05-12-2002 07:56									#1
	3 questions/ideas about combat Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

1) Will combat be to the death or will it be possible for a battle to be a stalemate?

It seems to me that it would make the game more interesting if combat were not necessarily to the death, ie where one or the other army automatically dies. If it were possible for one or both armies to retreat, then it would open up interesting possibilities. Say both armies retreat simultaneously, then the battle would essentially be a stalemate. The player would have to decide whether to attack again the next turn to try to take the enemy province. In which case, you could have a unique situation where it taked more than one turn to take a province, and the war risks bogging down.

2) Will the player have input in the battle?

In other words, will the player have some control over the battle's outcome or will the battle just be resolved automatically by the computer?

I realize that the game is not a tactical wargame, but I feel that it might be interesting if the player had some strategic options that could affect the battle. For example, maybe the player could give the army rules of engagement, like "attack at all costs" or "take your time" or "lay siege" etc... For example, "attack at all costs" would increase the odds of the army winning a decisive victory, ie completely wiping out the enemy army and seizing the province, but with a higher risk of casaulties. The "Take your time" option would be the reverse, it would reduce odds of a decisive victory making a stalemate more likely, but it would have the benefit of lower casaulties, and better chance of retreat.

The reason I bring this up is NOT because I want a tactical battle or anything. I am not asking for a tactical battle or anything. I want the game to be a strategic game.

However, I feel that some additional input into the outcome of battles would give the player more satisfaction. There is a cardinal truth in strategy games, that the player will enjoy winning more, the more control they had over the outcome. If this is true for the overall game, then it will be true for individual battles. The player will get more satisfaction from winning the war the more control they had over the outcome of that war.

3) What about "order queues"?

Would it be possible or desirable to allow the player to queue up orders for armies, similarly to how the player has build queues for provinces?

Imagine if the player could give an army a series of orders in a queue like,
1)attack province A
2) attack province B
3) fortify/defend province B for 5 turns
4) attack province C

This would allow the player to contruct elaborate strategic invasion plans. They could give army A a series of orders to attack enemy provinces in the south while giving orders to Army B to attack enemy provinces in the north. The player could then "sit back and watch" how the invasion works.

	05-12-2002 08:09									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Hey guy! Excellent questions!

Combat is fought in a series of rounds. Inside a combat round, we've got three "tiers" of attackers and defenders.

Currently, combat works like this:

I. Attacker moves into a province held by enemy soldiers.

Ia. Spell Phase - Cast 'em if you've got 'em, cos this is your one and only opportunity.

Ib. "round zero" of combat - Any archers on the field get an "initial volley" (attacker first, then defender).

II. "Round one" of combat begins

IIa. Attacker's Tier One troops attack (player control here, precision or standard strike). Results calculated. Defending tier one losses may return fire, defending teir two or three losses may not.
IIb. Defender's Tier One troops attack (player control as above). Results calculated as above.

IIc. Attacker's Tier Two troops attack (player control here....and since Cavs are on tier two, they may elect to charge, attack normally, or execute precision strikes). Results calculated. Enemy tier two losses may counter-attack, teir one casualties have already attacked and are lost, tier three casualties may not counter, and are lost.
IId. Defender's Tier Two troops attack (per above in all respects).

IIe. Attacker's Tier Three Troops attack. Damage applied first to the defender's "Defensive Factor" and then to his troops (abstraction of the more tactical system to follow, representing slow-moving infantry's disadvantages on the battlefield relative to the higher mobility of cavs, and the ranged attack of archers).
IIf. Defender's Tier Three troops attack (per above).

Round concluded, option to withdraw presented to both sides.

So, absolutely it is possible for the battle to end without the destruction of either side! The only thing is...in this build of CB, enemy troops may not end their turns in the same province together, so you either slug it out to the bitter end or withdraw to an adjacent friendly province.

As to order queues....that's an idea we had not thought of! And an excellent idea at that!

We don't have anything in our current combat system that resembles that kind of thing at present, but there's certainly room to consider it (not for the immediate build of CB, I do not think, but it certainly warrants consideration in our later combat models--which present more in the way of tactical choice to players....thus, we could begin automating the more strategic elements to a degree, or at least have the option available to do so.

Good stuff!

-=Vel=-

	05-12-2002 18:48									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

thanks for the explanation of how combat works. Sounds like combat will be pretty neat.

I am curious: are you planning on having a battle screen like ctp2?

	05-12-2002 19:39									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Hey bud! Yep....it's getting there, and more quickly than I would have imagined! We do have a separate combat window, but at present, it doesn't contain anything in the way of animations, but I'd like to eventually see that! (some issues where that is concerned....not the least of which is that, unlike CTP, an army is not limited to a particular number of units....one particular way to deal with this would be to allow players to "stack" multiple numbers of like troop types, but I'm still struggling with that).

-=Vel=-

	05-12-2002 20:04									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx (some issues where that is concerned....not the least of which is that, unlike CTP, an army is not limited to a particular number of units....one particular way to deal with this would be to allow players to "stack" multiple numbers of like troop types, but I'm still struggling with that). -=Vel=-

Well, here is a crazy off the top of my head suggestion on how to deal with that.

One possible way to represent the stacking of like units would be to only have one unit per type, but with different strengths. For example, instead of having 3 infantry units, just have one infantry unit with strength of 3.

This way, the player could have as large an army as they want, but the battle screen would never be cluttered up.

You could do this throughout the game. Say a province already has 3 cavalry units. The player would only see one cavalry unit but of strength 3. Now, say that the player wants to build an additional 4 cavalry units. Instead, of getting 4 more units, the existing cavalry unit would simply increase to strength 7 (3+4).

This would avoid clutter since you are grouping units by type. And it helps organize things better. The player would quickly understand the composition of his army.

	05-12-2002 20:16									#6
	Put an end to popups!

::nodding:: I like that idea....one of the things I was contemplating. There are limitations there, but I think that or something like it will wind up being used as part of the framework in later versions of the game.

Here's some other stuff I was kicking around along those lines:

1) stacking limits....it's unreasonable to assume that a gazillion cavalry (for example) can be in the same tile....so if we use something like the above, then we need to have a cutoff....a maximum unit size/strength.

2) This (point one) will, ultimately mean that there's some kind of functional limit on total army size. I say functional as opposed to actual because of the next point

3) Reserves: We could continue with the notion that armies have no set maximum size even IF we limit the total number of units that can appear on the map, and do so by instituting a system of reserves and reinforcements....extra units are simply not displayed on the map, and as you take casualties, you can cycle in reserves to keep your fighting strength up (option to bring up reserves would occur between rounds, assuming reserves are available).

4) Uber-stacking needs to have some game balancing to prevent it from becomming the norm (ie - it should not universally be the case that assigning as many units as possible to a given tile is always the best way to go)....even stealthy units when stacked en mass lose their stealthiness and sometimes perhaps even get in each other's way to the detriment of overall unit strength....this kind of thing needs to be factored into our thinking, such that divergent strategies and tactics can be employed (create troop types that REALLY suffer when uber stacked, but which are deadly in small numbers....snipers, ambushers, hill-runners, sappers....plenty of other ideas there). OTOH, some unit types (Pikemen) get stronger, the more closely you mass them.

Some other stuff as well, I'm sure (still half asleep as I'm writing this! LOL), but that's more-or-less where my brain is on it.

-=Vel=-
OH! Of course, the above means that it would be entirely possible to have an army composed of several stacks of differing strengths of the same unit type.....that's the other thing that was flitting around in my head...

	09-12-2002 07:04									#7
	Post Combat Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I wound up looking over some notes over the weekend on the AD&D Battlesystem rules and remembered a tidbit about casualties.
Only 50% of the casualties inflicted were actual KIA's. 25% were seriously wounded and could return to active duty within a couple of weeks or sooner with magical healing, and the final 25% were regarded as just stunned or lightly wounded and were returned to the line within a few hours.
Now these rules played out with the victor (ie: He who holds the field at the conclusion) regaining both of the wounded categories but the vanquished having to leave his sides seriously wounded behind in the retreat.
Slight modifications were made to account for lightly equipped fast raiding forces (who never planned to hold the field anyway) and such but the incentive was to credit the side able to hold the field.
In effect this would give the attacker something to think about when making spoiling attacks into a province to occupy the garrison while sending sub-units off to pillage/burn buildings/lands in the same (Can you actually do this btw?) if, in effect, he would lose a higher proportion of his casualties.

	09-12-2002 21:55									#8
	Got spare money?

Hmmm....that's an intriguing thought, Rav! I like it!

Currently, pillaging is rolled into the conclusion of a successful attack (and only available as an Infamous option), but yeah....I could see where that would add something, cos then you could do some interesting things with your army....total and effective combat strengths (the wounded travel with the army-on-the-move, in the field hospitals, and eventually rejoin the ranks).

This would also mean disasterous things for an army that had been in a string of brutal battles that was ultimately destroyed, as all of the wounded would then become prisoners of war, or additional casualties....I like that!

-=Vel=-

	09-12-2002 22:01									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

I should also say that in the last couple of days, there has been some discussion about an idea that we'd knocked around earlier for this version of CB, and that is as follows:

Since combat is kept at the strategic level only in this version of the game, and to avoid repetitive and continual mouse-clicking, we talked about adding in "canned" strategies that players could select at the outset of combat....cross reference the chosen strategies (not dissimilar to the AD&D battle system, btw), and you get a combat modifier that is applicable to that combat in particular, or at least to a portion of it (some strategic interactions might result in new choices being made available as the battle grinds on).

So....I wrote up 8 canned strats (4 available to all, and four available only to armies with Leaders), drew up their effects, and we're talking it over in the CB staff fora now, ironing out the kinks....

Soon as we get it in presentable form (it's a little rough at present), I'll post it here and we'll do some refining, discussing if anybody's interested!

-=Vel=-

	10-12-2002 04:05									#10
	Get a bigger avatar today!

All of these ideas sound really cool, but one thing you have to make sure of is to not over-complicate the combat system. Complication is only fun to a point. Then again I'm sure you've already taken this into consideration.

	10-12-2002 04:09									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The canned strategies should reduce complication for the player.
It also GREATLY reduces clicking during battles, which was becoming a little bit of a problem to be honest.

	10-12-2002 05:46									#12
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx So....I wrote up 8 canned strats (4 available to all, and four available only to armies with Leaders), drew up their effects, and we're talking it over in the CB staff fora now, ironing out the kinks.... -=Vel=-

Great! Are canned strats like "outflank", "ambush", "frontal assault", etc?

	10-12-2002 05:59									#13
	Suffering from ads?

::nodding:: What FP said...LOL....the problem we were running into was that there were almost *too* many decisions to be made in the course of each combat round. With the "select a strategy" system in place, you define, in broad terms, what you want your army to do, and the details are pre-programmed, based on your selected strategy.

The overall combat modifier is then based on the "strategic interaction" between the strategy you selected vs. the strategy selected by your opponent.

The strategies we're working from at present are:
Lvl1 (available to all armies)
Hold at all Costs
Advance
Overrun Enemy Positions
Flank
* - The presence of a Leader in an army making one of these "lvl 1" attacks provides additional combat bonuses, such that a Great Leader's Flank attack is more devastating than Joe Blow's flank attack

Lvl2 Strategies are available only for armies that contain a leader, and at present they are:
Trap
Envelopment
Pincer
Feint

If this model ends up getting written in, we've also added in a new *kind* of attack....the Skirmish, which lets you probe enemy defenses to assess overall strength without actually committing to full scale battle (the flip side tho, is that even if your skirmish kills off all the defenders in a province, you don't actually take the province....by its definition, the skirmish is more an information gathering attack).

And finally, we *have* made it possible for armies containing a Great Leader to make modifications to the "strategy standard" tier orders (just like you MUST do now in all cases)....with the drawback that the orders issued have a chance of not being recieved, or being misunderstood....

So....we're still chewing on it, but when we have something ready for prime time, I'll start up a new thread and post the goods here!

-=Vel=-

	10-12-2002 06:03									#14
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Forgot one other thing I was gonna mention regarding this new idea:

The "strategic interactions" have a vast range effects, running the gamut from "no combat this round" (ie - Both sides opt to hold, or one side traps and the other holds), to a total bloodbath (overrun vs. overrun), with no option to withdraw for either side.

Some of the interactions have a specific # of combat rounds duration, allowing for a re-select of strategy after that time, and we also added in a default "defender victory" if the combat runs more than six rounds (both armies exhausted, attacker retires from the field this turn).

Stay tuned....more later....

-=Vel=-

	12-12-2002 05:45									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

Why not make it like SW Rebellion: you can decide to control the tactical battle, or you can let the comp simulate it. The battle would be turn-based, with the province being divided up into tiles. You could even make it so that the buildings, roads, forts, terrain and such are located in certain tiles, so you could determine which buildings got destroyed, how many civilians were killed, which units get road, fort, and/or terrain bonuses... the possibilities are endless.

	12-12-2002 07:14									#16
	Increase Your PM Length

We'll get to something very like that eventually, never fear! Our plan is to start with something simple and accessible, and design it in such a way that we can "grow into" our bigger ideas....

-=Vel=-