Attack and defence vs. strength

[Viperace]

Civ 4 system is good, not because of having a "stregth" value , it is because of the counter-system :
"X get bonus against Y" , which is what make the system great!

Gunship > Tank > Sam Infantry > Gunship...
Axeman > Swordman > Longbowman > Axeman

 

[drjones]

This sort of discussion was somewhat silly before launch now its really really silly. IV combat > III combat hands down wham-bam-thank-you-mam.

I challenge anyone to prove how:

1 attack, 2 defence != 1 strength + 100% while defending

The system HAS NOT CHANGED it is just 10x more flexible because in addition to attack and defence you can have a stat for vs. cavalry, while in hills etc. This may not be the civ to end all civs but the combat system is MUCH better.

-drjones

 

[Pbhead]

Good point, but I think that for Civ 5 (when there will be more units) attack and defence could be reintroduced on top of the strengh system, giving the game one more "degree of freedom"

 

[Mad2rix]

I don't mind going for Civ4 combat style.

 

[Proteus]

This sort of discussion was somewhat silly before launch now its really really silly. IV combat > III combat hands down wham-bam-thank-you-mam.

I challenge anyone to prove how:

1 attack, 2 defence != 1 strength + 100% while defending

The system HAS NOT CHANGED it is just 10x more flexible because in addition to attack and defence you can have a stat for vs. cavalry, while in hills etc. This may not be the civ to end all civs but the combat system is MUCH better.

-drjones

Hm,
it isn´t exactly the same (which is why I prefer to have warriors [Strength 2] fighting animals instead of Scouts [Strength 1 + 100%])
Why?
Because all modifiers are added and are based on the unmodified strength,
so that for example a defender on a tile which gives 50% Defense Bonus [Forest AFAIK]
in your example would get:
2 + 50% = 3 (if he has a Defense Value of 2)
1 + 150% = 2.5 (if he has a Strength of 1 + 100% on Defense)