Should units always do a minimum of 1 damage?

Louis XXIV said:

That's my point. No risk, no gain. Why should he get all the gain and keep the experience? The tech advantage could also reflect him not actually gaining experience due to his massive technological superiority. Do people in Tanks gain combat experience because people are shooting arrows at them? I don't see why we should get rid of the thing we don't like, but keep experience farming that went with it.

Click to expand...

Don't you think the player should get more credit for being ahead in tech?
Besides, xp. doesn't make sense if you compare it to real life.
Why would anyone get xp. for being fired at?

You invaded an island that belonged to the natives for thousands of years. They know their land, and they don't like you and your Korean culture.

You send numerically inferior forces against numerically superior force and you have to learn how to deal with it or send lots of units and take it over in one fell swoop.

Desert Storm wasn't done with single fighter and a carrier with two modern armor tanks.

Na, usa send lots of units to wipe out iraq as fast as possible.

If only to represent supply, I don't mind 1 damage - it's minor and easily healed.

Click to expand...

Then why don't they take 1 damage every turn?

No, that's more apologist reasoning.

I'd also agree that if you take no damage, no XP, but right now we're taking damage, so we should be continuing to get XP.

On the other hand, heading to uninhabited territory lategame and not expecting barbs is foolish.

Click to expand...

I expected barbs, I didn't expect an unending wave of over 50 barbs meat grinding my units relentlessly. Even killing 4 a turn wasn't much help for a many turns.

I think a minimum 1 damage is good for bottoming out the chances in case of a tech disparity. Sure, it's a little egregious when you're two or more Eras ahead, but if you're that far ahead, you really have no cause for complaint - you're going to win regardless. It's to give a fighting chance for, say, Pikemen towards the start of the Renaissance, or Archers before you upgrade to Crossbowmen.

I wouldn't particularly mind invincible units, but it would weight tech advancement over hammers more than the game already does, and I'm not sure that's a healthy change. If there is no damage dealt, I think it's fair to also remove the XP gained, as it's currently coded in the game right now.

ShahJahanII said:

Don't you think the player should get more credit for being ahead in tech?
Besides, xp. doesn't make sense if you compare it to real life.
Why would anyone get xp. for being fired at?

Click to expand...

You get better units for being ahead in tech.

This thread is very much, the reflection of the problem in the broader Civ community.

PLayers want to axe all the things they perceive as against them, and keep everything that benefits their play. If the devs followed all the 'wants' we'd have a horribly unbalanced game.

I think the former Civ designer mentioned how, in relation to the RNG of the Civ3 combat system, he only got feedback that the battle system was fair when he gave humans RNG advantages in combat.

i think its always funny to see brutes with clubs damage a gaint death robot with advanced ballistic missles and nuclear weapons, with a metal body thing...

I think a minimum 1 damage is good for bottoming out the chances in case of a tech disparity. Sure, it's a little egregious when you're two or more Eras ahead, but if you're that far ahead, you really have no cause for complaint - you're going to win regardless.

Click to expand...

Exactly, I never suggested that damage be removed from all units of differing levels. Actually what I specifically said was that if your relative strength was 10x more than the other unit, you probably shouldn't be taking damage

PLayers want to axe all the things they perceive as against them, and keep everything that benefits their play.

Click to expand...

Actually I'm talking about balancing an unbalanced situation that does little more than lead to annoyance rather than strategy, or interesting game play.

4 archers step into range and fire on your destroyer. Unless you turn and run. You will die.
4, 3, 2, 1 = 10 damage
This:

vs

This makes no sense what-so-ever and has nothing to do with perception. It is reality. The barbarians upgrade and get more advanced units, so all the star wars references and attempts to come up with the crew coming down with diarrhea and the crazies from having a meal with some spoiled meat in it, really doesn't excuse the fact that we've still got the whole "spearman vs tank" issue that I thought was supposed to be fixed.

I wouldn't particularly mind invincible units,

Click to expand...

They wouldn't be invincible, they'd only not take damage in certain situations where they clearly shouldn't be.

If there is no damage dealt, I think it's fair to also remove the XP gained, as it's currently coded in the game right now.

Click to expand...

Except the current XP stops after level 3. So in fact a lot of the time we don't get XP from fighting barbs yet still take this damage.

This thread appears to be OP being unprepared for the situation and general complaints about realism.

If units didn't have the minimum 1 damage, the game word be broken and worse off.

garjust said:

This thread appears to be OP being unprepared for the situation and general complaints about realism.

If units didn't have the minimum 1 damage, the game word be broken and worse off.

Click to expand...

how so?
If a player is so far behind another play that they're using archers against destroyers, they're going to lose anyway. How does that break the game?
If it makes it slightly quicker to clear a mass barbarian infestation out of an area, how does that break the game?

So that we have fun laughing at people that die to brutes despite being in modern era.

U could know, those archers dive into the water and swim up to ur boat while it asleep and stick depth charges on the hull and watch it sink! Or attempt to commander it. In fact. A single destroyer can get sunk by 10+ trimeres if it wanders in foolishly all those sailors can board it forcibly.

Nothing is invincible sorry.

K so u ascended to godhood, there's god slayer weapons. Deal with it.

There is many many things that can happen.

Incompetent captain.

Somalia Pirates.

etc etc. If you don't like it, bring the full force of ur force over to the island and squash the inferior forces there. Be thankful that brutes can't just capture ur town and raze it to the ground for lols.

crossmr said:

how so?
If a player is so far behind another play that they're using archers against destroyers, they're going to lose anyway. How does that break the game?
If it makes it slightly quicker to clear a mass barbarian infestation out of an area, how does that break the game?

Click to expand...

I would say the barbarian situation is unimportant to the discussion of balance...

The 1 damage weakens tech advantage and prevents 1 unit steamrolling as mentioned above. When you are already so far ahead why do you need to be even more powerful?

If you are feeling the effects of the 1 damage, I think you are being outplayed tactically. By the time that you are so far ahead in tech you probably have access to things like artillery, bombers, etc. Use this advantage to stop the 1 damage from crappy units you can kill in one shot from being a problem.

In summary, why should the game be made easier? AI already sucks enough and if a player is causing you issues with weak units, kudos to them.

So that we have fun laughing at people that die to brutes despite being in modern era.

Click to expand...

Nobody died, it just slowed me down.
I just pointed out that it'd be possible for archers to sink a destroyer.

U could know, those archers dive into the water and swim up to ur boat while it asleep and stick depth charges on the hull and watch it sink! Or attempt to commander it. In fact. A single destroyer can get sunk by 10+ trimeres if it wanders in foolishly all those sailors can board it forcibly.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that really makes sense. All the triremes would be sunk before they'd even get within range of a destroyer normally. The point is, beyond flights of fancy, there is no way they should be damaging it at all. The fact that you have to try and think up these absurd scenarios to justify the damage tells us a lot about the situation. There is no ship to ship combat in this game, it's all range attacks.

Nothing is invincible sorry.

Click to expand...

A tank vs a club might as well be.

K so u ascended to godhood, there's god slayer weapons. Deal with it.

There is many many things that can happen.

Click to expand...

Yes, including a tank spotting a barbarian with a club, blowing it away long before it gets close, and carrying on none the worse for the wear. That apparently doesn't happen in Civ though.

Other than apologist reasoning, I haven't really seen a case made here for why this should be allowed. A couple people have cried about how it would break the game, but no one has demonstrated how exactly it would break the game and what amazing advantage it would give to the person with the modern unit.

If all someone can field is archers and warriors, aren't mechanized infantry and tanks going to absolutely obliterate their civ anyway?

What becomes broken about gameplay if someone doesn't have to stop every 6 or 7 turns to heal up for a handful of turns before carrying on clear an area overrun by barbarians?

I would say the barbarian situation is unimportant to the discussion of balance...

Click to expand...

It's exactly the reason I started this thread. You're unlikely to find many games where the players get so far out of balance that one is using archers and warriors while another is using mechanized infantry.

When you are already so far ahead why do you need to be even more powerful?

Click to expand...

When you are so far ahead, does it really matter if you are slightly more powerful?

If you are feeling the effects of the 1 damage, I think you are being outplayed tactically

Click to expand...

a meat grinder isn't tactics. it was simply an area that had been player free for most of the game that had numerous camps spawning barbarians non-stop.
The only tactics is overwhelming numbers. In fact had they all been modern units (like musketmen) it would have been less damaging as they wouldn't have been having half a dozen archers firing off every turn from various parts of the wave.

AI already sucks enough and if a player is causing you issues with weak units, kudos to them.

Click to expand...

A player wasn't causing issues with weak units. It's mostly irrelevant to this discussion.

Any player who would field archers while the opponent has tanks probably isn't capable of causing an issue with them.

Nobody died, it just slowed me down.
I just pointed out that it'd be possible for archers to sink a destroyer.


Yeah, that really makes sense. All the triremes would be sunk before they'd even get within range of a destroyer normally. The point is, beyond flights of fancy, there is no way they should be damaging it at all. The fact that you have to try and think up these absurd scenarios to justify the damage tells us a lot about the situation. There is no ship to ship combat in this game, it's all range attacks.

This is what the archers did to your.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing


A tank vs a club might as well be.
A brute with club can knock on your tank hatch and the soldier opens the hatch like a fool and gets rapped hard on head and bam, your tank just got taken over.


Yes, including a tank spotting a barbarian with a club, blowing it away long before it gets close, and carrying on none the worse for the wear. That apparently doesn't happen in Civ though.

Grand idea but you're operating on assumpation that they file up on open plains far away from you for you to use them as target practice, nay they hide in the grounds like brave heart and ambush you.

If all someone can field is archers and warriors, aren't mechanized infantry and tanks going to absolutely obliterate their civ anyway?

Right but I don't know why you're complaining.


What becomes broken about gameplay if someone doesn't have to stop every 6 or 7 turns to heal up for a handful of turns before carrying on clear an area overrun by barbarians?

Because it takes time to make sure the ground is clear and safe before moving on. Lest recieve a rude surprise like non-consent encounter.


It's exactly the reason I started this thread. You're unlikely to find many games where the players get so far out of balance that one is using archers and warriors while another is using mechanized infantry.

Actually I have done that on civ 3 my full modern era armada vs knights and spearmen.

And more recently, Industrial Germany vs the whole world in renaissance or medieval with sole exception of frenchies. I won anyways, took over 3/4 of the world in 20+ turns.


a meat grinder isn't tactics. it was simply an area that had been player free for most of the game that had numerous camps spawning barbarians non-stop.
The only tactics is overwhelming numbers. In fact had they all been modern units (like musketmen) it would have been less damaging as they wouldn't have been having half a dozen archers firing off every turn from various parts of the wave.

It lived free of your ugly colored borders and the barbs will do as well as they please. You'll have to deal with it. You will just have to accept the fact that Civ 5 don't have intricate details like, updating the units to match most advanced nation in the game in the moment.

Then you'll be seeing those brutes armed with ak47s instead of clubs and be at str 6.

The AI does explore, and those caravels could've easily traded them guns and stuf for their gold.

356 posts and you can't properly thread quotes?

This is what the archers did to your.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

Click to expand...

No, archers didn't do that. That was a shaped blast, that wasn't done with a bow and arrow.
You're trying to make excuses on a case by case basis, but this is an extreme reach.

Grand idea but you're operating on assumpation that they file up on open plains far away from you for you to use them as target practice, nay they hide in the grounds like brave heart and ambush you.

Click to expand...

And you're assuming that people who only have the ability and technology after this kind of time to use clubs are capable of ambushing a tank in a way to damage it.
For every excuse you can come up with on how someone with a stick could take out a death robot, there are 1000 scenarios in which the death robot is going to obliterate them without taking a scratch. Please see "Apologist"
Despite your flights of fancy, this isn't Avatar.

Right but I don't know why you're complaining.

Click to expand...

Time vs annoyance vs pay-off and reward

Because it takes time to make sure the ground is clear and safe before moving on. Lest recieve a rude surprise like non-consent encounter.

Click to expand...

and yet more excuses for what the damage is "supposed" to represent.
again then why aren't they taking damage every turn?

Actually I have done that on civ 3 my full modern era armada vs knights and spearmen.

Click to expand...

This is Civ 5.
Perhaps this is where your confusion stems from.

The AI does explore, and those caravels could've easily traded them guns and stuf for their gold.

Click to expand...

Except they're not gunpowder units, and that kind of trading doesn't exist in the game.
Honestly, if you're just going to try and make up stories about this and that unit, and not actually talk about the game play...

Realism arguments over damage goes nowhere and has been ongoing since Civ3 of Tank loses to Spears RNG badluck.

Civ is a high level simulation and at this it does it very well.

what we need is for small differences in strength remain small but larger differences to be bigger. There's a way to do both.

Make the combat roll be based on strength exponentiated to the power of the ratio between the superior unit's strength and the inferior unit's strength .

For ex.

warrior strength 6 vs spearman str 7
the effective relative strengths when they fight each other are then:
6^(7/6) vs 7^(7/6) = 8.09 vs 9.68
So the relative strength is about the same as originally.

OTOH
warrior strength 6 vs rifleman str 25
the effective relative strengths when they fight each other are then:
6^(25/6) vs 25^(25/6) = 1747 vs 667959
So the rifleman vs the warrior ends up being 382 times as strong as opposed to just 4 times as strong.

I'm guessing they know how to do this but they feel a system like this would be too complex for the avg gamer.

what we need is for small differences in strength remain small but larger differences to be bigger. There's a way to do both.

Click to expand...

That only works if the the huge disparity results in no damage or subsequently much less damage.
It doesn't matter if you're 100 times stronger or 400 times stronger if you're still taking 1 damage.
With the current system if the strength disparity is very large, there should only be a % chance of doing 1 damage instead of a guaranteed 1 damage, at best.
This might represent some kind of lucky strike, but otherwise it should be recognized that bow and arrow guy just can't take down a destroyer.

the current system makes some cheap units absolutely crush modern units.
i mean archers own mechs cost for cost.
also massing trimbes is a nice tactic with ottomans to take out coastal cities.
10 trimbes does not cost much and takes out that city in 3 turns.

fact is if i could still make outdated units in the modern age i probably would.
particularily horsemen/archers, since they are fast. i already build scouts in the modern era. it only cost 25, and hammer overflow is used in this game.
workers is another thing i build as spotters for my artillery.
workers take 3 hits or a melee hit. melee hit causes that unit they use to die from artillery fire.

crossmr said:

That only works if the the huge disparity results in no damage or subsequently much less damage.
It doesn't matter if you're 100 times stronger or 400 times stronger if you're still taking 1 damage.
With the current system if the strength disparity is very large, there should only be a % chance of doing 1 damage instead of a guaranteed 1 damage, at best.
This might represent some kind of lucky strike, but otherwise it should be recognized that bow and arrow guy just can't take down a destroyer.

Click to expand...

Yes of course. My system would get rid of guaranteed 1 damage.

Again, your problem stems from seeing those barbs as brutes from 2000 bc not a ragtag group of crappy military that have ieds.

That is all crossmr.

Firaxis don't wanna account this disparity. Technology spreads by one means or other.

Firaxis never updated the encampment graphics to account for eras they're in.