sea, fleets would work the same way as armies, except at least one ship would have to be able to serve as the flagship (adding 10% to its construction cost, this would include the commander). The flagship would be just a normal ship with the +10% cost and some non-cumulative bonuses to its fleet.

An air fleet would work just like a fleet, except the command aircraft would be a different type, which would be solely a command aircraft. (More advanced versions might have improved radar, helping detect Stealth Fighters, or just seeing farther.) The advantage of an air fleet is that all AA and SAM batteries overflown still get only one round of fire, but now it is at the whole fleet instead of one round at each passing aircraft.

A carrier group would be a combined air/naval unit. It would have one or more carriers, one or more of which would be able to serve as a flagship. This unit would scramble fighters and bombers when attacked, or it could send its air forces as to attack a target. The only difference between this attack and that of an air fleet is that no command aircraft (slower and more vulnerable) is exposed to AA fire.

Also, each such combined unit could be named if the player pushed a certain hotkey. Otherwise, the computer would assign a name, such as third fleet, or so. They could be renamed anytime like cities. Single units would not be renamable, for efficiency purposes.

Defenders on a square all defend as an army, with or without a command unit (although they suffer penalties doing so). The only units that don't defend are the ones that don't stand a chance, like phalanxes will not attempt to defend against tanks.

SIEGES:

Sieges should be made a more viable option for taking an enemy city. Several things could make this happen:

Unhappiness factor: For every square adjacent to a city occupied by a fortified enemy unit there should be a number of people ready to surrender. These people would not necessarily be unhappy but would be treated as such. Happy people will not be ready to surrender, even if the siege is held out. If ethnicity is implemented, people of the same ethnic group as the besieger, should go into this ready to surrender state. Also, if a city belonging to a more tyrannical government is under siege by forces of a democracy people would be put into this state. At a certain point when the number of people ready to surrender exceeds a certain point the city would possibly surrender or suffer penalties.

Resource factor: A square occupied by an enemy unit should produce only 50% of its normal production. A fortified enemy unit could cut all production in that square. If a cavalry unit is sentried in a square, then 75% of that production would be cut off plus 25% of all adjacent squares. A cavalry unit sentried in a square with a fortified unit would cut adjacent squares production 50%, or 75% if the square is not adjacent to the city itself. An enemy unit simply passing through a square would cut production 25%.

Isolation factor: If the siege is good enough to cut the city off (surrounded on all sides), then all science production of the city would be cut off. Money made in that city would only be spendable there, and maintenance would only be payable with money made from that city. Buildings that can't be maintained would take damage instead of being sold. If the province resource sharing concept (Cities within a province share resources. This would only be implemented if specialized resources (i.e. metals, wood, etc.) are implemented. This way cities would get the stuff that is not within their own radius.) is adopted, that city would no longer be able to participate.

Morale Penalty:Units in a city under siege would suffer morale penalties. This is of course if morale is implemented. If they fight to lift the siege, they would have a bonus though (units defending their homecity are much more motivated than the units trying to take a foreign city.)

Artillery bombardments:Artillery in a square next to a city, along with a fortified unit, could make artillery bombardments at the city. Early units, like cannons could target large structures, units, or population centers. Later units like howitzers could target basically anything an airplane could target. If that artilley was inside a fortress, then it would gain a bonus to damage (to reflect higher accuracy). Artillery inside a city would fire at the sieging units, targeting the artillery first. If not attacking artillery units would be there it would then shoot at the sieging units.

COMBAT BONUSES:

Morale: Based on how you are doing in the war and how this unit has done in the past, along with social engineering. (Expect a volunteer unit for a democracy to have more morale than a conscripted unit in a tyranny.) Your unit will receive a +25% to -25% bonus. (Morale will go beyond this, but the bonuses will be limited here.) Should a unit get the equivalent of -75% morale (morale gets worse or better in the middle of combat depending on this combat; this is mostly temporary. If this reaches -60%, the unit will attempt to retreat (allowing a ranged unit time to pick off a few men before they get away.). If the enemy is faster, your unit will take heavy casualties while retreating (the men will scatter, making them easy to pick off, but hard to totally annihilate.) If your unit is faster they will retreat with few casualties, except for ranged fire. If they are the same speed, combat continues with a certain chance to retreat each additional round, based on terrain (good in forests, jungles, bad in plains and hills and mountains.)

Experience: Will be -50% to +100%. A new unit will always have a base experience of -25%. Over time it will be able to increase 1% at a time. (-25% -> -24%, and so on.) A unit, fortified in a city or fortress with a training facility, will slowly accumulate experience. (Units built in such places will have an automatic bonus.) A unit that starts with -50% will be a guerilla unit that springs up to repel foreign invasion. Experienced units should also have slightly higher rates of fire.

Home Government Bonus: This would be a bonus based on you governmnet type. Despotic governments would have a bonus, monarchies would have a smaller bonus. Both of these would be fixed regardless of location. Social Engineering might alter these a little. Democracies and Republics defending their own territory would have a large bonus, unless the people are unhappy (that would neutralize it.) Defending home territory against a government less free than your own would be a bonus (depending on the difference). Democracy against some form of Tyranny (big bonus), Monarchy against Despotism (small bonus.) A communist government is considered far more free that it is against ordinary tyrannies, but this bonus is ignored against a democracy. Democracies would have a penalty attacking other democracies (reduced if the other committed atrocities.) Anyhow, you get the idea...

MISCELLANEOUS:

Hit Points: A unit does Hit Points multiplied by attack damage. So now a half dead unit doesn't stand half a chance against a similar fresh unit. It doesn't make any sense for 1000 musketeers to do as much damage as 2000.


Rate of Fire: This would be a number between .25 and 2, which would determine how often a unit fires. .25 would mean that it takes .25 rounds to fire, 2 would mean it takes 2 rounds to fire. This would be used in ranged combat only. (Melee attack based on number of attacks*damage of each/round.)

Heavy Armor: Some units like tanks will have a defense that looks like this: 10(6). The 10 is, of course, the normal defense value. The (6) is the minimum attack in order to even hope to deal some damage. Archers (attack 3), no matter how lucky they got, could never penetrate tank armor, let alone destroy one.

Higher Attack/Defense Values: Unit's stats will be much higher, to differentiate more between the different ages, although the ratios may remain the same. This way a Pikeman may have slightly more attack than a phalanx, while a tank might still have about ten times the attack of both.

Line of Sight: A limitation for the line of sight depending on the terrain is called for. Riflemen may have a range of 5, but if they can’t see that far it doesn’t help them. Let’s say:


Plains & oceans: max. visibility Los=10

Hills: Los of 5

Cities: Los of 3

Forest, Los of 2

Jungle: min. visibility, Los = 1

Since each terrain square is different, you could have a random LoS, based on a base value for the terrain. Like a particular forest might have a Los of 4, while the average is 2.

It means, that only short range combat is possible in such terrain with small Los. (eventually, additional indirect fire) It would be the ideal terrain for infantry (high melee values) to fight against units outranging them.

For clarification: All units in a tile will defend together if the tile is attacked. The enemy will have the option of combining his units into armies and attacking like that.

Interdiction: Interdiction (use of bombers and artillery to slow movement). This would be an option to add 1 to the cost of moving across a terrain square.

Structural damage: Buildings would have hitpoints based on era and type (city walls would be almost indestructible, except by a long draw out assault.) This way buildings could sustain damage in bombing runs without being destroyed. Their effectiveness should shrink as they become more damaged, but that should be a curve. A 25% damaged building would still be 90% effective, but a 75% damaged building would be less than 5% effective. This is because a hole in the roof won't disturb the functionality of a library that much, while having a foundation with nothing above it won't do you much good.

Militias: When a city is threatened with capture (i.e. the defenders are almost beaten, a militia unit would spring up. The size would be based on the age, your social engineering choices (i.e. Democratic Civ's cities will fight Despotic attackers quite severely), how much the city hates the other civ (have they bombed population centers?). The unit would be armed with mixed firearms, or mixed melee weapons (before firearms).

Stealth: Certain units would have stealth. Guerillas, subs, stealth fighters would have this. This allows them to ignore ZOCs. Stealth will be expressed as a percent. This is the chance that they will attack first, regardless of the range of the defender. The guerillas would have something like 50%. For each round of combat that would go down 25%. (Thus a guerilla has a 1 in 4 chance that they might attack two rounds before being fired on). Terrain will offer modifiers to this. In a jungle units may have +50%. This may replace the line of sight concept. Stealth fighters will start with 100%, but and remain that way (air combat is 1 round only (you can attack repeatedly)). Remember: each round of air combat is one movement point. Subs will start with a 95% stealth, but for each round lose 30%.


CREDITS:

This summary was compiled by Victor Galis, with information from the posts on the following forums. The posts on the firaxis forums were used more, and thus, the credit for any repeated idea goes to someone on the Firaxis Forums. In order to recognize some original ideas, everyone who posted at Apolyton will be listed.

Firaxis Forums:Q Cubed - Victor Galis - korn469 - SnowFire - Picker - Aussie - bab5tm - eNo - Hannes - The Joker - MikeH

Apolyton Forums: ember - Frank Johnson - Shining1 - Bell - Redleg - Doo1284 - Diodorus Sicilus - Pythagoras - NotLikeTea - Flavor Dave - Chowlett - Eggman - Mo - Black Dragon - don Don - Ove - Jimmy - Captain Action - Alexandr's Horse - korn469 - FinnishGuy - CyberShy - Theben - Francis - Darkstarr - mingko - AXM - Agent 000 - Jakester - E

	21-07-2000 04:07									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think it's time we should discuss this model and see what should be added/changed from it. Some areas may need some fleshing out, since we will actually have to program this.

Also we might need more on units, since this was meant to be a combat model.

	21-07-2000 10:58									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Reading it, will post thoughts another day

	21-07-2000 12:42									#4
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Excellent work Victor, and the other people who contributed.
A few comments:

quote: LEGION: Hit points: 1250 (This was an army made up of multiple legion units combined into one). Melee Attack: 5 Defense: 3 Evasion: 2

Would I be right in saying that the amount of Hit Points they have represents the amount of units
you have stacked together. What I mean is, if 10 units made up 1250 Hit Points, then would 20 make
2500? Why doesn't the Legion also have a range? Is that becuase it is not being attacked?
Or because it cannot do anything in long-range combat. One thing with this is, you say the
Legion is attacking the Musketeer but then you put this "The legion would be attacked for three rounds by the musketeers"
How could this be if the Legion is attacking the musketeer?

quote: Heavy Armor: Some units like tanks will have a defense that looks like this: 10(6). The 10 is, of course, the normal defense value. The (6) is the minimum attack in order to even hope to deal some damage. Archers (attack 3), no matter how lucky they got, could never penetrate tank armor, let alone destroy one.

Excellent Idea!.
Also what will happen to units that don't have close range(melee attack) such as a tank?

And I do think you need to post some more units.

	21-07-2000 23:28									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

"Would I be right in saying that the amount of Hit Points they have represents the amount of units you have stacked together. What I mean is, if 10 units made up 1250 Hit Points, then would 20 make 2500?"

-Right.

"Why doesn't the Legion also have a range? Is that becuase it is not being attacked?
Or because it cannot do anything in long-range combat."

-The latter.

"One thing with this is, you say the Legion is attacking the Musketeer but then you put this "The legion would be attacked for three rounds by the musketeers" How could this be if the Legion is attacking the musketeer?"

-"Now regardless of who attacked whom, the following would happen: The legion would be attacked for three rounds by the musketeers."

Should prolly read, "...would be fired upon for three..."

"Also what will happen to units that don't have close range(melee attack) such as a tank?"

-All will have some sort of melee attack, for most ranged units, this will suck. Like archers willdraw small daggers or use the bows as clubs and fight like that. (This way you have to stack units, i.e. a ranged unit by itself will be next to worthless, but with a melee unit to defend it from attack (i.e. the melee unit would engage the enemy melee unit before that could get to your ranged unit)).

Now modern ranged units like riflemen would fight the same way at melee range (you can still fire a gun at point blank, though you might also be hacked to pieces). Tanks would have the run-over-infantry attack, or might be able to back up.

	22-07-2000 07:17									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Thanks for clearing that up!
Excellent system I say!

	23-07-2000 16:23									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I like everything in your model. If we can make it happen, we will have triple better war than in civ2. And quadruple better than in SMAC. Could you read all combat/unit stuff posted in the apolyton forums, and refine your model to suit the ideas presented? Your model is, after all, made for civ3. Include also the unit stats and conscription system, as you see best. We will then discuss it. But this system sounds as a great start!

Some things; add the four domains for units (land, sea, air, space) and consider the special rules for combat between all these - for example, every land unit could have land, sea, air and space attack. If it doesn't have weaponry for such attack, the attack value could be zero. Or something.

About sieges, I also thought of encirclement. Perhaps when a city is put under a siege, the attacking units could move to the _same_ tile with the city to encircle it. After all, the tile is 50 km. Earlier, I proposed that for all battles, the units should be in same tile. This was not liked. Perhaps we could make it so, that the only case, when enemy units can exist in the same square, is in the case of siege.

When a city is encircled, the attackers build fortifications and encampments all the way around the city; if the city is on the coast, ships would be needed for the blockade. Encirclement would prevent almost all trade and supply to the city (perhaps something like 95% - there would always be succesful smugglers). The military forces in the city (or city militia) could at all times attack the siegers at no movement cost, like the siegers also. The sieging units should perhaps be in a disadvantage against attacks coming outside the city - they would be between two enemy frontiers, which reduces their fighting ability. This would be needed to balance the system, so encirclement would not be too powerful weapon. This way, it would be used with care.

I hope you could soon make the first draft of the military system. Is it ok for you?
[This message has been edited by amjayee (edited July 23, 2000).]

	24-07-2000 18:22									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Wouldn't the system be better if you could choose how many men you put into a unit? It would have a increased cost, population and resources-wise, to equip additional men, but provides better realism instead of saying that Musketeers had 2000 men and Legions 1000 men (actually legions had 6000 men, but this is just an example)

	25-07-2000 19:29									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Our intention is to have units with fixed size; this is how it is in reality, too. But of course if you don't have enough men to create a 1000 man unit, you could have for example 750 men, and the unit would have 75% of its "hitpoints" left. It is possible though to allow some limited control over the composition of the unit types, but only really limited. After all, armies will be in the focus in our game, rather than individual units.

	25-07-2000 20:29									#10
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

"add the four domains for units (land, sea, air, space) and consider the special rules for combat between all these - for example, every land unit could have land, sea, air and space attack."

-I really hate that system. Both land and sea are ground units, which can engage the other only in coastal cities, or through their artillery capabilities (i.e. those which can shoot to the next square over). Air treats both of the above the same (which I believe is detailed in the above text).

"About sieges, I also thought of encirclement. Perhaps when a city is put under a siege, the attacking units could move to the _same_ tile with the city to encircle it. After all, the tile is 50 km. Earlier, I proposed that for all battles, the units should be in same tile. This was not liked. Perhaps we could make it so, that the only case, when enemy units can exist in the same square, is in the case of siege."

-That's an interesting idea. I'll think of how that might work... hmm... would simplify sieges... no more 21 cavarly units around enemy city like I did in one game

"When a city is encircled, the attackers build fortifications and encampments all the way around the city; if the city is on the coast, ships would be needed for the blockade. Encirclement would prevent almost all trade and supply to the city (perhaps something like 95% - there would always be succesful smugglers). The military forces in the city (or city militia) could at all times attack the siegers at no movement cost, like the siegers also. The sieging units should perhaps be in a disadvantage against attacks coming outside the city - they would be between two enemy frontiers, which reduces their fighting ability. This would be needed to balance the system, so encirclement would not be too powerful weapon. This way, it would be used with care.

I hope you could soon make the first draft of the military system. Is it ok for you?"

-I wish I had the time. I have to program faster and harder than ever before to finish my assignments (I am currently taking college classes...)

	25-07-2000 20:40									#11
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think we want unit sizes to be standard for each era. If you want a bigger unit, produce two and combine them.

	26-07-2000 05:48									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Wow! I saw a column in the Civ3 section about your project, and I thought I would come over and check it out. All I can say is wow!

The battle system above is one of the most complex and intreguing ones that I have seen. If it was implemented in a strategy game available now, and if it was coupled with a good AI or multiplayer, I expect that it would work wonderfully.

I would like to help you guys out in some way. I am 17 years old, with almost no programming experience. I am a summer intern at a computer company, and am learning a little Visual basic. Can I help

	26-07-2000 06:41									#13
	Suffering from ads?

Wow! I saw a column in the Civ3 section about your project, and I thought I would come over and check it out. All I can say is wow!

The battle system above is one of the most complex and intreguing ones that I have seen. If it was implemented in a strategy game available now, and if it was coupled with a good AI or multiplayer, I expect that it would work wonderfully.

I would like to help you guys out in some way. I am 17 years old, with almost no programming experience. I am a summer intern at a computer company, and am learning a little Visual basic. Can I help

	26-07-2000 19:09									#14
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Victor: Ok, you are right. Ground-ground, air-air, and ground-air, then. This sounds good. What about space? We will be adding some kinds of space units, like orbital weapons, perhaps even larger battle stations and ships. Perhaps we should add also space-space, space-air and space-ground; it is different to shoot relatively slowly-moving ground units than fast fighterplanes.

About sieges and combat in general; I think that when units attack another units, they will first move to the same tile, then fight, and the winner will remain in the tile fought of. The loser either retreats or is destroyed. This is much like in earlier games. Land units couldn't assault sea units, since they can't enter ocean tiles. If a unit is fortified next to a walled city, the defenders need to move from their shelters if they attack the adjacent tile; so they would lose their bonuses received from the city infrastructure.

Units with artillery capability could shoot from the adjacent tile, and if defender doesn't have artillery, he can defend only by trying to assault, or by retreating; the player should have option to decide how the units react when under artillery bombardment.

Bombing and air assaults also require entering the same tile. AA-guns could shoot only this kind of units. Aircrafts with missile capability could shoot from the adjacent tile, or if they have cruise missiles, even farther. SAM batteries could shoot to the adjacent tile, advanced ones perhaps even farther.

I agree that the rule of encirclement would simplify sieging. We have to remember, that the tiles are 50 kilometers wide. It would be ridiculous to make a 150-kilometer wide circle of units around the city. Perhaps when a unit tries to move to the same tile with a city, the player can choose to assault the city, or encircle it. The more units in the sieging army, the more effective the blockade of supply flow is. But as said, there would be some penalties for the sieging units. So, the player could also fortify units to adjacent tiles as earlier; but it would not be necessary to have units in every tile. The player could order the units to patrol certain area around the city to disturb the flow of supplies. The more units there are to do this, the more efficient it is; the larger the area to be patrolled, the less efficient the blockade would be. Smaller area means more efficiency, but if the patrolled area doesn't surround the city comletely, the supplies would be transported through the gap. This would be less risky, but far more inefficient, of course. Some balancing is needed.

We need to find a replacement to the ZOC system; this allows too good possibilities to cheat. What if every unit type has stealth and vision properties? Then, the better the stealth of the "sneaking-in" unit has than the best defending unit's vision, the better possibilities the unit has to enter the tile guarded by that unit. So, we would allow enemy units in the same tile, but only if the defending unit doesn't notice the intruder. This would be mainly for stealth aircraft, subs, spies and partisans.

Let the stealth and vision go from 0 to 100; it would be a percentage. When a unit with higher stealth than the defender's vision tries to sneak to a tile, we get a random number from 0 to stealth. Then we take the best vision of the units defending the tile; only one unit is taken into account here. Then we get another random number from 0 to vision. Who gets larger number succeeds. This could perhaps be made a little better - it might be too easy to notice stealthy units.

If stealth is 100, that effectively means some kind of cloaking. To notice it, the unit would need vision of 100. If the unit exits the tile during the same turn, we wouldn't need another calculation. But if it leaves next turn, another calculation is made. Also every turn the unit spends in the tile, another calculation is made.

A unit with lower stealth than defender's vision, can never enter the tile without being noticed, but defender doesn't have to attack. If it chooses to stay hidden, a calculation is made to decide, can the intruder notice the defender. But; of course if for example stealth fighters are on an airfield, the units assaulting the base can see the planes. Same with subs, if they are in a sub base. Perhaps the stealth counts only if the unit is in its own environment; airplane airborne, submarine at sea.

Here are some ideas. I hope you can find time for the combat stuff. We others can help with that. Though you are in no hurry with it, we don't need it right now.

phunny pharmer: Everyone who wants help can help. You don't need to program to help in the designing of the game, and in these forums, we are discussing only the design. So, choose your topic and give some comments. You are advised to read only the most recent threads, since the older ones are not necessarily up to date. Have fun!

	26-07-2000 19:37									#15
	Tired of ads?

I like how this combat system is turning out.

I would like it to be possible to have a German army, a Russian spy, some French partisans, an American sattelite and a Brittish space station on the same tile.

I think that when civs are not at war, several units should be able to be on the same tile without any problems. Only if one unit attacks another should there be one.

In times of war I agree that units should be able to hide from each other. For ground units the terrain would be really important when calculating the hiding unit's efficiency.

I also agree that a unit should be of a certain size. For me as an economy model developer it is much easier to operate with standard units of unit equipment than to have loads of different sizes.

	26-07-2000 19:49									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I agree about what you said. But about the unit equipment, perhaps they could be built for one "man"? Legion equipment for one soldier, one tank (requires several men to operate), one aircraft etc. Each one of these sets would be used for one "hitpoint" the unit has. This may sound strange, but if we make it that way, we don't need to have all 100 tanks before we can form a tank battalion; instead, if we have 34 tanks available, we could form a tank battalion with 34% of hitpoints left, which is better than no tanks at all. Later when we get more tanks we could reinforce the unit. I don't think this would make anything more complex; you would just be allowed to build "incomplete" units. The unit sizes would of course be fixed.

So, for example you want to build a legion. Legion has a fixed size of 1000 men; so, you need 1000 men and 1000 legion equipment, and perhaps some extra stuff to form a legion. If you have only 750 men, or only 750 equipment, in an emergency you could form a legion, that starts with 75% of hitpoints left. Later, after a battle, where 120 men die, and 50 equipment are lost, you could reinforce the unit to full power with 370 men and 300 equipment. But I assure this wouldn't require any micromanagement.

	27-07-2000 01:24									#17
	Remove this text

"What about space? We will be adding some kinds of space units, like orbital weapons, perhaps even larger battle stations and ships. Perhaps we should add also space-space, space-air and space-ground; it is different to shoot relatively slowly-moving ground units than fast fighterplanes."

-I'm open to suggestions I think we could worry about that least, since I don't see any use in space weapons in the Civ timeframe; however, I can see their use in scenarios, so... I'll think. I have a little time. I've got a week 'till my next program is due

"About sieges and combat in general; I think that when units attack another units, they will first move to the same tile, then fight, and the winner will remain in the tile fought of. The loser either retreats or is destroyed. This is much like in earlier games."

-Sounds right. Though, you would have the option of doing an artillery attack, in which you don't go into the tile. early units can't do this, but more modern ones (howitzers) can.

" Land units couldn't assault sea units, since they can't enter ocean tiles."

-I would say they can fight artillery battles, or over coastal cities (since ships can sail into those). Maybe even on large rivers you could get a ship entering a land square (maybe limit this to the small ships for rivers, and larger ships could enter specially built (read: expensive) canals).

"Units with artillery capability could shoot from the adjacent tile, and if defender doesn't have artillery, he can defend only by trying to assault, or by retreating; the player should have option to decide how the units react when under artillery bombardment."

-Or he could sit it out. Artillery is not effective enough to kill off large armies, especially if those armies have bunkers. (i.e. a howitzer shooting at infantry in the next tile, might be able to hope for 25% casualties if the enemy was out in the open and it wasn't a large enemy unit... several batteries would be devastating though )

"I think that when civs are not at war, several units should be able to be on the same tile without any problems. Only if one unit attacks another should there be one."

-That would be like SMAC, except you wouldn't need to be allied I think though, that violating someone's territory (with a military unit) could lead to war immediately. A caravan would ignore anything that wasn't firing at it, as far as moving around.

"I also agree that a unit should be of a certain size. For me as an economy model developer it is much easier to operate with standard units of unit equipment than to have loads of different sizes."

-Right, if you need a bigger unit, make two and combine. It takes care of some micromanagement at the production level

/* New stuff */
I think we should have a unit workshop. You could select in there what type of armor, ranged weapon, and melee weapon a type of unit would have. Thus you could make archers, that would not be totally defenseless in melee(for the extra cost of a melee weapon and training).
Maybe for other units like tanks, ships, and aircraft you could chose options that would modify the stats, like rangefinders, or a command center (to make a ship a flagship).

Chassises would be like in SMAC, but different (infantry, chariot, tank, mounted soldier, etc.)

Maybe this might not work, but I'm curious as to what people think.

	27-07-2000 16:02									#18
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Amjayee:

quote: But about the unit equipment, perhaps they could be built for one "man"? Legion equipment for one soldier, one tank (requires several men to operate), one aircraft etc. Each one of these sets would be used for one "hitpoint" the unit has.

That may seem like a good idea, and for combat purposes it is. But from an economic viewpoint it will be really annoying. Equipment will need a market price, need some labour and raw materials and such. But when equipment items are this little, these amounts will simply be too small to work with. Equipment for one legion guy could need 0,02 labour, 0,007 iron and have a market price of 0,06 credits. These amounts are impossible to work with. In stead it will be much better to have a legion unit with a few thousand men in it, and where the legion equipment will cost 120 labour, need 42 iron and have a market price of 360 credits.


Victor:

quote: -That would be like SMAC, except you wouldn't need to be allied I think though, that violating someone's territory (with a military unit) could lead to war immediately. A caravan would ignore anything that wasn't firing at it, as far as moving around.

Yes. I agree with the violation of territory thing, but I think you should have the option to let another civ move it's units around near your cities without you HAVING to go to war with him. When an enemy unit enters your territory you should have the option to go to war with him (in which case he would be the one starting the war) or not.

BUT: NO CARAVANS!!! Never.

quote: I think we should have a unit workshop. You could select in there what type of armor, ranged weapon, and melee weapon a type of unit would have. Thus you could make archers, that would not be totally defenseless in melee(for the extra cost of a melee weapon and training).

I am gonna have to say no on this one. I think that the unit workshop will usually end up with being tedious micromanagement. In stead I would like to have small units (quickly built) that could be combined into armies that you would be able to give the abilities you want, by adding units to it.

	27-07-2000 18:47									#19
	Increase the size of your Attachments

About unit workshop: I agree with Joker about that it would result in too much micromanagement, with too little profit. The same result could be got by having a larger amount of unit types (like several kinds of archers) and then having an _army_ workshop, where you could customize your armies, like adding scout capabilities, better comm systems, etc. To allow some customization to units, we could for example have some special unit equipment; night vision systems, gps systems, etc., that you could give to individual units.

Also notice that our units will be 1000-10000 men, depending on era, and armies have usually had 30000-150000 men. So, there will be quite many units in each army, so that allows you to customize the army somewhat, by carefully choosing what kinds of units you have in them.

About unit equipment: For infantry units, that is like you said. Ok, perhaps infantry equipment could be built for the whole unit, but war machines like tanks and fighters individually. They are after all quite expensive.

I agree that you could allow others to pass through your territory. Also, if an enemy unit during peace-time tries to move to the same tile guarded by your units, and your units notice it, you can choose to attack it, send an ultimatum to stay away from your units, or let it pass. And caravans are not needed.

I agree about artillery; it is used mainly to suppress the enemy, but it also kills some soldiers, depending on their situation.

I agree land units with ranged attack could try to assault ships in those situations.

About space weapons, we need to add them, as well as space units; for a long time they would of course be simple exploring ships, probes and satellites. But space weapons _will_ be available in near future; even today it could be possible to build space stations with small nukes in them. And well before we can travel to Alpha Centauri, we will have some kinds of orbital attack stations, perhaps even some crude energy weapons, when fusion is invented. Large battle ships might be a bit off, but like you said, in scenarios they could be used.

About space battle, how about this; let's add space-space and space-atmosphere. When attacking atmospheric units, you simply get a penalty depending on the evasion of the unit, or something.

	27-07-2000 20:35									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Hitpoints don't mean the strength, but the amount of men. If two units are combined in an army, they get extra bonuses for cooperation, depending on the skills of the commanders you have. But two independent units are not any stronger than one combined unit - at least not in our game, and I think that's the case in reality too, to some extent.

	28-07-2000 03:03									#22
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Sorry, you're right.

	28-07-2000 03:46									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

"About space weapons, we need to add them, as well as space units; for a long time they would of course be simple exploring ships, probes and satellites. But space weapons _will_ be available in near future; even today it could be possible to build space stations with small nukes in them. And well before we can travel to Alpha Centauri, we will have some kinds of orbital attack stations, perhaps even some crude energy weapons, when fusion is invented. Large battle ships might be a bit off, but like you said, in scenarios they could be used."

-Well, I say our game should end 2050-2100... the normal game, and thus space weapons would be really unimportant (mayeb have one or two at the very end to test them, so that we know how to implement them in future scenarios).

"About space battle, how about this; let's add space-space and space-atmosphere. When attacking atmospheric units, you simply get a penalty depending on the evasion of the unit, or something."

-Sounds good. Maybe drag forces on space craft would severely hurt them (some would have artillery-like weapons) that would not require them to dip into the athmosphere. Otherwise you could have craft that maneuver through the athmosphere like a "combination of a TIE fighter and a big rock," but of course be more resistant than athmospheric fighters.

"Hitpoints don't mean the strength, but the amount of men. If two units are combined in an army, they get extra bonuses for cooperation, depending on the skills of the commanders you have. But two independent units are not any stronger than one combined unit - at least not in our game, and I think that's the case in reality too, to some extent."

-Actually they get penalties, but a 2000 unit (fighting at -25% because of bad leadership) is still a 1500 unit, and can crush both 1000 man units if it engages them separately. If those combined, luck, terrain, and the leaders would make the big difference. Also cool to watch would be archers and pikemen/swordsmen combined. The enemy is slowly killed off by archers while your other troops keep the enemy away from your archers (It would not be so cool if your troops routed leaving the archers exposed...)

	28-07-2000 18:05									#24
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

About units retreating and stuff, this is an important thing. I know something about history of warfare, and mainly hand-to-hand combat didn't cause losses very quickly; it is hard to kill a man with armor and shield with a sword, when he at the same time is trying to kill you. The army, whose lines were first to fall apart, was the loser; the men started to die more quickly, when two enemies could attack one man, etc., and that army usually retreated. Then, the most losses were gained during the retreating phase, when enemy's cavalry units could chase them and kill them one by one.

So, discipline and leadership should be important factors determining the battle results, when both armies have similar armament. Also preparedness should be modeled somehow. Also we should think, how the different kinds of units are best made work like the real-world counterparts. Archers, cavalry and infantrymen should all have very different kinds of effects. We don't need to be afraid of adding many properties for units; combat resolving will be simple number-crunching.

Perhaps we should first have a limited set of unit types, like swordmen, horsemen, archers, pikemen; then there would be a larger amount of variations from these, that you could build in different situations. For each type there could be some special rules about how they cause damage and how they defend, what are their special abilities etc.

	30-07-2000 00:51									#25
	Got spare money?

I guess it could be possible to create one tank or one airplane. But to keep it simple and easy to use I still vote for the traditional way, where a tank unit might be 10 or 20 tanks or so. But if the rest of you feels another way I wouldn't have anything against using the system where it is possible to create one tank.

	30-07-2000 05:54									#26
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Wouldn't there have to be a minimum army size? Just for programming purposes, wouldn't it be easier to restrict an army to no less then a certain amount of tanks/infantry/etc? Of course, it would be suicide to have ten infantry running around! However, lone tank units should not be created: how many countries place orders for only one tank?

However, I see a major problem with the small unit/large army plan. If a base is being attacked, the defender can rush small infantry units, and thus create a certain amount of defense. This would slow attacks down. I'm not sure if this is intended, but it will certainly arise in multiplayer.

Also, a question: will armies be able to spread out over several squares, or will they stay as one collective group? Thus, can armies explore multiple squares, with the cavalry wandering farther off and the infantry in a certain square?

	30-07-2000 08:40									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I say, you could build a smaller unit, but not move it unless it was a smaller size. Thus you order a 1000 man set of pikemen. In a turn you get, say, 100 of them. They are under construction, and so can't move, but they can defend the base while the rest of the unit is produced. I think this works best.

Armies will be one square alone (you'll have to make and move a separate vanguard if you want more LOS); however I was toying with a scouts unit, which would have a LOS of 2, as opposed to the normal one, and no fighting ability (it would represent men scattered over 9 squares, and would be really useful when bundled with an army).

	30-07-2000 20:08									#28
	Put an end to popups!

Victor and Phunny:

I agree that a unit should have a certain size, and not just be 1 tank.

Victor's scout unit is a great idea. We should have such special units, also including a supply unit, that would be required for an army to let it recieve supplies.

------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club

	31-07-2000 01:44									#29
	Increase Your PM Length

"Victor's scout unit is a great idea. We should have such special units, also including a supply unit, that would be required for an army to let it recieve supplies."

-I think not required, but rather would make supply better. Just the same way an army can see without scouts, but now it can see better.

Requiring these units would increase micromanagement, but if they only make an army better, it's good.

So far: Scouts, command units, and supply units would be in this category.

You can have an army without a command unit, but it's effectiveness is reduced. Adding extra men always helps, but after a point each additional man fights with less power (because of poor coordination.)

	31-07-2000 19:13									#30
	Tired of ads?

Of course units should be fixed size, that's what we have been agreeing on. When I wanted the player to be able to build one tank or plane at time, that was because they are expensive; you wouldn't need to wait until all twenty tanks have been built, before you can use your unit. I don't know what would be so difficult in this - building equipment and forming a unit are separate things. You form a unit by taking x men, and y equipment for them from your stores. You could just build "incomplete" units.

Remember also, that you can be sometimes short of men; wouldn't it be stupid when in the early game you have 100000 people, are losing in a war, and have only 990 men available for enlisting in your army? You need 1000 men to create a unit. If you could get one more unit, the coming battle would be easier for you. Wouldn't it be better to have now one unit with 99% of their hitpoints, than wait one turn (after which your people can already be extinct) to get just ten more men?

Allowing the unit only to defend a city while incomplete is not a good solution. What would you say if you play a game, where a group of men can't move just because they are waiting for more men, or more equipment? The units will get incomplete during the game anyway. Let's just allow the player to form incomplete units. But you do have a point when you are worried of units of 10 men wandering around. Perhaps we should place some kind of limit to the unit size, as phunny pharmer suggested? For example, you could not create units with less than 10% of their hitpoints left. If unit is damaged in combat below that level, you would have two options: you can reinforce the unit, or merge it with the nearest possible unit of same type. I believe that doesn't cause any problems, or much-feared micromanagement if it is done properly.

Phunny pharmer introduced a possible problem in the planned combat system, that we must take care of: we must avoid tactics exploiting the weaknesses in game rules. You shouldn't be able to harass large armies with single units. So, we must a) make armies considerably stronger than the same amount of same kinds of units all alone and b) make it so, that the movement of armies won't slow down, when their way is blocked with small infantry units; since the units will have much longer movement range than earlier, perhaps we should consider a rule, where the size of battle decides, how many mp's the battle consumes. So, if a large army with 100000 men confronts a 500-men unit, they would literally walk over them with some 0.1 mp loss, while when they confront another army of equal size, the battle would consume several mp's. Also the difficultiness of the battle needs to be taken into consideration; if the defender is entrenched, the battle will take longer etc.

About dividing an army to several tiles, that is not possible. Instead, you could always split your army into two smaller armies, if you need to, but usually those two armies' combined battle strength might be smaller than the original army's, and of course they would now fight as two individual "units".

About scout, supply and command units, sounds good. We might make the visibility range of the scouts a little larger (remember the map scale is smaller) and the range should perhaps be dependent on the terrain; in forest the scouts could not move as far as on plains. Also on coast, they could not move into ocean tile, so they could see only 1 tile away. On the move, the scouts' visibility range would be made smaller, and they could not see very far ahead, but of course farther than ordinary units. So, my idea is, that the scout units need to actually "move" to scout the area; that is done automatic, according to some simple rules. In difficult terrain, they could not move as far as in easy terrain, and would not "see" as far. Also scouts would get a little penalty for noticing stealthy units in the tiles they are scouting - they move quickly in small parties in a large area, so a possibility to notice a guerrilla party is smaller.

Also it might be possible to make it so, that you could transform an ordinary unit into scout unit. They would lose their fighting ability, but get the scout advantages. Infantry unit would become a "explorer" kind of unit - walking men - and horsemen would become horse scouts. "Explorer" units would be better in really difficult terrain, like mountains and thick forest, horse units would have a longer range. We could use the unit's training property to make the difference between "real" scouts and scouts created from other units. When you build scouts, they will usually get some special training, which will rise their "training" property (if you can afford training), but transformed scouts would start with a lower training level.