Design: Combat

[Maquiladora]

Ideas for combat.

Locutus' idea -

As you know, the attacker and defender take turns in attacking each other during a battle, where both units use their Attack value to match their opponent's Defense value and try to damage their opponent. If this is changed so that units that are defending a tile/city would get to use their Defense value when it's their turn to attack the invading force, this will give defenders an advantage over invaders, assuming you're using the proper units to defend.

So when defensive units get their turn to attack, they will be able to use their strong Defense value against the weak Defense value of their offensive invaders, giving them an advantage. When these invading offensive units are on the attack, both sides use their strongest stats and they will be roughly evenly matched (all things equal). So during the course of an entire battle, defensive units have a distinct advantage.

Of course, when you would use defensive units (e.g. Hoplites) to attack other units and initiate the battle themselves, they would end up using their weak Attack value when attacking and not be able to inflict much damage on their opponents.

So there are 4 basic battle situations (assuming 1v1 battles, works the same for stacks of course), where I assume that a Hoplite is a defensive unit (e.g. stats A:1 D:3 R:0) and a Legion is an offensive unit (e.g. stats A: 3 D:1 R:0):

1. Legion attacks Hoplite. When it's the Legion's turn to attack, its strong Attack value is matched against the strong Defense value of the Hoplite: the Legion does limited damage to the Hoplite (very limited if the Hoplite is protected by City Walls, entrenchment, terrain, etc). When it's the Hoplite's turn to attack, its strong Defense value is matched against the weak Defense value of the Legion: the Hoplite can seriously damage the Legion (which doesn't have defensive advantages to hide behind). Overall, the defending Hoplite has the advantage, but will sustain damage (though not too much if it's dug in deep).

2. Hoplite attacks Hoplite. When it's the attacker's turn to attack, its weak Attack value is matched against the strong Defense value of the defender: the defender will suffer little damage (very little if dug in). When it's the defender's turn to attack, its strong Defense value is matched against the strong Defense value of the attacker: the attacker will suffer limited damage (but have no defensive bonuses to soften the blow). Overall, the defending Hoplite has a significant advantage, suffering little to very little damage.

So, when a defensive unit is attacked, it always has the advantage, a huge advantage even if it gets high defensive bonuses.

3. Legion attacks Legion. When it's the attacker's turn to attack, its strong Attack value is matched against the weak Defense value of the defender: the defender suffers significant damage (though less so if dug in). When it's the defender's turn to attack, its weak Defense value is matched against the weak Defense value of the attacker: the attacker suffers limited damage. Overall, the attacking Legion has the advantage, but will sustain damage (how much largely depend on how long the defending Legion can protract the battle by being dug in).

4. Hoplite attacks Legion. When it's the Hoplite's turn to attack, its weak Attack value is matched against the weak Defense value of the Legion: the Legion suffers limited damage (very limited if dug in). When it's the Legion's turn to attack, its weak Defense value is matched against the strong Defense value of the Hoplite: the Hoplite suffers little damage. Overall, the attacking Hoplite has the advantage, but it's a tight balance where much depends on various defensive and offensive modifiers. Especially if the Legion is in open terrain without defensive bonuses, it's vulnerable.

So, when an offensive unit is attacked, it is often vulnerable. Offensive stacks can suffer greatly from sneak attacks, ambushes, etc when they're out in the field but don't have the initiative.

This gives players a good opportunity to play defensively and to stop enemy invasions: by digging in in defensive positions and by counter-attacking invaders when they're exposed. Of course, some measures like effective siege warfare will also need to be present to not make aggressive conquest completely impossible.

(I stress again that much of this is based on speculation and it remains to be seen how it works out in practice, and there's of course always the issue of making the AI deal)

I tend to agree, the defensive side of the game needs to be stronger, especially because you can only have a maximum of 12 units on a tile.

[Solver]

I can only add a loud voice of appreciation to the Loc's idea about defender always using the defense value. At least we definitely should test it...

[child of Thor]

this sounds like a fantastic idea, good ol Locutus (and i always thought the combat was fine - but now this seems much better!). i I agree it should be tested if it hasnt already.

[Maquiladora]

As i understood it in some discussion quite a while ago, Hitpoints is just Armour*10 and every unit in CtP2 has 10HP, so there really isnt any need for Armour and its one of the reasons units jump up in power too quickly and makes techs even more important, even 3 turns can tip the balance of producing more units of the next military advance, which is silly.

edit: brainfart

[child of Thor]

Interesting Maq...........i wonder if there is a way to play around with the Hitpoint values or *10 armour rating?
In fact i suppose it can be a long term aim to generaly have a good hard look at all the units and their statistics and try to play-balance them some more?

[Maquiladora]

Thats the point isnt it, Armour is just a simplified version of Hitpoints thats why all units in CtP2 have 10HP because it isnt used and because Armour can only be multiples of 10 (HP's), but Hitpoints can obviously be anything.

Well we've all played alot of the game so we know what needs changing most out of the units, but another thread will be in order for that issue

edit: actually "isnt used" is a wrong way of putting it, but HP isnt necessary because theyre all 10HP, but i think this should change.

[Maquiladora]

I need some opinions on how this part of combat should work.

Right now, the attacking army/units gets all the defensive bonuses (fortified, fort, terrain) from the tile they're attacking from, when the defending army attacks them in the round of battle. Does this seem right or not?

I don't want to go changing something then have everyone want it changed back.

My opinion is the fortified and fort defence bonuses should be removed. But the terrain bonus should stay, except it should add to attack rather than defence.

For example if an army is attacking from a forest it seems quite logical they would receive an attack bonus, and not a defense bonus.

-----

On another part of combat. When I added the new combat option (see first post), attacking buildings (ballista towers etc) became useless in a city as the defender's attack value is no longer used. I changed this so those buildings now add to counterattack, but only when the defending army is counterattacking. Nothing is different if you don't have the new combat option enabled.

-----

BTW I'm working on putting all the bonuses on to the battle view:

[Maquiladora]

I need some opinions on how this part of combat should work.

Right now, the attacking army/units gets all the defensive bonuses (fortified, fort, terrain) from the tile they're attacking from, when the defending army attacks them in the round of battle. Does this seem right or not?

I don't want to go changing something then have everyone want it changed back.

My opinion is the fortified and fort defence bonuses should be removed. But the terrain bonus should stay, except it should add to attack rather than defence.

For example if an army is attacking from a forest it seems quite logical they would receive an attack bonus, and not a defense bonus.

I'm just gonna put this under the new combat option, to keep the original game intact.

[EPW]

That's great Maq.

I have some,perhaps controversial, Combat ideas as well:

1.Right now, ranged units in the back row will only use their ranged attack if there is a unit in front of them. I think they should stay back and use their ranged attack, and only move to the first row if the enemy has a unit to attack them.

2. Flanking units. We all know they are overpowered. I think ALL units should be givin the flanking ability, but add a new flags: FLANKING_EFFECTIVENESS and FLANKING_CHANCE. Effectiveness would modify the attack or defensive value of the flanking unit as a percentage. Flanking chance would be the chance a flanking attack would succeed. There could be another flag called FLANKING_COUNTER which would obviously be an additional chance to counter a flanking attack.

3. Bombardment: You should have to destroy a city's walls before you can damage any units.

[Maquiladora]

1.Right now, ranged units in the back row will only use their ranged attack if there is a unit in front of them. I think they should stay back and use their ranged attack, and only move to the first row if the enemy has a unit to attack them.

A ranged unit needs a target from the opposing army directly in line with it to attack from range. And of course it can only have a target if the target is facing a frontline unit from your own army.

So to do this it means ranged units would have to act like a kind of ranged flanker, attacking the opposing front line even when they don't have a target in line with them.

2. Flanking units. We all know they are overpowered. I think ALL units should be givin the flanking ability, but add a new flags: FLANKING_EFFECTIVENESS and FLANKING_CHANCE. Effectiveness would modify the attack or defensive value of the flanking unit as a percentage. Flanking chance would be the chance a flanking attack would succeed. There could be another flag called FLANKING_COUNTER which would obviously be an additional chance to counter a flanking attack.

Well flanking units are only overpowered because of their stats, but this does sound logical. If a unit didn't have a target in front of it, it would naturally start flanking to help out the other frontline units.

3. Bombardment: You should have to destroy a city's walls before you can damage any units.

I've seen some mention in the code by E, about implementing the falling (culture) defence % from bombarding. I don't know how far he got with it though.

[EPW]

A ranged unit needs a target from the opposing army directly in line with it to attack from range. And of course it can only have a target if the target is facing a frontline unit from your own army.

So to do this it means ranged units would have to act like a kind of ranged flanker, attacking the opposing front line even when they don't have a target in line with them.

I think you are incorrect. I've seen archers act as a 'ranged flanker' all the time, assuming they have a friendly unit gaurding them.

[Maquiladora]

I think you are incorrect. I've seen archers act as a 'ranged flanker' all the time, assuming they have a friendly unit gaurding them.

Oh yeah.

I see what you're saying now, to tell them to stay back, unless the opposing army front line needs an opponent.

[EPW]

BTW I'm working on putting all the bonuses on to the battle view:

That's cool, I take you are going to put the attacker's bonus under the 'Attacker' title?

[Maquiladora]

That's cool, I take you are going to put the attacker's bonus under the 'Attacker' title?

Yes. The terrain bonus (at the moment it just converts the defence bonus and adds to attack instead), and the city attack bonuses (ballista towers, flak etc), if you're attacking from a city. I couldn't decide whether to include the latter or not, but it's in for the moment.

Question: should ranged units get the city attack (ballista etc) bonuses to their attack? Right now they only get the veteran bonus to attack (BTW veteran effect still doesn't work, but I'll fix it shortly.) The city attack bonuses only apply to the defending army's front line units when they are counter-attacking at the moment.

[EPW]

Question: should ranged units get the city attack (ballista etc) bonuses to their attack? Right now they only get the veteran bonus to attack (BTW veteran effect still doesn't work, but I'll fix it shortly.) The city attack bonuses only apply to the defending army's front line units when they are counter-attacking at the moment.

What I'd like to see, is the ballista acting as a separate unit. Have it attack the first row before your units engage.

[Maquiladora]

What I'd like to see, is the ballista acting as a separate unit. Have it attack the first row before your units engage.

But shouldn't it engage in combat throughout the battle? And that's basically the effect it gives, with an attack bonus to all front line units. I see what you're saying though, to make it less abstract, and just make more sense.

[EPW]

My opinion is the fortified and fort defence bonuses should be removed. But the terrain bonus should stay, except it should add to attack rather than defence.

I don't think the attacker should have any bonuses, but this is a good compromise.

Also, I think the changes you have made should be the default combat option, with the old rules being an option.

[Maquiladora]

I don't think the attacker should have any bonuses, but this is a good compromise.

Yeah, it works pretty well IMO. A defensive army has a big advantage now, so it's no longer easy to attack. Even pikemen can fairly damage a stack of cavalry now.

BTW I decided to remove the building attack bonus for the attacking army. If you're coming out of the city to fight then you should lose those bonuses.

Also, I think the changes you have made should be the default combat option, with the old rules being an option.

Perhaps, see what Martin says first, if he sees this.

[EPW]

But shouldn't it engage in combat throughout the battle? And that's basically the effect it gives, with an attack bonus to all front line units. I see what you're saying though, to make it less abstract, and just make more sense.

I know, its rather a big change. It would be cool if there was a ballista tower behind the units firing though.

[EPW]

BTW I decided to remove the building attack bonus for the attacking army. If you're coming out of the city to fight then you should lose those bonuses.

Just to clarify: You mean when the defensive army counterattacks right? The attacker never gets the bonuses I hope.

[EPW]

BTW I decided to remove the building attack bonus for the attacking army. If you're coming out of the city to fight then you should lose those bonuses.

Also, does the defending army keep all of its bonuses when counterattacking?

[Maquiladora]

I know, its rather a big change. It would be cool if there was a ballista tower behind the units firing though.

It's definitely possible, why don't you do it? You also have to find a free image of a ballista tower, flak tower, and battlement too.

Quote:

BTW I decided to remove the building attack bonus for the attacking army. If you're coming out of the city to fight then you should lose those bonuses.

Just to clarify: You mean when the defensive army counterattacks right? The attacker never gets the bonuses I hope.

No, I mean when an army moves out of a city to attack another army next to it's city. All the attacking building bonuses are removed, but they were actually added before IIRC.

Also, does the defending army keep all of its bonuses when counterattacking?

When a defending unit counter-attacks it gets all it's defence+defence bonuses to use as attack (actual "attack" figure is ignored), against the attacking unit's "defence" figure (which is very low, as it loses all defence bonuses when it started the battle).

Also if the defending unit is inside a city, all attacking building's will be added to the defence+defence bonuses when it counter-attacks.

Hope that is all clear.

[EPW]

I suppose another way to do it would be to take out the defensive counterattack all together. The defender would still get all his defense value + bonuses and the attacker would always use his attack value (and I would definitely take away the terrain bonus in this case). It would still give the edge to the defender in an otherwise equal battle. Battle animations for both sides would trigger at the same time so the defensive guys aren't frozen. Whoops, ctp1 on the brain

[Maquiladora]

I suppose another way to do it would be to take out the defensive counterattack all together. The defender would still get all his defense value + bonuses and the attacker would always use his attack value (and I would definitely take away the terrain bonus in this case).

Without a counterattack how will the attacker lose?

Actually the first version I made had the front line attackers losing HP if they missed the defender, which is a similar thing. I just thought it best to keep the same format of the battle, I don't want to create an even bigger job for myself.

[EPW]

Hmmm, I guess I don't completely understand how combat works. Do the attackers and defenders attack once per unit animation? I was thinking it was:
attackers attack, show animation
defenders attack, show animation
etc.
and I assumed the defenders could damage the attackers.

Actually the first version I made had the front line attackers losing HP if they missed the defender, which is a similar thing. I just thought it best to keep the same format of the battle, I don't want to create an even bigger job for myself.

To me, this is more intuitive than the current system.

[Maquiladora]

Hmmm, I guess I don't completely understand how combat works. Do the attackers and defenders attack once per unit animation? I was thinking it was:
attackers attack, show animation
defenders attack, show animation
etc.
and I assumed the defenders could damage the attackers.

Attacking army = att1
Defending army = def1
---

Ranged of att1 attack front line of def1
Ranged of def1 attack front line of att1

Chance of hitting is ranged / (ranged + defence of front line unit)
---

Front line of att1 attack front line of def1
Front line of def1 attack front line of att1 (using defence using new system)

For att1 chance of hitting def1 is attack / (attack + defence of def1).
For def1 chance of hitting att1 is defence of def1 / (defence of def1 + defence of att1).
---

Hitpoint damage on a successful hit is firepower of attacking unit / armour of defender.
---

... and on it goes from the beginning again, unless someone died or retreated or whatever.

To me, this is more intuitive than the current system.

I was copying what I saw in CtP1, although it may not have worked that way.

The new system works essentially the same way anyway. You just have more control over elements of the battle, not just attackers chance of hitting, and the damage done.

[Maquiladora]

These three attackers were charging down/range attacking from a mountain and won, with 3hp of a catapult left. I think the additional firepower of the catapult and samurai did it though. They were doing -2 hp on a successful hit, and the hoplites only 1. The samurai was a veteran too, so seems about right to me.

Perhaps if the hoplites were flanking though...

[EPW]

Thankyou, I remember reading that a long time ago in the strategy guide.

Hmm, I guess the only thing I disagree on is that the attackers use their defensive value
when the defenders counterattack them. If the defenders get to use their defensive stat while attacking I think the attackers should get to use their attack stat when defending. Of course, to help out the defenders, you could take away the attackers terrain bonus too.

[EPW]

These three attackers were charging down/range attacking from a mountain and won, with 3hp of a catapult left. I think the additional firepower of the catapult and samurai did it though. They were doing -2 hp on a successful hit, and the hoplites only 1. The samurai was a veteran too, so seems about right to me.

Perhaps if the hoplites were flanking though...

A perfect example of why you should take away that +100% terrain bonus.

[Maquiladora]

A perfect example of why you should take away that +100% terrain bonus.

Hmm, I agree it's a little bit strong. Consider that the archer and catapult had 20 attack, and the veteran samurai 50 (from 20) (it would have been 60 had it been elite too)