03-05-2002 20:44									#1
	Open Debate: Combat! (Commercial Release) Remove this text

Let's face it...even though you can play Civ-style games relatively peacefully, there WILL BE times when you gotta roll up your sleeves and kick a little a$$! Thus, combat is SOOOO important to the overall fun factor of the game. If combat is engaging, the game will be engaging. If combat sucks, the game won't necessarily suck, but it'll require everything else to be that much better for it to work.

We want the execution of battles to be cool in the Candle'Bre universe.

So...how to go about that?

First off, I should explain where we are right now.

In designing the game, I created a set of units that had a series of interconnected abilities that essentially "trump" each other (reflective of real life). This pretty well REQUIRES combined arms, if you wanna be successful.

Also, the combat system is set up around the idea of "firing tiers" such that those on a higher tier get to fire and cause casualties before those on a lower tier. Thus, planning and strategy enter into the equation in terms of force balancing.

Examples (real units and abilities from the game)
Archers: Exist of the highest tier. Their advantage is they get to shoot first. But, they're expensive.

Cavalry: Most expensive unit in the game. Main strength is that it's a heinously well-rounded unit with a special (charge) that virtually guarantees hits, but slows them down (attack every other round).

Infantry: Grunts who get a LOT better with the acquisition of tech. Mostly, they exist to cover the losses of your more expensive troops.

Pikemen: Infantry with 'tude. Their special (Wall) prevents Cav from charging so long as they exist on the board. Also, archers MUST target them first, so having them will help protect your expensive cavalry.

Light Infantry: Starts out as the worst unit in the game, whose only initial saving grace is 2-moves. But with tech, they become terrifying.

*Conjecturally discussed unit: Light Cavalry: Special ability is that they "pair up" with an infantry based unit (light infantry) and act as a fighting team. The more "pairs" you have in your army, the greater the overall bonus FOR the army (IE - 1 "pair" would give every unit in the army a -1 bonus (low rolls are good in our combat system), 2 pairs = -2 bonus, etc....such that it's in your best interest if you're gonna use Light Cav/Light Inf, to have a lot of them to boost the effect. Note though, that precision strikes will wreck your bonus, making this vulnerable (unless you include Pike...and there's that combined arms thing again!).

So....the central question is....what should combat execution "look like"?

Myself, I'm leaning very much toward a HOMM3 style battle map, with each unit eventually being assigned HP, "THAC0" (for lack of a better term), AC, Damage, Movement Range, Firing Range, and Initiative (Speed). This would preserve all the essential elements of the three tiered system we initially devised, and make combats HIGHLY interactive.

But, I'm very interested in hearing other possible execution schemes and styles....and also, if there are any drawbacks to using a HOMM3 style battle system?

Let the ideas flow!

-=Vel=-

	03-05-2002 22:00									#2
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Personally, I think that turn based tactical combat in strategy games is rarely executed very well, and usually gets extremely tedious.


I personally prefer something where instead of moving each unit or division of troops, you just give general orders and the actual combat is automated (and real time).

I can't think of many good examples, but the strategic combat in Space Empires IV comes to mind, where you can design attack strategies and fleet formations for your ships to use, and they carry out the attack by themselves - But I'd like to have more control of the combat then that, such as changing the attack strategy or giving more percise orders during the combat.

Something else that is sort of comparible would be the combat in Birth of the Federation. Although it was poorly executed, I liked how you didn't have to move the ships around and fire manually, you just gave orders such as evasive maneouvers or right flank, ect... and they'd do their thing by themselves.




As for a turn based tactical combat system:

You've got to be sure that the map is large and detailed - HoMM had very little room to maneuver and the terrain had pretty much no influence at all on the strategy of the combat - no rivers to cross, fortifications to siege, forests to take cover in, ect... The combat strategy in HoMM doesn't get much more detailed or intricate then "walk towards the enemy and attack". I want to see large combat maps, with hills, forests, rivers, ect... all influencing the strategies that will be used during the combat.

Also, if you have to control every single unit, it's going to get tedius fast, and if you lump all of the units into a single one like HoMM, it takes away strategy and becomes too abstract. Persoanlly, I'd like to have each unit represented on their own, but be able to assign them to squadrons or divisions that act and move as a whole.

Master of Magic did something similiar to this with their units - only they 'came in a package', so to speak.

	03-05-2002 22:47									#3
	Got spare money?

Vel,

I know little to nothing about programming or the effort his idea would take but...


My preference would be a combat resolution ala MOO and MOO2 where in the battlefield is exploded out and tactical resoultion is handled by the player. I realize this potentially adds to the tedium of the game so in order to make this aspect doable I would suggest the add of a General (leader unit) only those force grouping with a leader allow tactical battle resolution. Otherwise the resolution is handled via the game mechanics at a more strategic level. In this way the General unit becomes a very important one and if destroyed/captured can truly affect your communication command and control.

Og

	03-05-2002 22:59									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

We've done a lot of discussions about the combat format and screens... but I'll get back to that.

To respond to the issue about terrain, terrain currently affects combat and movement in the following ways, which may or may not be in the core rules currently:

- Cavalry may not move in mountains or marshes.
- Cavalry may not use the "charge/flank" action in forests.
- All units gain defensive bonuses according to the terrain they are on.
- Archers (both sides) gain an extra turn before the first main combat turn when combat occurs across rivers. Since they go first on their tier, that means archers basically get two attacks on the first turn.

For layouts of this terrain, check the map on my signature.

As for Ogie's point, we currently have leader units, that when stacked with your troops, give your troops better stats and chances to deal damage (plus, some leaders have more unique abilities). Currently, however, I think that all units are controlled directly by the player.

My basic take on partial AI control of battles is that although it does cut down the MM and even perhaps the tedium of other RTS combat systems, players tend to get frustrated when they lose an army or battle that they had no control over. People talk a lot about increasing micromanagement, but in the end control is what makes TBS games great, IMO.

And, as previously stated, I'll address the issue of the grand layout of combat shortly.

	04-05-2002 01:10									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Okay....some outstanding ideas so far here!

I LOVE the notion that battle is abstracted excepting for forces that contain a leader. Question on that. Let's say you and I are playing a multiplayer game. Your force has a leader, and mine does not. What happens?

Do we both get to issue orders and control the action tactically (advantage to the player without the leader, cos he gets the benefit, even tho he has no leader present), or, do you get to issue refined, tactical orders while I'm stuck just issuing general stuff?

Scripting a general attack plan: This is also something we discussed in passing once before....a system where you could set up your orders in advance ("Vel's Alpha Strike 1.0 - Archers issue precision strikes vs. enemy cav, cav set to charge, infantry attacks anything that moves), and this would allow me to jump right into a battle and have things start happening...perhaps with a hot key that would let me interrupt the action to change my orders around if I encountered something unexpected).

I DO have one area of disagreement re: Homm style combat not being all that strategic. The way I envision it, you'll have an army which is composed of, say, six slots (representing divisions, companies, fire teams...what have you). You can arrange your troops in those slots in any way you wanna, provided that one slot = one type of troop. Now the tricky part becomes this: You don't know how your opponent will have his army arranged, so....do you stack all your first striking archers into one uber stack to inflict maximum damage on the biggest stack your enemy has? But, what if he's got his army broken out into several smallish stacks, such that your uber archers consistently overkill, and you wind up wasting a lot of firepower? Similar questions come up concerning Pikemen....since they represent great "stopper" units where other unit specials are concerned, it would seem that in most cases, you'd wanna break those out into as many individual units as possible, forcing your enemy to hunt them down individually, but that will reduce your options where the rest of your force is concerned, and so might not always be your best bet.

Where terrain is concerned. I was thinking that what we might be able to do is to not outright disallow any unit types from attacking in any type of terrain, but apply an aggregate penalty to their movement rate and/or damage values depending on terrain. Example of what I mean: Let's say I'm moving a large, mixed force through rough (mountainous terrain). I've got cavalry, and even tho we say "cav can't move thru mountains" I can still move the army through.

In the mountains, my opponent has a force set up defensively to hold me in check. I move into that province and battle is joined.

A popup appears and the computer generates the terrain for the battle map based on some forumla that samples the prevailing terrain of the province (this prov is 80% mountain, 15% Forest, 5% plains)...so the battle map looks a lot like that.

Now, we've already said that cav can't charge in the forest, but what actually occurs in this case is that cav see their charge damage reduced 15% (they can still do it, just not as well), and while they can move into this province, they see their movement rate reduced by 80% (per the provincial terrain breakdown). All this stuff would happen behind the scenes....the player wouldn't be bothered by it, but, this way, terrain would most definately have a big impact on the army's performance, and would cause players to think seriously about exactly what troop types they were moving into which provs.

MORE! MORE!

-=Vel=-

	04-05-2002 01:29									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx I DO have one area of disagreement re: Homm style combat not being all that strategic. The way I envision it, you'll have an army which is composed of, say, six slots (representing divisions, companies, fire teams...what have you). You can arrange your troops in those slots in any way you wanna, provided that one slot = one type of troop. Now the tricky part becomes this: You don't know how your opponent will have his army arranged, so....do you stack all your first striking archers into one uber stack to inflict maximum damage on the biggest stack your enemy has? But, what if he's got his army broken out into several smallish stacks, such that your uber archers consistently overkill, and you wind up wasting a lot of firepower? Similar questions come up concerning Pikemen....since they represent great "stopper" units where other unit specials are concerned, it would seem that in most cases, you'd wanna break those out into as many individual units as possible, forcing your enemy to hunt them down individually, but that will reduce your options where the rest of your force is concerned, and so might not always be your best bet.

Well, I suppose that offers a strategy of sorts - but that's just toying with abstract rules and concepts, not actual battlefield strategy.

The part I highlighted is the perfect example of why I hate the system so much. For instance - say you had 5 individual fighters, and 5 fighters grouped together, the individual ones get an automatic bonus because each on can attack and do damage to all five of their enemies at the same time, where as the grouped fighters can only attack one of their oponents at a time, wsting any extra damage they might do - it completely tips the balance of a battle, and for no logical reason.

	04-05-2002 02:44									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think that MOM had a very good combat model.
However, I would change it to reflect your initiative scores. Also I don't think that Speed and Initiative are neccesarily the same thing.

Further, if this is a fantasy setting, how would you account for magic? Spells could have different initiative modifiers.

For example:

Mage has a base initiative of say 4
Casts a firebolt spell with an initiative modifier of -2.
So the mages new Initiative would be 2.

Same could be done with technology for ranged weapons, and knights(animal husbandry), even with infantry(metallurgy-lighter,faster weapons)

	04-05-2002 02:58									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Hmmm....excellent point, Osweld. And you're right..the situation described above is not battle field strategy...it's game mechanics strategy.

So....let's talk more about that....if we wanna use real battle field strategy, then we would need to codify bonuses and negatives for various in field strats and tactics.

Anybody ever played Risk, using their alternate combat system?

Essentially, they've got "cards" with different strats on them. What if we employed a system similar?

-=Vel=-

	04-05-2002 03:08									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Yeah, I have HoMM2, and I absolutely despise the combat system.

I personally liked CTP's combat layout, and I wish something based on that could be implemented... The way I see it, movement and terrain is unimportant on the tactical level (actual battles) because it is played out on the strategic level. In other words, I see no reason to put different kinds of terrain, etc. in the battle map, since players have already been having to deal with terrain in getting their armies there in the first place.

As for movement on the battle map, I think that unlike the "free movement" of HoMM, the units should stay in the same basic block, but you should be able to shift units in the block for better position and alignment.

Now that I think of it, a good way to use those leaders without giving control away from the player is enabling armies with leaders to use other formations besides a simple block: echelons, seperate columns, encirclement, etc... advanced formations that could make more use out of the troops you already have.

	04-05-2002 11:45									#10
	Remove this text

I love balance in a game. The types of units need to be able to balance and counter-balance each other such that a combined force will come out ahead. Basically, the game should be a complex version of rock-paper-scissors. I've found that this sort of diagram can be helpful in understanding the balances of the situation:

Heavy Infantry -----D-----> Heavy Cavalry
^ ^ ___/ ^
| \___A___/ |
A _/ \___ A
| V \ |
Light infantry -------D------> Light Cavalry

Where "D" denotes a successful defense, and an "A" a successful attack.

In terms of the tactical engine, I'd love to see something like Shogun or Myth, but is probably much more difficult to implement than a turn based system like HOMM.

quote: Light Infantry: Starts out as the worst unit in the game, whose only initial saving grace is 2-moves. But with tech, they become terrifying.

I thought you mentioned previously that this is a roughly midieval game. Light infantry shouldn't be too powerful until the rise of the gun (and to a far lesser extent, the longbow), which'd be out of the period. Otherwise, I don't see how light infantry in say, AD 1300, was any different from light infantry in AD 600.

quote: Infantry: Grunts who get a LOT better with the acquisition of tech. Mostly, they exist to cover the losses of your more expensive troops.

Why should non-pike(/spear?) heavy infantry change at all during this period?

quote: Archers: Exist of the highest tier. Their advantage is they get to shoot first. But, they're expensive.

What's the distinction between light infantry and archers?

quote: Conjecturally discussed unit: Light Cavalry: Special ability is that they "pair up" with an infantry based unit (light infantry) and act as a fighting team. The more "pairs" you have in your army, the greater the overall bonus FOR the army (IE - 1 "pair" would give every unit in the army a -1 bonus (low rolls are good in our combat system), 2 pairs = -2 bonus, etc....such that it's in your best interest if you're gonna use Light Cav/Light Inf, to have a lot of them to boost the effect. Note though, that precision strikes will wreck your bonus, making this vulnerable (unless you include Pike...and there's that combined arms thing again!).

I don't see why light cavalry shouldn't be a seperate unit. Look at the Mongols; their entire armies were light cavalry.

And why the light infantry-light cavalry combination be special? IMO, that's a useless combination. Light cavalry/heavy cavalry makes a better pair.

	04-05-2002 13:43									#11
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I've found that this sort of diagram can be helpful in understanding the balances of the situation: Heavy Infantry -----D-----> Heavy Cavalry ^ ^ ___/ ^ | \___A___/ | A _/ \___ A | V \ | Light infantry -------D------> Light Cavalry Where "D" denotes a successful defense, and an "A" a successful attack.

You might want to shove that in a code block...

	04-05-2002 14:28									#12
	Inflate your Upload Space

code:

Heavy Infantry -----D-----> Heavy Cavalry
    ^       ^_         _______/   ^
    |         \___A___/           |
    A        _/       \_______    A
    |       V                 \   |
Light infantry -------D------> Light Cavalry

Where "D" denotes a successful defense, and an "A" a successful attack.

Thusly.

quote: What's the distinction between light infantry and archers?

Archers shoot first (but don't really get around to asking questions).
Infantry attack last, and generally die first.

So if a pure archer army attacked a pure infantry army, all things being equal otherwise, the archers would more often than not win. This is becuse they fire first, and the enemy loses some units straight away. Then the infantry get to hit back, but there are now less of them, so they would more likey do less damage.

EDIT: Stupid non-fixed-width text. Edited diagram in notepad, now it looks good.

Last edited by Skanky Burns on 04-05-2002 at 14:40

	04-05-2002 15:27									#13
	Remove this text

My idea of an interesting combat model is simultaneous execution. The general idea is you give each units orders, and they all execute orders on their own, according to things such as speed, experience, movement, etc.

The interesting thing about this model is you can, for example, order a cavalry unit to charge an enemy archer unit. Seeing that you are coming at them, they move into an adjacent forest hex.

Each unit has a number of action points for doing things each turn. As long as a unit has sufficient points left in a turn to do something, it can.

Units should also be able to reserve actions. A unit with a reserved action gets to execute that action first, before any regular actions takes place. This gives you a nice mechanic for ambushes.

This meshes nicely with a leader. For example, a unit with a leader with Military Science might be able to receive orders last, after all other units have receive their orders and finding out what those orders are. This will give the unit an enormous advantage. A leader with Tactics may be able to interrupt the actions of a unit in the middle of execution and change them. You get the idea.

As for the Archer unit, I think they shouldn't be able to attack first, but they should have Missile Fire. This ability allows Archers to attack units that are not adjecent to them.

	04-05-2002 18:14									#14
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger My idea of an interesting combat model is simultaneous execution. The general idea is you give each units orders, and they all execute orders on their own, according to things such as speed, experience, movement, etc. The interesting thing about this model is you can, for example, order a cavalry unit to charge an enemy archer unit. Seeing that you are coming at them, they move into an adjacent forest hex. Each unit has a number of action points for doing things each turn. As long as a unit has sufficient points left in a turn to do something, it can. Units should also be able to reserve actions. A unit with a reserved action gets to execute that action first, before any regular actions takes place. This gives you a nice mechanic for ambushes. This meshes nicely with a leader. For example, a unit with a leader with Military Science might be able to receive orders last, after all other units have receive their orders and finding out what those orders are. This will give the unit an enormous advantage. A leader with Tactics may be able to interrupt the actions of a unit in the middle of execution and change them. You get the idea. As for the Archer unit, I think they shouldn't be able to attack first, but they should have Missile Fire. This ability allows Archers to attack units that are not adjecent to them.

Somewhat like (from the little I played it) Battleground Waterloo? Assuming you've played the game as well, of course...

	04-05-2002 18:19									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That's a really nice idea UR.

I believe we were discussing a similiar system (using action points) a while back when we were talking about how we could best implement multiplayer in to the exisiting game mechanics. I'm not sure what we concluded, though ... (if we concluded anything at all, most of our discussions are still open-ended ) ... but I really liked that idea and extending it into the combat seems logical and would increase the two things that me and Vel are always going on about: Options and Strategy .... or something

As to the Archer units firing first ... under the current system their pre-emptive strikes that come from being the only combat unit in Tier One is the best and simplest way to represent long-range missile attacks. It simulates a realistic effect of archers on a battlefield because any casualties they inflict are removed from play before the Infantry or Cavalry gets a chance to attack.
If however, the combat model should change over time into something a bit more complex (such as a kind of HOMM system, for example) then a large range would be all the archer's need and them having the first turn in combat would be unnecessary.

	04-05-2002 18:58									#16
	Tired of ads?

Yes. It is currently necessary as there is no distance in combat. If they are on the battle field, you can generally hit them
This will change after v0.1 of course.

	04-05-2002 20:08									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Archers shoot first (but don't really get around to asking questions). Infantry attack last, and generally die first. So if a pure archer army attacked a pure infantry army, all things being equal otherwise, the archers would more often than not win. This is becuse they fire first, and the enemy loses some units straight away. Then the infantry get to hit back, but there are now less of them, so they would more likey do less damage.

I mean, what's the qualitative difference between light infantry and archers? Since archers are a type of light infantry.

And thanks for fixing the diagram.

	04-05-2002 22:21									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Let me just add my own thoughts here - I don't much care for what kind of tactical battle system is in place as long as I have a choise between playing it out myself (early game) or just clickin' on "kill" (late game).

MOO2 is excellent in this regard - early on I will _really_ want to micromamage all my missle frigates in order to make any progress at all, but the late game would be intolerable if I couldn't have my 10 maxed out hight tech ships slaughter the AIs megafleet of 350 or so ships instantly with a single klick.

Compare this to HoMM series combat where you just have to fight every single battle manually, because auto combat will result in inaccaptable - and entirely needless! - losses unless you hace a stupendous advantage in ranged power and initiative. In fact, this irritating trait has been accentuated with HoMM4 and it's curious notion of instant ranged retaliation that more or less forces you to do tedious ground-pounder placement by hand unless you enjoy wasting your valueable ranged units.

So, in a nutshell, I'd say the most important aspect of any combat system would be the ability to skip it at will when you've established your superiority beforehand.

	05-05-2002 06:42									#19
	Support Apolyton

quote: I mean, what's the qualitative difference between light infantry and archers? Since archers are a type of light infantry.

While IRL archers are a type of light infantry, in Candle'Bre they are in a class of their own.

quote: And thanks for fixing the diagram.

My pleasure Although I thought it was gonna be as easy as slapping a [code] tag on it... .


Oh, and I'd have to agree with you there, moominparatrooper. Some good thoughts.

	05-05-2002 08:02									#20
	Put an end to popups!

But what is light infantry, exactly?

As far as light infantry goes, there really isn't anything besides the archer and the gunner, AFAIK.

	05-05-2002 09:57									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

EDIT: Erm, what Vel said

Last edited by Skanky Burns on 05-05-2002 at 15:24

	05-05-2002 12:28									#22
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Moominparatrooper! Outstanding point! I think that we almost have to incorporate that sort of thinking into whatever design we go with....the ability to reliably get good "autocombat" results for those who don't wanna have to fight every last battle....that's a must!

UR: YES! Similar to an idea that we were kicking around earlier, and I like the concept very much!

Ramo: Light Infantry, as I envisioned/designed them are like....(groping for the word) Hobilars(?) Essentially lightly armed and armored mounted infantry (unlike cav, they don't fight from horseback, but rely on mounts to speed them to where they need to be.

-=Vel=-

	05-05-2002 13:10									#23
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well, holibars, spears, poleaxes, swords, pitchforks, scythes are all examples of heavy infantry. The "heavy" and "light" distinctions refer to whether or not the type of soldier fights hand-to-hand, not the amount of armor or arms the soldier has on.

	05-05-2002 23:13									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Light Infantry in the Candle'Bre universe describes a subset of Infantry that could also be referred to as Skirmishers. They are irregularly equipped, but generally have the following in common: They are lightly armoured, given mounts to speed them to hot zones, and a variety of weapons (generally sword and javlin, and many use single shot hand crossbows or a brace of throwing axes). This makes them extremely versatile combatants (but in the early game, before significant advances in weapons and armor, their survivability is not so good).



-=Vel=-

	06-05-2002 02:55									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ah thanks. But would you mind calling "Light Infantry" "Skirmishers," though? Otherwise, I'll get confused between light infantry and archers.

	06-05-2002 03:06									#26
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

No sweat, bud! And here's hoping that all our challenges will be so easily fixed, eh?

-=Vel=-

	06-05-2002 03:57									#27
	Got spare money?

Absolutely.

	06-05-2002 06:30									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Okay....some outstanding ideas so far here! I LOVE the notion that battle is abstracted excepting for forces that contain a leader. Question on that. Let's say you and I are playing a multiplayer game. Your force has a leader, and mine does not. What happens? Do we both get to issue orders and control the action tactically (advantage to the player without the leader, cos he gets the benefit, even tho he has no leader present), or, do you get to issue refined, tactical orders while I'm stuck just issuing general stuff? Scripting a general attack plan: This is also something we discussed in passing once before....a system where you could set up your orders in advance ("Vel's Alpha Strike 1.0 - Archers issue precision strikes vs. enemy cav, cav set to charge, infantry attacks anything that moves), and this would allow me to jump right into a battle and have things start happening...perhaps with a hot key that would let me interrupt the action to change my orders around if I encountered something unexpected).

I guess my thoughts are revovling around something like this. In a general sense, you are allowed to choose the order of battle by desgnating first second third etc. units. Likewise a general force disposition and posture. Once these are chosen, the battle is normally resolved for you excpeting those forces with a general. Now for your question regarding re: MP. Tactically the battle would be resolved per normal 'cepting the non-genreal side would have to rely on the order originally given (i.e Light Infantry is unit one inthe front, Cavalry is unit two and is in offensive posture meaning will initiate a charge as soon as units are within range, Archers are third and in defensive posture meaning will deliver opportunity fire and cover fire when retreating, etc.) The player with the general will have the divinely inspired forces and can modify tactics accordingly.

I like the divinely inspired idea as it jives/coincides with you as God of your civ. Only through divine inspiration given to the general can you make a difference on the battlefield.

Og

	06-05-2002 06:49									#29
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

::nodding:: I see what you're saying Og, and I like the analogy....a good one indeed!

Now, to address the point brought up earlier regarding making use of actual battlefield strategies (flank, envelope, hold ground, overrun, etc). Could we perhaps make use of "cards" to deliver generally scripted forms of battlefield attacks? What I'm thinking here is that we could come up with several "forms" of attack, make a cross reference chart (ie - what happens, Attack and Defense value wise if I attack to overrun you, and you choose to hold your ground at all costs?)....the computer could calculate the different effects of the various strats we select, adding in modifiers for the presence of a leader, and we could perhaps even grant the unique leaders in the game "experience points" such that one leader might excel at making flanking attacks, but be less successful when ordered to hold his ground at all costs, and this could be reflected via combat modifiers for the troops under his command.

Am I barking up a wrong tree here, or could something like that be used in conjunction with the general attack script (or perhaps even in place of it, if we had detailed enough attack patterns and a sufficient number of them)?

-=Vel=-

	06-05-2002 10:24									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx or could something like that be used in conjunction with the general attack script (or perhaps even in place of it, if we had detailed enough attack patterns and a sufficient number of them)? -=Vel=-

This then brings up the "intelligence factor" or whatever you wish to call it. ie: If you select a particular tactic - do you know in advance what the opponent (AI or other human) has selected, if not can you find out and possibly change your own battleplan?

[I can just see a battle shaping up where both combatants elect to dig in and hold ground waiting for the other to attack. ]