BATTLE ENGINE - The most unrealistic aspect of the game.

[Tholomeo]

Publius,
Both attackin mech.infantries had combat 1 and city garrison 1 (or 2, but it doesn't change anything)

 

[Pvblivs]

May be. But this is not the issue!
In older Civs it was obvious that escorting tanks with three mech.infantries will protect the tanks. Now it's not obvious. But I can't have the option to select which unit I would like to see as defender!

As I suggested. Try it with the WorldBuilder! Try to find out how the odds are calculated and if the defender is chosen correctly.

If yes, no complains: If the odds of the modern armor are better it will be chosen for defense. That is the same as it worked in civ3.

If not, it's a bug. Obviously. But you have to find it out

 

[Draconian]

But a gunpowder 10% bonus should not work for defense as you receive no defense boni or does this not include promotions but only tile and city defense?

The "no defence bonus" penalty of cavalry/tanks only affects tile/city defence.

@Tholomeo:
So if those attacking MIs had only combat I + city garrison:

MI: ~28*(1+0,1+0,25)=37,8 vs 32/(1+0,25-0,1)=27,8 -> 1,360
MA: ~35 vs 32*(1-0,1+0,1)=32 -> 1,093

Obviously better odds for your MI

Now if the tile you defended wasn't a hill and we add just a bit healthto the MA (or remove some from the MI):

MI: ~28*(1+0,1)=30,8 vs 32/(1+0,25-0,1)=27,8 -> 1,108
MA: ~35,5 vs 32*(1-0,1+0,1)=32 -> 1,109

Now the MA should be chosen.
So either you weren't defending a hill or the game really took the wrong defender.

 

[El Santo]

Often times, history has shown that even the most barbaric of cultures can produce viable resistance to a technologically superior invader.

While I agree with your point, I don't agree with calling technologically primitive cultures barbaric. Barbaric IMO is killing/enslaving people for profit. Not that enslaving people is not morally repugnant of itself.

 

[drjones]

Fraxis downgraded the Civ3 style of attack/defense stats to this combat system in Civ4. They should have added promotions to the attack/defend system to give more depth to combat.

BS, 1 attack 2 defence is mathematicaly equvalent to 1 strength +100% when defending. The difference is the new system gives you many more possiblities.

The combat system has been greatly improved. It might not be enough for you but saying it was better before is based entirely on nostalgia.

-drjones

 

[henrycccc]

Just build some artillery.

 

[jeremiahrounds]

I would not call saying attack and defence values from civ3 were better a form of nostalga. Certainly though all the crazy abilities they can make on civ4 units is a major improvement to the combat system so i agree overall its better. However that doesnt imply that it wouldnt have been better still if it had kept its attack and defense values.

 

[TheJediMaster]

Just build some artillery.

Finally, someone who has the right idea... Its called Colaterial Damage.

 

[Jonathan]

For turnbased games where one player follows the other it is vital for strategic decision that you control every single unit.

Battles are tactics, not strategy. Civ is a strategical game and strategy is what I'm interested in. I'm not interested in tactics; I'm just interested in getting battles over and done with as quickly as possible.

Furthermore, the tactics you're talkiing about are fake tactics. In real life, when you have a battle, units don't come forward one at a time and fight single combats one after the other. They all fight at the same time. If one side is outnumbered, its units may have to fight two or more opposing units at the same time.

Why on earth should I be interested in the details of silly tactics that represent nothing in the real world?

 

[Jonathan]

you've dont like one of the most pivital aspects of the game and you've still been playing it for 15 years????

You dont like RTS, you dont like turn based..... so what kind of war/strategy game do you like.... maybe you should try another genre

I've stuck with Civ so far because I do like turn-based games (which I've been playing far longer than Civ has existed), I like the basic idea of the game, and I like the city building and exploration. Sadly, it's always been a lousy wargame; Civ 4 has improved matters somewhat, but really the whole combat system needed to be thrown out and replaced, not tinkered with.

 

[Jonathan]

This would make the battles so quick and borning that it would take the whole fun out of warmongering.

You mean you actually enjoy wheeling your units into battle one at a time? Good grief. Some people are easily entertained.

I've had more than enough of it, myself. I've turned on stack attack.

You would just create huge stacked armies and move them around the map ala RISK. This is CIV not RISK

I've played many wargames in the past with a sensible combat system, and that doesn't happen, for various reasons.

1. Most wargames have stacking limits: you're not allowed to create huge stacks.

2. You get combat benefits from attacking from more than one direction. You get even more benefits if you manage to surround the defender completely.

3. Most wargames have supply rules. If you don't keep your units spread out enough to protect your supply lines, you can be cut off from supplies and annihilated (no ammo, no food, ...).

 

[Pvblivs]

Battles are tactics, not strategy. Civ is a strategical game and strategy is what I'm interested in. I'm not interested in tactics; I'm just interested in getting battles over and done with as quickly as possible.

A pity.

Furthermore, the tactics you're talkiing about are fake tactics. In real life, when you have a battle, units don't come forward one at a time and fight single combats one after the other. They all fight at the same time. If one side is outnumbered, its units may have to fight two or more opposing units at the same time.

Really? Are they? Ever seen an army of 20.000 men fighting? They all fight at the same time? And when those 20.000 fight 10.000 do fight in any case and in any scenario always 2 men 1? If you send such an army in battle is it like an atom that cannot be split and has fight to death?

If 2 men fight 1 at the same time, how many will fall? Most likely 1 to 2, am I right? Isn't this the same in civ?

I wonder what you expect from battles in this game. Cities, exploring, all is silly abstract, somekind fake with Civ4 and has nothing to do with real life as it is hugely simplified for this game. Battles are abstract as well. One might argue that it is not the best simplification that could be made. But is seems to be the best for civ. Everything takes place in squares. Everything is based on such simple objects. You've got one resource per field, one building of a type per city, a city that occupies one tile, why not a unit standing for a bunch of soldiers?

Why on earth should I be interested in the details of silly tactics that represent nothing in the real world?

Sorry, but I do not get your point. Every single detail in civ is about some unit-system. Even the city system should be, from your point of view, silly. There should be nothing about building a city with one barrack, one cheap city wall, one market etc. for someone who is referring to the real world. But there you close your eyes, satisfied. You like it. You're stuck with it.

I do not understand what makes you think the battle engine of civ that silly. Warfare is such "easy": You have certain amounts and capabilities and have to decide how to use them to win. In the real world of course anything is very very complex. I believe that no one could ever put all those things into a main frame to simulate battles accurately, because you do not have any idea what men might think of evilness next.
Now, you expect to get all those things put into one formular and fight the battle without human influence, just random. Then we do not need this game element anymore, because it would not be game, it would not be war. It would just be a gamble. But I do not want to start civ and roll a dice that tells me wether I've won and a second for my score.

You want to have civ minus war. You just want to click on the button "give me the city" or "destroy this army". How boring civ would be

 

[Pvblivs]

I've had more than enough of it, myself. I've turned on stack attack.

Really? Does it work the way you expect? I find it interesting how, but would never turn it on as it is, for sure, not the best tactics to let the computer fight to death.

After reading your arguments again, I've to say, I concur with you at some point: Sometimes some military things, as bombarding enemy ships approaching your coast (desert war scenario) can get very anoying and tiring. This _is_ something that is always fought the same way - you have to attack with every single silly bomber until you have those 5 battleships down.
But that's war. War _means_ huge efforts and of course war shouldn't be fun at all, because it's war, a mean thing!

And you're of course right, that war is not very complex, but nevertheless a lot work to do in civ. But everything is simple with civ. Building up cities in previous civs got really enoying if you did not have building-lists. "Colony built Granary, build barracks". Always the same Fortunately you do'nt have that much cities in civ4 1st and 2nd cities should be specialized. You simply don't build anything everywhere because it is hardly worth the effort.

 

[Tholomeo]

Publius & Draconian,
I've modelled the situation in WB very close to as it was in a real game. I do not know how to change hitpoints or to erase a single unit in WB, it seems that these featrures are unavailable in WB...

Situation One

Defending stack on a hill
MA (City Raider 3 + Combat 1) 32 h.p.
MA (City Raider 3 + Barrage 1) 34.4 h.p
MA (City Raider 2 + Barrage 1) 31.6 h.p
MA (City Raider 3) 31.6 h.p
MA (City Raider 3) 31.6 h.p
MI (Combat 2 + Gunpowder 1) 32 h.p.
MI (Combat 1 + Gunpowder 1) 27.5 h.p.
MI (Combat 1 + Gunpowder 1 + City Garrison 1)27.5 h.p.
(The stack suffered TWO bombings)

Attacker:
MI (City Garrison 2 + Combat 1)

See pic1 for a clearer view
See the odds at the screenshot pic2. Notwithstanding the stack has an unwounded MI, the system chooses a wounded MA as a defender, with the odds 35.2 vs. 38.4


Situation Two

Defending stack on a hill
MI (Combat 2 + Gunpowder 1) 23.4 h.p.
MI (Combat 1 + Gunpowder 1) 27.5 h.p.
MI (Combat 1 + Gunpowder 1) 23 h.p
(The stack suffered TWO bombings)

Attacker:
MI (City Garrison 2 + Combat 1)

See pic3 for a clearer view.
See pic4 for odds. 35.2 vs. 44.0! Even a wounded MI has 44.0! The unwounded has 54.4!!!

 

[Tholomeo]

Final shot. For the overwhelming proof.
Defender: unwounded MI with Combat 1 (even not 2!) and Gunpowder 1 on a hill
Attacker: the same attacker MI as previously(but with added Gunpowder 1!).
Odds: 35,2 vs. 43,2.
See the shot.

 

[Pvblivs]

Hi Tholomeo!

That is interesting and very strange. To me it looks like a bug that the MA is chosen first...

 

[MattJek]

You mean you actually enjoy wheeling your units into battle one at a time? Good grief. Some people are easily entertained.

I've had more than enough of it, myself. I've turned on stack attack.

Yes, I do "WHEEL" each unit seperately. I do this so that i know each unit is going where its most needed and not for entertainment purposes.

 

[Tholomeo]

Publius,
I found this bug in an opposite way, too.
If your Modern Armor attacks an AI's city guarded by helicopters and Mech.inf's , the helicopters rise to defend first, regardless of their hit points (just because they have a 100% vs. armored units ability).

Hm, let me check this in Worldbuilder, too

 

[Jonathan]

Yes, I do "WHEEL" each unit seperately. I do this so that i know each unit is going where its most needed and not for entertainment purposes.

So, even for you, the combat system is not entertaining. Well, it's supposed to be entertaining. This is a game.

I'm finding with Civ 4 what I've found with every other version of Civ so far: the early stages of the game are fun and interesting, but somewhere in the middle it all bogs down and turns into a dreary chore.

I suppose I could tolerate the game being unrealistic if only it would stay fun and interesting all the way through.

 

[MattJek]

So, even for you, the combat system is not entertaining. Well, it's supposed to be entertaining. This is a game.

I'm finding with Civ 4 what I've found with every other version of Civ so far: the early stages of the game are fun and interesting, but somewhere in the middle it all bogs down and turns into a dreary chore.

I suppose I could tolerate the game being unrealistic if only it would stay fun and interesting all the way through.

Thats not really what I ment by entertaining. I dont see how moving all your units at once gives you more satisfaction than moving each one seperately . Seems to me like this game is a chore to you rather than a hobby.

I agree that the beginning of the game is always very interesting, especially exploring and uncovering the terrain. The mid and end game sometimes turn dull but sometimes it becomes more interesting and fun when you develop alliances and rivalries. This usually happens to me only once every 4 or 5 games.