Attack and Defense VS 1 Number

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.
2 numbers = health & damage :mischief:

health being an attribute of a unit [can change] and damage being an attribute of a unit type [cannot change]? :dunno:

P.S. how is :strength: + promotions = 1 number!? the thread title should be "2 numbers VS 1 number + a bitmask" :lol:
 
It was already stated somewhere that there will be 2 numbers... but one of them never changes.

AFAIK know its never been stated like that explicitly. There was a comment that "damaged units would still defend at full strength", but this is hard to parse, and could as easily mean a hit point system as it could a separate defensive value.
 
AFAIK know its never been stated like that explicitly. There was a comment that "damaged units would still defend at full strength", but this is hard to parse, and could as easily mean a hit point system as it could a separate defensive value.

True, but it does mean there will be 2 Strength values then. I agree it will probably be one number, and both attack and defense are assigned to this number, with only the attack changing based off of unit damage.
 
True, but it does mean there will be 2 Strength values then. I agree it will probably be one number, and both attack and defense are assigned to this number, with only the attack changing based off of unit damage.

No it doesn't. THey mentioned that units defend at full strength, but this does not necessarily imply that damaged units don't attack at full strength.

It might, but we can't be sure.

With a hit point system, we only have one strength number, and one hit point number.
 
I am reasonably sure that it only mentioned defending units, and that assumptions about attacking were made by over-parsing.

But I'm not certain.

If you find the source, please post the link.
 
Source is this netherlandish article.

Eindelijk! Bij vorige Civilization-games was het zo dat de defensieve en offensieve waarde van een eenheid één en dezelfde waren. Verloor een eenheid bij een aanval wat kracht, dan was hij defensief ook zwakker. Dat is nu verleden tijd, de defensieve waarde van eenheden in Civ V blijft altijd gelijk, waardoor zelfs een zwaarbeschadigde tank niet vernietigd kan worden door een paar botte speren.

was tranlated here to:
In vorigen Civilization Spielen war es so dass die defensiven und offensiven Werte einer Einheit ein und dasselbe waren. Verlor eine Einheit bei einem Angriff an Stärke, so war sie auch defensiv schwächer. Das ist nun Vergangenheit, der Defensivwert einer Einheit in Civ V bleibt stets gleich, wodurch selbst ein schwer beschädigter Panzer nicht durch ein paar plumpe Speerkämpfer vernichtet werden kann.

which translates to:
In previous civilization games it was so, that the defensive and offensive value of a unit has been the same. When a unit lost in a battle partially its strength, it was weaker in the defense. This is now gone, the defensive value of a unit in Civ V always stays the same, so that even a heavily damaged tank can't be defeated by some primitive spearmen.


But to note: I can't speak netherlandish and i'm not a native english speaker, so information might got lost during the double translation.
 
Thanks for the link. Double translation removes any ability to parse finely. So I don't think we can distinguish between any of the options mentioned in this thread.
 
Actually you can use just translate once using google translate:

Eindelijk! Bij vorige Civilization-games was het zo dat de defensieve en offensieve waarde van een eenheid één en dezelfde waren. Verloor een eenheid bij een aanval wat kracht, dan was hij defensief ook zwakker. Dat is nu verleden tijd, de defensieve waarde van eenheden in Civ V blijft altijd gelijk, waardoor zelfs een zwaarbeschadigde tank niet vernietigd kan worden door een paar botte speren.

http://translate.google.com/#auto|e...tigd kan worden door een paar botte speren.
Translated into:

Finally! In previous Civilization games it was so offensive and the defensive value of a unit one and the same. Lost a unit in an attack some strength, he was too weak defensively. That is now history, the defensive value of units in Civ V always stays the same, so even a heavily damaged tank can not be destroyed by a few blunt spears.
 
It still doesn't solve the uncertainty; its likely that injured units will have the same probability of winning a combat "round" when damaged as when full-health, but it isn't clear whether this will apply when attacking or only when defending.

Most likely both; there will probably be a "strength" statistic that (with the strength of the enemy) determines the probability of winning a round, and then a health/hit point statistic that determines when you die.
 
Actually you can use just translate once using google translate:

You appreciate the value of google translation higher than the translation of 2 real persons?
This insults me even more than steam. Seriously.
 
I think a KEY feature of any system whether 1 or 2 numbers is that those numbers are Accurate representations of the actual expected combat results.

Ie if a totally healthy "20" unit battles to the death with 2 totally healthy "10" units on open ground, then the survivor should be practically dead. or a "20" v. a "15" and a "5" or a "20" and a "10" v. 2 "15"s, etc.
 
Probably be one number representing attack strength and one for health. Since supposedly there will be way less units combat will be drawn out. I could see moral also being added on, but that would probably just make things needlessly complicated.
 
One thing I would like to see different is the terrain bonuses. I think they should apply a penalty to attack as opposed to a bonus to defence. And I think units with, say, the Highlander equivalent should cancel out the penalty for attacking hills. Exactly the same way as with rivers and amphibious.

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

Cheers!

I think you've got to be joking.

But if you really wanted to have more aspects of a unit represented in combat, you can just attach modifiers to the single value.

e.g. supply level could simply be represented by a percentage penalty for being out of supply in enemy land. Morale could just be a buff or debuff %age.
 
Source is this netherlandish article.



was tranlated here to:


which translates to:



But to note: I can't speak netherlandish and i'm not a native english speaker, so information might got lost during the double translation.
Skimmed over the dutch and english versions of the story. Here are some minor notes on a good translation:

'Eindelijk' translates to 'finally', which is not important but the english article missed this.
'één en dezelfde' is translated to 'the same' where it literally means 'one and the same.'
'botte speren' translates to 'blunt spears' rather than 'primitive spears'.

These are the major fault in the translation in my opinion, and these are very minor still. There are a few places where the english worded things differently than the dutch article did, but the meaning remained the same. As a native dutch speaker I'd say the translation is definitely accurate, only a tiny bit from spot on.

The google translation is rubbish. For example 'he was too weak defensively' is something very different from 'it was weaker in the defense' ('also', translation of the dutch 'ook' that the translation missed, could be inserted in between was and weaker. I would translate that part as 'it was also weaker in the defense'.)
 
I´d say REALISM FIRST, you can indeed model many functions with only one number with modifiers, so WHAT NUMBERS SHOULD BE PORTRAYED, I think PANZER GENERAL had good values, it had different values for different kinds of combat, for close combat you had CLOSE ATTACK, that would do for all melee units, since melee combat IS close combat, perhaps a single defence number would do for all defence?

So:

CLOSE COMBAT (ALL UNITS HAVE THIS IN CASE OF MELEE, Melee units, mounted units with swords and spears etc.)

MISSILE ATTACK (archers and all pre-gunpowder missile units)

FIRE ATTACK (musketeers, riflemen, machine guns, modern infantry, tanks against infantry etc.)
Fire attack and missile attack could be grouped together under the value RANGED ATTACK

HE (high explosive) ATTACK (tanks, cannon, howitzers, bombers and fighters against ground units etc.) Could also be just FIRE ATTACK, but more realistic if Explosives are placed in a class of their own with their own value.

HARD ATTACK (tanks against tanks or anything against tanks, swordsmen or greek phalanxes have VERY low Hard attack values :D Basically anything attacking a "hard target", like a tank) Could also be just FIRE ATTACK to save space and values, anti-tank guns also use gunpowder, so it could be just FIRE ATTACK.

SEA ATTACK (for sea units) Sea units could also use Close combat (boarding actions by older ships) and FIRE ATTACK (cannons, missiles etc.)

AIR ATTACK (anything against air units, pre-gunpowder units would have an air attack of 0, you can´t really throw spears or shoot arrows against an F-22 now can you?) This would cover GROUND-TO-AIR fire like anti-air missiles and AIR-TO-AIR combat like fighters against each other so this would be necessary or perhaps it could be done with a modifier to FIRE ATTACK, all ground units would have a -100% or -50% value against air units and air units against air units still use gunpowder driven weapons or explosives, so it would be FIRE ATTACK AGAINST AIR UNITS, so basically RANGED ATTACK OR FIRE ATTACK could be used instead of AIR ATTACK, ground units would simply be poor at shooting aircraft (a modifier to fire attack), napalm bombs would simply be RANGED or FIRE attack with a +100% bonus against infantry.

So, three or four attack values CLOSE COMBAT, MISSILE ATTACK (arrows) AND FIRE ATTACK (gunpowder and explosives), perhaps HARD ATTACK against tanks would cover all weapon classes from antiquity to modern weapons.
Alternatively there could be just CLOSE ATTACK (melee) and RANGED ATTACK (all forms of ranged attacks from arrows to missiles) and HARD ATTACK (this because TANKS are INVULNERABLE to bullet fire of let´s say riflemen or musketmen, bullets just don´t touch tanks, so anti-tank weapons have to be in their own league and modern infantry can have several weapons, they can have bullet weapons against infantry and anti-tank rockets against tanks)
Can all this be done with a single value? Modern infantry and tanks have modifiers to a single value, tanks have +100% when attacking infantry (tanks just overrun infantry) and infantry has +100% modifier when defending against tanks after the development of rocketry and anti-tank rockets promotion.

For defence there could be CLOSE DEFENCE (melee defence, close combat skill, martial arts etc.) MISSILE DEFENCE (agaisnt arrows and bullets alike) HARD DEFENCE (tanks and battleships) Tanks and battleships are impervious to bullets but modern infantry carries anti-tank rockets, so there should really be two attack values FIRE ATTACK for bullets and HARD ATTACK for bazookas and anti-tank rockets, modern infantry would use FIRE ATTACK against infantry, cavalry and all "soft" targets, like flesh and HARD ATTACK against TANKS and other "hard" targets.
In their own age knights and armoured cavalry could be considered "hard targets", very hard to kill, unless you got really really close and slit their throats, which of course was more easily said than done. :D

So, four attack values CLOSE, MISSILE, FIRE (missile and fire attack could be unified under one value, RANGED ATTACK) and HARD attack and THREE DEFENCE VALUES ClOSE or MELEE DEFENCE, MISSILE (bullets and arrows) and HARD DEFENCE (Tanks, battleships, battlemechs, mech infantry etc. etc.)
Or maybe two defence values, CLOSE DEFENCE (against melee and anti-tank rockets are close range weapons of modern era) and RANGED DEFENCE (against bullets, arrows and missiles)
Example: a knight has metal armour so he´s almost impervious to melee attacks you can´t really hack your way through a metal plate with a sword, BUT you can kill the knight with a RANGED ATTACK using a crossbow, so high close defence value, but low enough of ranged defence for a crossbow bolt to pass through, not to mention bullets.
Again could be done with a single value using modifiers, a knight has +100 defence against melee, but crossbowmen have +100 attack against armoured cavalry unitclass.

I advocate multiple values because it gives you more ground to work on with bonuses and promotions. :goodjob:
You can have CLOSE ATTACK bonuses like martial arts or better swords, HARD DEFENCE bonuses like ERA (explosive reactive armour) armour or Chobham armour making tanks tougher against anti-tank missiles of infantry and helicopters etc.

Multiple values also gives you different new aspects like in Panzer General, Tanks are vulnerable to CLOSE ATTACK so multiple infantry units can besiege a tank unit and finish it off with close attacks, of course, this might only be doable if the tank is in a forest where it can´t see anything or manouever or IF THE TANK RUNS OUT OF AMMO, this too could be modelled into the game, SUPPLY, you can resupply your unit any turn, but it consumes the move of the unit, if you´re resupplying you can´t attack that turn and if a unit is encircled, surrounded, it can´t resupply, so you can destroy an enemy army by encircling it and starving it

So, Attack and Defence values, plus some more like SKILL (how good swordsmen the unit are or how accurate shots) Could also be just bonuses to attack values.

MORALE, how easily the unit retreats or runs away, THIS IS CRITICAL, in earlier days combat was often decided by a units morale, he who´s nerves held stood their ground and won while others lost their nerve and fled the ground. Would you allow someone to charge over to you and stick a bayonet into your gut or would you run away?
MORALE and ORGANIZATION would be used in conjunction with STRENGTH, when a unit suffers casualties in combat, it loses morale and gets disorganized, when morale drops low enough or runs out the unit will flee and if the unit gets completely disorganized, it is just a mass of men easily butchered by a more organized enemy, that would be the function of those two values.

With multiple values you can do different things, that´s mainly why I´m advocating it.

For example: With CLOSE ATTACK value you can have all the melee units use mainly this value, but since they do not have FIRE ATTACK or RANGED ATTACK they don´t shoot first before melee, like archers, this is represented by the "first strike" feature in Civ 4. Since swordsmen don´t have any HARD ATTACK, they have a snowballs chance in hell against tanks, though this can be done with a single value by making all melee units have -100% against tracked units or armour units.
Example: a fight between a swordsman and modern infantry, the infantry is OUT OF AMMO (SUPPLY would definetely get my vote, model SUPPLY into the game I say) and doesn´t get its first strikes, so it doesn´t kill the swordsman at range, after that the melee begins, which one will win? A rifleman with a bayonet or a swordsman with a sword, I´d say swordsman wins because they are highly trained in melee, whereas the rifleman or infantryman is just trained to shoot and a rifle versus sword in a melee is pretty much going in the favor of the sword, I´m guessing you have all seen "The last samurai"? :-D

So, the question boils down to this: what tricks can you do with multiple values, that you CANNOT do with one value?
What different tricks does a given value give, what can you do with a value?
Is a value REALISTIC, is it HISTORICAL?

Cheers!
 
Well, an injured beast is still dangerous indeed.

If the defense stays the same, and that was all that was mentioned, but it says it is different from previous civ games; this implies the attack doesn't stay the same (with the unit str or something).

In my view, this makes sense, so units cannot be killed ever so easily... and goes along with the devs stating that units won't be getting killed by the masses. It also makes it so you can't just keep attacking, but have to wait and heal to get your attack str back up to acceptable levels.

So, I think it sounds as if there is still 1 Number, but that 1 Number controls a sliding attack value and an unchanging defense value.
 
please don't bring back the ADM system. It leads to rediculous stalemates. Like, say you both have a unit with high attack low defense, like a cannon. Neither of you can approach the other, because as soon as you do they'll attack and kill you. So you just sit there hoping they'll make the first move. You can try to attack with something with high defense, but the attack values are always higher to allow them to attack cities, so they can still kill anything that gets near them. So basically seige units become by far the best defenders, and the only thing worth using on offense is fast mounted units.
 
I´d say REALISM FIRST
No. Just, no.
If you want realistic combat, go look for a wargame, not Civ. And pick one that has a combat engine designed to model a particular era of warfare, not everything from the clubs to stealth bombers.

So, the question boils down to this: what tricks can you do with multiple values, that you CANNOT do with one value?
What different tricks does a given value give, what can you do with a value?
Is a value REALISTIC, is it HISTORICAL?
All get trumped by:
Is it simple, transparent, accessible?
Is it fun?
 
The biggest problem with Civ up to now is that whoever attacks win. Two nations both have huge armies but whoever goes first can destroy the others army in one turn with minimum losses.
 
Back
Top Bottom