Should units always do a minimum of 1 damage?

See every previous tank vs spearman discussion...

I would say that warriors and the like in the modern era don't represent guys with l\clubs, but guerrillas and/or smaller formations of units. People in Somalia don't run around with club they use automatic weapons.
 
See every previous tank vs spearman discussion...

I would say that warriors and the like in the modern era don't represent guys with l\clubs, but guerrillas and/or smaller formations of units. People in Somalia don't run around with club they use automatic weapons.

Except barbarians do upgrade later to musketmen and things like that. Since musketmen exist, we can't use that excuse.
Warriors are guys with clubs.
 
Except barbarians do upgrade later to musketmen and things like that. Since musketmen exist, we can't use that excuse.
Warriors are guys with clubs.

Actually you can use it as an excuse, the game is an ABSTRACTION. Musketmen existing has nothing to do with a rabble of disorganized civilians with automatic weapons.

You do understand that a hex is larger than some states? The things in the game do not represent what you think they represent. It is just flavor. This is exactly the same discussion we have been having in civ forums for 20 years, and you are frankly wrong.
 
I agree with dyllyn to increase the number of health points. 5 archers with Logistics destroying a Mech is really realistic.. ;)
 
Except barbarians do upgrade later to musketmen and things like that. Since musketmen exist, we can't use that excuse.
Warriors are guys with clubs.
I'd interpret modern-day Warriors in Civilization as civilians or extremely disorganized military personnel with mostly improvised weapons, including clubs (baton sticks, baseball bats, and just flat out clubs), and likely a few simple firearms.
Barbarian Warriors would be pretty much rioters, while civilized Warriors could be improved military forces.

Pretty much every other unit in the game could be exactly what it says. I don't really have a problem with regiments of Pikemen coexisting with modern-day military regiments. Heck, World War I saw greater use of melee weapons than most people realize; Poland had mounted Lances during World War II; and Crossbows are still used by military, paramilitary and special forces around the globe (Brazilian army, for example, has a few divisions able to use Bows and Crossbows).
 
I'm against the minimum damage. I'm fine with fractional damage getting probabilistically rounded (so 0.1 damage would turn into 0 damage 90% of the time, and 1 damage 10% of the time).

I like that. Seems a fair compromise (although I wouldn't go below a 10% chance).

The only thing I'd keep it for is for aircraft. I like viewing that as maintenance. Plus, airpower is such a giant advantage, it balances things slightly (at least, it slows down attacks by forcing you to pause).
 
Except barbarians do upgrade later to musketmen and things like that. Since musketmen exist, we can't use that excuse.
Warriors are guys with clubs.

Yeah, but they're guys with clubs who managed to live for 3000 years. These guys are like the highlanders. You don't mess with immortals with clubs. They mess with you.

You're lucky you're in a tank.
 
I agree that they should remove the -1 damage.
I once had my mechanized infantry nearly bombarded to death by 4 of Gandhi's crossbowman and a cannon.:mad:
 
Imo imo brutes (barbs. with clubs) should be masacred by modern units, but barb. tech should advance and existing units should be slowly upgraded, so ranks would almost never face brutes.

On the other hand, heading to uninhabited territory lategame and not expecting barbs is foolish.
One carrier with fighter and 2 bombers (bought in city with max +XP boosts = soon airepair and 2 attacks for bombers) = 5 barbs each turn killed, repeatedly. Add medic and they can do it indifinately.
 
I agree that they should remove the -1 damage.
I once had my mechanized infantry nearly bombarded to death by 4 of Gandhi's crossbowman and a cannon.:mad:

Dude! No damage, no XP! Farming backwards Civs with Medics is the chief method I have for "training" my AntiTank Guns and Mech Inf into Marching Blitzers. I couldn't do that if there were no damage.

5 attacks per turn = 10 XP per turn, 15 if with Mil Trad. That's a frickin' gold mine.
 
Dude! No damage, no XP! Farming backwards Civs with Medics is the chief method I have for "training" my AntiTank Guns and Mech Inf into Marching Blitzers. I couldn't do that if there were no damage.

5 attacks per turn = 10 XP per turn, 15 if with Mil Trad. That's a frickin' gold mine.

Maybe they should give xp. for being fired at, even if you don't take damage.
 
Why? Then there would be no risk whatsoever to standing there, but you get to keep all the benefit.
 
In the past, months ago when I played more (altho I still play civ5 at least twice a week) there were plenty of times when I've seen units take 0 damage from combat. Have they done some patch wherein promotions were made less effective? I haven't read about them.

If you send an non-promoted unit into combat, even against lesser-equipped forces, there will be some losses. Ewoks are a bad example. Think conscripted or "fresh outta boot camp" teens being thrown into the jungle or north africa. Then, even particularly elite units can fall victim to a couple guys making lucky shots...

It's a game, but I can see cases when the "damage" can be legitimized. I agree with the concept that, "Even tho they are effectively lesser-strength units, they are not bronze-age people; simply lesser-equipped to the extent of meriting a lower combat value". A "brute" in 2003 was an angry mob with a couple pistols, swords, bats and maybe a couple IED's. A "trireme" in 2000 blew a hole in the side of a US destroyer.
 
Why? Then there would be no risk whatsoever to standing there, but you get to keep all the benefit.

No, no, no, no, no, no.
If, for example, there is a mech. infantry going up against an archer, the mechanized infantry would be bombarded, the tech difference would cause him to take no damage, then he would keep the experience.
The case is different with say, a mech. infantry against a cannon. Then there would be some damage involved.
 
If only to represent supply, I don't mind 1 damage - it's minor and easily healed.

I did mind seeing my Battleship take TWO DAMAGE from a Trireme. That's just abysmal.
 
the tech difference would cause him to take no damage, then he would keep the experience.

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.
 
Top Bottom