Anyone likes "Strength"?

[Mirc]

Is Strength a good thing?
For the moment I don't know.
I have Civ4 but I can't play it! .
Please if you like (or dislike) it post here.

BTW, this post sounded completely different before editing it now.

 

[Heav]

IT 'S FALSE!! U need different units for attack/defence!! U will see .

 

[Joh]

Yeah, try take a square defended by a few machine guns with riflemen as opposed to taking a square only defended by rifelmen *shudders*

If you don't have arty, a few machine gunners can hold off wave after wave of infantry, but the machine guns cannot attack themselves.

Therer are similiar examples throuhgout the rest of the game.

 

[BeefontheBone]

So, what you're saying is that you hate (so much so you put it in bold and underline it) something you've never tried? Cunning...

 

[Charles 22]

IT 'S FALSE!! U need different units for attack/defence!! U will see .

I'm not so sure about that, afterall consider the case of the pikeman. I've seen them do numbers on horse units, even in attack! There's no way a man with a heavy, long pole gores a horse out in the open. Maybe the horse-riders are laughing so much at the thought of charging pikemen that they get forget to dodge them. Sure, we knew the pikemen were good against horses due to the bonus, the only problem is that it shouldn't apply to pikemen on the attack.

 

[TerraHero]

absolutely dashing

However, talking from experience, i do like the old civ3 ways where units where specialized for a role beter. What defines a defence and offence unit now, with a few, and i mean 1 or 2 exceptions, is there promotions.

One unit, Like Longbowman, starts with a bonuss STR in hills and city, when he is defending. But if i where to get my Rifleman the same promotions he's beter then a longbowman.

And as more about these promotions, units tend to get DEFENCE promotions, but except for soem UU, barely any offence promotions worth while. A longbowman in a city on a hill has such a massive bonus he is unstopable by most of his peers. Whereas the best attack bonuss a unit in this era gets from itself is possibly the knight or the maceman. Knight ignores First Strikes (wich only applies to ranged units) and a Maceman has a +25 or 50% str vs Melee units (wich doesnt apply to the incredibly fortified Longbowman)

Defence is incredibly easy compared to Offence, and witout this def/atk points its all a bit more, simple. If a Maceman has 10atk and 6def then its more desirable to be the one attacking since this gets him his most Str aswell has the best results from his +50?% combat bonuss vs melee makign this unit a real attacker. Also, this means a more complicated tactical system where picking the right unit is vital. And an army is more then juz a cluster of 1 type of unit.

 

[Truronian]

I prefer strength. Civ3 always ended up as an army of cavalry on the frontlines and an army of riflemen at home. In Civ4 you actually need variety in your army, while the promotions systems means that elitehood is not wasted and that older units can still be used in combat. If you compare the average plyers army from 3 and from 4, I imagine 4s will be more varied and tactical in 99% of cases.

 

[Charles 22]

Here's a question for everyone. Suppose you have an archer with a 20% hill bonus, and he attacks another unit on another hill. Does his attack carry the 20% bonus since he's both on a hill and attacking one? I don't remember the terminology for the bonus now, as I'm at work, but if it don't say it's for defense you should be able to get the bonus for either attacking into a hill, or attacking from a hill.

I wonder about that because we understood the strike bonus was defensive, but I have seen those battle odds pre-battle stats and it did include a strike bonus for archers "on the attack".

 

[Roland Ehnström]

Here's a question for everyone. Suppose you have an archer with a 20% hill bonus, and he attacks another unit on another hill. Does his attack carry the 20% bonus since he's both on a hill and attacking one?

No, the Hill bonus is a DEFENCE bonus only. The unit he is attacking will get a 25% defence bonus from the Hill however. So the attacking unit will lose about 3 times out of 4 if they are equal strength.

-- Roland

 

[Charles 22]

No, the Hill bonus is a DEFENCE bonus only. The unit he is attacking will get a 25% defence bonus from the Hill however. So the attacking unit will lose about 3 times out of 4 if they are equal strength.

-- Roland

You did understand that those archer 1st strike bonuses were defensive too, right? And yet I saw them just as I described. Perhaps they don't really get the bonus on the attack and it's just inadvertently on the display?

 

[WillemIV]

What I don't really like is that when you hold the alt button and then attack you see a win ratio number like 4.3 (is you) agains't 2.7 change to win. So you already know who's gonna win before attacking.

I also don't like that you see the score from other civilizations on and offline so you know who's the best/most advanced civilization by just looking at the score.
And you can hover your mouse on a city and see how many units are inside!!!

What's the fun about that?

 

[Roland Ehnström]

What's the fun about that?

There's no pleasing some people...

-- Roland

 

[Frimlin]

The one thing I realised made me uneasy with the change from A&D values to Strength and other changes, was basically my unfamiliarity with the new system. I had got so used to Civ3, especially after periods playing it night after night for months on end -- I wasn't sure at first that I could adapt so happily.

But now I'm quite into Civ4's way of doing things. You get used to it, and as Heav says, there are still units that are more suited for Attack and those for Defence, too. Just takes a few games to become familiar with them -- and I'm still learning new things about it all.

The new system seems to have much more flexibility and freedom for customisation. Especially with the Promotions, the different unit type strengths, and the various counter strategies you have to consider to take advantage of enemy unit weaknesses. And indeed the same in reverse for your defence.

In previous Civs I did always like making up my forces with a varied group of units, but sometimes it didn't seem all that necessary. Now it actually pays off noticeably, and feels more satisfying when you do it well.

 

[WillemIV]

There's no pleasing some people...

-- Roland

Sure there is, I do like this game but these things I mentioned not.

And it's ok that it is like it how it is right BUT give us at least more options in the menu so we can turn those things OFF so we can play like that on- and offline with more realistic/harder options which are more fun.

 

[Revolutionary]

"What I don't really like is that when you hold the alt button and then attack you see a win ratio number like 4.3 (is you) agains't 2.7 change to win. So you already know who's gonna win before attacking."

not true, I still lose at times even though it shows I should win

the only difference is that in civ3 you had to do the calculations in your head

 

[narmox]

WillemIV : they're just odds.. In fact I've won against very bad odds, and lost to good odds.

Seeing 4.3 vs 2.7 is no different from civ3 knowing your Cavalry had Attack 6 and Spearman defense 2 + 50% for city walls + 10% defense bonus.

The only difference is that the game calculates for you the defense/offense bonus and adds them to the strength value for you.

Mirc: the new strength system ROCKS. Try it out before speaking against it. Try it out for more than 1-2 games too lol. Takes a while to adapt. I still hesitate to use spearmen to attack cities even when I give them city raider promotions lol. But I end up doing it if it's the right unit for the job..

 

[Exel]

Sometimes the pessimistic me feels that the promotions were done just to avoid the trouble of balancing the units against each other with regular specialities. Now it's left up to the player to customize his troops. Now that may have sounded good on paper, but the system doesn't really back it up. Most units will ever get 1 or 2 promotions, which is not enough to really specialize the unit in any way. And if they are not specialized, their only major differences will be their difference in strenght and the few basic features they may or may not have.

The promotion system aint bad, but it just aint as good as the Civ3 standard unit system or the Alpha Centuari unit designer that really allowed you to customize your unit the way you saw fit.

The promotion system needs improvement - or rather an overhaul - to be as playable and enjoyable as it can be. Until then, I'd vote for the Civ3 combat system any day.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I always thought the attack/defense split in the earlier civs felt artificial, so I like the change.

 

[Tremo]

Old civ strategy; ZERG RUSH AND STACKED DEFENSE! BRAINZZZ!
New civ strategy: Bring a variety of units to an offensive strike, all with the proper promotions. Keep a variety of units for defense, also with a proper promotions. Medics are a must! You also have to take in consideration the terrain you're fighting on.

Sorry, new civ style suits me way better. I don't like brainless attacks.

 

[Psyringe]

I was undecided about the promotion system until I played it. So far i like it. You have to make lots of decisions (which is part of the fun of strategy games), and you really grow attached to some units after they reached level 4 or so. I also like the flexibility of the new system. The only thing I'm worrying about is whether this system doesn't lead to micromanaging when you have big armies, because it's now less obvious what a specific unit is good for, you have to check its promotions.

Exel: I regularly get units to level 4 and above. It's actually part of my strategy. I sometimes send weaker units on suicide attacks in order to weaken the enemy enough so that my slightly more experienced units can charge in with less risk. This way I get some high level units, which can make a difference on the battlefield. But I'm not sure whether this strategy is really practical yet.