EC3 New Idea #9 - REAL COMBAT SCREENS

raingoon · February 17, 2000, 05:59

Dr Strangelove:

"Real combat screens:
For each battle the computer generates a de novo map that rflects the terrain of the areas around the point of contact. The units from the strategic map would be broken down to smaller units deployed in the battle map. This would work well in conjunction with custom made units, i.e., you would decide how many infantry brigades, cavalry brigades and artillery brigades to put in your armies. The player would manuever, attack, and defend with his units."

Seeker · February 17, 2000, 20:00

Do you mean going to a "combat map" like in Imperialism?

The combat map should reflect the two squares (or hexes) involved: the attackers and the defenders, for example a catapult attacking a pike man in a walled city from a mountain should generate a combat map with those 2 elements: mtn and walled city.

Tiberius · February 18, 2000, 05:11

I like the idea. It also would work very well combined with stacked combat.
I don't know how the combat map works in Imperialism, but I think Dr Strangelove is talking about something like the Heroes of Might and Magic battles.

FinnishGuy · February 18, 2000, 05:51

No thanks. A single turn would take ages if you have to fight every battle on a separate tactical display, with units broken down to sub-units. Moving units and fighting in CIV2/SMAC style is already time consuming enough. Besides, it's a strategy game not a tactical combat simulator.

Tiberius · February 18, 2000, 06:30

It would enhance the "feel" of the wars. And it could be implemented as a graphical option (like the "Throne Room" or "See enemy moves").

Steve Clark · February 18, 2000, 14:38

I think the combat model in Conquest of the New World is the best I've seen in a turn-based strategy game. But FinnishGuy is right in that it would dramatically increase game time.

Here's an idea. In all of the CivII games I've played, I keep a very detailed log, especially the battles - who's attacking with what and who's defending with what. Sometimes it is difficult to know exactly what AI units are involved, especially if they are in a city. Perhaps bring up a dialog box or put in the main window what units are currently fighting. If not while they are fighting, at least after each battle.

korn469 · February 23, 2000, 12:57

Dr. Strangelove

if asked why out of the five things to put on the new ideas thread why would this idea belong? what are the greatest strength in adding this idea? and what if any weaknesses or exploits does this idea have?

are you talking about adding tactical combat to the game or are you talking about just watching the units fight it out? would the overall increase in game time and hassle be worth the improved emersion in the game by some players? also are there any systems that fiaxis could base it on?

Changmai Beagle · February 27, 2000, 02:07

Lost last post, hope I'm not double posting. Probably a mix of field of battle and stacking. I liked Magic, also Conquest as stacking of units, positioning and movement, and terrain played a role in outcome. Increases game time (good or bad), so should be optional. CTP stacking at least - better than Civ II when you want to do things like stack anti-aircraft cruiser with battleship and carrier. Or provide close air support for grunts (the smell of napalm...). Or soften up the enemy infantry with archers, arquebuses or artillery.

February 29, 2000, 07:16

Simple: we all hate the existing system to some degree or another. But, considering that SMAC already has decent stacking rules I don't think it is necessary to include this as a top ten request.

Dr Strangelove · March 1, 2000, 00:47

I do mean inserting a real, fully functional, mini-combat game, into the larger game, but please oh please, not like Imperialism's battle screen. Each battle would be fresh, with a full screen map to play on, each map distinct from any other, large enough to allow the player sufficient latitude of movement to make it realisitic. The kind of map I'm thinking of would be more like "Art of Rifles" or "Operational Art of War" than Imperialism.
Yes, fighting every battle like this would be time consuming, so s feature should be included to allow the player to skip battles that he doesn't want to bother with. ("Sire, will you lead the troops into battle." Click "Yes" or "No".)
Why should this be included in Civ III? Because it will make Civ III a new type of game, a combined Strategic and Tactical game.
Yes, there have been attempts to do this in the past. ALL of them have been dismal failures in the tactical department.
It's not that I don't want improved diplomacy or trading, but what I'm proposing is an opportunity to add a whole new dimension to the Civilization experience.

Napoleon I · March 1, 2000, 20:08

I generally support the idea, as long as there is an option to turn it off to cut down on playing time. I also think that it could be reasonable to allow you to play only one tactical battle per turn. After all, we are striving for realism and it is not realistic for a leader to instantly zoom to every battle in his kingdom.

However there is one important concern for the idea that you have not discussed. How do you plan to deal with multi-player games? Will this option be disabled? Will both players have the ability to control their troops in a real time fashion? Please comment on this. Otherwise the idea would be a very nice addition to the game.

------------------
Napoleon I

Dr Strangelove · March 3, 2000, 01:46

In a multi-player game if both sides involved in a conflict were human, then yes, the humans should take the place of the AI. If you have more civs than human players, on the other hand, then some civs will be under the control of the AI, and when one human player battles an AI controlled civ, then the AI will fight out its own side of the conflict. Who knows, it might be possible to design the game to allow alliances to participate in a battle. Hmmmm, that would be OK if both allies were human, but I don't think I'd want to have the AI fighting on my side. Perhaps if alliances were permitted, the allies on each side would have to designate a supreme commander. Then again, if you were involved in a battle, gave command to your partner, but the battle wasn't going as planned, perhaps you could withdraw your troops. Hey, even better, you could have negotiations during the battle and sell your services to the highest bidder. This was done many times in the ancient past.

Einherjar · March 6, 2000, 20:09

Question.

If a tactical battle map were to be included, at what level would the sub units be divided.

Question.

What size of organisation does a Civ land unit represent.

I ask because I suspect each unit is either at least a Battalion or more likely a
Regiment. (Based on number of units supported at City Size 1).

If the tactical battle were fought at platoon level, using up to Nine Regiments per side, per engagement, it would take a very very long time. Great when I retire, but thats not for a many years yet (honest).

If anyone can clarify my two questions I would be most grateful.

------------------
The Einherjar

Dr Strangelove · March 10, 2000, 15:40

I think that each unit on the main map could break up into 10 to 15 subunits on the battle map. In the modern era the main map unit would represent an army corp, consisting of 2 or 3 divisions each composed of 3 or 4 infantry regiments plus an artillery regiment. In ancient times the main map unit would represent one or more legions or phalanxes, each consisting of several cohorts or maniples. Armies of other periods are harder to define, but I think the 10 to 15 subunit per unit rule would work well. If the game includes unit customization then the player could control the make-up of his major units. He could add cavalry or siege artillery to his corps or "auxillaries" and catpults to his legions. Seperate catapult, cannon, artillery, and howitzer units would disappear from the main map. These units were almost never deployed seperately anyway.
For that matter, the chariot and elephant would disappear from the main map too. Horsemen, knights, and cavlry could remain on the main map, but their subunits would have to be compatible with the main unit.

I was not considering platoon sized combat.

The battle maps would vary in size according to the most modern units present. Ancient battlefields were rarely more than 2 or 3 miles across, WWII battlefields could be dozens of miles across. The number of hexes or tiles would stay the same, but they would represent larger areas in modern battles.
I'd recommend a stacking limit on the main map, perhaps 3 or 4 units.