Units take much more pounding now - Is that really good?

I'm really looking forward to GK, bu there is one thing that worries me quite a bit: The new concept of ten times sturdier units.

Having played numerous warheavy games in CiV I can't really say that I wish for the battles to last much longer. An also, at least as a player, my troops tend to survive quite a long time as it is.

I like that the battles between single units are quick affairs. Am I the only one fearing this might get out of hand? And I don't want even longer games than they are, coz warring in CiV is certainly more heavy on the hands of time than say a cultural victory-approach.

Thanks for the heads up, Lord Olleus!

I scrolled down the GK-section and found one title that sounded promising "New Combat System" and it did begin to discuss the subject, but it wasn't really the aspect I was considering: the very time aspect of it. I will try to read thru other threads as well and see if I can find some more on it.

You can always stick to CiV vanilla.

The units now have 100 health, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're 10 times stronger. They will also probably do more damage to compensate. It will make battles last longer because the minimum 10% damage per attack is now gone.

CivilizedPlayer said:

The units now have 100 health, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're 10 times stronger. They will also probably do more damage to compensate. It will make battles last longer because the minimum 10% damage per attack is now gone.

Click to expand...

Which means battles will be shorter when 1 player has an advantage. The superior units will not be killed as easy as before, and therefore they can steamroll over the puny units.

One thing I heard/read is that battle is going to take a bit longer (but not 10 times longer of course), which is actually only interesting when you have armies of the same era.

Nokmirt: I will definitely give GK much more than one go first! And speaking of vanilla CiV - Are the changes to battle mechanics purely GK or will they sort of get patched-in as well for those not buying the expansion?

CivilizedPlayer: Thanks for the clarification, it doesn't seem to be too much of difference then. Perhaps a 40 % increase in time for battles, just a guestimate.

CivilizedPlayer said:

It will make battles last longer because the minimum 10% damage per attack is now gone.

Click to expand...

This is true but I think there's more to it than that. Units have 10 times more hit points and might do (for example) 5 times more damage, meaning battles would be roughly twice as long. So instead of an attack doing an average of 6HP damage (out of 10), it would do 30HP damage (out of 100), and so you'd need 4 attacks to kill the unit instead of 2.

Craig123: I agree, the battles will get longer. And if you're right, then twice as long is a big shift in CiV. Just imagine what that last warry game I played on normal speed would take post-GK? Safe to say, it's a matter of hours!

TimeWeaver said:

Nokmirt: I will definitely give GK much more than one go first! And speaking of vanilla CiV - Are the changes to battle mechanics purely GK or will they sort of get patched-in as well for those not buying the expansion?

CivilizedPlayer: Thanks for the clarification, it doesn't seem to be too much of difference then. Perhaps a 40 % increase in time for battles, just a guestimate.

Click to expand...

If I had my way the vanilla version would become a rumor. The game would just simply be evolved. Rightly so IMO, because so much was missing from the first release, back in September 2010.

Of course there are some who actually like the game in its current state. They are going to have on hell of a adjustment period, stress relief via new rants thread, if you know what I mean.

BTW! Battles will not be longer, the units will be scaled up in hit points, but in damage as well, to compensate and balance combat. The combat system will be more efficient, because there will be more numerous and interesting outcomes, due to far more variables in damage taken, as well as accrued.

craig123 said:

This is true but I think there's more to it than that. Units have 10 times more hit points and might do (for example) 5 times more damage, meaning battles would be roughly twice as long. So instead of an attack doing an average of 6HP damage (out of 10), it would do 30HP damage (out of 100), and so you'd need 4 attacks to kill the unit instead of 2.

Click to expand...

Old way unit 10HP Damage 4-6HP(hypothetical), New Way 100HP Damage 40-60HP, just scaled up by tens. Instead of having three damage variables 4,5, and 6. We would now have 20. What am I am curious about is what the units retreat factor will be based on the fact that there will be more damage variables, not the length of battles. I suppose how much a unit can take before it is defeated should be based on the units experience and training. What a unit can dish out and what it can take. I have a feeling that experience and training will play a greater role in combat in G&K.

nokmirt said:

BTW! Battles will not be longer, the units will be scaled up in hit points, but in damage as well, to compensate and balance combat. The combat system will be more efficient, because there will be more numerous and interesting outcomes, due to far more variables in damage taken, as well as accrued.

Old way unit 10HP Damage 4-6HP(hypothetical), New Way 100HP Damage 40-60HP, just scaled up by tens. Instead of having three damage variables 4,5, and 6. We would now have 20.

Click to expand...

This is not what the reviews are saying. For example:

"Now units won't necessarily get blasted in a single turn, giving you the option to shift them off the front lines and alter the layout of your forces to compensate for weaknesses. The hope is that this results in more epic fights, not just quick swarms of one force over the other." Source

And:

"A direct consequence of this adaptation is that battles take longer than before. This gives you more time to respond to confrontation through for example, to send additional units." Source

And:

"The new system allows your lines to stand longer than they could before, so you, as a player, can make smarter tactical decisions without worrying about a single unlucky roll of the dice." Source

TimeWeaver said:

Craig123: I agree, the battles will get longer. And if you're right, then twice as long is a big shift in CiV.

Click to expand...

Well, the numbers I used were for illustration only. There is no evidence to say battles will be twice as long. It could be 10% longer, 50% longer, 200% longer...it's all speculation at the moment.

craig123 said:

This is not what the reviews are saying. For example:

"Now units won't necessarily get blasted in a single turn

Click to expand...

Well yes that is possible and why not? There are many more variables for damage. And I am guessing more retreats etc. Shifting battles and battles that are not so straight forward. Even so, I do not think the fights are going to be tediously longer(its not going to be like, wow is this ever going to end? LOL! As some people deem it.), but much more fun.

nokmirt said:

Well yes that is possible and why not? There are many more variables for damage. And I am guessing more retreats etc. Shifting battles and battles that are not so straight forward. Even so, I do not think the fights are going to be tediously longer(its not going to be like, wow is this ever going to end? LOL! As some people deem it.), but much more fun.

Click to expand...

I never said that battles would be tediously longer, but several reviews have stated that battles will be longer. I don't think is a case of damage being scaled by a factor of 10 (e.g. from 4-6HP to 40-60HP, as per your example).

The quotes saying that battles will take longer, and not worrying about "a single unlucky roll of the dice", implies that the mean and the variance of combat damage will be (relatively) lower (e.g. from 4-6HP to 25-40HP).

I am also hopeful that it will make combat more fun.

Craig123:s quotes show that the intension is to create units that take their time to be crushed under whatever general's heel. I hope that you are right, that it does enhance the gaming experience. As for the mathematical probability, I hope that it is mostly up to the quality of the unit how the melee ends.

I think what will mostly change is that stronger units will actually be stronger, the 1 damage rule become a lot less important and that allows stronger units to more easily steamroll weaker units.

Extended combat will mostly lead to slower warfare. Not only because units take longer to die but also because it is easier to retreat and heal and then go back into the fight. My guesstimate is that it will also lead to more promotions, units live longer and spend more turns fighting (although they make fewer kills).

Mostly, it will make other aspects of the game more important. When conquest takes longer (and new defensive units are added, as it seems) investment in other areas become more worthwhile. I am very happy about this.

Lord Olleus said:

Actually, if the mean damage done is lower, then the variance doesn't have to change. With the same variance and a lower mean, more attacks are needed to kill a unit, which equates to "rolling the dice" more often, which will by itself reduce the cumulated variance by the Central Limit Theorem (if that is what its called - its been 3 years since I last used it).

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct, the variance doesn't have to be lower, though I suspect it will be. Currently, the spread of damage for melee combat is the same as the minimum damage (and hence the maximum damage is double the minimum damage). My (unfounded) assumption is that the minimum damage and the spread of damage will be increased by the same amount (though by less than a factor of 10).

Lord Olleus said:

Healing is an important aspect actually?

Will they make healing (as a % of total HP) stay the same as it is now, or will they scale it down by the same amount as damage is?

This could make a BIG difference.

Click to expand...

I didn't think of that actually, that could be a huge difference. Not to mention the healing promotion, which could be huge now.

I think they also wanted to avoid units being "one-shotted" without having a chance to do anything, which can often happen in cavalry battles. I'm with the OP that I don't want battles to take *much* longer, but I respect this change and live in the hope that it will make the game better.

To allay the OP's fears, maybe the fact that units will have a better opportunity to retreat will be balanced by a reduction in the instant heal promotion; perhaps it will give back a certain amount of HP instead of a full heal.

I think above all it will help AI to conduct attacks,

Many times it's attacks turn into bloodpath as crossbowmen or cannons slaughter the troops until they get to the close combat, I think this will help them good.

And of course there will be machineguns for the destruction of human wave attacks.

*Instant* healing is crucial with longer battles!

I am pretty sure, we will see some major changings here, as well as with promotion rate. All I could read so far regarding new G&K concepts indicates, that the developers know very well what they do in with this expansion.

Therefore, I can *not* imagine, they prolonged figths and left experience gain and instant healing untouched!

What *could* be done with instant healing (without removing it completly, which I don't believe) is, for example:
- Giving back only some HP, not all.
- Making it necessary to have no enemy unit adjacent, when healing (maybe in combination with the upper point. If enemy present -> lesser healing)
- making instant heal eating up all movement points, so there will be no aditional action in that turn.