Alternative Combat Model - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Alternative Combat Model

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Alternative Combat Model

Shining1 posted 03-26-99 12:14 AM ET
Weapon strength
Weapon firepower
Ammunition
Unit Hit Points
Unit Armour
Unit Vunerability
Combat resolved as follows:
Attack value compared to Defender Vulnerability. If higher, target is hit. Target loses one hit point per point of firepower the attacker has, minus their armour value. Defender responds in kind. Each unit loses one point of ammunition for that round.
Combat continues until both sides have exhaused their ammunition for that turn, or one side has had their hit points reduced to zero.
Weapon strength: Chance to hit. For instance, a thousand round per minute machine has a very good chance to hit.
Weapon Firepower: Damage inflicted on hit.
Weapon Ammunition: Number of rounds of combat that unit can engage in for that turn.

Unit Hit Points: Number of 'Hits' an unarmoured unit can take from a Firepower: 1 weapon.
Unit Armour: Reduces damage suffered by target. Can reduce damage to zero, for instance hand weapons being fired at neutronium armour.
Unit Vunerability: The chance a unit has of evading the weapon type being used against it. Large, slow vehicles are generally easier to hit than small, fast ones.

Other notes:
Weapons - A large Firepower will increase the cost of ammunition proportionately. Higher Strength values tend to accompany lower Firepower values, at least for basic weapons.
Armour - Proportionately reduces movement, and hence increases vunerability (think of big, slow tanks).
Terrain/Orders/City/Special Abilities: All affect attack and defense of units as in SMAC. For instance, trying to attack dug in infantry with speeders in rocky terrain = +50% strength to infantry.
Stacking units:
(Assume a unit stacking proceedure exists ) Each stack can be arranged according to the likely requirements of the battle, for both attack/defense arrangements.
For instance, using heavy armour/low strength/high ammunition units to tie up high firepower defenders/attackers, so that more aggressive units (high strength, high firepower/low armour) can be used for the kill.
uncleroggy posted 03-26-99 11:32 AM ET
Shiny1
I'm all for it. Then, we could actually have a combat model. BTW, I have been back and forth a couple of times on this with Brian Reynolds and he seems receptive to many of these ideas. However, I don't think it is likely to see a change in SMAC as it would require wholesale changes to the entire game. Therefore, from a practical standpoint it may be incorporated in future games. As I understand it, there is a tradeoff between the need to have realistic combat and to keep the game fun and playable. Now, I don't want to open the whole can of worms, but, I think I may have made a convincing argument that realsitic combat(if properly implemented) will by it's nature increase the levels of fun and playability. We can only sit back and watch.
Finally, I might suggest some of the Battleground games from Talonsoft as they bring a pretty good touch to combat. Otherwise, you'll have to dust off your old cardboard counter games like Advanced Squad Leader to get a feel for realistic combat. Boy, I sure loved packing those German infantry squads with LMG's, satchel charges, flamethrowers and panzerfausts.

uncleroggy out
MoSe posted 03-26-99 12:09 PM ET
Well ShinyOne, Dear and appreciated forumfellow,
I can't recall or check older topics,
but are you by accident a good ole MoM fan?
Of course your point is a good one, you are proposing the MoM combat model, best I ever met.
Uncleroggy resumed clearlywhat the common sense approach should be.
Keeper of MoM2's Hope
MariOne
DerekM posted 03-26-99 12:11 PM ET
Pick up a copy of The Operational Art of War from Talonsoft. That game has one of the most realistic combat models ever created for a commercial game. I may even stop playing SMAC long enough to go back for a scenario or two...
MoSe posted 03-26-99 12:20 PM ET
Pardon me if I come further on it.
The main point in MoM's model was that the defender did hurt back the attacker taking into account Defender's attack strength and attacker armor values, and that for each melee round the two were taking place simultaneously. Of course there were bonuses to keep realism and an advantage to the attacker (remember axe-throwing barbarian berserkers?)
We don't have now a battleship taken down by a phalanx, but it is still deceiving that you can die if you hit hard on a unit with thick armor and _NO_ weapons.
Methos posted 03-26-99 01:09 PM ET
I have to agree. I loved MoM, and posted elsewhere my hope that Firaxis would do something in that vein. I like this idea of modeling combat.
BTW, does anyone know how the game determines when units gain an experience level?
Darkstar posted 03-26-99 01:14 PM ET
Shiny1,
I think your model may be a bit over the top for implementing in the current SMAC. I think what COULD be implemented is a simpler system that has been discussed earlier. That was...
Firepower is the amount of damage ANY unit does when it hits. Armor is the amount of damage reduction before damage is applied to hits. With Defensive modifiers tagged in, this would encourage you to use those Armed Garrisons more often... and to apply armor to rovers, air units, etc.
That would be a simple change and should be quite do-able for a SMAC patch/enhancement.
Your method sounds very nice, but a little long on the learning curve for those mouse pad empire builders...

BTB, WAS that the Mom model? I know its close, but I guess I am going to have to crank up MOM this weekend and have some fun remembering...
-Darkstar
OhWell posted 03-26-99 01:58 PM ET
DerekM -
Ever tried Steel PanthersII? It has strong tactical combat, but the AI was not too smart. I have not tried The Operational Art of War so I can not compare. The two. If you have, and liked The Operational Art of War better, then I will start looking for a copy.
L8r
Ice99 posted 03-27-99 12:34 AM ET
I, too, would love to see a slightly more advanced combat model. C'mon folks, how is it cool that better armour allows you to destroy an attacker even though the defender has only hand weapons. In case you don't understand what I mean:
1-8-2 former vs 4-8-1 infantry
if the infantry attacks, the formers will probably win. That is really kind of silly. Just my two cents...
Shining1 posted 03-28-99 07:10 PM ET
Nope, never played MoM (Master of Magic??) before.
As for complexity, most of this can be negated if the model 'makes sense', which this seems to do. Unlike the SMAC one, with armour counting purely for defense and weapons counting purely for attack. A bit like that scene from Pulp fiction where the fourth college boy fires six shots at Samuel L Jackson and misses every time .
Secondly, I enjoy using the unit design workshop. The limited number of options at present could be greatly improved upon.
And I don't expect to see this implimented in SMAC - reprogramming of this kind would take so long and in all probability cause so many bugs that it wouldn't work anyway.
Still, given the emphasis on battle in SMAC (seemingly designed from the ground up to give an advantage to the attacker, it would have been nicer if more attention had been paid to the combat system and associated graphics. (Not that everyone hasn't already said that .)
Shining1 posted 03-28-99 07:51 PM ET
And a few other points:
Aircraft shouldn't get to engage in Psi combat with mindworms. Firstly, it doesn't make any sense, and secondly, it's too convienient to just keep a couple of aircraft around to hit the boils.
And a secondary weapon system would be good to add (limited to the heavier chassis, though). So you can add a light machine gun to a tank, or build those double barreled mammoths that were so appealing in command and conquer.
Adding cost for each weapon, and burning ammo twice as fast, but highly effective with two shots per round.
And finally, include artillery and airdefense weapons as weapons, and not special abilities.
MoSe: Dear and appreciated? I can see the sarcasm just dripping from your teeth...
SnowFire posted 03-28-99 09:24 PM ET
Sinning1: Great! I love it! But let's not get our hopes up. Not to be an elitest, but in general the gaming public that turns a good selling game with the faithful (say 80,000 copies) to a megahit (with 200,000 copies) are the "unitiated." Even if that's false, it's still percieved that way. The Operation Art of War is a fantastic game (I could tell that just from the demo), but you don't see Joe Public, the non-gamer, picking that one up over Deer Hunter. So a system this complex, while it might actually drive up sales in the long run (by making a better game), would drive down sales in the short run, and thus the marketing suits would probably forbid it from being included.
Shining1 posted 03-28-99 09:56 PM ET
Snowire: Condemning me as a heretic? (Sinning1 - ?!?)
Yeah, it looks a bit complex first up, especially when badly writen like that. But the advantage is that everyone who plays the game should be able to figure out what goes where without any bother. Everyone knows that guns have ammunition, and that it gets used up when firing. And that bombs do more damage than bullets. And that armour is meant to stop things hitting it.
As for intimiating the gaming public, (here we go), I'm sure the same thing was said about Civilisation when it was first released. "Build an entire empire from 4000 years ago while directing technology research, military campaigns and micromanaging every aspect city production? Are you mad? Go and design another platform game. The public wants cute little gerbles and swordfighting princes, not this intelletual rubbish. Sid? Sid? Hello? Are you there? Dammit."
Not that you can compare the greatest game of all time to a combat system thrown together in five minutes . But you get my point. You can get away with complexity if it doesn't violate commonsense.
Besides, more people seemed intimiated by the Technology names than by the unit design workshop. And the marketing suits (all one of her?) left that in.
P.S I wasn't aware Deer Hunter sold 200 000 plus units. I'm sure gamespot would have produced a game guide if it had...
P.P.S: I'm not so sure A modified system can't be included in SMAC, for those who want it. I mean, Brian wasn't keen (??) on single player hotseat, and that apparently took a whole eight hours coding to include. After all, isn't it just the attack/defense equation, the unit cost equation and some suitable datalinks changes.
How about a 33% weapon 67% armour ratio for defenders, and vice versa for attackers? With altered costs for the unit/armour ratio, and the same terrain/city defensive bonuses?
SnowFire posted 03-28-99 10:25 PM ET
Sinning1? What was I thinking! Especially during Holy Week, too... ahh! my fingers are possesed by demons!
The 33/67 sounds good to me, and that could be implemented in SMAC easily as an option (Classic Combat/Advanced Combat). It would also make Best/Best/1 Infantry units more tenable, and thus they wouldn't need the +25% against base anymore.
Also, I'm sure the suits said exactly the same thing to Civilization, so no problem. However, Deer Hunter has sold far, far more than 200,000 units. I think around a million would be a better guess. If I check up on an exact figure, I'll make sure to tell you...
SnowFire posted 03-28-99 10:26 PM ET
Also, "Snowire?" What's that? A brand name for a type of wiring made for chilly conditions?
Shining1 posted 03-28-99 10:40 PM ET
Snowire: Maybe a cynical, ironic feeling brought on by falling ice crystals?
Deer Hunter at 1 000 000 units? Gad! I'm shocked! This would never happen in New Zealand.
Heh. I don't even know what deer hunter is. You hunt deer, obviously. Anything else?

Also for advanced combat model - resolve ship to ship combat using an artillery exchange (also 67% weapon 33% armour). Currently, you can't defend ships against other ships with the 1/2 armour to weapon/tech ratio. And the same for planes - attack vs. attack.
Plus the Needlejets vs. Mindworms thing. I mean, how high can these things jump?
SnowFire posted 03-29-99 10:16 PM ET
NJ vs. MW : (battle of the state abbreviations?) Actually that makes sense. The needlejets are strafing the mindworms, and they're using their psychic terror to try and make the planes crash.
"Anything else?" Horribly pixelated graphics? Staring at an empty forest for hours? Being rooted to the same spot once you go into hunting mode?
Shining1 posted 03-30-99 06:46 PM ET
MW? MilWakee (sic)?
And how do you straf something supposedly 10cm long. It'd be like shooting flies.
SnowFire posted 03-30-99 11:05 PM ET
Okay, dropping ridiculously huge amounts of napalm all over the entire region and turning it into a blazing holocaust that no mindworm can survive in. I suppose that should destroy the terrain improvements too, but... oh well.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Alternative Combat Model
Shining1	posted 03-26-99 12:14 AM ET Weapon strength Weapon firepower Ammunition Unit Hit Points Unit Armour Unit Vunerability Combat resolved as follows: Attack value compared to Defender Vulnerability. If higher, target is hit. Target loses one hit point per point of firepower the attacker has, minus their armour value. Defender responds in kind. Each unit loses one point of ammunition for that round. Combat continues until both sides have exhaused their ammunition for that turn, or one side has had their hit points reduced to zero. Weapon strength: Chance to hit. For instance, a thousand round per minute machine has a very good chance to hit. Weapon Firepower: Damage inflicted on hit. Weapon Ammunition: Number of rounds of combat that unit can engage in for that turn. Unit Hit Points: Number of 'Hits' an unarmoured unit can take from a Firepower: 1 weapon. Unit Armour: Reduces damage suffered by target. Can reduce damage to zero, for instance hand weapons being fired at neutronium armour. Unit Vunerability: The chance a unit has of evading the weapon type being used against it. Large, slow vehicles are generally easier to hit than small, fast ones. Other notes: Weapons - A large Firepower will increase the cost of ammunition proportionately. Higher Strength values tend to accompany lower Firepower values, at least for basic weapons. Armour - Proportionately reduces movement, and hence increases vunerability (think of big, slow tanks). Terrain/Orders/City/Special Abilities: All affect attack and defense of units as in SMAC. For instance, trying to attack dug in infantry with speeders in rocky terrain = +50% strength to infantry. Stacking units: (Assume a unit stacking proceedure exists ) Each stack can be arranged according to the likely requirements of the battle, for both attack/defense arrangements. For instance, using heavy armour/low strength/high ammunition units to tie up high firepower defenders/attackers, so that more aggressive units (high strength, high firepower/low armour) can be used for the kill.
uncleroggy	posted 03-26-99 11:32 AM ET Shiny1 I'm all for it. Then, we could actually have a combat model. BTW, I have been back and forth a couple of times on this with Brian Reynolds and he seems receptive to many of these ideas. However, I don't think it is likely to see a change in SMAC as it would require wholesale changes to the entire game. Therefore, from a practical standpoint it may be incorporated in future games. As I understand it, there is a tradeoff between the need to have realistic combat and to keep the game fun and playable. Now, I don't want to open the whole can of worms, but, I think I may have made a convincing argument that realsitic combat(if properly implemented) will by it's nature increase the levels of fun and playability. We can only sit back and watch. Finally, I might suggest some of the Battleground games from Talonsoft as they bring a pretty good touch to combat. Otherwise, you'll have to dust off your old cardboard counter games like Advanced Squad Leader to get a feel for realistic combat. Boy, I sure loved packing those German infantry squads with LMG's, satchel charges, flamethrowers and panzerfausts. uncleroggy out
MoSe	posted 03-26-99 12:09 PM ET Well ShinyOne, Dear and appreciated forumfellow, I can't recall or check older topics, but are you by accident a good ole MoM fan? Of course your point is a good one, you are proposing the MoM combat model, best I ever met. Uncleroggy resumed clearlywhat the common sense approach should be. Keeper of MoM2's Hope MariOne
DerekM	posted 03-26-99 12:11 PM ET Pick up a copy of The Operational Art of War from Talonsoft. That game has one of the most realistic combat models ever created for a commercial game. I may even stop playing SMAC long enough to go back for a scenario or two...
MoSe	posted 03-26-99 12:20 PM ET Pardon me if I come further on it. The main point in MoM's model was that the defender did hurt back the attacker taking into account Defender's attack strength and attacker armor values, and that for each melee round the two were taking place simultaneously. Of course there were bonuses to keep realism and an advantage to the attacker (remember axe-throwing barbarian berserkers?) We don't have now a battleship taken down by a phalanx, but it is still deceiving that you can die if you hit hard on a unit with thick armor and _NO_ weapons.
Methos	posted 03-26-99 01:09 PM ET I have to agree. I loved MoM, and posted elsewhere my hope that Firaxis would do something in that vein. I like this idea of modeling combat. BTW, does anyone know how the game determines when units gain an experience level?
Darkstar	posted 03-26-99 01:14 PM ET Shiny1, I think your model may be a bit over the top for implementing in the current SMAC. I think what COULD be implemented is a simpler system that has been discussed earlier. That was... Firepower is the amount of damage ANY unit does when it hits. Armor is the amount of damage reduction before damage is applied to hits. With Defensive modifiers tagged in, this would encourage you to use those Armed Garrisons more often... and to apply armor to rovers, air units, etc. That would be a simple change and should be quite do-able for a SMAC patch/enhancement. Your method sounds very nice, but a little long on the learning curve for those mouse pad empire builders... BTB, WAS that the Mom model? I know its close, but I guess I am going to have to crank up MOM this weekend and have some fun remembering... -Darkstar
OhWell	posted 03-26-99 01:58 PM ET DerekM - Ever tried Steel PanthersII? It has strong tactical combat, but the AI was not too smart. I have not tried The Operational Art of War so I can not compare. The two. If you have, and liked The Operational Art of War better, then I will start looking for a copy. L8r
Ice99	posted 03-27-99 12:34 AM ET I, too, would love to see a slightly more advanced combat model. C'mon folks, how is it cool that better armour allows you to destroy an attacker even though the defender has only hand weapons. In case you don't understand what I mean: 1-8-2 former vs 4-8-1 infantry if the infantry attacks, the formers will probably win. That is really kind of silly. Just my two cents...
Shining1	posted 03-28-99 07:10 PM ET Nope, never played MoM (Master of Magic??) before. As for complexity, most of this can be negated if the model 'makes sense', which this seems to do. Unlike the SMAC one, with armour counting purely for defense and weapons counting purely for attack. A bit like that scene from Pulp fiction where the fourth college boy fires six shots at Samuel L Jackson and misses every time . Secondly, I enjoy using the unit design workshop. The limited number of options at present could be greatly improved upon. And I don't expect to see this implimented in SMAC - reprogramming of this kind would take so long and in all probability cause so many bugs that it wouldn't work anyway. Still, given the emphasis on battle in SMAC (seemingly designed from the ground up to give an advantage to the attacker, it would have been nicer if more attention had been paid to the combat system and associated graphics. (Not that everyone hasn't already said that .)
Shining1	posted 03-28-99 07:51 PM ET And a few other points: Aircraft shouldn't get to engage in Psi combat with mindworms. Firstly, it doesn't make any sense, and secondly, it's too convienient to just keep a couple of aircraft around to hit the boils. And a secondary weapon system would be good to add (limited to the heavier chassis, though). So you can add a light machine gun to a tank, or build those double barreled mammoths that were so appealing in command and conquer. Adding cost for each weapon, and burning ammo twice as fast, but highly effective with two shots per round. And finally, include artillery and airdefense weapons as weapons, and not special abilities. MoSe: Dear and appreciated? I can see the sarcasm just dripping from your teeth...
SnowFire	posted 03-28-99 09:24 PM ET Sinning1: Great! I love it! But let's not get our hopes up. Not to be an elitest, but in general the gaming public that turns a good selling game with the faithful (say 80,000 copies) to a megahit (with 200,000 copies) are the "unitiated." Even if that's false, it's still percieved that way. The Operation Art of War is a fantastic game (I could tell that just from the demo), but you don't see Joe Public, the non-gamer, picking that one up over Deer Hunter. So a system this complex, while it might actually drive up sales in the long run (by making a better game), would drive down sales in the short run, and thus the marketing suits would probably forbid it from being included.
Shining1	posted 03-28-99 09:56 PM ET Snowire: Condemning me as a heretic? (Sinning1 - ?!?) Yeah, it looks a bit complex first up, especially when badly writen like that. But the advantage is that everyone who plays the game should be able to figure out what goes where without any bother. Everyone knows that guns have ammunition, and that it gets used up when firing. And that bombs do more damage than bullets. And that armour is meant to stop things hitting it. As for intimiating the gaming public, (here we go), I'm sure the same thing was said about Civilisation when it was first released. "Build an entire empire from 4000 years ago while directing technology research, military campaigns and micromanaging every aspect city production? Are you mad? Go and design another platform game. The public wants cute little gerbles and swordfighting princes, not this intelletual rubbish. Sid? Sid? Hello? Are you there? Dammit." Not that you can compare the greatest game of all time to a combat system thrown together in five minutes . But you get my point. You can get away with complexity if it doesn't violate commonsense. Besides, more people seemed intimiated by the Technology names than by the unit design workshop. And the marketing suits (all one of her?) left that in. P.S I wasn't aware Deer Hunter sold 200 000 plus units. I'm sure gamespot would have produced a game guide if it had... P.P.S: I'm not so sure A modified system can't be included in SMAC, for those who want it. I mean, Brian wasn't keen (??) on single player hotseat, and that apparently took a whole eight hours coding to include. After all, isn't it just the attack/defense equation, the unit cost equation and some suitable datalinks changes. How about a 33% weapon 67% armour ratio for defenders, and vice versa for attackers? With altered costs for the unit/armour ratio, and the same terrain/city defensive bonuses?
SnowFire	posted 03-28-99 10:25 PM ET Sinning1? What was I thinking! Especially during Holy Week, too... ahh! my fingers are possesed by demons! The 33/67 sounds good to me, and that could be implemented in SMAC easily as an option (Classic Combat/Advanced Combat). It would also make Best/Best/1 Infantry units more tenable, and thus they wouldn't need the +25% against base anymore. Also, I'm sure the suits said exactly the same thing to Civilization, so no problem. However, Deer Hunter has sold far, far more than 200,000 units. I think around a million would be a better guess. If I check up on an exact figure, I'll make sure to tell you...
SnowFire	posted 03-28-99 10:26 PM ET Also, "Snowire?" What's that? A brand name for a type of wiring made for chilly conditions?
Shining1	posted 03-28-99 10:40 PM ET Snowire: Maybe a cynical, ironic feeling brought on by falling ice crystals? Deer Hunter at 1 000 000 units? Gad! I'm shocked! This would never happen in New Zealand. Heh. I don't even know what deer hunter is. You hunt deer, obviously. Anything else? Also for advanced combat model - resolve ship to ship combat using an artillery exchange (also 67% weapon 33% armour). Currently, you can't defend ships against other ships with the 1/2 armour to weapon/tech ratio. And the same for planes - attack vs. attack. Plus the Needlejets vs. Mindworms thing. I mean, how high can these things jump?
SnowFire	posted 03-29-99 10:16 PM ET NJ vs. MW : (battle of the state abbreviations?) Actually that makes sense. The needlejets are strafing the mindworms, and they're using their psychic terror to try and make the planes crash. "Anything else?" Horribly pixelated graphics? Staring at an empty forest for hours? Being rooted to the same spot once you go into hunting mode?
Shining1	posted 03-30-99 06:46 PM ET MW? MilWakee (sic)? And how do you straf something supposedly 10cm long. It'd be like shooting flies.
SnowFire	posted 03-30-99 11:05 PM ET Okay, dropping ridiculously huge amounts of napalm all over the entire region and turning it into a blazing holocaust that no mindworm can survive in. I suppose that should destroy the terrain improvements too, but... oh well.