View Poll Results: How would you like to fight, Sire?
Stacked - CtP style 183 72.05%
Single Units - Civ 2 style 44 17.32%
Banana style 27 10.63%
Voters: 254. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 11, 2003, 14:31   #91
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
I agree

and I think that new thing should be something to make it better to split up your units

civ3 only favors stacks (As does CTP)

Jon Miller
__________________
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
Jon Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11, 2003, 18:37   #92
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally posted by Atahualpa
All those who think stacked is the solution should take a look at the Panzer General Series (and especially the first one) which had excellent tactics and yet no stacks.
But that was a tactical game. Civ is a grand strategy game.

In a war game, moving one unit at a time to get exactly the best result from it every single turn is the fun, because that's what the game mechanics are designed to do.

Civ as a war game is just a mediocre war game. Moving units that can number in the hundreds to get exactly the best result from them every single turn is tedius... because in Civ turns it just means marching 100 units one by one to the other guy's city, then arrowing them toward the city one by one until they die or take the city.

Wee.
Fosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11, 2003, 18:41   #93
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
I agree

and I think that new thing should be something to make it better to split up your units

civ3 only favors stacks (As does CTP)

Jon Miller
No, Civ 3 only favors numbers. The game doesn't care if they are spread out over hundreds of tiles, or hundreds strong in a single tile (with the single exception of zero range bombard units in stacks).

CtP doesn't favor stacks for the sake of stacks. Instead, it requires thoughtful army design (to take the definitions from the other thread ). The results are more strategic options regarding assault and defense forces, a more realistic and satisfying combat system, and (all together now) LESS TEDIUM!!!

Now Civ 4 can feature even better army composition, by learning from the mistakes of the previous games' tries.
Fosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11, 2003, 19:04   #94
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian

Unfortunately, the group movement command in civ3 was an all-or-nothing affair. You could only group the same type of unit, and you could not subdivide those units without a great deal of work.

In CTP2, grouping was not limited by type, and it was not an all-or-nothing command. The end result was...

...you guessed it, LESS TEDIUM
huh? No, we are talking about a front. In that case, group move is pretty worthless anyways, as the units are all going to different places. Oh, and you are wrong about civ3 only being able to group units of the same type
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11, 2003, 19:05   #95
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
Originally posted by Asmodean
Jon: I understand that you do not like stacked combat. I don't agree with you, but I understand your position.

What I don't understand is why you are also against stacked movement. Why be against a feature that makes playing easier, and, IMO less tedious.

Wouldn't it be great to have a system where you could move units in and out of stacks, and move the stacks with a single click?

Asmodean
Stacked movement is in Civ3, and I'm fine with it.
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11, 2003, 19:37   #96
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
Quote:
Originally posted by Fosse


No, Civ 3 only favors numbers. The game doesn't care if they are spread out over hundreds of tiles, or hundreds strong in a single tile (with the single exception of zero range bombard units in stacks).

CtP doesn't favor stacks for the sake of stacks. Instead, it requires thoughtful army design (to take the definitions from the other thread ). The results are more strategic options regarding assault and defense forces, a more realistic and satisfying combat system, and (all together now) LESS TEDIUM!!!

Now Civ 4 can feature even better army composition, by learning from the mistakes of the previous games' tries.
have you played civ3?

it does favor numbers, true, nubmers at a specific location

and so what is valuable is stacks, I kick ass when I fight the computer, and it is not because I have more troops

Jon Miller
__________________
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
Jon Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11, 2003, 20:31   #97
chequita guevara
ACDG The Human HiveDiplomacyApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
chequita guevara's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Fort LOLderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Posts: 9,091
I had Civ:CtP for a hot minute before some slug stole it from me. In the ten or so games I played, I fell in love with stacking.
__________________
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
chequita guevara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11, 2003, 20:53   #98
hexagonian
The Courts of Candle'Bre
Emperor
 
hexagonian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Smemperor
Posts: 3,405
Quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Oh, and you are wrong about civ3 only being able to group units of the same type
Is that a PTW/Conquests addition, because the last patch I had 1.29 only had same types of units.

I never bothered with PTW
__________________
Yes, let's be optimistic until we have reason to be otherwise...No, let's be pessimistic until we are forced to do otherwise...Maybe, let's be balanced until we are convinced to do otherwise. -- DrSpike, Skanky Burns, Shogun Gunner
...aisdhieort...dticcok...
hexagonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11, 2003, 20:57   #99
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668


Yeah, fine. Civ 3 favors attacking units on grass instead of hills. Got it. And it favors attacking units with lower defense than your attack on grass instead of hills. Wee.

But frankly we aren't even talking about the question anymore, which is:

Is army-style combat - similar to what is seen in *gasp* the Call to Power series - or traditional Civ style combat the way to go for Civ 4?

The reasons for Army style:
*less micromangement
*better combat results: instead of simulating one unit sitting still while another one shoots at it for a while, you simulate two units fighting.

"General, our longbows are being fired upon by their longbows! Wha should we do?!"
"Hope against all odds that we aren't killed, then maybe we'll fire at them when they stop."
"Why not just shoot at them right now?"
"Because it's Civ TRADITION!"

*It is widely supported (on this forum) by those of us speaking out.

Reasons for traditional Civ combat:
*It's tradition.



You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be.
Saying that we should keep it because it's the old way is silly. If we did that then we'd never have had resources, or culture, or any number of things.

I understand that you will always like Civ 3 style combat. I cannot persuade you otherwise. Nobody else can persuade you otherwise. We should now focus our efforts on figuring out just how we would like army-style combat to be, and you should just focus on explaining how you intend to address the myriad of problems that the old way has, and that you've agreed are present.. Our arguing back and forth isn't going to get us anwhere at this point.



-Fosse
Fosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11, 2003, 23:48   #100
hexagonian
The Courts of Candle'Bre
Emperor
 
hexagonian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Smemperor
Posts: 3,405
Quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be.
-Fosse
...and the truly sad thing is that with the elimination of a conventional ZOC, those front lines doubled in size.

All we can hope from this discussion is that it'll open some eyes to the possibilities.

I know that Soren still lurks here.
__________________
Yes, let's be optimistic until we have reason to be otherwise...No, let's be pessimistic until we are forced to do otherwise...Maybe, let's be balanced until we are convinced to do otherwise. -- DrSpike, Skanky Burns, Shogun Gunner
...aisdhieort...dticcok...
hexagonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 00:25   #101
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
Quote:
Originally posted by Fosse


Yeah, fine. Civ 3 favors attacking units on grass instead of hills. Got it. And it favors attacking units with lower defense than your attack on grass instead of hills. Wee.

But frankly we aren't even talking about the question anymore, which is:

Is army-style combat - similar to what is seen in *gasp* the Call to Power series - or traditional Civ style combat the way to go for Civ 4?

The reasons for Army style:
*less micromangement
*better combat results: instead of simulating one unit sitting still while another one shoots at it for a while, you simulate two units fighting.

"General, our longbows are being fired upon by their longbows! Wha should we do?!"
"Hope against all odds that we aren't killed, then maybe we'll fire at them when they stop."
"Why not just shoot at them right now?"
"Because it's Civ TRADITION!"

*It is widely supported (on this forum) by those of us speaking out.

Reasons for traditional Civ combat:
*It's tradition.



You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be.
Saying that we should keep it because it's the old way is silly. If we did that then we'd never have had resources, or culture, or any number of things.

I understand that you will always like Civ 3 style combat. I cannot persuade you otherwise. Nobody else can persuade you otherwise. We should now focus our efforts on figuring out just how we would like army-style combat to be, and you should just focus on explaining how you intend to address the myriad of problems that the old way has, and that you've agreed are present.. Our arguing back and forth isn't going to get us anwhere at this point.



-Fosse
I never said that I like Civ3's combat that much

I don't, I find it boring

I feel that it has most of the same problems as CTPs

Civ2's was better, but it had different failings

in civ both sides do fight

the offense defense numbers show effects of initiative and agression

sure you can figt over a larger front with armies

but is it smart to?

in Civ3, and CTP,itis not

the stack/army rules the day

I never said that we should keep it beacuse of it being the traditional way, quit puttin g arguments in my mouth

I said that I like what I am suggesting, which is closer to civ2 than civ3 and CTP, because I think that it is more fun

I have started addressing the issue of how I would like combat, if you had bothered to read all of my posts

Jon Miller
__________________
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
Jon Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 00:28   #102
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be.
Saying that we should keep it because it's the old way is silly. If we did that then we'd never have had resources, or culture, or any number of things.
Actually, with stacked combat, it is extremely disadvantageous to spread out your units because 12 vs 1 is FAR more deadly to the 1 with stacked combat than in unstacked.

Also, another thing - this is actually MORE realistic in some ways. You [proponents of stacked combat] say that it is ridiculous that one guy can hold off huge numbers. However, can those huge numbers really attack him all at once? For example, on a mountain and in a fortress (IRL), a huge advantage is that the defender only has to face a small number of the enemy at a time.
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 00:29   #103
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
...and the truly sad thing is that with the elimination of a conventional ZOC, those front lines doubled in size.
... which has nothing to do with the merits of stacked vs unstacked combat, as virtually everyone agrees that Civ3-style ZOC was a mistake and Civ2-style ZOC was good.
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 00:50   #104
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Actually, with stacked combat, it is extremely disadvantageous to spread out your units because 12 vs 1 is FAR more deadly to the 1 with stacked combat than in unstacked.
I agree. But if the reason for wanting a system that lets you battle across a huge front line, then why not disregard the advantages of armies and have a string of units anyway? This wasn't really an argument... just a rant. Forgive me.



Also, another thing - this is actually MORE realistic in some ways. You [proponents of stacked combat] say that it is ridiculous that one guy can hold off huge numbers. However, can those huge numbers really attack him all at once? For example, on a mountain and in a fortress (IRL), a huge advantage is that the defender only has to face a small number of the enemy at a time. [/QUOTE]

I see this as where the fortification bonus - that can still be in an army vs. army system - comes in. Given those bonuses, we can simulate the effects of great fortification. I appreciate the argument, but I don't think that this one instance makes the system of unit vs. unit more realistic as a whole. Besides, if two guys are in that fortress on a mountain top, then one of them isn't taking a break while the other one fights off the attackers.


Jon: I have read every double spaced line of all of your posts. Forgive me if I've misread them, but other than frowning on army-style combat I've seen no real proposal of a method. I would be obliged if you provide a single post, right here in this thread, that explained exactly what you want and why. Reviewing your posts isn't helping me, because the way I'm reading them, I'm seeing too many contradictory statements for me to get a clear picture of what you want, other than an abscense of army vs. army.

And I agree with the current ZOC being a real kick in the pants.

Regards,
Fosse
Fosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 01:17   #105
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
I posted in great detail just now in the units thread

could you look there?

JKon Miller
__________________
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
Jon Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 07:41   #106
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
12 vs one is firstly realistic because of the map scale we are talking about.

Also, you should note that 12 attackers never simultaneously attack one guy in CtP combat... for a start you only have a front line of 6. Being that an individual unit could be attacked from different directions, I don't see the situation being unrealistic.
MrBaggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 12:37   #107
hexagonian
The Courts of Candle'Bre
Emperor
 
hexagonian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Smemperor
Posts: 3,405
Quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
... which has nothing to do with the merits of stacked vs unstacked combat, as virtually everyone agrees that Civ3-style ZOC was a mistake and Civ2-style ZOC was good.
But I am also dealing with the inherent problem of tedium within a single-unit vs single-unit setup that is compounded by the tedium that is brought about by the elimination of ZOC that effectively doubles the number of units strung out on a front line.

I do need to clarify this though - it is the total disregard of trespassing agreements by the AI that is the real culprit. This necessitates the need for long fronts to stop what amounts to a MAJOR gameplay irritation. With a ZOC rule, I could probably stomach the trespassing since I could set up strategically placed units, but without the rule, I have to set up in every tile that touches the front.
__________________
Yes, let's be optimistic until we have reason to be otherwise...No, let's be pessimistic until we are forced to do otherwise...Maybe, let's be balanced until we are convinced to do otherwise. -- DrSpike, Skanky Burns, Shogun Gunner
...aisdhieort...dticcok...
hexagonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 14:06   #108
Rasputin
lifer
DiploGamesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Deity
 
Rasputin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Between Coast and Mountains
Posts: 14,475
you should have included "leave it as it is in civ3" as an option in poll ...
__________________
GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71
Rasputin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 16:06   #109
Peter Triggs
CTP2 Source Code ProjectCivilization IV Creators
King
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Gone Fishin, Canada
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
you should have included "leave it as it is in civ3" as an option in poll ...
That's quite true. I bet it would have been the overwhelming choice of Civ3 players, who, after all, are the market that Firaxis is aiming their games at. We CTP2 players are the Mac owners in this situation. Billy didn't get all that money by trying to please them.
Peter Triggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 16:10   #110
LDiCesare
GalCiv Apolyton EmpireCivilization IV Creators
Emperor
 
Local Time: 15:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ashes
Posts: 3,065
Quote:
HOM&M, MOO, MOM- all used stacked combat and this greatly helps the AI when it comes to combat
MOO ai being helped by stacked combat? Urgg... If you let it play tactical combar, the ai would lose your battles happily...
But stacked combat is the way to go. CtP2 system was very good. Better than any other system I found. Adding more special powers than ranged / flanking might be an option, though.
__________________
Clash of Civilization team member
(a civ-like game whose goal is low micromanagement and good AI)
web site http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/index.shtml and forum here on apolyton)
LDiCesare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 17:12   #111
asleepathewheel
C3C IDG: Apolyton TeamInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
Local Time: 08:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: listening too long to one song
Posts: 7,395
Quote:
Originally posted by Rasputin
you should have included "leave it as it is in civ3" as an option in poll ...
Yeah, that's odd. I would think C3C might be more appropriate, as its the latest...

I'm an admitted Civ fanboy, but even I would vote banana over the Civ2 (howitzer/engineer army) model.


And I must be the only one around to find the ZoC of Civ2 to be utterly ridiculous and lazy. How large are tiles? 100 square miles or something? How can a warrior unit control tiles adjacent to his own? We can't do that now very well... I think you should have to physically control each tile. The AI rarely crosses my territory anymore, though when I first got the game, they did it incessently. After being kicked out once, they seem to stay away from my land (fearing war).
asleepathewheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 18:24   #112
realpolitic
Civilization III Democracy GamePtWDG Glory of WarInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCiv4 SP Democracy Game
Prince
 
realpolitic's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally posted by statusperfect
I vote for stacks. More tactics = more fun
:d: 80% are for Ctp stacks, about what I expected, in Ctp it adds a dimension to the game and speeds the game up (because you have to attck in groups).
realpolitic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 19:27   #113
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
realpolitic:

Agreed. I'll say again, it seems to make sense to go onto talking about how we'd like to see stacks, instead of whether we want to... since we overwhelmingly do.
Fosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 19:48   #114
Admiral PJ
PtWDG Lux Invicta
Prince
 
Admiral PJ's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Southeast England , UK
Posts: 592
I oppose having all units in stacks, you need plenty of unstacked units to scout and recce to defend and explore/attack.

I've not played Ctp yet, tho I may compile its source code to see if its any good ( it was designed by a Lawyer so its got to be good NOT ). Sending everything around in stacks would be easy , but you'd end up having more trouble than you started with. You'd have to have 50 stacks to take over the world in the end, and it would make micromanagement far worse. Each city needs units to defend it.. i'm not going to have a big army stack of 5 units defending one city when it could be off fighting a war.

If we have more stacks and armies, they need to be better than the Civ3 Armies. Armies are like stacked units, and I think they make sense.. they could be expanded upon for Civ3. Army combat could come into being in the late Ancient era, the Classical era to be precise perhaps relating to the Monarchy Advance, which was alot to do with millitary organisation.. the king effectively being the General of the army. Feudalism also brought about advances in army tactics, leading to professional standing armies.

Someone needs to define the different types of stack options.

I think some stacks should be available as an option.. where the stack can have a General or Knight commanding it. Depending on his skill and technological , tactics and training level he can work out what units to defend with, and what to attack. The player must be involved in all stages.. I hate having combat resolved automatically simply based on an abstract defencive value. One example here is The player could select skirmish mode, where the stack units spread out and think for themselves, but the general
still directs them to ambush or harrass the enemy. Formations and combined warfare tactics can be simulated too.

I'd prefer to go for unit detail and quality , over quantity.
Anyone can make a large tank army, but its more interesting making a couple small stack armies and many skirmishing scout and fast attack cavalry class units .

CTP2 had a battle screen where the stacks battled it out.. tho this dosen't have much strategy in it I believe.. if we went this way it would have to be a battlefield on which to play upon.

Civ isn't CTP , lets try to keep some of the old great game intact.
Admiral PJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 19:59   #115
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
PJ,
You don't have to move around every unit in stacks! In the CtP series most of the early game is played with single units in fact, because you have so few and they have so many things to do.





Off topic: The compiled source code still requires the commercial CD.
Fosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 20:20   #116
Admiral PJ
PtWDG Lux Invicta
Prince
 
Admiral PJ's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Southeast England , UK
Posts: 592
I think we could have Units spread into fronts and Stack like advantages. Like i said before this here, a General, call it a Commander would be a Leadership unit that controls a group of units. These units could include Marines, Fighterbomber jets , Destroyers to allow them to work together to both bombard and soften up targets alongside normal ground combat - Combined Tactics.. I think this is why people are thinking stacks would be useful in part.
The units would be linked to the commander only through command structure, they could be 50 miles away if communications allowed it. This is similar to a modern millitary structure where the Marines have support Bombers and artillery as well as Supply trucks etc.
You could have 10 infantry troops spread into line formation and the commander can be given orders by you to go on Defencive or Sentry duties, which organises the whole Battalion/'Stack' into that stance.
Admiral PJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 20:38   #117
Admiral PJ
PtWDG Lux Invicta
Prince
 
Admiral PJ's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Southeast England , UK
Posts: 592
Tactical minigames.. Shouldn't that be a separate topic?
I'm thinking of putting that in my originally coded game (nothing to do with the ctp source code i should add, for clarity). It allows us coders a lot less work, but it can make a worse game as it reduces strategic planning.

Having a minigame means the rest of the map isn't being animated or drawn so it saves on computer processor overhead. The advantage is that the player has to play out the battle in one area till a result is reached, and dosen't have to halfway through leave this battle and concentrate on a drought in China or a skirmish with the English etc.

If civ can do this minigame well, it could have a lot of advantages. You could have one minigame set in a Modern European City style, with separate buildings and rivers and roads as tactical obstacles or defencive fortifications. This is why i'm considering it for my game project.

Its possible to make this concept work on the large world map, just section off a part of it and make it a battlefield.
The major problem is reinforcements.. if a units just outside the battlefield, shouldn't it be able to join the battle if it lasts more than a day for example.
The solution is to keep minigames short and allow a battle to continue to the next Fullworld game turn ends for reinforcements , though they should be called tactical combat games/levels.
Admiral PJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12, 2003, 23:59   #118
hexagonian
The Courts of Candle'Bre
Emperor
 
hexagonian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Smemperor
Posts: 3,405
Quote:
Originally posted by Admiral PJ
Sending everything around in stacks would be easy , but you'd end up having more trouble than you started with. You'd have to have 50 stacks to take over the world in the end, and it would make micromanagement far worse. Each city needs units to defend it.. i'm not going to have a big army stack of 5 units defending one city when it could be off fighting a war.
Well, here is a sample gamefile of my current CTP2 Cradle game. This is on turn 290, so I am well into the game. This is to illustrate that army management is greatly streamlined in a stacked situation.

Note that there are not a lot of stacks. Most of my cities are garrisoned by anywhere from 2-12 units, based on how hot things are. On this front, I am not dealing with a lot of units - this front is somewhat isolated and the enemy is halfway around the world, but I am also outclassed on unit type (base enemy infantry unit Legion - 30A/30D/15HP against Hoplites - 15A/20D/12HP), so I have to make sure that I have numerical superiority. This is not a particularly hot front either.

I have several units out on the perimeter and when something shows up, I send out my lone stack to deal with it. I'm on a steady military build up there, yet because of battle attrition and that there are no enemy cities to hit, I have to expend a lot just to make sure I do not lose anything.

My southern front (not shown) is a lot hotter, but the civs/units down there are more technologically similar and because I'm close to hostile cities, the enemy stacks are larger when they show up. I am treading water down there. I did most of my war expansion in that area, and I have gone back and forth on a few cities. Nevertheless, it is pretty much the same regarding deployment - only a few stacks. I would like to put together a lot of stacks and do a major push, but it is hard to put it together AND cover all of my bases.

I have to carefully manage troops because when a battle can wipe out an entire stack, the stakes become very high - unlike in civ3 where single-unit combat can be easily stopped. (One of the reasons why stacked combat is such a rush, IMO...)

And since I cannot load a city with infinite units, I have to pick my battles very carefully.
Attached Thumbnails:
Click image for larger version

Name:	map.jpg
Views:	160
Size:	97.6 KB
ID:	59536  
__________________
Yes, let's be optimistic until we have reason to be otherwise...No, let's be pessimistic until we are forced to do otherwise...Maybe, let's be balanced until we are convinced to do otherwise. -- DrSpike, Skanky Burns, Shogun Gunner
...aisdhieort...dticcok...

Last edited by hexagonian; December 13, 2003 at 00:24.
hexagonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13, 2003, 19:28   #119
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
I don't like city garrisons

civ3 also doesn't have lots of stacks, I don't like that

Jon Miller
__________________
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
Jon Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13, 2003, 21:32   #120
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:48
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
I see this as where the fortification bonus - that can still be in an army vs. army system - comes in. Given those bonuses, we can simulate the effects of great fortification. I appreciate the argument, but I don't think that this one instance makes the system of unit vs. unit more realistic as a whole. Besides, if two guys are in that fortress on a mountain top, then one of them isn't taking a break while the other one fights off the attackers.
The defense bonuses, unless they are EXTREMELY LARGE (like, 300-400%, maybe), are not helpful. The fact that multiple units are engaged in combat at the same time means that the only truly viable stack is one between 8 (probably only defense) and 12 units (given a max of 12). Stacked combat, in allowing multiple units to attack one unit, is actually unrealistic in that it ignores the fact the many times, only one unit at a time would be able to come into position to attack that other unit. In stacked combat, the power of a force increases exponentially with size, rather than directly, as in C3.
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team