21-05-2002 03:00									#151
	Support Apolyton

Perhaps the combat system could be decided at the beginning of each game... that way, you couldn't exploit the systems by using a different one for each battle in an advantageous way.

As for clergy, you could even have different clergy depending on your influence with different dieties... so while having a little bit of everything would get you different kinds of clergy leaders, lots in one diety would give you a higher chance of recieving a non-military leader of that diety.

Automatic intercesison might be a bit overpowered... an impenetrable defense? Maybe a clergy leader could be kept for small benefits, or sacraficed for a big intercession effect, lots of mana, rush building, honor gain, or whatever...

	21-05-2002 04:11									#152
	Increase the size of your Attachments

True...but such a leader (represented by a unit on the map) would be subject to assassination and such....so his very existence would likely draw the attention and ire of those who where heavily pursuing the espionage trunk of the tech trees. I agree though, that such a leader would definately not be of the lesser ranks, but sure....say if you had the equivalent of the Pope for whatever religion you were focusing most/all of your efforts on, then yeah...making the province he's in pretty much attack proof would be an okay ability, I think....you just gotta make doggone sure you've got good countermeasures in place too though, to prevent assassination (and protecting him from that threat may wind up being more costly than defending against a conventional attack!)

-=Vel=-

	21-05-2002 20:01									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Back to combat for a sec.

I see inclusion of disrupted units. Leaders I assume can immediately get disrupted units to form up to 'ready to rock" status as opposed to rallying from routed status. W/o leaders I would recommend it is dependent on percentages based on experience.

In previous board games I played, disrupted units were capable of attack but incapable of intricate formations such as forming squares, forming fire lines, or committing a cavalry charge so a penalty applied. Likewise going through rough terrain such as forest caused units to become disrupted and required a turn to reform.

Cav units after performing a charge were always disrupted and required a round to reform etc. This then mimicks what you were trying to do Vel by allowing a charge every two turns. Turn 1 is charge, turn 2 is reforming your unit into battle formation.

Thoughts?

	21-05-2002 20:08									#154
	Suffering from ads?

Hmmm...I like that, Og...so a disrupted unit could attack and defend normally, but we could say that they lacked sufficient organization to move or execute special function orders (ie - Charging). That could work....

-=Vel=-

	21-05-2002 20:25									#155
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Yeah normally but prolly with a penalty as attacks and defense are not coordinated.

Og

	21-05-2002 20:30									#156
	Full PM-box? Change here!

:: pondering:: Let's give them a penalty to attack, and normalized defense, with no option to move....that way, they suffer some penalty (in that they are stationary targets), but can defend themselves, and could launch attacks, albiet, not quite as effectively as a more organized unit.

Howzat?

-=Vel=-

	21-05-2002 21:48									#157
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Works for me!

	21-05-2002 23:55									#158
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Let's give them a penalty to attack, and normalized defense, with no option to move..

That's two thumbs up from me.

	22-05-2002 01:36									#159
	Put an end to popups!

Wow,

Took me the better part of two hours to read through this thread. My head now hurts, thank you very much.

I'm trying to remember some details.

Leaders:
You state a 2% chance of gaining one with elite troops. This makes me think that we will not be seeing to many of them being generated.
How about something a little more structured.
An army like system similar to BigRich's suggestion.
With leaders getting promoted as they gain experience (I still like the idea of a leader getting generated by a vet combat).
lieutenant - 10
captain - 20
major - 30
colonel - 40
general - 50 (+1 for each level obatined)
With certain constraints on how many troops each can command??
Maybe unit structures?? A lieutenant can have up to 10 units in his squad, a captain can have three squads in his troop...
Maybe even leaders slighted towards each faction even at the lower ranks???
Must have: Need a way to generate leaders without combat as was suggested. I like the priest, how about the scientist (mad or sane???), the statesman, the merchant, etc.

Okay, started this one hour ago, that should be enough time to cross post with both Vel and FP

R:PM

	22-05-2002 02:47									#160
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm afraid you didn't quite manage to get the cross-post there RPM ...

I really like the increased structural look to the army that you outlined in your post, I think it has a lot of potential to improve the tactical battle system. It might make the whole thing a bit too complicated (maybe there should just be three links in the chain of command, not five ... i dunno), but I'm sure that something can be worked out. The current thinking on tactical combat includes both generals and war captains, but at the moment it seems to me that war captains are simply watered-down versions of generals. Or maybe I'm reading that all wrong ... anyway ...

Perhaps using some of your ideas here we can start to differentiate them a bit ... although I must admit I'm completely short off ideas on how to do that ... I'm loath to try and add more layers of micro-management into the game because the commercial release is already gonna have complex features coming out of its ears (tactical combat, social model, religious model, workshops, etc etc etc) ... I'll shut up about this for the moment and see if I can think of something ...

	22-05-2002 02:51									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Took me the better part of two hours to read through this thread.

It is getting a little long isn't it?



Vel: when you get around to updating the work-in-progress model for the tactical combat system (v2.7, or wherever we are with it ) it might be an idea to post it at the start of a new thread. This one's running a little long ...
No rush on that, though, God knows you do enough work around here as it is.

	22-05-2002 03:16									#162
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yeah five layers might be a bit too deep. I was thinking the same thing as I was posting, but thought that I'd throw it up on the board anyway. Jus' doing more of that brainstormin' thing.

There is a point when realism no longer becomes fun, and this is a game afterall.

Lastly, I agree that we need to start a new thread to clarify what we have already been through.

R:PM

	22-05-2002 08:36									#163
	Suffering from ads?

My take is there should be no standardised units per se in a fedual setting. Military units as we know it is a very modern concept.

Previously, each leader (noble, general, etc.) got to lead a number of man. That seems to be a more fluid way of approaching armies.

	22-05-2002 17:41									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

That's it! UR a genius. War captains as a term was bothering me, but I do like Nobles. Now if we can come up with something better than general?

R:PM

	22-05-2002 17:52									#165
	Tired of ads?

Do we need anything better than General? ... I mean ... that's what they are. I suppose we could go for Commander or something like that, but if it looks like a General and acts like a General ...

I like the idea of using 'Noble' instead of War Captain ... that seems to fit in better with the feudal, pseudo-medieval setting for the game.

	22-05-2002 21:13									#166
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Why not use different grades of nobles then with different terms for different civs.

war captain-> Jarl, Earl, Count, Baron

General -> Duke

	22-05-2002 22:55									#167
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Why not use different grades of nobles then with different terms for different civs. war captain-> Jarl, Earl, Count, Baron General -> Duke

"The Duke"....Me likey!

	22-05-2002 22:59									#168
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm sure we can come up with other civ related synonyms.

	23-05-2002 03:05									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I prefer "Marshal" over General. But that's just me...

	23-05-2002 03:22									#170
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

SpencerH's idea of having different names for each faction sounds pretty cool to me ... and I suppose if we do that then we can use all of these names.

	23-05-2002 17:58									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Different names for different fraction is cool indeed. But only if the reflect some difference in ability as well - otherwise it's clutter only.

	23-05-2002 18:03									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by moominparatrooper Different names for different fraction is cool indeed. But only if the reflect some difference in ability as well - otherwise it's clutter only.

I agree, balance would be important, but the "generals" should all bring something different to the table depending on what faction they are with. Even if it is slight differences in the stats with one special abilty each.

R:PM

	23-05-2002 20:37									#173
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Perhaps tho, the best way to express that is to give each faction a set of flags that would modify the baseline "general" unit?

That way, we could stick with one design, and have the faction selected modify the design, rather than create five unique (and similar) designs? Whatcha think?

-=Vel=-

	23-05-2002 21:39									#174
	Got spare money?

A simple solution, thats why we pay you the big bucks

	23-05-2002 22:39									#175
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Yep ... Vel's really earning the high-priced salary we're paying him ...

I dread to think what'll happen when it comes to contract renegotiations ... that could spark a crazy bidding war like it did with Alex Rodriguez. Does $25,000,000 a year for 10 years sound ago to you Vel?

We'll have to be careful the Texas Rangers don't try and sign him instead .... they'd probably want him as a starting pitcher ...

	23-05-2002 23:35									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Role playing your leaders....EXCELLENT!!!

Me (very much) likey

	24-05-2002 09:13									#177
	Suffering from ads?

It occurrs to me that whats needed still is an understanding of the combat phases and combat resolution from a procedural POV.

Something on the order of

Player 1 turn

1. Rally phase
2. Tactical Movement Phase
a. Opportunity fire phase - defending player
b. Direct fire - Player 1
c. Charge Declaration
d. Melee resolution

etc.

Or perhaps I'm just a bit too anal. But I think it will help the coders immensely.

Og

	24-05-2002 16:02									#178
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I dont know about the coders ( I have a picture of a few guys locked away in a cement room with bad lighting kind of like "Joe and the volcano"), but I do think somebody has to understand the sequence of events.

	24-05-2002 16:07									#179
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH I dont know about the coders ( I have a picture of a few guys locked away in a cement room with bad lighting kind of like "Joe and the volcano"),

That's pretty accurate. We're not letting them out of their bunker until v0.1 is finished ...

I agree that if we can help the coders in any way with the way we structure the design then we should do so. Those guys have been just brilliant in getting things moving so far and they deserve all the breaks we can give them.

	24-05-2002 20:40									#180
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH I dont know about the coders ( I have a picture of a few guys locked away in a cement room with bad lighting kind of like "Joe and the volcano"), but I do think somebody has to understand the sequence of events.

That is a pretty bold statement. I resemble...er resent that remark. I actually do my coding in a window filled room.

R:PM