Attack and Defense VS 1 Number

[GhostWriter16]

Three Questions

1. Will it be back?

2. Should it be back?

3. Any other opinions/commentary on the issue?

My Opinions

1. No idea

2. First off, I'd like to say that personally it seems better, but I don't think Civ 4 had a bad alternative, and some units were unquestionably better at defense than others, cough, longbowman, cough.

3. The combat system is being revolutionarized, making it quite possibly irrelevant. I don't know what other factors will play in.

 

[Roland Johansen]

You can replicate all of the effects of attack/defence values with a single value and bonuses/penalties.

For instance:

an attack 2, defence 3 unit = strength 2 unit with a 50% bonus when defending.


Of course, the bonuses/penalties to the strength value can be more interesting and specific than that, but you can at least replicate the simple attack/defence model if you wish to do so.

I always thought it weird when a hater of the civ4 combat model claimed that it was simplified by replacing the attack/defence value with a single value with modifiers. That's just a lack of understanding of the civ4 combat model.

 

[plasmacannon]

My Opinions

1. Will it be back?
- Don't know
2. Should it be back?
- No. Personally, I am hoping for a Stats on a unit, like chain mail units defending better vs sword units

3. Any other opinions/commentary on the issue?
- They need to add sappers to take down walls before catapults were invented. This was done in the middle east, in Europe, and is a standard way of bring down a wall by digging under it, and taking out its support.
(ok, that was alittle off topic. When I find the New section, I'll add it there.)

 

[TheDS]

Ok, sappers as siege units: check!

Depending on how deeply he's following Panzer General for his design inspiration, and how serious they are about making combat "better", they may be using something very similar to the PG method of combat.

In PG, each unit has 10 strength points, with which it fires at other units. Each of these strength points has a 50% chance of whiffing, a 10% chance of temporarily stunning, and a 40% chance of eliminating an opposing strength point. (Artillery reverses the stun and kill numbers.) That's all before modifiers, and thus you'll tend to inflict an average of 4 hits on the enemy each attack.

Units have lots of stats. Ground attack, air attack, sea attack, and close attack. (Close attack is a special type of attack for city and fort combat.) Surface defense, air defense, close defense. Initiative, experience, ammo, fuel, movement points, movement type, and firing range. Hard or Soft.

I think that's about it for stats, but there are plenty of things to consider in a combat.

With all those stats, it takes a little getting used to to hold it all in your head what's going on. It's kinda neat to see that all at work once you start to understand it, but for those who don't gt over the steep learning curve, they're going to hate it as being too realistic. The grognards will clap, but everyone else will hate it.

I hope they have two ways to do it. I hope there's a simple mode that's like what we've got in Civ4 and a complicated mode that's like what's in PG, though that'd be a lot like throwing in an optional tactical combat mode. But they include all those ridiculous wonder movies and animated leaders and other crap that bogs down any computer bought before the game came out and can't be turned off.

Really guys, Civ1 had it right. Small, static pictures are plenty.

All right, so anyway, did all that help you?

 

[Set]

I liked civ4 combat more because it made more sense. a calvary is not worse at defending then attacking it just can not use the terrain to it's advantage very easily which is what it was like in the civ4 combat system also promotions (one of the best features in the game in my opinion) would not really work with the old combat system.

 

[The_Reckoning]

Single value with bonuses works best. It's simple and is easy to model bonuses to separate units.

 

[Shurdus]

Set and The Reckoning have it spot on I think. The system of civ4 could very well cover the complexity of previous units without cramping more numbers in the game. Although the numbers for defending and attacking are clearer to understand than giving a fixed number and then describing properties, the second system is clear enough by the merit of providing less numbers to stare at.

 

[Ahriman]

This is a good question.

I'm generally fairly agnostic on this point, I can see the arguments for the one-value system, but I also really liked when FFH re-introduced separate attack/defense values.

Still I would pose the question; how would one feel about the strength 18 machinegunner who can't attack vs a machinegunner that is 6/18?
Is it really fair that an entire full strength division can't attack even an almost dead unit? Its not like every last guy in the squad has only a machinegun.

Purely defensive units no longer really have much of a place in a 1upt system.

 

[sgrig]

While there can be just one strength number, I hope that they bring back the hit points/firepower feature of Civ2 combat. Now that units don't always die in combat, it would make sense to have a separate measure of unit damage. A damaged unit should still have the same combat strength, just not able to take as much damage.

For example currently a 6/18 machinegunner unit has same strength as a full-strength Longbowman. In reality, consider that a full-strength machinegunner unit has 3000 men, and so does a full-strength unit of longbowmen. Surely even if machinegunners are cut down to 1000 men they would still win over longbowmen.

In Civ2, pre-gunpowder units would have 10 hp, and gunpowder units 20hp. So in this system a damaged machinegunner would still be strength 18 but with 6 hp left, while the longbowman would have strength 6 but 10 hp. So the machinegunner would be able to take 6 rounds of damage, but the longbowman 10, however in each combat round the machinegunner would have a 75% change of winning.

 

[PieceOfMind]

1. My prediction? No. I think it was seen by most as a step in the right direction to remove the ADM values common to former civ games. Given the greater focus on warfare, it would be weird to go back to ADM type combat because it is more simplified than what was available in civ4.

2 and 3.
Nearly impossible to say without more info about the game. The combat model could be completely different to what we've seen before. Best way to get an idea how it will work though would be to look at both civ4 and civrev - the two most recent civ games.

 

[Jopo]

I say have MORE values, like ORGANIZATION, MORALE, LOYALTY, MELEE ATTACK, MELEE DEFENCE, MISSILE ATTACK, MISSILE DEFENCE, GUNPOWDER ATTACK, GUNPOWDER DEFENCE, for tanks ARMOUR PIERCING ATTACK, ARMOUR PIERCING DEFENCE or EXPLOSIVE ATTACK and DEFENCE etc.

ATTACK and DEFENCE values for all weapon classes, melee weapons, archers, gunpowder units (musketeers) and a different class for MODERN units, like ASSAULT WEAPON ATTACK or something, of course modern weapons are gunpowder driven too, but somehow they are a class of their own, because of their huge firepower and tanks and airplane fire missiles and shells against each other and use machine guns against infantry etc.

MODERN WEAPON DEFENCE could depict bulletproof vests and other modern body armour that soldiers use, gunpowder units would have little or no defensive values since all that was in front of a musketball was human flesh, metal armour was useless, but in medieval and ancient eras metal armour could make a knight almost impervious to damage, very hard to kill.

MORALE could be another value, if a units morale drops, it will withdraw and run away, only a hardcore elite unit would stand to the last man etc.

Organization could be another value, if a unit loses organization in the middle of battle, it will be slaughtered etc.

Discipline could be one other value, poorly diciplined units lose men to desertion etc.

Supply should definetely be modeled, if a unit is in enemy territory, it will lose men to desertion and disease etc.

I say MORE VALUES, more than just one strength value.

Cheers!

 

[Shurdus]

I say have MORE values, like ORGANIZATION, MORALE, LOYALTY, MELEE ATTACK, MELEE DEFENCE, MISSILE ATTACK, MISSILE DEFENCE, GUNPOWDER ATTACK, GUNPOWDER DEFENCE, for tanks ARMOUR PIERCING ATTACK, ARMOUR PIERCING DEFENCE or EXPLOSIVE ATTACK and DEFENCE etc.

ATTACK and DEFENCE values for all weapon classes, melee weapons, archers, gunpowder units (musketeers) and a different class for MODERN units, like ASSAULT WEAPON ATTACK or something, of course modern weapons are gunpowder driven too, but somehow they are a class of their own, because of their huge firepower and tanks and airplane fire missiles and shells against each other and use machine guns against infantry etc.

MODERN WEAPON DEFENCE could depict bulletproof vests and other modern body armour that soldiers use, gunpowder units would have little or no defensive values since all that was in front of a musketball was human flesh, metal armour was useless, but in medieval and ancient eras metal armour could make a knight almost impervious to damage, very hard to kill.

MORALE could be another value, if a units morale drops, it will withdraw and run away, only a hardcore elite unit would stand to the last man etc.

Organization could be another value, if a unit loses organization in the middle of battle, it will be slaughtered etc.

Discipline could be one other value, poorly diciplined units lose men to desertion etc.

Supply should definetely be modeled, if a unit is in enemy territory, it will lose men to desertion and disease etc.

I say MORE VALUES, more than just one strength value.

Cheers!

This would make sense in a game that does nothing but simulate combat. And even then it may get very complicated very soon. In civ we need not such things. A lot of these things can be accounted for by a single number.

 

[Chalks]

Purely defensive units no longer really have much of a place in a 1upt system.

I'm interested in why you say this - I would have thought purely defensive units would be especially effective in 1upt since units are so much more capable of blocking at strategic chokes.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm interested in why you say this - I would have thought purely defensive units would be especially effective in 1upt since units are so much more capable of blocking at strategic chokes.

Purely defensive units have a huge role in Civ4, because they can defend a stack. You can't attack any of my riflement or artillery without going through my machineguns first.

This is a much bigger role than a relatively small role of an occasional choke-point guard.

In an open field battle, which most battles will probably be, a defensive unit is useless because your enemy can largely ignore it.

 

[Chalks]

I see what you mean, but I would have thought that groups of defensive units supported by ranged units could prove very effective - turning an open battlefield into a series of small artillery covered chokes for example.

I guess time will tell.

 

[Ahriman]

Such a strategy would seem to be insanely vulnerable to cavalry. I move around your walls of defensive units and eat your artillery, and then your walls are useless.

But yeah, we'll see.

 

[Schuesseled]

Purely defensive units have a huge role in Civ4, because they can defend a stack. You can't attack any of my riflement or artillery without going through my machineguns first.

This is a much bigger role than a relatively small role of an occasional choke-point guard.

In an open field battle, which most battles will probably be, a defensive unit is useless because your enemy can largely ignore it.

well said, also purely offensive units will be hard to play with as, they are extremly vulnerable to attack by enemy units when left out on the battlefield. A strength based system would seem to work better.

 

[aMoralAtheist]

Purely defensive units have a huge role in Civ4, because they can defend a stack. You can't attack any of my riflement or artillery without going through my machineguns first.

This is a much bigger role than a relatively small role of an occasional choke-point guard.

In an open field battle, which most battles will probably be, a defensive unit is useless because your enemy can largely ignore it.

wrong. What about narrow passes? India? Mountains and terrain will matter more for winning these points. Purely defence units could force check point like bottlenecks. A defender can line up units to attack after you move if you take the path defined for you by machine gun nests. Also, anybody see a war of machine guns in ww1 accross a major (europe) continent, and the race to counter it, which would be produced?

 

[Ahriman]

wrong. What about narrow passes? India? Mountains and terrain will matter more for winning these points. Purely defence units could force check point like bottlenecks. A defender can line up units to attack after you move if you take the path defined for you by machine gun nests. Also, anybody see a war of machine guns in ww1 accross a major (europe) continent, and the race to counter it, which would be produced?

Wrong?? How do you figure?
I acknowledge the use for chokepoint guards, but I don't think this will be such a huge part of the game.
Useful, but not massively so.

In WW1 I saw a war driven by riflemen and artillery, where infantry units on one side could defend and then counterattack. I didn't see any divisions that lacked any offensive capability whatsoever.

It should also be noted that if (as seems to be the case) that a single combat is not enough to kill a unit entirely, then defensive-only units are further weakened, because they're not going to get complete kills. You only attack them with full health units, and they have no attack so they couldn't follow up to counter-attack a heavily damaged unit that survived the assault.

 

[tom2050]

It was already stated somewhere that there will be 2 numbers... but one of them never changes. If your unit is damaged, your attack lowers with your damage level. But defense does not. Defense always stays the same. Can't remember and don't feel like looking for the thread of the mag that mentioned this info.

Will the game display 2 numbers? who knows... it may just show 1 number and make you guess what the attack value is by viewing the unit damage. Or hover over the unit could bring it up.

Also, I don't remember it saying if the attack/defense values are 'different' or if they are the same with only the attack value lowering from damage.