The merge of the attack and defense stat into one has been the only thing that's really bothered me about this game. It's really bothered me so much so, that I feel it could ruin the game for me. We'll have to see how it'll work out, but it seems like it'll make the units less uniwue and necessary, leading to armies of basically just the same unitperforming all functions. I mean, what would the purpose be to build spearmen now that all you have to do is take a warrior with the same power and give him a defensive trait to make him even better?

I don't know if it would be possible to add a second trait to the units since all the battle calculations are based of using the one figure. However, it would probably be possible to do something like giving some units a 50% increase defending or something.

If you gave everything a %50 defense value it would change nothing. EVERYTHING would be 'harder' to kill, thus... no real change has taken place.

I dont see why you couldnt change it, you would have to edit all the formulas for the calculations though, it shouldnt be TOO hard.

I mean, what would the purpose be to build spearmen now that all you have to do is take a warrior with the same power and give him a defensive trait to make him even better?

To fight mounted units maybe? :mischief:

While adding one stat might not be that difficult, rebalancing the costs of all units and teaching the AI about the new stat would likely be a task for a skilled programmer.

We're gonna need the SDK to be released most likely before we can start modding in a defence stat.

I too think the answer is "Yes". I think archers are better on defense and one unit can do better vs another. Thus you can presumably use the "defensive bonus" for each unit differently.

BTW, it sounds like civ4 takes this a step further and has a different attack and defense for pairs of units so it is probably a lot more flexible than civ 3.

Not sure why having two stats is important. If a unit is good at defending and another good at attack, isn't that essentially the same as having two stats?

To fight mounted units maybe? :mischief:

While adding one stat might not be that difficult, rebalancing the costs of all units and teaching the AI about the new stat would likely be a task for a skilled programmer.

Yeah I forgot that there were bonuses other than just plain attack or defense bonuses, but still, I don't like it. I doubt those bonuses would be worth very much, well, we'll just have to see tomorrow.

Spearman = is a 4 with 100% bonus versus mounted (and this is without any upgrades - each unit has different upgrade paths). Whereas a Warrior is only a 2. Still not worth it?

FWIW, the archery line are the ones that get the big defense bonuses.

Yeah I forgot that there were bonuses other than just plain attack or defense bonuses, but still, I don't like it. I doubt those bonuses would be worth very much, well, we'll just have to see tomorrow.

It is worth much, the WHOLE concept of combat has been revamped in this game, for example, you wont be defending your cities with spearmen like usual, you should use archers.

there are certain units that are strong against certain other units. so if for example, that mongol horde is coming at you with a stack of doom filled with horsemen - build a few spearmen to wipe em out.

Or even more specifically to civ4... build a catapult to do dmg to the whole stack. I think you'll find the system is much better.

So, they're fixing the randomness out of it? Where a cavalry could lose to a spearman quite frequently?

Yea, it would encourage you to diversify your units. For example there were sometimes when I'd only ever build one unit in a time of war in civ3, mass that one unit and charge.

In this case, You got your horse guys, but OH NO!!, the borders into greece are blocked by phalanx's, what you'd want to do is grab some axe/macemen (forget which one is strong against melees) to knock out of the way for your cavalry.

You'd also want to keep some archers in toe with those troops, because if you have a stack of say, 2 macemen and an archer, and you get attacked by a phalanx for example, the Combat system automatically chooses the best possible defender for the situation, which would be the archer, due to first strike (they're better defenders this time around).

Or, if you want to get more in depth, if you have 2 phalanx and an archer traveling around, and in one instance you get attacked by a horsemen, the system would make A phalanx the defending unit, since it would be the best possible unit for the job. Then two turns down the road you get attacked by a Macemen, the system would select the archer.

Yeah, don't start bashing the game until you've tried it. I know my first reaction was, "What? This is so dumb. They're catering to the lowest common denominator." But I must say that now, having actually looked at what they've done, I'm very happy with it. (Not that I've playing anything either.) In fact, I'd make the opposite assertion: in Civ III and earlier, there were only two relevant units at any one time: the unit with the best defense, and the unit with the best offense. Everything else was a waste of shields. Now it seems like there's actually a tactical element.

Also, if you think 25% bonuses aren't worth much, you've obviously never played SMAC. You've got 4 hours; plenty of time to rectify the situation.

Having 2 stats vs. having 1 stat with multiple possible modifiers (ie +x when defending) is mathematically identical.

That said if you want to Mod CivIV into CIvIII I am sure you can with a lot of work. I would sugesst your time would be very poorly spent, however, since that game is allready available.

-drjones

While adding one stat might not be that difficult, rebalancing the costs of all units and teaching the AI about the new stat would likely be a task for a skilled programmer.

You wouldn't necessarily have to teach the AI, would you? I mean, all of the existing numbers are just bases. You have to apply all kinds of modifiers anyway. This could just be a different modifier. Along those lines...

Having 2 stats vs. having 1 stat with multiple possible modifiers (ie +x when defending) is mathematically identical.

Indeed. I am baffled how people keep trumpeting that Civ4 combat is "simpler." No, it's not. Instead of paying attention to Attack, Defense, terrain, and fortifications, now you have to pay attention to Strength vs. Cavalry, Strength vs. Catapults, Strength vs. Melee, Strength vs. Ranged, Strength when defending a city, Strength when attacking a city, fortifications, bonus in this terrain, bonus in that terrain, etc. Instead of having 4 numbers, you have 8 or more. Granted, usually most of those numbers will be equal, but I dislike how they're trying to make it sound like it's just one number and thus simpler, because it's clearly not. I think the overall system is good (though some of the abilities sound a little too specific), but simpler it's not.

Moved to the Modding forum.

It will probably be possible to give a unit an X% bonus when defending or when attacking. This should allow you to recreate the CivIII system if you wanted to.

Yeah, a simple % modifier when defending would solve that. Want to create a 8/12/1 unit like infantry? Make an 8 strength 1 move unit with +50% while defending. Want to make a 16/14/2 unit? 16 strength 2 move unit with -12.5% while defending.

Why would you want to, though, other than fear of change?

I wouldn't be surprised if this is something that wouldn't even be possible. It sounds like a "core civ engine" thing to me. And even if it is, that would take an enormous amount of programming. And what would you get?
:spear:

I wouldn't mind if the stat only allows a greater advantage over units that are from a older age. Instead of randomly balancing defense stats, it might be easier to just give +10% stackable bonus against old units per technological age.
No more metaphorical Archer beats Tank with that +40% or more added strength.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is something that wouldn't even be possible. It sounds like a "core civ engine" thing to me

Not sure I agree with that. We know they have (from the pre-release info):
+X vs melee units
+X vs mounted units
+X vs cannon
+X vs armor
+X city defense
+X defense in (terrain type)
Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
Can't attack

Between these, I think you can get anything you need. For instance, to make a Civ3 Musketman (2/4/1), make a unit with power 2, +100% city defense, +100% defense in hills, +100% defense in forests, +100% defense in plains... you get the idea. Since I'm sure they've seen the appeal of that and it'd actually be easier to code, I think it's pretty likely that there's a flat "+X% defense" built into the engine, even if it's not used.
And unless it's hard-coded to specific numbers, I don't see why you couldn't put in negative percentages to create offense units. Cavalry would be 6 power, -50% defense.

But the real question is, why do you WANT a defense stat? The situational modifiers are much more accurate, besides making a better game. Take, for example, the Pikeman. Civ3 Pikemen were obviously much better at defense than offense. But once gunpowder (or even longbows) became common, they should have been almost as weak on defense as offense, because the whole reason for their "good" defense (long spears that keep the enemy at bay) ceased to be effective... except against cavalry. Which, coincidentally, is what Civ4 has them as.

The only real motivation I could see for separate attack/defense numbers, in light of this new system, would be for an Alpha Centauri-style mix'n'match Workshop system.

I didn't mean you couldn't simulate it, just that you probably won't be able to completely rebuild the way combat works by reverting back to Civ3 style.