New Attack System?

klesh · February 17, 2000, 12:39

This is an idea I've been pondering. Whatdo you guys think? I find it a bit unrealistic that Field artillery, tanks, and ships must be adjacent to the enemy in order to execute an attack. In real life these weapons have the abbility to attack from very long ranges. Is it possible for scenario builders, or patchmakers to change the attributes of these units? Imagine an attack system for these units that would be simmilar to the Paradrop command. You press perhaps the "a"(for attack) button, then you get a crosshairs pointer that allows for an attack from a few squares away. Balltleships maybe three squares, field artillary from two and tanks from one. It seems to me that only infantry should have to risk themselves by getting up close, and personal with the enemy.
This has major implications toward strategy. Imagine parking a battleship within a city and taking out oncoming units which are three squares away!
I realize that this is probably impractical, or that the game may not allow for that much customization, but it could make thing interesting...very interesting.
Any thoughts? Programmers, do you guys see problems with this? You guys like the idea?

tobyr · February 17, 2000, 14:44

Scouse, it HAS been implemented; at least there is something extremely similar. PLAY THE ToT fantasy game! One of the first units everyone can build is the sorceror, which acts like a plane (movement factor six) that never needs maintenance (it just has to end its turn in a city, port or on the equivalent of a battleship). It is 6/4/6 2/1, so it packs some wallop.

You use them (among other things) to waste and destroy every weak creature that comes near their cities, but they have many other uses as well. You have to make every move step separately, but it's like the "attack" idea that started this thread.

The sorcerer also moves on all four maps, so in one turn it can kill a unit on any of 96 squares near its city (if it finds them), and patrol an additional 96 (but not all at once).

It also sees two squares in every direction.

- toby

------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

klesh · February 18, 2000, 00:37

I understand that the attributes are set according to a units true performance. But there still seems to be a unrealistic aspect to it. I'll try to think of a better example...Ok, say in a ancient battle an army brought up it's catapults. Would they "stack" a phalanx in and around the catapults for protection because their defense is so strong? No, the catapults would remain back lofting projectiles, whilst the infantry or cavalry made the up front assault. True, a catapult doesn't defend well in real life. But it wouldn't be placed up front like it is in Civ. It was just a thought. The only way to better the game is to think of new, wierd inovations.

[This message has been edited by Field Marshal Klesh (edited February 17, 2000).]

Scouse Gits · February 18, 2000, 01:07

Lovely idea - can see no way it could be implemented though

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor

Graag · February 18, 2000, 01:14

I am losing count of the number of times I have explained the civ combat system, but here goes (this harks back to the days of civ2heaven and the ultimate civ2 site!).

When one unit attacks another unit imagine a playing field of a set size. Now, when an Archer fights a Horseman, the Archer starts on one side of the field, far away from the Horseman. This is why the Archer has a defense of 2, because he can stay far away. The horseman, however, has to get up close to do damage, and has no protection, thus, a defense of 1. The Archer can attack from far away, and well, so an attack of 3, the horse close and well, so 2.

Similarly, Battleship has a huge defense as it can attack from far away (and is made of metal

).

I think I have explained this rather badly, but just think about it for a while and you'll get it in the end.

Hope I managed to help.

Graag

------------------
You should never smoke in pyjamas, you could start a fire and burn your face

Mark von Wagner · February 18, 2000, 01:43

There is one serious problem with your idea of long-range attacks: scale. The largest trebuchet-style catapults ever built had a range of a little more than a mile. The longest-range cannon ever made, the World War I 'Paris Gun', had a range of 70 miles. A battleship cannon has an effective range of slightly farther than the distance to the horizon, or about 30 miles. A tank has a maximum range of only a few miles. For comparison, one tile at the equator of the 80x120 world map is 200 miles wide.

Mark

klesh · February 18, 2000, 02:06

But then look at the size of the pieces!
A tank the size of a mountain range?
Though I must agree that three squares is a bit much.

February 18, 2000, 02:56

No chance for civ2. But civ3 should have a similar feature similar to SMAC. Although I hope they make aritllery more effective than in smac. Only modern units should be able to attack from 2 or 3 squares of course.

Scouse Gits · February 18, 2000, 05:24

I guess it is worth mentioning that in CtP there is an explicit version of this -- i.e. in the combat screen footsloggers stand at the front and get walloped whilst bombard capable units stand back and are not touched until all the cannon fodder has died.
But most of you will know this so, sorry ...

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor