EC3 New Idea #20 - Stacked Combat

[korn469]

by Atahualpa

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Okay, then I say: STACKED COMBAT (or combined combat or lets say: a better UNIT-model!)
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

[korn469]

Atahualpa

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?

what are some of the areas this would be better than civ2 in predicting the outcome of a battle? should there be unit caps to the stacks? could stacks integrate |land/air/sea| units or could it only intergrate units from one domain |land| |air| |sea|?

[TheTron]

Stacked units acting as a single unit is very important. it lets us group units and move them together. pikemen and archers grouped should get the best attack and defence of both units, and the lowest speed. the number of units you can stack is based on the level of military technology, none to start and 4 or 5 in late eras. They require a generic commander to bind them together. Great commanders might offer themselfs for hire from time to time and give a bonus (att,def,mov,free tech) if hired and might only be available after a certain tech level is achieved.

you have discovered the tank
General Patton would like to join your army for 400 gold and 3 gold per turn. He will give his army +3 to attack.
or
General Hannible would like to join your army for 400 gold and 3 gold per turn. He will tell you the secret of the War Elephant.

Spys might be able to assassignate or subvert such leaders.

This would add more convienent and more relistic combat and leaders would add more gameplay and strategy options.

[Tiberius]

I love this idea with the commanders!

[Tiberius]

Here's a proposal how this commander idea could be implemented in Civ3:
After a certain discovery (Tactics maybe?) you should be able to build a "Military Academy", and it would give you the possibility to build military leaders (commanders), but at a very high price, to discourage the overuse of them. Than, adding this leader to a stacked army, he will boost the army's attack and defence strength.
The leader will have 0 attack strength but a great chance to survive in battle, and even if the army is destroyed, he must have a chance to escape, just like the spies.
Of course, there must exist the possibility to assassinate the leader with a spy.
Thanks for idea, Tron!

[Ekmek]

I love the commanders idea. I'm also all for making units as customizable as possible but giving several attributes options.
One attribute I would like to suggest would be the limited build option. This way you can only build so many of a unit. It can be either a set number or a percentage of the population (this figure itself should be customizable for scenarios)

SMAC has decent stacking rules, so this is almost certainly a moot question.

[korn469]

Don Don

are you talking about the same SMAC that i bought, USA version 4.0, you know the one with no stacking system? much less a decent stacking system

until a group of units can move and attack simultaneously as a group i feel that stacking is inadequate and that firaxis needs to implement some form of stacked combat

korn469
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 29, 2000).]</font>

[Atahualpa]

uuuppss sorry guys. I just got an email with an EC3 update. I have completly forgotten that I posted something there.
Okay, now we have time till wednesday for any additions.

Someone could really have mailed me that there is a thread and so on.

Thetron: I couldnt have said it better. But I thought of some changes: first, I wouldnt give the whole unit the best strengths of the unit that is combined with it. What if you have 2 pikemen and only 1 archer?
So I suggest that a stack is replaced by a simple (commander) icon on the map. There are different commanders available: land, sea, air, space(?).
The commander idea has already pretty good developed. I rather think you have to build a tavern and there commanders appear at random in early stages of the game. After the developement of tactics you can train commanders for yourself. But, training is very expensive. However, for a war against a neighbouring country, you just need to train some, cause there arent enough commanders that appear at random.
Next I think, the number of men a commander can control is limited. This combines with the recruiting idea I think. So we take the recruiting idea as precedence! Of course, commanders develop and get better. So that we have green commanders, trained, experienced, veteran, crack and elite (yeah Sid Meiers Antietam I know, but its a good game!). So a green commander can support less men than an elite commander!
----------
Wow, the more I get into this idea the more exciting I get! This could really evolve as one of the greatest ideas!
----------
I dont know how the recruiting guys handle special units, but I think it is only one person specially trained. So I think, special units, dont need a commander. I also dont know what the idea for settlers is. I dont have much time right now, to go in the recruiting idea as well. Will do that later however.

So to sum up what came to my mind: You can appoint any of your soldiers to a commander, but if he hasnt a special commander ability he gets penalties and such. You can train commanders but again, only those soldiers with the commander ability can get past the experienced level. Soldiers without commander ability can only get till experienced (again, levels are: green, trained, experienced, veteran, crack, elite). Now, for every army or unit you want to form you need a commander. When you dont have one, appoint one of your soldiers. When you have one, assign him to them. Of course, you cant assign a naval-taskforce commander to a tank platoon!
So this is not yet how stacked combat works (it was an explanation of the: [quote]a better UNIT-model![quote])

Stacked combat should work this way:
When two armies engage each other should view a generated battlefield in a 2D isometric view. There all of your men are displayed. Lets use 1 representive unit for every 50 men. That would make 20 units for 1000 men and 200 units for 10000. 400 for 20000. Nah I think using fixed numbers is not a good idea. Lets say, the number of how many men represent one unit depends on the overall number of men involved. So when you have 5,000 men and your opponent 7,000. That would make 12,000. Now lets say, we aim for a max of 200-400 units (altogether, so to say: 100-200 on each side) that would make 12,000/200=60 men/unit and 12,000/400=30 men/unit. I dont know what the graphics engine can handle. Firaxis can also make the number dependant on the cpu speed, amount of ram.... to allow smooth battles even on slow computers.

Now those two armies appear in formation and you can move them and tell them at which other unit-formation to shoot at. Or you can tell them to leave the formation then you can move them for yourself one by one. Or you can make your own formations and select (lets say, you want to make 2 formations out of 1) select 5 units and connect them to formation 1 and select the other 5 and connect them to formation 2. Now you have to seperate formations and you can assign them seperate orders.
When you select ranged units, you can either choose a tile (on the battlescreen) to fire at, or target an enemy formation. You can also move etc. but you cant close combat them. Except for some units like the tank, who can overoll his enemies (warning: may get complicated).
Has one ever played Ceasar II? There is a similar combat system, which works just fine there!

This is how I think stacked combat should work!
Now come on quickly comment, we dont have much time left,
ATa

P.S.: sorry again I really forgot about this!

[Tiberius]

oops
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited March 06, 2000).]</font>

[Atahualpa]

Tiberius:

ATa

[Glostakarov]

On a small aside, one of the annoying things about stacking rules in some games (notably CTP, but there are others) do not allow more than 9 units to ever be in the same square. This means that other units cannot move past, they have to move around. This has always struck me as completely silly. In CTP i would have to break up groups of 9 to get them past cities unless I built a road off to the side or something. The limitation didn't affect how many units I could move through a space, just how many at once. This odd/arbitrary limitation is something that should be avoided with stacking rules.

[Atahualpa]

Just realised that I didnt go quite deep into the combat model:
When two formations engage each other in hand to hand combat. The attack strength of the attacker is taken and compared with the defense strength of the defender. Now, a number of units falls on the defender side. The attack strength of the attacking formation must be higher than the defense strength of the defending formation. Else, 15% less damage is inflicted for every 1 difference. This means, if a formation with strength 5 attacks a formation with strength 7 it does 30% less damage. Next time the attack strength of the defender is taken and compared with the defense strength of the attacker. Then it is vice versa and so on, till one withdraws or till one formation is destroyed. These changes happen every x seconds. (note: combat is realtime, could be done tb however too). In Realtime modus, 1 turn is z seconds. And in 1 turn (or every z seconds) a unit can make one attack or move x tiles or whatever. Now, fighting in formation should give bonuses. So to say, the units that have another unit to their left, right and back get a +x bonus to their attack and defense strength. (note: I dont want to give numbers as this must be all prototyped to see whats best!).

Now, when ranged units fire at other units, the ranged strength is taken and compared to the ranged defense value of the attacked unit. The ranged defense value serves as armor value too. And the ranged attack value must be higher than the ranged defense value or the chance of casaulities inflicted sinks by 15% for every 1 point difference. So when a formation with 8 ranged attack engages a unit with 11 ranged defense then about it inflicts 45% less damage. This is to prevent CtP's Phalanx vs Tank (not really phalanx vs tank, but you know) problem.

The overall attacker always has the first stroke/shot. And a unit may either move or attack in one turn!

When speaking of strenghts, the strength of the whole formation is taken. This means, the larger a formatio is the more bonuses it gets. a 3 unit in a row formation gets a 10% bonus.
a 4 unit in a row formation gets a 10% bonus.
a 4 unit quarter formation gets a 10% bonus.
A 6 unit rectangle formation gets a 15% bonus.
A 2 unit in a row formation gets a 5% bonus.

The system uses 5% bonus for every adjanct unit. Now the max number of adjanct units is 3 in a formation. There cant be more than 2 rows! This would make 15%. The highest bonus for one unit in the formation is taken as overall formation bonus.

ata

[Atahualpa]

Glostakarov: This stacking system is different. Here the size of your stack is limited by your commanders skill level.

Nevertheless, a good point, cause this stacking system wouldnt allow you too to have two stacks in the same square. Cause else, the defender is in big advantage when he can have 3 elite commanders with 3x men in one square while the attacker is limited to 1 elite commander with x men.
So the attacker would have never a chance. Best would be to allow multiple commanders control a stack. When two commanders enter a square you can choose to combine those two and create a super stack. Nevertheless, I would allow more than 2 commanders on one square.
comments?

ATa

I really don't want them spending time on tactical/operational level stuff that the AI will be incompetant at anyway. Better to concentrate on the strategic level, including AI, and ignore formations etc.

Commanders could be a good thing, especially if they aren't eternal but expire after a variable number of turns. Allowing small bonuses for combinations of different kinds of units, e.g., Cavarly and foot, is about as tactical as it needs to get.

[Tiberius]

A few idea for the stacked combat model.
1. You could assign only one commander to an army (a bunch of stacked troops) OR you could assign 2 of them, but only one of them gives att/def bonus and if the first commander dies, the second takes command, this time with the right bonus.
2. I like the idea that commanders can control a limited number of troops, and this number should depend on the commander’s type (trained, veteran, etc)
3. Have the possibility to name your generals AND/OR your armies. This name will appear on the map and this way you could easily recognize the placement and readiness of your troops. (ex: “The Third East Roman Legion have just won the great battle of Sarmisegetusa leaded by the great commander Tiberius ).
4. In early times, you can’t build commanders, but you must promote one of your soldiers to be general (after all, in those times, the generals were actually great soldiers). He should have greater att/def than regular soldiers, but fewer bonuses for the army. (ex: legion 3att/2def, roman general 5att/4def, bonus for army 1att/1def). After the discovery of tactics, you must build a military academy in order to build a modern general. He should have less att/deff than a regular soldier, but greater att/def bonus for the army (ex: armor 10att/5def, general 3att/5def, army bonus 2att/2def).
5. Have the possibility to stack engineers (2 eng. working double speed than a single one)
6. Something similar for spies (maybe 3 stacked spy should have n + n/2 + n/3 chance of success, where n is the possibility of success that one spy would have)
7. About the combat look you are talking about with the tactical stuff attack/defense/retreat/etc: take a look to the “real combat screens” thread. In this case I think the combat screens should be optional in the “graphics option” screen and for those who do not want to see the battles, just keep the clasic view (like CTP).
8. Have the possibility to bribe generals with spies, but at very high prices, because if you bribe the general, the whole army he commands should be yours! Also spies should assassinate generals.

I’m glad you woke up, Ata, . I think this could be one of the greatest new idea in CIV3.

[Atahualpa]

Okay, thanks Tiberius for your comment.

I see, that we shouldnt go to much into combat, but rather concentrate on a better unit/stacking system.

Tiberius: I dont think the commander should have an own attack/def strength. Rather I think he gives a bonus to the unit. His icon is displayed on the map, but he is no unit. When it comes to battle, the commander doesnt fight. He is much too important to throw him into combat.
Of course that may apply to later generals, as I think most swordfighting armies have had their commanders fighting like other soldiers as well.

The commander idea is a very good idea, since you then have to spend a lot of money (war costs alot of money) on training him and you may achieve advantages over your enemy (who maybe has a weaker commander).

Now, a problem is: When 2 commanders with their army are placed on one square and your opponent attacks with 2 commanders and kills one of your commanders in the battle. Whats with the rest of the died commanders men? Or are we talking about battles to death?

Because I think there should be a retreat option and once in a turn you can retreat. So when you are attacked the first time, you can retreat. But when you are attacked in the same turn once again, your men are too tired to retreat, of course they are also to tired to fight at maximum strength and therefor should get some penalties.
Retreating at the very first round of the battle is not an option. You must at have at least lost 33% of your men so that you can order retreat.
When given retreat, you lose additional 5-20% of your men, due to the chaos! That depends on wether you retreat at 33% (lower loss when retreat) or you retreat at 66% for example (higher loss).
Should there be an autoretreat too? So that when you suffer 80% loss that your men are automatically beginning to retreat, if and only if your opponent suffered less loss. So that when your opponent suffered 60% and you got 80% your men retreat. Maybe the absolut numbers have to be taken into account too.

ATa

[Tiberius]

I don't understand very well how you imagine the retreat. First, you are atacked. Now, before atacked again, in the same turn, because of massive losses, you would retreat, right? But how could you retreat during your enemy's turn?
About the commanders, I agree. Swordfighting generals will have great att/deff but less bonus for the army, while modern generals no attack at all but great bonus, right?
I like the combat screen idea (with tactical battles and all the other military stuff), but since it seems like not everybody likes it, I think it should be an option.

[korn469]

ok tell me if i am getting the idea

commanders are units

if that is true then commanders should do the following

increase stack size...increase stack morale

a stack should fight together as a whole, and it should take commander/general units to create a stack...for example

Ancient World: you could have stacks up to three units (so three warriors plus a commander...this stack would have a 3-3-1 value)
Medieval Era: you could have stacks up to four units
Industrial Age: you could have stacks up to six units
Modern Age: you could have stacks of up to eight units

you would need a commander to have a stack...additional commanders in a stack could provide bonuses

that's my thoughts

korn469

[Tiberius]

- commanders are units - yes
- increase stack size...increase stack morale - yes
- a stack should fight together as a whole, and it should take commander/general units to create a stack - yes
- the stack size should depend on the commander's battle experience: standard stack (which should depend on the era) for a trained comm, +1 unit for a veteran comm, +2 units for elite commanders.
My idea about different eras:
- Ancient World:
You could NOT build commanders, but instead of this you could promote veteran soldiers to the rank of commander. You could have stacks up to four units (2 for trained comm, 3 for veteran, 4 for elite). Once the soldier promoted, he got +1att/+1def. The army (2,3 or 4 units + comm) got +1att/+1def
- Medieval Era:
the same, but add +1 to the units numbers and +1 to bonuses
- Industrial Age:
In order to build a general, you must build a "Military Academy". You cannot promote soldiers anymore. The generals will have 0 att and 0 def, but they will die only if the whole army is destroyed. Stacks: 6-7-8, with +3att/+3def bonus
- Modern Age:
The same, but add +1 to the units numbers and +1 to bonuses.
Else:
- you would need a commander to have a stack...yes
- additional commanders in a stack could provide bonuses - no, count as regular soldiers, but if the first comm dies, take command OR yes, but smaller bonus than the first comm

[Atahualpa]

Why should commanders be units?

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>you could have stacks up to four units
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I think, we should abandon the unit model and replace it with a number of men. So lets say 10,000 men or something like that.
As I said, we should take the recruiting idea as presedence.

ATa

[Tiberius]

If commanders are not units, then how do you build them?
About the unit model: I think it isn't very important what do you say: 10.000 men or one unit. After all, one unit is the abstract representation of 10.000 men (or a tank platoon, or a batalion or whatever).

[MidKnight Lament]

Yeah, I'm hearing a bit of stuff like this count-per-head not per-unit, but I don't think I've heard a good explanation of how one would work yet. The same sort of thing goes within cities.

How do you propose you break these 10,000 troops up? or don't you? is this synonymous with the idea of battle-screens? I'm not inherantly against it, but I need more detail.

[Atahualpa]

Tiberius: I think of commanders like MOO2, where you have your leader pool. This will be the commander pool. Then you can train some men in a city and they are stationed in the barracks. Now, assign a commander to them and you are done.
If you want to have men from other cities aswell, move the army with the commander to this city and attach these men. OR, you could of course use the send troops option, to quickly send troops from one barracks to another barracks (from another city). Dependant on how far the city is away, the troops arrive in some turns there. This would also reduce the micro stuff you had to do about moving units around, just for gathering purposes.
Nevertheless, the system still has some flaws.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>one unit is the abstract representation of 10.000 men
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

The problem with one unit is you cant have half a unit, but you can have 5,000 men!
Sure we could reduce the units health to 50%. Would be an option.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>How do you propose you break these 10,000 troops up
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Double click on your men and select the number you want to divide.

See, my idea works this way: In your city you have a barracks window were all your soldiers are listed: 2,000 swordsman + 500 archers + one commander, 1,000 swordsman + 200 archers + one commander for example. The 2,000 swordsman are represented with a swordsman icon and the number of men below. Now by doubleclicking on them you can divide them up. Oh and yes, units in cities need no commanders. For defending purposes just put them into the barracks. If you want to move them however, you need to assign a commander. This to reduce micro, or else you would spend a lot of time searching for a lot of commanders for your city-defending armies.

Ata

[MidKnight Lament]

So how do you give properties like A/D/M (or whatever it becomes) to the men? Is the number of men taken into the calculation and used as a multiplier...using 10000 men as a base? Do these men start with full health or part health (as you suggested) compared to a group of 10000?

Can you move 1 man into battle if you wanted to? (what's the lowest unit you could have?)

Can you still only build them in groups of 10000, or would you be able to build 100 if you wanted? How often do you foresee you'd be splitting groups of men?

Can a small number of troops move any faster than a huge army?

I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing the idea out of hand, but these are the sort of things that I haven't heard any details on yet. Do you have a system worked out that I missed somewhere along the line? How are the combats worked out in relation to the number of men?

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited March 07, 2000).]</font>

[Tiberius]

Ata, I understand now how do you see the commanders. I still love more the idea having flash-and-blood commanders (you know, with their own name, beautiful, golden clothes, fearless eyes, etc; maybe, in your final draft, you could mention this as an option ). But your idea is not bad.
The barracks idea is again not bad, but you are proposing a new window, and many people will not like it. (too much micromanage). But it can be done in the city screen, with a new button, Barracks, besides the other buttons: info, happiness, etc.
There's an idea I like: let's establish a minimum number of men you can work with. Let's say a battalion or something (~ 1000 men). If a newly built swordsman represents 10.000 men, then you have 10 battalions. For assigning men to armies, you can handle only battalions! And even when you build troops, you don't build one swordsman, but 10 battalions of swordsmen. So, instead of waiting 20 turns for a swordsman, you could have one battalion after 2 turns! But, because in this way we could have thousands of tiny little armies moving all around the map, there must be a restriction for the number of battalions that can be moved outside cities: for ex. 10 battalions. (10 archers or 5 archers+5 warriors).
Of course, a stacked army is moving with the speed of the slowest unit in the stack.
Now, what other rules for stacking?

[Atahualpa]

Tiberius: yes I thought about that too. For example in Colonization you needed 50 muskets to generate one unit. So I think in Civ3 you need 1000 bows&arrows to create a "archer unit". If you do so, 1000 men are taken away from the city. The city therefore needs some other sizes than a solid number! Elite commanders can handle a maximum of 10,000 men. so to say: 10 units. Of course, there are not 10 seperate units displayed (in the info window) but a representative unit and the number of men below. So, you have for example a stack of 1 commander (okay, let commanders be "units" then) + 5 warriors + 2 archers + 1 horesemn. This would mean: 5,000 warriors + 2,000 archers and 1,000 horsemen. We have a whole of 8,000 men and it would require a veteran commander to handle them. Of course you can assign a green commander to do the job, but you will get massive penalties if you do so!

wait someones shouting for dinner,
ATa

[Youngsun]

Hallo Ata

"Ranged attack and defense" <-really well pointed out! well done.

This concept "longer range weapon has more chances to attack first" was also adopted in Panzer General as "Initiative".

ie) PZIIIH armour:7 HA:11 Initiative:7
T-34/76 armour:12 HA:9 Initiative:6

The overall superiority of T-34/76 can be penalised because of the 1 initiative gap! PzIIIH will always hit T-34/76 first whether it attacks or is attacked.

[Tiberius]

ATa,
I don't have Internet access from now until tomorrow, so I wish you luck with the final draft. Good luck!
Tiberius

[Atahualpa]

Yeah the final draft! hehe, it is about 23:23 here and I really hadnt any time today to do it! So yes I will try it now but well, just wanted to say!

Ata