30-04-2001 14:32									#2
	Inflate your Upload Space

Teddy, I understand it the same way you do. It's most disappointing, isn't it?

	30-04-2001 18:06									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

There are RTS military-simulations available for those who wants realism on a tactical level. Civ-3 is suppose to be a lighthearted strategy-game, with its emphasize on civil development and expansion. Besides, im sure there are tweakable rules in which order certain type of units should attack and/or defend.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]

	30-04-2001 20:47									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I'm with Der Teddy Bär and Zanin, Yuck

Ralf, I don't think they want a detailed combat model at the regiment level, just something beyond a modest extension of the tired old Civ2 combat formula. This approach gives small elite forces much more of a chance than they'd have in the real world when heavily outnumbered.

IMO it only needs to have a little change in approach to get a Lot more realistic. Notice I didn't say more detailed, just use the same unit numbers in a slightly different way. That is the critical thing Firaxis is missing with its approach.

	01-05-2001 09:30									#5
	Support Apolyton

I don't like this system either. A better system would be to say that an army's fp, and hp are the total of all the units present, the movement is the average (rounding down) of all units, and the attack and defence is some function on the defence of the units. An idea I have for the attack/defence would be that you find the defence for each type present and total it. The defence of one type would be the defence of one plus half the defence of the second plus half again for the third, etc (so an army of 2 tanks, 3 mech infs and 1 howitzer would have an attack of 10+5 +6+3+1.5 +12=37.5 and a defence of 5+2.5 +6+3+1.5 +2=20)

	01-05-2001 09:40									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

Are they keeping the same old Offense vs Defense system here? Nobody fights with their armor, except maybe to bash someone with a shield because you lost your sword. Please, Firaxis, make the combat not crummy!

--
Jared Lessl

	06-05-2001 07:09									#10
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

actually ive heard that if you want their will be a battle system close to whats was in gettysburg but with a broader array of units smaller map and less formation and stuff...

	06-05-2001 09:47									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I tend to agree with the general concensus here in the thread. Although I do understand that the Civ in not a war game proper, I would expect a little more than a step up from the old stacking system. It seems this looks like the old system, only automated for efficency. For instance, when you attack a city in civ II, doesn't this alread happen? You attack with one unit and the best defender defends untill it is warn down, then, another rifleman, or whatever, takes the brunt of your attacks.

Yes, I am excited at the idea of a new civ game, but please make it a little more complex.

------------------
"When you have to shoot - shoot, don't talk." -Tuco Benedicto Juan Ramirez

	06-05-2001 10:26									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think we'd all agree that one thing CTP got right was the combat engine. If civ3 is similar to civ2, ie one unit vs another until all units are finished, it will feel like a major backwards step in the genre and will be most disappointing.

	07-05-2001 00:07									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

what do you people want? this is why civ 1 and 2 didn't have stacked combat. because it makes the game TOO complex. Either you want him to give you a small combat engine within a game that already takes days to play, or you want him to figure out some way of representing an accurate result of a battle given only information about the unit's stats and numbers. Don't you think that would be ab it hard to model?

And if you don't, you figure out some math formulaes they could use and mail it to them, then everyone will be happy.

	07-05-2001 04:27									#16
	Support Apolyton

Combat is not the only thing in this game. If everyone wants a complex combat system, then the people who avoid combat will get the short end of the stick. Firaxis should focus on making parts of the game that are used by everybody and have to be done to play the game correct, like Governments, Diplomacy and Wonders.

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure 99.9% of the Civ player community uses combat, but if you, 'KISS', then you can focus on the parts of the game that need a lot of micromanagement and re-vamping. Also you need to make keep it from becomign to complex, other wise turns will take hours apon hours while you engage in combat. People will dread it eventually and avoid combat all together!

I believe that the combat system could use a little switch-a-ru, but making it that complex, with special formulated combat stacks, and that rumor about Gettyburgish will increase game play difficulty. we're trying to reduce it. The reason we reduce it is because we want everyone to play, not just wargame masterminds who can remember war&peace size rule books.

Now, instead of ignorantly ranting, i'll give my opinion as to what could be a possable solution.

Each military unit is grouped. An example is, Ancient/Ground, Modern/Ranged, Industrial/Ground, etc in different time periods and what they do (like ground infantry, ground ranged, air, etc). Each group would have a counter. So a Ranged unit would be efective against Ground. Thus creating a need to make "Stacks". However actual combat would be handled much like in Civ2, unit vs unit. However the attacker attacks with a type of combat unit and if s/he has a certian unit that is efective against the defenders, they go first. But if the defender has an effective unit against the attacker, it goes back and forth, so the defender counter attacks... and it goes back and forth in a mini-stacked unit battle, but its still one vs one.

	07-05-2001 05:00									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I dont like stacking like in CTP. The AI doesnt understand it, and I end up (on diety) simply crushing lonely tanks with stacks of 9 legions and pikemen. Hopefully sid stuck to the Civ2 combat

	07-05-2001 10:11									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

***Combat as seen by Lung!***

This issue just begs to be addressed once-and-for-all, so here's my two cents worth (and believe me, two cents is rather generous )

Years ago, i tried to introduce Civ2 to a friend, so i showed him the game, including combat. His response was "Is that it?". Okay, so he's a shoot-em-up kinda guy, but the point stuck. What's the point in having warfare if you have little control over it? This begs the question - do we need it? Well, the answer is a resounding yes, because to not have warfare is to deny it's place in history. Warfare has undoubtedly changed the course of history, so it must be in Civ3. If all else failed, warfare was a last, and often most effective, resort.

Having established it's inclusion, thence how can it be implemented within the obvious contraints placed upon warfare by other, equally vital, aspects of civilisation and history? CTP made some forward steps in this direction, but has some obvious flaws. I thought it would be nice to be able to exert some control in the battle scenes, but i realised that it would be impossible in multiplayer. But what about against the AI? It's not an issue then, so why not? It would be simply a matter of detaching the AI from your battle group so you can play it yourself. I wondered how that could be played, but the answer is obvious. CivI, II, and III are turn-based strategy games, so to make the battle scenes turn-based is the obvious and only logical solution. This would also avoid the "game within a game" problem which Sid so despises. Also, as it is simply a matter of detaching the AI from your moves, it would require virtually no extra programming. In multiplayer games, this feature would simply be unavailable.

I've always seen Civ2 (i never played Civ1) as a kind of giant chess game. Chess, of course, is the greatest strategy game ever, so it's in good company The one advantage over Chess was that you could influence what pieces played, and how many. For Civ3 and it's combat model to emulate this can only be regarded as good And those partypoopers who dislike it can turn it off if they so choose . Of course, CTP combat was flawed because there is no randomness, so you could simply do your sums beforehand, and you would already know the outcome. Civ2 had that part right, so a combination of the two would be ideal.

Obviously the great leaders idea is a great concept, but my model would only complement it. Having played a great many games of CTP multiplayer as play-by-e-mail, i can honestly say that stacking units requires balance if you want your armies to be most effective, and on occasions even allows for some creative warfare. Believe me, even with CTP combat's constraints, i've seen some impressive strategy executed by some of the great exponents of the game (hail, Mobius! Hail!!). It has opened up the game to players whose strength lies in places other than in ICSing. A good general in CTP multiplayer can beat an otherwise unbeatable empire builder. Warfare must be a viable way of winning Civ3, but certainly not the only way. Please no one try and tell me that limiting creativity in Civ3 is a good thing! If you don't want it, then good for you! Just leave the rest of us to be the best meglomaniacs that we can be!!
[This message has been edited by Lung (edited May 07, 2001).]