An idea for combat

[Elsilhe]

I just came up with an idea. It may be too early to propose something like this, but I've always preferred long-term plans... Anyhow, I'd like to ask, has anyone played the classic game "Conquest of the New World"?

It was published about the same time as Colonization, maybe 1-2 years later. It was a turn-based strategy game, where one was able to move freely within the map. Well, this was the 'campaign'-side of the game. But it had (from my point of view) marvellous combat system!

Once the player encountered an enemy in the campaign map, the map turned to chessboard-like table (3x4 squares + reserve squares), where tin soldiers fought agains each other. There could've be a maximum of 6 infantry or 3 dragoons or 3 artillery in one square. Infantry could move one square, cavalry two squares, but artillery couldn't move (but to reserve and back). The winner was the one who could either beat all enemy units on the board or (if I remember correctly) reach the center square of the enemy. Also, there was a retreat option for both (which meant additional losses).

Soldiers on the table could fire either by one by one or volley. Flanking fire was taken into account, as well as cavalry charge (where dragoons moved over two squares to attack the enemy). The number of attacks per round were based on the General's experience (or something) points.

This combat system was both brilliant and original, and a player had far more control over his troops than in col/civ-style combat (where more or less random numbers decide the fate). Thinking was really required from a player (just like in chess).

I think this kind of system could be appropriate for col2. Of course, it would bring new elements to the game (such as generals and armies), and it would lenghten the game. But I think it would make it more challenging.

As always, you are free to tell your opinion. And you hard-working coders out there, don't get too mad at me...

Elsilhe

[Rock Wagondriver]

I like this idea in principle as a later enhancement to combat as long as the nature of colonial combat (i.e. small scale) is preserved. I can imagine that this sort of thing would make the revolution a lot more interesting.

I would like it to be optional though - something you can turn on and off - a bit like Master of Orion.

Personally I am not a huge fan of tactical combat but if we really want this game to be remembered as a worthy sequel rather than a clone we will eventually start having to provide rich features like this.

I think we are a long way off though.

[LandGrabber]

I'm going to have to agree with RW (Rock Wagondriver) that this is an idea for the future. However, I do think it a good suggestion, at least for an option.

I once proposed something similar for naval combat using the combat system from the old Pirates game. When combat between two ships occur a new screen would appear and the two ships would maneuver and fire at each other. (Wind direction and ship types would also be an important factor.)

www.civgaming.net/col2/col2nav2.shtml

I do like the idea of 'Armies' and, possibly, the idea of 'Generals'. Having a tactical side to combat during the Revolution and, maybe, during wars of conquest against the other powers might not be a bad idea at all. Though, again as RW said, this should be an optional feature. (I can see where it would be a bit of hassle if you're simply attacking a single unit that strayed into your territory.)

Is it your thought that this type of combat would only occur between 2 military units? Not dragoon against a carpenter or blacksmith? Would we need to have special rules, or a slightly different system for dragoon against a Native unit?

[Elsilhe]

As RW said, there should certainly be an option to turn the tactical combat off and fight battles the classic way. Alternatively, every time a battle occurs there could be an option to fight in tactical mode or resolve it automatically (as in Total War series).

Here's what I've been thinking this far:

1. 'Armies' are buildable units. In order to build them, a player would need either some advanced building or a founding father. Armies, however, are not 'units' by themeselves: they are just "organizations" that can contain (limited?) number of units, just like in civ3. Indian 'Armies' could be called 'Parties'.

2. 'Armies' could contain ALL units with a musket and artillery. Civilian units cannot be included.

3. One unit in an army corresponds a number of units in a tactical battle. Presuming the scale is the same I described in the previous post, the corresponding numbers would be:
-1 infantry in the normal map = 6 infantry in the battle board
-1 cavalry in the normal map = 3 cavalry in the battle board
-1 artillery in the normal map = 3 artillery in the battle board.
For example, if an army contains 3 infantry and a cavalry unit in normal map, that would be 18 infantry and 3 cavalry in the battle board.

4. A tactical battle occurs only when two ARMIES/PARTIES meet. All other battles (= unit vs. unit, army vs. unit) will be resolved automatically (this is because it would be a little frustrating to fight ten tactical battles with just a few soldiers every turn!).

5. Civilian units (=our brave carpenters and statesmen) cannot resist the attack of an Army (they will be captured right away). They can, however, resist the attack of a single unit, just like before.

6. There could be special units, such as marksmen or light infantry/cavalry, which would be able to attack on ANY unit IN the army.


This system would make the 'Army' element important factor in warmaking. However, while an army is a powerful strike group, it's still only one big clumsy spot on the map. Therefore there will still be a need for single units to skirmish and cover valuable areas. Building armies should also be made so hard and costy that there could be only two-three armies per side on the map at the time.

And, if there are only a few armies, the tactical battles cannot occur very often, which means that only the decisive battles would be fought in the tactical mode. Intriguing, yes? I think so too

Elsilhe

EDIT: I've added a screenshot of the game, so you have some kind of idea of what I mean by tactical battle. It's from Conquest of the New World.

[LandGrabber]

I agree that we need to limit the number of 'Armies' a Player can have on the board. I just don't know how we'll do that. Maybe you can only have 1 army/10 colonies. We should also set a lower limit on the number of military units needed for an army. (3?)

I'd also like to suggest that we give armies a Zone of Control (zoc, for all us old war gamers). That is an army controls not only the square it occupies, but also the 8 squares surrounding it. Units cannot move into this zone without attacking the army. Armies can attack any unit that is within its zoc.

Armies should also only be allowed to move only as fast as the slowest unit type in the army. However, I'm not sure we should allow an army consisting only of dragoons to move the full 4 movement factors of a dragoon. Armies always have some sort of supply train (wagons) so maybe a top movement allowance of 2 or 3 would be suitable. What do others think?

I never liked Civilization's concept of a 'Home City' for units, but I also thought Colonization's method of not requiring Food for military units a bit unrealistic. Maybe we should work out some sort of system where every colony contributes a certain amount of Food to a National Granary to be used for the army. (Maybe also money to pay the troops?)

[Herville]

Colonists, and especially pioneers and scouts dhould have a chance of evading an assault (except by indians), so that they can avoid even armies. Mounted scouts, or mounted units whatsoever should have a chance of outrunning them as well.
Fortified cannons should be able to have an option where you pay gold(or tools or ore) to open supressing fire out of forts and fortresses.

I think ships should have an option to pay to load one unit of veteran soldiers and artilllery permanently at an expense of 2 holds, at an increase of military power.

All suggestions...Tell me what you think...

[LandGrabber]

Hi Herville! Welcome to the project.

Perhaps we should add a 'stealth' factor to all units, not just ships. That way there would always be a chance that a unit isn't seen and can 'slip by' an enemy. On the other hand a unit should always be able to see any unit in an adjacent tile.

As for a mounted unit being able to out-run an army, I'm inclined to agree with you. (Unless the 'mounted unit' is an army itself.) Of course the army could detach a dragoon or scout to pursue the mounted unit. In which case the dragoon should be able to match speeds with the mounted unit.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'suppressing fire'. Are you talking about some sort of low level attack by the artillery? Shouldn't an attack be an attack?

The idea of arming ships with artillery pieces has been discussed. The actual details have never been fully worked out, but then we haven't gotten that far with the code.

(Have a look at the old 'Preliminary Naval Model'. It's nearly 4 years old and probably should be updated.)

www.civgaming.net/col2/col2naval.shtml

[Herville]

I think I should explain further some of my suggestions. Though I know they may be stupid, let me at least explain what I meant.

Whith the "run away" I meant scouts and other mounted colonists (except dragoons). These people would probably be able to avoid the dragoons charge by falling back, and since they travel lighter; run until the dragoons must wait for the supplies... This would probably mean an automatic response since noone wants to loose colonists(but with percentage chance 30%?). An amush should not get this responce.

The supressing fire was meant as an option to make a adjected unit unable to attack anything during the following turn. Not as an ranged artillery attack like in civ 3 ol. I think the artillery must be fortified to try to get some realism. (artillery already mounted on/in walls). Should cost something and be optional (right click?).

Perhaps you also should only get estimated numbers when looking on an adjected army, and need a scout to "infiltrate" to see all of them.

[kayne]

i remeber that game though i couldnt get it to play right for the life of me but yea combat was cool in that game

though for the moment i say we go with previous idea of get an actual game out in playing form i think we have enough ideas and its actual time to whoever has the code in hand(multiple people im guessing) and start throwing it together and at least get something that runs like the old game cause as its been stated before editing is easier than coding theres a fine difference

coding it doesnt exist yet and editing is generally easier cause you have a base to fall on so its recommended that that main structure gets finished before more ideas continue to arise not that ideas are bad but its gotta stop somewhere otherwise you will simply code forever and change forever but unless you stop it somewhere and say this is it then youll never get it done

not knocking this guys idea but something for much later to consider but as for now other more important things are of concern like when you have an interface that works better then worry about the final touches of combat

just my two cents

[LandGrabber]

Until our coders show some actual progress, there's really not much left for the rest of us to do but discuss features we'd like to see at some time.

Yes, a new combat system is still in the distant future, and yes, what we discuss here probably won't be what acutally gets implemented, but the ideas suggested and considered will probably influence the system we do finally come up with.

(And a discussion of this kind will keep up interest in the project while we wait for our coders to come up with some thing more current to consider.)