Attack and defence vs. strength

[skodkim]

Am I the only one who feels that the introduction of a "Strength" rating instead of a seperate "Defence" and "Attack" rating as in previous CIV versions is a bit of a set back?

I mean, saying that a chariot unit is as good at defending as it is at attacking is just a bit simplified. Anyway, I feel it means that it removed some of the units special forces and weaknesses: Before you'd attack with four knights and defend with pikemen. I know some of this is outbalanced by the intruduction of special skills and promotions, which I on the other hand find is a great idea. Maybe you could combine them? Why not have specific
ratings for defence and attack combined with skills and promotions?

What do you think?

Skodkim

 

[playshogi]

I like it better the new way. Don't forget some units have higher strength vs. certain unit types, so basically you still have some elements of the old way. A sword is strength 6 but an axeman is strength 5 with 50% bonus vs. melee. So, a sword is actually weaker against an axeman.

 

[weimingshi]

You have no clue about civ4 combat system. Play more and you will see how strength system really works. Although units only has one strength rating doesn't mean the highest strength unit will be the king of everything. For example mordern armor has highest strength 40, you will use it to attack, but when comes defending, you will want mechanized infantry 32 str intead of modern armor, its all because the inherent bonuses and disadvantages each unit gets. The units are alot more diversified in civ4, plus promotions you get even more diversification.

 

[Proteus]

Combining sounds good IMHO.

But lets also keep another thing which AFAIK isn´t present in Civ III (I didn´t play the game for quite a while so I´m not sure about it) i.e. lowering the attack and defense values with sinking hitpoints (after all it is realistic, as damaged vehicles and/or wounded/killed soldiers negatively affect the combat value of a miltary unit )

(But of course the thing I´d really like to see would be the Civ IV system combined with combat from CtP2 )

 

[JudgeDeath]

Shaggy, oops , Shogi is da man. Now the units get like extra defense against only one thing, rather than everything. Which means that the spearmen don't get bonuses against tanks like , which can only be a good t'ing, mon.

 

[BeefontheBone]

chariot unit is as good at defending as it is at attacking

No it isn't - it doesn't get any defensive bonuses whatsoever and can't use its withdrawal ability.

I like the new system, it actually adds a lot of deoth to the system, and avoids those ludicrous Civ 3 armies of 3 technologically superior units wiping another civ off the map.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

It's still the same with the promotion system because of the different path that it sets with different units.

 

[The Tollan]

I think that the Civilization 4 system is better than the Civilization 3 system. It has a lot more strategy and depth since more units are useful than before. Another thing I think that is very good is that some units formerly almost exclusively oriented towards defense are now at least somewhat capable of attacking other units (in Civ 3 you frequently had one gigantic stack of the same offensive unit, possibly one or two stack defenders, and perhaps artillery).

The new system is actually a substantial leap ahead of both the systems of Civilization 2 and Civilization 3.

One thing I find somewhat problematic is a thing that has been around since at least Civilization 3. There are actually a decent amount of ground units in the ancient era however in the modern era there are two ground combat units the game encourages use of to the grave detriment of other ground units. These are mechanized infantry and modern armor. Although Civilization 4 has the anti-aircraft infantry (which gives it a big advantage over Civilization 3) this is not the same as having a ground versus ground combat infantry. The air-units do not have to replace the great variety of ancient and middle age ground troops. The modern era should have equal ground diversity to earlier eras and the air/naval units should be kept at the same time (if you played all the way to the modern point you should be able to have a lot of unit types to use).

 

[Grogs]

One thing I find somewhat problematic is a thing that has been around since at least Civilization 3. There are actually a decent amount of ground units in the ancient era however in the modern era there are two ground combat units the game encourages use of to the grave detriment of other ground units. These are mechanized infantry and modern armor. Although Civilization 4 has the anti-aircraft infantry (which gives it a big advantage over Civilization 3) this is not the same as having a ground versus ground combat infantry. The air-units do not have to replace the great variety of ancient and middle age ground troops. The modern era should have equal ground diversity to earlier eras and the air/naval units should be kept at the same time (if you played all the way to the modern point you should be able to have a lot of unit types to use).

Don't forget about the gunship in the modern era. The guship is the tank killer and the SAM infantry is the gunship killer. That gives you 4 ground units, which is 1 less than the ancient era (archers/spears/horse archers/axes/swords.) I agree though, there definitely seems to be less need to diversify in the modern era. You don't seem to have as many +XX % vs Y modifiers as you do in the ancient era.

As for the Civ 4 combat system overall, I have to say I like the changes. Up through Emperor at least, it was possible to conquer the world with one big stack of knights/cavalry/tanks. In Civ4, the modifiers force you to think about the composition of your invasion force, and maybe more importantly, the promotions you give them. Invading with only one type of unit with one type of promotion is a good way to get slaughtered.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

On the surface, the new system sounds completely inferior to the old system. Upon playing the game extensively, however, I find the new system to to be much better. Because of the promotion system and intrinsic unit capabilities system (e.g. +100% versus mounted), I believe the Civ IV system is MUCH more fleixible and realistic. Defense bonuses (from terrain, cities, walls, etc.) are automatically added to the base. In addition, capabilities verus certain types of units are taken into consideration. This was never possible in Civ III.

The new system is great!

 

[Polopapolo]

I really like being able to ATTACK with spearmen and actually winning against mounted units. The new system rules! For the first playing since Civ1 I enjoy warmongering!

 

[wmtrexler]

I really like the new system. I especially like the promotions. I think you just have to spend some more time getting used to it.

 

[Reg Pither]

On the surface, the new system sounds completely inferior to the old system. Upon playing the game extensively, however, I find the new system to to be much better. The new system is great!

I agree 100%. I was sceptical at the start, but have now been converted to the delights of the single statistic plus promotions. Much more fun system!

 

[Uncle_Joe]

I prefer the new system. I always hated in Civ 3 getting Gunpowder and Muskets and still only having a defensive force. It seemed silly that Muskets couldnt even beat Spears reliable when attacking.

Civ4's combat seems less 'artificial' for lack of a better word. Better troops feel better, expect in specific situations.

 

[Grogs]

The new combat system also lets you find new uses for your older units. In one game I had just finished fighting a war with infantry/cavalry when Russia attacked me and landed 3 SOD's of Cossacks in my borders. Since the cossacks would pretty much eat my cavalry for breakfast, I thought I was screwed until I realized I had a lot of riflemen laying around I hadn't upgraded yet. With a couple of promotions on the rifles and a few suicide runs by catapults I was able to beat back the invasion force.

EDIT: I guess you wouldn't really say rifles vs. cossacks was a 'new' use, since that's one of their primary functions. It's just that with infantry available my natural thought was 'I need to upgrade these rifles ASAP. It turned out that the rifles were almost as good without having to lay out the cash for the upgrades.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Combine them. This way Praetorians would be something like 8 attack, 5 defense, so as to be not so overpowered and hard to kill. When he gets hurt, the damage scales, so: 6.0/8 attack, 3.75/5 defense.

 

[symon]

Am I the only one who feels that the introduction of a "Strength" rating instead of a seperate "Defence" and "Attack" rating as in previous CIV versions is a bit of a set back?

What do you think?
Skodkim

No you aren't.

Some units types ARE defensive or offensive in nature. Now the system could handle it, but it doesn't. The machine gun is a great example. An attack strenghth of 0. Now if more units had 'Attack strength -50%' or 'defence strength -50%' the system would be much improved.

Quite why separate attack and defence values were eliminated I'm not sure. The justification in the designers notes is farcical.

 

[Suki]

Quite why separate attack and defence values were eliminated I'm not sure. The justification in the designers notes is farcical.

not that they're completly eliminated, between the machine guns with zero attack, many calvary with 'no defense bonuses', units with bonus attack against <terrain>, the only thing you could add to make it more clear that it's just a different way of reprisenting similar results would be to, like you said, put in things like "+25% when attacking". it's not really much different.

 

[Zhahz]

I think the Civ IV system crushes the Civ III system. It's way more flexible, unit customization via promotions is way more fun and flexible than 'elite' units, and you no longer have uber defender units like spearmen (unit with high def value that's good against everything). The Civ IV system usually makes you consider combined arms more, even on defense, and provides for way more strategic depth (at least til modern warfare where it degenerates to mostly tanks and bombers all around).

 

[lysander]

I like the new system much more. The old attack/defense value system was over-simplified. Actual battles flow back and forth, with defenders counter-attacking and attackers digging in. Hoplite-type spearmen were not defensive units- they could hold ground but they also frequently charged the enemy as the Athenians did at Marathon. The new system is more subtle: some units are more defensive in orientation because they can fortify and take advantage of defensive terrain. I still prefer to defend terrain with my infantry than cavalry, but it's silly to think that if someone attacks a unit of cavalry, they won't charge into them and fight with about the same efficiency as they would if they were the ones doing the attacking.