Anyone likes "Strength"?

[Joh]

If you play agreesive leader with barracks and vassalage, you can get quite a few promotions right off the bat.

 

[c-mattio]

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.

Oh no you don't! Believe me, its shows the odds of winning, not who's won. I'm currently playing the War of Independence and I attacked Boston and had something like attack 17.8 and defence 12 and I lost without inflicting a single casualty on the enemy unit! I was gutted!

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

I was sceptical about the new system before the game was out, but combining att, def and hp into a single value works like a charm.

Terrain and geography - and promotions suited to terrain, or other special abilities, are extremely important. Place a swordsman who is also a woodsman II on a wooded hill in the early game (+75% strength), and he is very capable of holding the spot against an able attacker. Place him out in the open on plains or grassland, and he is toast.

PS. You can only use the hovering info if you have a line of sight in the area, meaning units nearby or similar (this also makes religion doubly useful btw, since you get a line of sight in cities with your religions).

 

[KeljuIvan]

I can't believe anyone could favor the Civ3 system to Civ4's. The new combat system is a huge improvement and I really love it.

 

[gradenko_2000]

The new combat system didn't JUST remove attack/defense values and lump them together into a generic strength value. You're missing half the picture if you don't consider that many units now get large bonuses/penalties depending on who they engage.

For me, the new system allows for even more flexibility - the Civ 3 model was an "attack with the best attacker, defend with the best defender" type of war that would sometimes appear more one-dimensional than a Strength-only system might imply.

With the C-IV model, you have the freedom to form a specialized army to just counter the specific empire you're facing, at the risk of getting countered yourself later - or shoot for a generalist approach that's more expensive, but potentially more impenetrable.

As for the combat odds calculator, I think its a great addition. An assured win is still an assured win, you're just more aware this time, and there's still a lot of nail-biting "leave it up to the dice" moments when you see "6.0 vs 6.0" on a stack you just have to kill.

The suicidal artillery is going to take a lot of getting used to though. I can live with it, but I'm still going to be lost on how much I actually need for quite some time. [digress] I think they could've left damaging bombards and implemented a percentage cap on maximum strength reduction instead. [/disgress]

 

[Mirc]

What? In Civ4 you see who's going to win a battle before attacking?

 

[Mirc]

Sorry for the double post, for some reasons I couldn't edit my post above.

Maybe if I'm going to play Civ4 for some time, I'll like it, but now I don't. I hope I'll like it!

 

[Tremo]

What? In Civ4 you see who's going to win a battle before attacking?

You can see the win:lose chance ratio when you drag the movement of a unit to attack another unit.

For example; A Warrior attacking a Scout would be 2:1 in favor of the warrior on a plains tile IIRC. But when the Scout stand in a forest when it's being attacked, it becomes 2:1.5 or something. If it has added forest defense promotions, it an go up even higher like 2:2 or something (which is 50/50).

However, these figures are just the chance. They are not a certainty. I've won battles with weaker units before. It also depends on other factors such a First Strike or Retreat abilities etc etc.

 

[Saarud]

I was a bit sceptic towards the new strenght system as well. But after playing through 2,5 games I think it is an HUGE improvement. But for those still longing for seperate attack-defence stats of the units could make a mod where they use the strenght value as just the offensive or defensive value and then add as an bonus the extra value they have for either attacking or defending. My guesses is that noone will make such a mod because the new system is so much better.

 

[Zhahz]

I don't have Civ4. I'll get it tomorrow but I won't be able to play it. I HATE the change of Attack/Defense in Strength! So you don't need to build some units for defense and others for offense. It's just some stupid change that makes the game exagerated simple. If anyone likes it then vote it!

Try it, it's really not that different, and between the bonuses some units get and promotions you can give units you still have attackers and defenders. The system is just much more flexible and with the hover/popup help/info in-game you know exactly what's going on instead of guessing or needed cheatsheets or external references.

IMO, it's a superior system. There is no need for seperate offense and defense values and ultimately if, for ex, you give a unit some kind of defensive bonus, the effect is the same.

 

[Venger]

There's alot more to it that just "strength" - wait and try the game, dude.

Though the combat system still pales compared to CTP... why oh why can they not just adopt the combined arms system?

Venger

 

[Psyringe]

How did this system work, and what made it superior?

 

[Venger]

Units fought in groups, with different roles - ranged units, flanking units, direct combat/melee units... early on of course this usually meant 3 units or so, but I believe you could have up to 10 units. And you had to mix forces - as ranged units could take the enemy apart, but only with cover, and you had better make sure you had some fast flanking units to prevent the enemy flanking to your rear to attack your archers/cannon/etc.

So, you might create a little army with a slinger or two, a couple warriors, and a horseman. A balanced force that was more than the sum of it's parts because it worked together. If you tried to attack it with just a bunch of warriors, you'd have a problem because you'd be exposed at the flank and at range.

The CTP games had problems but combat wasn't one of them...

Venger

 

[gradenko_2000]

Though the combat system still pales compared to CTP... why oh why can they not just adopt the combined arms system?

Doesn't it already use combined arms? Pikemen stop the horses, horses stop the archers, archers stop the macemen, macemen stop the pikemen. That's a very simple example, mind you.

 

[Venger]

Doesn't it already use combined arms?

NO! Civ4 is still "My KungFu is better than your KungFu!" one on one fighting. Blech. How does an attacker realize a benefit with a ranged unit? They really don't. Because if you attack with your KungFu archer, you will have to face his KungFu Horseman. If you use your KungFu horseman, he will face his KungFu Pikeman. It's like Pokemon cards.

Stacks do not force multiply for attackers.

Look at it this way. If you send two swordsmen to face two swordsen, that looks like an even battle, right? Well what if you sent 20? That looks unfair. But the outcome would STILL be the same, because the odds are never 20-2, they are always 1v1 because combat is ALWAYS 1 v 1, attacker versus best defender, like a KungFu movie where the hero fights the enemy one at a time...

Venger

 

[WillemIV]

You can see the win:lose chance ratio when you drag the movement of a unit to attack another unit.

For example; A Warrior attacking a Scout would be 2:1 in favor of the warrior on a plains tile IIRC. But when the Scout stand in a forest when it's being attacked, it becomes 2:1.5 or something. If it has added forest defense promotions, it an go up even higher like 2:2 or something (which is 50/50).

However, these figures are just the chance. They are not a certainty. I've won battles with weaker units before. It also depends on other factors such a First Strike or Retreat abilities etc etc.

Yes somethimes you won't win even when your odds are better but mostly only when the win/loose ratio is pretty close matched otherwise you can thrust those numbers fairly well I think at least for 90%.

 

[BeefontheBone]

What? You can trust them to be odds because that's precisely what they are. If you have a 2:1 ratio for an attack then you will win 2 times out of 3. If you repeat the same action over and over again (by which I clearly don't mean loading the save and trying, since the seed is preserved) then you'll see a 2:1 ratio of wins to losses emerge - it's basic, simple, straightforward probability, not quantum mechanics.

EDIT: That's a slight simplification, of course, since the combat happens in rounds and the winning unit's remaining strength will vary, but you know what I mean.

 

[WillemIV]

What? You can trust them to be odds because that's precisely what they are. If you have a 2:1 ratio for an attack then you will win 2 times out of 3. If you repeat the same action over and over again (by which I clearly don't mean loading the save and trying, since the seed is preserved) then you'll see a 2:1 ratio of wins to losses emerge - it's basic, simple, straightforward probability, not quantum mechanics.

EDIT: That's a slight simplification, of course, since the combat happens in rounds and the winning unit's remaining strength will vary, but you know what I mean.

Ofcourse when you have had a fight your green health bar will decrease and then the odds will change accordingly but I almost never fight with a unit several times I let it heal again so when the odds are 5.0 vs 2.0 in my advantage I am sure that my odds of winning are at least 95%. At least that is my experience in my civ battles sofar.

 

[atog]

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?

this is done mainly to SO MANY BONUS modifying str out there. (the city bonus, terrain bonus, unit against certain unit bonus, unit promotion bonus and the list goes on and on) even if you have a higher number, still doesn't mean you win for sure. same with a lower number. i find that extremely useful. especially when attacking a city. you will totally find out why their str-6 pikeman keep taking out multiples of your str-10 knights while defending a city.

and for myself, i hate "gambling". so to win a war or at least a battle efficiently, you have to know yourself and your enemy. now they let you know your enemy easier! it's actually GREAT man! the only thing i could complain is that spy are really useless now.


p.s. btw, you can also hold your right mouse button over the enemy to see the chance if you call that a short cut

 

[Vertronix]

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.

+1

And, uh MIRC....generally speaking, people will respect your opinions/observations a bit more if you at least OWN/PLAY the game prior to running your gums....