CGW Preview from Jonny on Apolyton

[Virote_Considon]

bad/ugly:

• ... Units will now have one single base strength that are increased or diminished in certain situations (for example, infantry will have defensive bonuses in difficult terrain, while cavalry will have an advantage attacking ranged units such as archers). -BAD!!! BAD!!! BAD!!! simplying is good, but combat? spearmen defend the city the sameas an archer? bad bad bad!
• As units increase in experience, they will gain special bonuses, such as extra movement or bonuses against certain types of units. -first off, extra movement from expirince? that's never good. also this will encourage war much more, and make it easier for a military power to quickly pick off an economic power

Well, just as long as it works as an advantage for the AI, too. I mean, if the AI, say ALWAYS chose for extra movement in forrests, and their territory, and the surrounding territory had no forrests, ten it would just be pointless, and another way to exploit the AI. But if they were able to choose what one depending on the troops they have/ the terrain they are fighting on/ what has already been chosen already (To even the skills out) then I think it would be very good.

 

[Soren Johnson]

spearmen defend the city the sameas an archer? bad bad bad![*]

certain units might get, for example, a bonus defending cities...

 

[col]

might ? ( )

 

[Lillefix]

Special abilities in stead of a/d/m. Really nice, it seems more flexible.

 

[Madroc]

I really like the idea of units gaining special abilities. I think the best UUs now are the ones with some unique quality that makes them different, not just +1 in some attribute (the Bezerk and the Keshik are two good examples.) So this is just an expansion. I'm more of a builder, but part of that is because warfare is a little boring: show up with lots of the best (or most cost effective) unit, attack, lather, rinse, repeat. Special abilities could reward a more sophisticated strategy: this unit will advance deep into enemy territory and pick off targets of opportunity, these will defend the cities after I take them, this one will come in over the mountains, etc. Much more interesting.
The ideas about specializing cities sound pretty cool too. A nice bone tossed to us builder types.

 

[DaveShack]

The special ability thing could get really complicated, which is good IMO. I read the description of this feature to mean that every individual unit would eventually have its own strengths, once it has won enough battles! This is potentially a major step forward in game play, as then it becomes important exactly which units are used for each purpose. The point that the AI programming needs to accomodate this is an important one of course.

Removing the A/D/M values might be just to make the special abilities more... special.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I have just heard some VERY good news from Soren HIMSELF!!!! A form of Firepower is BACK!!!!!!!!!!! Not true firepower as it was in Civ2, but where the HP of damage you do in a hit is relative to the strength of the unit!
In addition, spearmen will get a 100% strength bonus against horsemen !
Oh, and Soren said that combat isn't simplified-but isn't more complex either-just very different. Though a little confused, I am a much happier camper !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

OK, I have just heard some VERY good news from Soren HIMSELF!!!! A form of Firepower is BACK!!!!!!!!!!! Not true firepower as it was in Civ2, but where the HP of damage you do in a hit is relative to the strength of the unit!
In addition, spearmen will get a 100% strength bonus against horsemen !
Oh, and Soren said that combat isn't simplified-but isn't more complex either-just very different. Though a little confused, I am a much happier camper !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

That is probably how they are fixing . Spear's might hit, but they cause piddly damage compared to tank. Might happen, but even less and it makes advanced units cooler. I'm thinking from the 'infantry gets bonus in rough terrain', 'fast gets attack bonus in open', they are taking a hint from SMAC. The +50% automatic for infantry was probably made an EXP bonus because it would be overpowered otherwise.

 

[nullspace]

The special ability thing could get really complicated . . .

I agree with this, but it sounds more like a micromanagement nightmare to me. Every time a unit promotes, I've got to stop and pick an ability from a menu? That'll be an interruption from the current battle and add a bunch more clicks and keystrokes. Then I've got to keep track of which swordsmen have which ability. That'll be fun when I have 20 swordsmen with five different abilities and they all look identical. And it'll only get worse as armies get larger with more unit types.

Also, removing attack and defense values and replacing them with bonuses against different units and terrains could be really complicated, too. The nice thing about attack and defense numbers was that it was immediately obvious what a unit was meant to do and how well it could do it. If they're replacing that with a huge web of "x unit beats y unit when on z terrain," then they're seriously complicating wars and adding micromanagement. I thought they were trying to simplify and streamline this part of the game.

Eh, maybe they'll be able to implement these features without adding much micromanagement. I don't want to sound to negative because I'm excited about almost every other feature on this list, and at least they've removed the absurdly overpowered MGLs and armies. But still, the deciding factors in war should be production power, economy, technology, and international allies. Unit special abilities and battlefield tactics shouldn't win wars by themselves, and shouldn't take up the majority of gametime.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Its things like this that make me really not want to play the game (and this is coming from someone addicted to Civ 2 / 3). I don't want historically accurate things, you're suppose to be changing history, not be repeating it (and if you do repeat it, let that be by luck or something, not by built in traits). Giving the AI set in stone personalities is stupid and in-consistent with the rest of the game. It would be like always giving Egypt the pyramids because they had it in real life and always giving America the Statue of Liberty. I can now also imagine, like someone else said in this thread (maybe it was the other one); playing a game with 7 Gandhi's will be different and easier than playing with Khan. I really don't want that and I wouldn't be surprised if other people felt the same way.

Bahh! Indians are just Indians! Do you want to rename them as well?

And i would personnally enjoy to see that Egypt have an advantage to build pyramids, they had indeed in Civ3 because of Masonry at start. It would never prevent another civ to build it, what is pretty amazing. But I agree that Pyramids should give more than a slight bonus like all granary in all city (which is not bad already) but model the civ more deeply, because Pyramids was a very partucular building religiously and culturally we have to admit. But this is also the fun to see another civ to build it. I don't think other great wonders are so particular though. My explanation is that this is one of the only religious great wonder, because of exacerbed religion of egypt due to Nil changements is a year and its importance. So Pyramids are linked with desert + fertile river (= religious great wonder). That's a starting step to create all new non existing great wonder if this will going to happen. (Civ5,6..)

 

[Naokaukodem]

Tanks will probably have giant bonuses vs. non-gunpowder units, etc.

They might have as well a "can't lose versus non-gunpowder units" speciality...

 

[sir_schwick]

But still, the deciding factors in war should be production power, economy, technology, and international allies. Unit special abilities and battlefield tactics shouldn't win wars by themselves, and shouldn't take up the majority of gametime.

I disagree that the deciding factor in a war should be production power. Those factors should give the advantage to one side or the other, but not be the deciding factor. I would like a game where a badly outnumbered military could stave off invasion through brilliant tactics or you could use an outnumbered invasion force smartly to give you something for cheap.

 

[davymark8]

I would like a game where a badly outnumbered military could stave off invasion through brilliant tactics or you could use an outnumbered invasion force smartly to give you something for cheap.

good point, something like how the confederates held off defeat for over 4 years even though they were outnumbered over 3-1 and had much lower production and almost non-existant infrastructure....and remember the CSA was on its way to win that one, if not for a few chance circumstances.

 

[playshogi]

Then I've got to keep track of which swordsmen have which ability. That'll be fun when I have 20 swordsmen with five different abilities and they all look identical. And it'll only get worse as armies get larger with more unit types.

You've got a good point here. Maybe when 1 spearman earns an ability-- all spearmen get that ability, otherwise how can you tell them apart? Smilies?

 

[Madroc]

I disagree that the deciding factor in a war should be production power. Those factors should give the advantage to one side or the other, but not be the deciding factor. I would like a game where a badly outnumbered military could stave off invasion through brilliant tactics or you could use an outnumbered invasion force smartly to give you something for cheap.

I agree completely; it's part of what makes combat a little dull in Civ3.
In fact, they could make this feature even better by making it possible to incorporate special abilities based on where a unit is produced (i.e. local terrain etc.) So you could have a small, low-tech nation whose soldiers are nasty little buggers in the mountains of their homeland, for example.

 

[ybbor]

OK, I have just heard some VERY good news from Soren HIMSELF!!!! A form of Firepower is BACK!!!!!!!!!!! Not true firepower as it was in Civ2, but where the HP of damage you do in a hit is relative to the strength of the unit!

this slightly worries me. this could go two ays; 1) they keep the current values of HP (i.e. conscripts 2, regulars 3, veterans 4, eleites 5, or sometyhing with low numerical values), and archers and spears do 1 damage, gundpowder units have potential 2, tanks, mech infantry and modern armor have potential for 3. this creates odd sutoof poitns, with a usket being same as infantry, and no differance in firepower between a cavalry and a musketman. or they switch to high integers (i.e. conscripts 75, regulars 100, veterans 125, elites 150), and there's a unique firepower to each unit. however, i'm now looking at 117/150, and i have no idea what that really means (FYI, it's 78%), and i don't want to have a calculator by my laptop to get a sense of how my 7 combat, 23 firepower, 3 movement cavalry (wiht who knows what bonus) is going to do against a 9 combat, 20 firepower, 3 movement austian hussar UU (again, with whio knows what bonus[es]).

option1:rounding erros to the extreme, with combat becoming more of chance as integers are to small to differentiate.
option2: firaxis issues a calculator with every game and new players get turned off by the apparent complexdity of the game

the combat system is begining to worry me...

 

[Vael]

Over at Apolyton Soren said that firepower didn't exist as a seperate value but worked as part of a unit's HP - the higher its HP the more damage it does. So units that are more damaged also do less damage. Both major improvements.

 

[ybbor]

so a snowball effect in combat? that doesn't sound good to me

 

[sir_schwick]

Yeah, but a very localized snowball in conflict. This means that a critical push by elite soldiers could stop an offesnive in its tracks or force the opponent to try and rush a defense.

 

[Vael]

so a snowball effect in combat? that doesn't sound good to me

I don't think so. So often in Civ 3 the attacker would have slighly superior technology (e.g. Cavalry vs. Pikes or Muskets) and simply blast away an enemy, losing few HP and just rolling forward. With a system like this the attackers would take damage and the amount of damage those units could inflict would be diminished. So an attack 6 Cav at half strength would only attack with 3 instead of 6 like in Civ 3.

It sounds to me that the 'snowballing' will only occur between units of greatly contrasting strengths, e.g. the ever-famous Tank vs. Spear situation.