Should units always do a minimum of 1 damage?
- Thread starter crossmr
- Start date
crossmr
Warlord
2 attacks per turn = 2 damage
Remember, you said they'd have logistics, that's how they could clean up so fast right?
I'm not dead set against any reasoning or logic, I'm dead set against apologist excuses which is pretty much all that's been offered in this thread. Your suggestions for the most part rely on heavily upgraded units, crossbows with logistics (and keeping them around in the modern area where they have no business being, and no it isn't logical to do so)
Or it relies on failed math, like not counting the two attacks you use each turn, or failing to include the carriers that would take the bombers to the new world.
Battleships are specialist in that they only clear the coast, and won't take you inland if you need to get there, and it all comes down to you having to wage war almost to a greater degree than you would against another AI with more advanced units. Simply because the AI wouldn't field those kinds of units in that kind of way. An advanced civ shouldn't have to spend those kinds of resources on clearing an area of people with bows and arrows and clubs.
crossmr:
Just to clarify, I get the way you've done the bomber damage math, now, and that is correct; but I still don't get where you said they'd take upwards of 4 damage per turn. No way they're taking 5 or more damage per turn.
Also, if they get unlucky, you park them and let them heal for a few turns. They'll still have cleared a bunch of units by then, and you should have been able to clear out at least two camps, if not the entire continent. Logistics Bombers are not special case, they're not highly promoted (they come out the gate with Logistics), and they're hella useful for any and all military action you might be doing elsewhere.
So what's the beef against that?
Not at all. To make an effective landing and prosecute war against a powerful Civ, you would need the Battleships, and Submarines, and Destroyers, as well as the Carriers and the Bombers, perhaps a pair of Amphibious Infantry, 3 or 4 Tanks, and a mix of Infantry, Anti-Air, and Anti-Tanks. That's at least twice the force I outlined to clean out the Barbs, and you will probably need to reinforce that once you take losses. Don't forsee losses against the barbs.
Just to clarify, I get the way you've done the bomber damage math, now, and that is correct; but I still don't get where you said they'd take upwards of 4 damage per turn. No way they're taking 5 or more damage per turn.
Also, if they get unlucky, you park them and let them heal for a few turns. They'll still have cleared a bunch of units by then, and you should have been able to clear out at least two camps, if not the entire continent. Logistics Bombers are not special case, they're not highly promoted (they come out the gate with Logistics), and they're hella useful for any and all military action you might be doing elsewhere.
So what's the beef against that?
Not at all. To make an effective landing and prosecute war against a powerful Civ, you would need the Battleships, and Submarines, and Destroyers, as well as the Carriers and the Bombers, perhaps a pair of Amphibious Infantry, 3 or 4 Tanks, and a mix of Infantry, Anti-Air, and Anti-Tanks. That's at least twice the force I outlined to clean out the Barbs, and you will probably need to reinforce that once you take losses. Don't forsee losses against the barbs.
crossmr
Warlord
Where did I ever say 5 or more damage per turn?
I said 2 damage per turn minimum over 4 turns = 8 damage. You were claiming 5 bombers could take out 40 units in 4 turns, I pointed out that only under the best conditions. Any luck on the part of the barbarians could put them out of commission. They could take upwards of 4 damage per turn if they were attacking higher level barbarians like mustketmen (there were some mixed in with the horde) and if they get unlucky. As they get more damaged it seems there is a greater chance they're going to take more damage
But it's interesting, I've never seen any bombers I've produced have free logistics and get 2 attacks a turn.
I'm referring to another Civ on the same map as I with a similar tech level. The barbarians come out stronger than the other civs on the map in this situation. They require a far greater investment to clear out than some other random neighbour.
crossmr:
You just need to use bombers more often.
Clearly, you don't have a lot of experience along those lines. Bombers are awesome.
It is unlikely for anything less than nonbarb Musketmen to damage Bombers 2 damage. It's possible for a barb Musketman to do 2 damage, but it's not very likely. In this case "best" corresponds to a likely scenario. It's best, but it's not unusual or hard to achieve.
It is very unlikely for barb Musketmen to do two instances of 2 damage a turn to a single bomber. Possible, but very unlikely. I invite you to try it for yourself before you diss it.
To get Bombers with Logistics, build it in the city with Barracks, Armory, Military Tradition, and Brandenburg Gate. You will get three promotions. Use it for Unit, Unit 2, and Logistics. Done and done.
Define "far greater."
We got 2 Carriers, 6 Bombers, and two tanks, allowing for your demands to be handily met. I would do it with less, but let's go with what you can do. If this is "far greater" than a Civ would require, how many units would you need to wipe out a neighboring Civ, allowing that the Carrier are just the price for projecting power overseas?
3 Bombers 1 Tank? That's pretty sparse.
You just need to use bombers more often.
Clearly, you don't have a lot of experience along those lines. Bombers are awesome.It is unlikely for anything less than nonbarb Musketmen to damage Bombers 2 damage. It's possible for a barb Musketman to do 2 damage, but it's not very likely. In this case "best" corresponds to a likely scenario. It's best, but it's not unusual or hard to achieve.
It is very unlikely for barb Musketmen to do two instances of 2 damage a turn to a single bomber. Possible, but very unlikely. I invite you to try it for yourself before you diss it.
To get Bombers with Logistics, build it in the city with Barracks, Armory, Military Tradition, and Brandenburg Gate. You will get three promotions. Use it for Unit, Unit 2, and Logistics. Done and done.
Define "far greater."
We got 2 Carriers, 6 Bombers, and two tanks, allowing for your demands to be handily met. I would do it with less, but let's go with what you can do. If this is "far greater" than a Civ would require, how many units would you need to wipe out a neighboring Civ, allowing that the Carrier are just the price for projecting power overseas?
3 Bombers 1 Tank? That's pretty sparse.
crossmr
Warlord
You've got a strange idea of "included"
It's only "included" if you build it in a perfect city. Could you come up with anything that doesn't come with a host of terms and conditions? It's not included, it is taken as an upgrade.
With 3 or 4 modern units I was able to take out cities of neighbours around me. They were at a higher tech level than the barbarians.
Knut_Are_M
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2008
- Messages
- 323
It seems like the solution is to scale up damage and HP by 10 times.
that way you can keep the 1 min damage rule!
+ it is not very hard to program.
that way you can keep the 1 min damage rule!
+ it is not very hard to program.
Yeah, but if you go this route, you may as well have no minimum at all. The difference between 0% and 10% damage is enough to be significant, when swarming units means you can at times have around about 5 units attacking another on the same turn, for a total of 50% damage. (The argument Thal presented to me was that 5 blitz archers can destroy a GDR in one turn)
Compare that with 0% to 1% and only about 5% damage minimum per turn for 5 units. Units currently heal a minimum of 10% hitpoints per turn when not moving.
I gave what I thought were some pretty good reasons why IRL military units suffer losses from even simple operations against hopelessly outclassed units. You dismissed them all as "special circumstances".
If civ is a simulation, then one unit moving into a tile against another unit is not going to always be a fixed battle. Particularly when one force is hopelessly outmatched. It is a representation.
If civ is a game then -1HP is a good balancing issue.
What's your problem? You asked for explanations, then dismiss them without any consideration/reflection.
Edit: If I sound annoyed its cause of the internet.
crossmr
Warlord
Yes, because they are. For all the talk about how archers are secret spec op troops, why is only them getting to be more then they are? Why aren't my mech infantry actually highly trained elite troops who take no damage?
No, actually I didn't ask for explanations. I asked should this be happening in the game, then people lined up to try and give these movie of the week explanations as to why it was happening.
Because they couldn't provide a genuine argument for it happening, they've instead had to come up with all manners of stories to justify it.
Here is a story:
The guy in the giant tank turn the guy with the stick into a road stain and carried on like nothing happened.
That's far more believable than concoctions in this thread.
Should this be happening in the game? For gameplay balancing it seems it should and also because it would happen in real life.
Is it a fair representation of real world situations? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Don't dimiss my explanations as "stories to justify it". They are real world issues that affect military campaigns. You think the enemy 'archers' are going to just line up and let that tank roll over them? Hell no. They will be hiding, ambushing the supply lines: asymetric warfare tactics. And they will no doubt lose, but they will reduce the enemys operational capacity. And you send that same tank regiment against another group of enemy 'archers' without waiting to refuel, restock and rest your tank regiment will be reduced again - another suicide bomb in the mess, another soldier killed whilst smoking a cigarette on duty, another tank needing repairs.
Maybe these are stories but history is exactly that - a bunch of stories that make the whole. Using your imagination to fill in the gaps is one of my favourite bits about the civ series. If you really see combat between archers and tanks as pitched field battles then yeah, sure, you will have a problem with -1HP minimum. But if you can see the events unfolding on your computer screen as an overview of very human adventures then -1HP makes a lot of sense.
So imo, yes it should be happening in the game, because it is far more realistic than otherwise.
crossmr
Warlord
Supply plays no part in the game. Otherwise there would be actual ways to take it out and we'd be
Again, simply stories. In this story you assume the tanks do nothing to adapt. Again you're back to movie of the week stories. You assume the attackers do nothing to compensate for the apparent ingenuity and super powers of the defenders.
Why is it always the inferior units that get all these great tactics?
"Simply stories" - for goodness sake. Look at Afghanistan - very good example of asymetrical warfare. You adapt, they adapt, but the important point is you don't fight the superior enemy in a conventional way. The coalition forces there are not losing regiments or units, but they are always losing men and supplies.
Inferior units use 'great tactics' (again: asymetrical warfare, look it up) because they don't plan to win outright. Those archers know they ain't killing that tank. But they do know they can damage it, and maybe their friends can too, and so on and so forth and THEN the infidel invader might die.
Tbh, last post here, because I get the impression you are dismissing without considering. I'd recommend reading some military history/science books.
Also what should be required reading for any civ player: Jared Diamond's Guns, Steel and Germs. Off this topic, but really great study of the simple "stories" that shaped human history.
Invalid argument.
The coalition troops take casualties because
a) the Taliban hide behind civilians
b) the Taliban are NOT fighting with sticks, clubs and arrows, but with modern weapons
c) the coalition tries hard to avoid civilian losses
d) the coalition tries hard to damage as few things as possible under given circumstances
None of these points is remotely true for the scenario given here.
I agree with the idea that after a certain technological advance, superior units shouldn't take damage anymore. For sure no armored and/or airborne units.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
This is ridiculous anyway; anyone with small tactical ability and a reasonable troop investment can tear up a barb continent without losses with that kind of tech lead. Might need to stop to heal, so what? You don't need bombers. You need competent ranged forces, which you have in every era. In the MODERN era you can land on such a continent and simply shell everything that gets near you to death from the water. Is that really so hard?
1 unit minimum damage is there for balance reasons, it helps keep obsoleted units from being 100% worthless over time which is something firaxis wanted. Given how ranged upgrades scale on archers, it's not unreasonable.
Next time you want to beat the oh so hard barbarians, land a couple arty covered by battleships, and a few units to protect them/tank. Game over for barbs. You'll kill multiple barbs every turn w/o losses and out-heal the damage you take.
1 unit minimum damage is there for balance reasons, it helps keep obsoleted units from being 100% worthless over time which is something firaxis wanted. Given how ranged upgrades scale on archers, it's not unreasonable.
Next time you want to beat the oh so hard barbarians, land a couple arty covered by battleships, and a few units to protect them/tank. Game over for barbs. You'll kill multiple barbs every turn w/o losses and out-heal the damage you take.
crossmr
Warlord
It's an unnecessary waste of time. As I said, during the clear out, I ended up wasting 25-50% of the time healing. In a game where time is so important it's a huge drain.
Except:
1-players should never be in that position where they're fielding archers against another persons modern armor and GDRs
2-This ends up making old units, especially range units, far too powerful.
Look at a chariot archer with blitz. Minimum 1 damage means 4 damage a turn. Does that make any sense?
This is far too much of an investment to take out guys with sticks.
crossmr
Warlord
I'll have to recheck that thread I'd come across. Maybe that person was playing some kind of mod
It'll still doesn't change that old units, especially range ones, are made far more powerful than they should be by the minimum of 1 damage. 2 damage per turn against modern units is far too much for old range units.
Similar threads
- Locked
