Discussion on Civ 4 combat

What's an axe and what's a tank? Why aren't you using nukes?

If you play your cards right, the game should be over by the time you get nukes. Tanks as well. Unless purposely going for a late game victory, I rarely need tanks, let alone nukes.
 
I prefer the civ4 combat system, despite the chance losing at very good odds, over the boring and braindead civ5 combat system.
The civ5 AI has absolutely no clue how to handle the combat system in civ5.
 
I am especially talking about "Axeman defeats a tank" syndrome. Clearly for air units attacking land units without the ability to reach an aircraft, something was done written into code to prevent the ridiculous concept of a phalanx or even basic rifleman from responding to an attack they could not possibly hope to defend. However, apparently axemen can reduce a tank regiment unit by 1/3. This is sort of extreme un-realism significantly reduces the enjoyment of the game for me.

Axeman defeats tank, especially when the tank unit is already battle damaged, is not so unrealistic. The math and game mechanics have been discussed by others, so the expected outcomes occur nearly all the time.

My objections to Civ4 combat are more related to when the different types of units (air, sea, land, bombardment) interact with each other. In Civ3, I was accustomed to moving my land-based artillery into position on rails, and blasting the stuffing out of AI ships who stayed too close to the coast. Not in Civ4. WWI-era aircraft flew low, and had open cockpits; they were vulnerable to rifle fire from the ground. It's difficult in Civ4 to use your navy to damage land units or air units.
 
The whole problem with ranged units, besides the AI don't know how to use them (remember civ3 and in civ5 less),
it's too strong and only gets stronger with specific promotions.
I've seen in some 'let's play civ5' where battleships with +1 range and double attack dominating the whole battlefield without getting any damage.
 
Top Bottom