Should units always do a minimum of 1 damage?

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'd have to agree with this. If you really don't like it that much then make a mod that sets minimum damage to 0 instead of 1. Simple fix, and it doesn't require firaxis forcing what appears to be a minority opinion on the whole vanilla civ5 community.

I'd say there is a good chance someone already made this mod btw. IIRC it consists of 1-3 xml entry updates in global_defines.xml
 
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fact is if i could still make outdated units in the modern age i probably would.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.

A good point. This can be fixed even easier than the other one. I know for certain it's just a single xml entry update in global defines to change this with a mod.

EDIT: referring to max unit HP that is
 
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).

This. I think if you are so far ahead in tech that you CAN wipe out some Artificial Noobs with a single unit then you deserve to be able to.
 
Yes of course. My system would get rid of guaranteed 1 damage.

Again, I don't know of any "guaranteed 1 damage" in code. It's very possible, for example, a drill3 cover2 rifleman running around in woods to take 0 damage from anything less than another rifleman or a cannon, and every then, it is 1 damage if those are not promoted.

I've seen it. I've done it. In mp people were like "wow, 0 damage, I give".

Edit: also notoriously in mp continent games with powerful upgraded frigate and destroyer navies.
 
Again, your problem stems from seeing those barbs as brutes from 2000 bc not a ragtag group of crappy military that have ieds.
Actually I'm seeing them as someone who has a relative strength of only 5 vs something that has a relative strength of more than 10x that.

Your problem is that you'll try and invent all kinds of reasons to excuse this design choice, when the reality is that if units have that kind of strength disparity the weaker one should be wiped out without so much as a thought and really only be given 1 damage as a lucky strike.

You've got no evidence to suggest that this clubbed barbarians are packing IEDs or secret rocket launchers or anything else. More advanced units exist which means they're nothing more than what they look like. They might not want to account for this disparity, but they should. That's exactly what I'm suggesting with this thread.
 
I'd rather just see modern units have more than 10 HP (like in SMAC). I don't think we'd be complaining if modern armor had 40 HP instead of the 10 it had now.
 
This is just a basic in every turn based strategy there is allways a mininimum damage It balance the game
 
This is just a basic in every turn based strategy there is allways a mininimum damage It balance the game

how?
It's great to say that, but if you can't demonstrate how it balances the game, it doesn't mean a whole lot.

Most players will never really end up in this situation anyway, and the only situation in which it becomes an issue is the one I described, but really all that does is cause annoyance to the player rather than create any kind of "balance".
 
how?
It's great to say that, but if you can't demonstrate how it balances the game, it doesn't mean a whole lot.

Most players will never really end up in this situation anyway, and the only situation in which it becomes an issue is the one I described, but really all that does is cause annoyance to the player rather than create any kind of "balance".

Well the one you described also shows the reason... if those were the units of another civ, then you would get massive amounts of experience.

I think it might be better just to say

L3 units get 1 exp from melee attacking, or being attacked By a barb. (still 0 from range attacking it)

So 1 damage->1 exp.
 
Well the one you described also shows the reason... if those were the units of another civ, then you would get massive amounts of experience.
Except I also pointed out, that it's unlikely that you'd ever have two players that far apart, so that situation doesn't exist to create any kind of imbalance. And if the unit is not taking damage I have no problem removing the XP bonus.
So again:
How does this create any kind of genuine imbalance in the game?
If there ever exists a time when you have archers and your opponent has tanks and mech infantry, forget it, you're done anyway.
 
Except I also pointed out, that it's unlikely that you'd ever have two players that far apart, so that situation doesn't exist to create any kind of imbalance. And if the unit is not taking damage I have no problem removing the XP bonus.
So again:
How does this create any kind of genuine imbalance in the game?
If there ever exists a time when you have archers and your opponent has tanks and mech infantry, forget it, you're done anyway.

You might be done, but the one damage you inflict might prevent Them from winning, and allow someone else to (they can't just use one Blitz tank to conquer your empire, they have to divert units that they could use somewhere else, against a real enemy.)

Now archers are one thing, but you had barb muskets (16) v. Tanks (50)... that is only a 3x difference.

I could see a 0 damage + 0 exp if the difference was 5x
modern armor+stealth v. muskets+trebs+longswords+knights,
Pikes+swords+horsemen+catapults v. Tanks+mech Inf+bombers+jets+battleships,
GDR v. riflemen+cavs+lancers+cannons,
warriors+spears+archers v. Infantry+Fighters

That might work.

So your tank could have mowed down everything but the barb muskets, and it would take crossbows to hurt your destroyer.
 
Now archers are one thing, but you had barb muskets (16) v. Tanks (50)... that is only a 3x difference.
This discussion has pretty much always been about archers/crossbows/clubs vs modern units. I already said that it's likely muskets would damage at least some of those units since they are a gunpowder unit.

it would take crossbows to hurt your destroyer.
Crossbows really shouldn't be hurting a destroyer as well. Neither of the early range units should be damaging modern vehicles/navy at all.
 
Gameplay considerations > realism considerations.

Or make up some pretend where the xbows have explosive tips. Not a big reach when your opponent has such munitions.
 
Gameplay considerations > realism considerations.
No one has demonstrated the game play benefit, at all. Many people have claimed that's the reason, but no one has been able to demonstrate what the gameplay consideration/balancing need is with this.

Or make up some pretend where the xbows have explosive tips. Not a big reach when your opponent has such munitions.
this is again just more apologist excuses. Why is it that only the really weak units are getting any kind of super unusual bonuses? Isn't it much more likely that the advanced, better equipped, better trained units would be getting these kinds of special bonuses?
 
Off the top of my head, an allowance for massive tech difference weights additional value on tech advances, making science stronger, as if it weren't strong enough already. Moreover, given that techs generally lean very close to each other anyway, the change will only account for barbarians or truly breakaway tech games, the first being too trivial an event to code for (and to mop up in the game, tbh) and the second will allow Civs like Korea and Babylon to be much more skimpy with their armies than they already are.
 
the first being too trivial an event to code for
Not too trivial on huge maps or terra maps where the barbarians are left to spawn endlessly for a very long time resulting in massive infestations when you get over there

the second will allow Civs like Korea and Babylon to be much more skimpy with their armies than they already are.
Only if the other civs are fielding archers and basically doing nothing with science.
While Korea and babylon get science bonuses, it's extremely unlikely that they'd be outpacing anyone enough to field destroyers against archers.
 
So basically, it's to make barb mop up easier on a few maps? Can't you just send a couple Logistics Crossbows to deal with that? Heck, take the first Honor policy to reap a ton of Culture to boot!
 
No one has demonstrated the game play benefit, at all. Many people have claimed that's the reason, but no one has been able to demonstrate what the gameplay consideration/balancing need is with this.

Let's put it this way: either the units do 1 damage or it's totally impossible.

Anything else leaves random chance having a TREMENDOUS impact on the efficacy of modern units sweeping backwards forces. Apparently, Firaxis wanted to make advanced civs put a legit investment into more than 1-3 units to be able to wipe out backwards civs. Perhaps the BALANCE here is so that a tech lead by itself doesn't guarantee military god-mode. It's a stealth nerf to beakers against hammers/gold/etc, and one that's needed in theory.

this is again just more apologist excuses. Why is it that only the really weak units are getting any kind of super unusual bonuses? Isn't it much more likely that the advanced, better equipped, better trained units would be getting these kinds of special bonuses?

Speaking of apologist excuses, what about the other side of the coin? Care to give us a reason, clear and objective, that making it so that obsoleted units can't possibly damage more advanced ones is BETTER for gameplay?

Much as I hate the "reality" muck, the ability of backwards units to damage advanced ones has some basis in reality. Once backwards guys start seeing what their opponents do, of course they're going to try to adapt to their opponents. History is rife with people using equipment from the other side to design new weapons, or simply using capture weapons against their opponent. Usually, the advanced side doesn't take major damage from these efforts unless massively outnumbered, but how often do you see operations that are 100% casualty free above possibly spec-ops squad maneuvers? Even those aren't exactly safe.

Now, tell us, what's a good GAMEPLAY reason to make it completely impossible for obsolete units to damage modern ones?
 
Top Bottom