How is unit balance?

Cruor

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
79
I have civ 4 but I am in the process of moving and cant play yet. (computer is in storage atm) Im eager to know how unit balance is, I keep hearing mixed things. I read the "no more tanks losing to spearmen" but I hear they can lose to musketmen etc if the conditions are right, which I feel is idiotic. Not that Id play on such an easy level where I had tanks and comp had only musket men, but tanks should not lose to riflemen etc either, nor should they even be injured, same goes for marines vs cavalry, etc etc.

Gunships seem weak to me, only 20 power, 100% vs armor, but do they lose 50/50 to infantry which are also 20? So it seems they lose to every unit of thier time, only beating tanks in the field, and 50/50 of beating MA in the field? (helicopters with high powered machine guns,rockets and missles losing to men with semi auto rifles... how?) On top of that, +100 power only makes it 40, so why not just make modern armor thats always at 40 vs all? Maybe slower moving but on paper seems more effective.

Panzer is +50% vs armor.. its 28, so... 42 vs other armor right? So panzers beat modern armor? Am I right or wrong here?

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the stats, it seems end game you should just spam modern armor/arty. I dont really see a point to mech infantry now, If you want AA just build a more effective Sam infantry. It just seems that mech inf should get some bonus like + 25 defence in cities, even with the inability for Modern Armor to fortify, on paper it just seems more effective to build all MA then mix in MI.

Anyway, I know its a game, and not a war simulation. But it really bothered me to no end in Civ 3 when my tanks often lost to riflemen. I missed the part in history class about Napoleon-Civial war era rifles piericing inches think of armor then bouncing around inside the turret killing all of the crew, to each tank they hit. I must of also been sick the day of the lesson about bowmen killing men with rifles (dont even try mentioning the Zulus, or Custer, this is unit vs unit, not one rifleman vs 10 bowman)

Anyway, I just hope the days of superior units losing to totaly inferior ones are gone, please tell me how combat goes now because if Infantry are going to be shooting down my Gunships and Rifleman are going to be blowing holes in my tanks, Im going to mod the game before my first game can frustrate me.

So far in the series, of Civ 1,2 and 3 I think Civ 2 had the best unit vs unit combat system, and I have no idea why it was changed in Civ3. My tanks never lost to riflemen, riflemen never lost to musketmen, legions never lost to warriors (niether were they badly injured by inferior opponents) So I really pray that unit vs unit combat has been made more realistic then it was in Civ 3. Like I said hear mixed things, so what are some views of people who have played through the whole game?
 
Cruor said:
I have civ 4 but I am in the process of moving and cant play yet. (computer is in storage atm) Im eager to know how unit balance is, I keep hearing mixed things. I read the "no more tanks losing to spearmen" but I hear they can lose to musketmen etc if the conditions are right, which I feel is idiotic. Not that Id play on such an easy level where I had tanks and comp had only musket men, but tanks should not lose to riflemen etc either, nor should they even be injured, same goes for marines vs cavalry, etc etc.

Gunships seem weak to me, only 20 power, 100% vs armor, but do they lose 50/50 to infantry which are also 20? So it seems they lose to every unit of thier time, only beating tanks in the field, and 50/50 of beating MA in the field? (helicopters with high powered machine guns,rockets and missles losing to men with semi auto rifles... how?) On top of that, +100 power only makes it 40, so why not just make modern armor thats always at 40 vs all? Maybe slower moving but on paper seems more effective.

Panzer is +50% vs armor.. its 28, so... 42 vs other armor right? So panzers beat modern armor? Am I right or wrong here?

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the stats, it seems end game you should just spam modern armor/arty. I dont really see a point to mech infantry now, If you want AA just build a more effective Sam infantry. It just seems that mech inf should get some bonus like + 25 defence in cities, even with the inability for Modern Armor to fortify, on paper it just seems more effective to build all MA then mix in MI.

Anyway, I know its a game, and not a war simulation. But it really bothered me to no end in Civ 3 when my tanks often lost to riflemen. I missed the part in history class about Napoleon-Civial war era rifles piericing inches think of armor then bouncing around inside the turret killing all of the crew, to each tank they hit. I must of also been sick the day of the lesson about bowmen killing men with rifles (dont even try mentioning the Zulus, or Custer, this is unit vs unit, not one rifleman vs 10 bowman)

Anyway, I just hope the days of superior units losing to totaly inferior ones are gone, please tell me how combat goes now because if Infantry are going to be shooting down my Gunships and Rifleman are going to be blowing holes in my tanks, Im going to mod the game before my first game can frustrate me.

So far in the series, of Civ 1,2 and 3 I think Civ 2 had the best unit vs unit combat system, and I have no idea why it was changed in Civ3. My tanks never lost to riflemen, riflemen never lost to musketmen, legions never lost to warriors (niether were they badly injured by inferior opponents) So I really pray that unit vs unit combat has been made more realistic then it was in Civ 3. Like I said hear mixed things, so what are some views of people who have played through the whole game?

You sir have just hit upon my biggest gripe against the game so far. Lost two gunships and a tank vs a Longbow unit. Pointy sticks flying through the air at metal, some of it inches thick...
 
The units' strength represent values, not the actual things that you want them to be. For example, Riflemen can beat Tanks in Civ 3. Why? Because the game compares values, not realistic occurances. I hope you know what I mean.
 
Cruor said:
Panzer is +50% vs armor.. its 28, so... 42 vs other armor right? So panzers beat modern armor? Am I right or wrong here?

Well Modern armor also have a First Strike..not much, but enough to beat a 42 (also any other bonuses the Panzer gets fade)
MA + Combat 1=44
Panzer +Combat 1 v Modern Armor=44.8
Combat 2 its
48 to 47.6

Admitedly they kept a large amount of randomness (on average 5 hits to kill a unit) so on average the do more damage. (effectively Civ 1=1 'hp' units, Civ 2=10-20 hp units, Civ 3=2-5 hp units, and with Civ 4 we are at ~5 hp units units) Fewer hp (where only one unit loses a hp every turn) is more random. If units did a minimum damage to each other each round of combat, then the model would be closer to the average
(X number of spearman would be required to tak out a tank, you might do it with 1/3 as many or need 3* as many if you got lucky/unlucky)


A much steeper difference between units of different technologies ie spearman 4 strength, rifleman 200, tanks 2000, could also work but would require a lot of 'transitional' units (you should get a new unit every 5 turns or so, otherwise you would rapidly be crushed) It would probably also require a lot more 'leakage' of scientific research (ie any tech you've had for 15 turns all your neighbors get for free) to make sure no one got too far behind. (those changes would make the game more realistic in many senses.)
 
Dun get your hopes up, i found Terain and other forums of tile based def bonusses to be more conlusive then anything else.

Had lost armies trying to take a city defended by just an archer, while i used Preatorians. Lost dozens of Rifleman trying to kill a skirmicher in a jungle.

Get a Longbowman kill my Navy SEAL. So honestly, the units inherent stats are NOT very conclusive but it commes from terain bonusses and sheer luck.

Agreed, no longer Spearman>Tank, but we are still stuck with Longbowman>Navy Seal. Im gona experiment a bit with this by perhaps giving more advanced units of lets say a Gunpowerder unit a bonuss against all melee units and archers or spread the stats up alot more.
 
Actually with the new system it probably would work to put in some type of bonus v. Melee and archer units for the more advanced ones

Riflemen/Grenadiers-25% bonus
Machine Gunner/Infantry/Tank-50% bonus (+25% v Mounted)
Marine/Mech Inf/Gunship/MA-100% bonus (+50% bonus v Mounted)

Should be enough.


The more complete solution would be to add more hp into the model (have the base damage done be 5 or 10% of strength per hit rather than 20% of strength)

Ideal would be both sides hit each other simultaneously, each round, perhaps one gets a chance each round to do extra damage but there is always that minimum.
 
Sigh... that really upsets me... the only reason the game isnt going back right now is because thank god, they did make it very easy to mod. Im just going to have to mod tank etc to be + 100% vs all units older then the industrial period, lot of modding work ahead of me I guess.

Could anyone answer for me please, and I know the people that made the game read these boards.. WHY did you do this... AGAIN. I mean "just a game" aside, an ancient unit even slightly damaging a modern unit makes no sense... In balance terms... if you have let yourself slip that far down, you deserve to be annihilated.

I could see a battle harded grp of musket men with superior tatics and ground beating men with repeating rifles... but a longbow man shooting down a gunship!? I really don't know what the designers were thinking, its just utterly crazy. Can ANYONE answer why it is this way in civ3 and 4 and why they didnt just keep civ 2's combat system? Why fix whats note broken?

Argh.. well, I have A LOT of modding work to get done I see, before even playing.
 
Back
Top Bottom