ybbor
Will not change his avata
but then the first hit is more important than the last. if a cavalrty charges another cavalry, the one that get the first hirt is more likely to win the whole battle
CGW Preview from Jonny on Apolyton
- Thread starter arkammler
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I thought the amount of HP damage which a unit did was based on its Combat Strength-NOT its number of HP's. At least thats what I got out of Soren's reply to my query about Firepower. That is to say that a cavalry unit, with 6 strength, might do X HP's of damage, wheras a spearman unit, with strength 2, might only do X/3 HP's damage. I admit I could be wrong, and I wouldn't mind if combat strength was based on current HP (which, in turn, would impact the damage they could inflict!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
ybbor said:
Except the mongols were not only great at conquest.. they were also great, fair and honorable diplomats (or maybe it was the chinese diplomats they hired). All I know is they were way less corrupt than other leaders.
Like that time 2 men betrayed their king or emperor, and brought his head to Genghis. Genghis thanked them for the easier conqeust, then had them beheaded because "if they betray one leader, they betray another".
But oh well, bloodthirsty Genghis fits more what ppl think of him in general I suppose...
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
ybbor said:
You would be suprised how often that affects battles.
NP300
Prince
dh_epic said:
I am very happy to hear of their implementation of a single stength number and bonuses. Something like this was discussed a while back. The suggestion was to have bonuses but no one suggested to have a single strength value. When you think about it, once you add an extensive bonus system you no longer need separate attack and defense values.
Consider the following... You could have infantry with a defense bonus when in a city. Tanks could have a penalty when in cities. So while tanks may have a higher strength value than infantry, you really wouldn't want to try to take a city with a stack of tanks. You would do it with infantry that have no penalty, but rather a bonus when in city terrain. The defending infantry would still be stronger than the attacking infantry because of fortification bonuses and city bonuses.
On the other hand, tanks could have a bonus in open terrain and easily squish the infantry in the grasslands.
The same could go for ancient units. Spearmen might have a bonus versus mounted units so you wouldn't want to take cities with knights or horsemen. On the other hand, the spearmen would be more vulnerable to attacks by swordsmen.
This sounds way better than the a/d/m system.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
narmox said:
I was actually more interesting in the fact that the Mongols are probably in the game. I think another leader who could have a similar personality would be Shaka.
BTW, when I first heard this single combat system, I wasn't too thrilled with the idea. But, as more info has come out, I'm liking it more and more. It definately doesn't seem too simplified and it strongly reminds me of elements taken from both Civ2 and Alpha Centauri.
Roland Johansen
Deity
The single value combat system with bonusses is very interesting. It allows lots of options to model advantages and disadvantages that certain units have against eachother. But I would like to know how the defender is chosen when I attack a stack of units (in Civ3 it would have been the unit with the highest value of "defence value multiplied by the current number of hitpoints")
Example: Assuming that spearmen have an advantage against horsemen and horsemen an advantage against swordsmen and swordsmen an advantage against spearmen (not completely realistic, just for the sake of argument). The defender and attacker both have a stack of a spearman, a horseman and a swordsman. Would the defender get to pick the ideal defence unit or the attacker get to pick its ideal target unit? If the defender gets his way then if the attacker attacks with a swordsman, the horseman would defend, if the attacker attacks with a horseman, the spearman would defend and if the attacker attacks with a spearman, the swordsman would defend. If the attacker gets his way then he attacks the spearman with his swordsman, the swordsman with his horseman and the horseman with his spearman.
Now the civ IV model will probably be more complicated then this little triangle of units, but it is still important who gets to choose the defence unit. I personally would prefer a combat system where both stacks of 3 units would fight as a group of units, but that's probably not the case in Civ IV.
Example: Assuming that spearmen have an advantage against horsemen and horsemen an advantage against swordsmen and swordsmen an advantage against spearmen (not completely realistic, just for the sake of argument). The defender and attacker both have a stack of a spearman, a horseman and a swordsman. Would the defender get to pick the ideal defence unit or the attacker get to pick its ideal target unit? If the defender gets his way then if the attacker attacks with a swordsman, the horseman would defend, if the attacker attacks with a horseman, the spearman would defend and if the attacker attacks with a spearman, the swordsman would defend. If the attacker gets his way then he attacks the spearman with his swordsman, the swordsman with his horseman and the horseman with his spearman.
Now the civ IV model will probably be more complicated then this little triangle of units, but it is still important who gets to choose the defence unit. I personally would prefer a combat system where both stacks of 3 units would fight as a group of units, but that's probably not the case in Civ IV.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
The single value with bonuses is a stroke of genius, if you ask me. Much better than bouncing 50 sets of A/D values off each other in order to get some kind of balance.
Warrior: 1
Spearman: 2, def. bonus
Horseman: 3, 2 moves
Swordsman: 3
.
.
.
Infantry: 10, def. bonus
Tank: 15, att. bonus, 2 moves
Warrior: 1
Spearman: 2, def. bonus
Horseman: 3, 2 moves
Swordsman: 3
.
.
.
Infantry: 10, def. bonus
Tank: 15, att. bonus, 2 moves
Philips beard
Prince
Vael said:
I'm afraid we will see to large strength differences between units of different ages, and that this will make it to easy for a more advanced CIV crush over a less developed CIV! I really hope arms sales will be possible, so low developed civilisations can keep up a little bit!
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
Too soon to say if that new combat system is better...
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Philips beard said:
I see it as quite the contrary. How many times have we thought 3 is too strong, but 2 is too weak, and 2.5 would be perfect?
If spearmen have a strength of 4 (with some kind of bonus while defending or in cities), then that means you can have much more subtle progression of units. You can go from 4 to 5, which would be the equivelent of going from 2 to 2.5 in Civ 3.
In other words, by doubling every unit's strength, there's potential for more fine upgrades.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
thestonesfan said:
I agree completely that this will make balancing much easier. Also, remembering unit values will be a lot easier and modding easier.
Hopefully Heavy Cav types(Chariots through TAnks) will have the same values as Infantry. Those units cannot sustain fights the same way infantry can. However any heavy cav type can breach lines and strike first much harder than infantry. Bonuses would reflect the strengths of mobile and infantry forces better rather than stats that unrealistically put armour way ahead of where it should be.
Vael said:If that's the best example you can find of the Mongols being fair then Firaxis' implimentation of them must be correct!
rofl
Well actually they were quite fair. If a city submitted to them, they'd kill all the leaders and then choose new ones from the population and let them keep their religion, culture, money system, style of government, etc. All they needed to do was report to them and pay taxes. Otherwise things remained pretty much the same.
In fact throughout their empire a sort of "Pax Mongolia" reminescent of Pax Romana reigned, and most of the people were quite happy. At least during the first few decades...
If the city didn't submit however...... Then they became Firaxis mongols
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
narmox said:
Sorta like the old mafia, sans Marlin Brando.
ybbor
Will not change his avata
sir_schwick said:
1)but that's not good for gameplay
2)we're dealing wiht units representing thousands of cavalries, bot just 1 on 1
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I meant 2 specifically. Units like Heavy Cavalary and Tanks loose their oomph fairly quickly. Its the shock of the breakthrough that does the real damage, not the casualties caused. Even in infantry heavy battles getting a critical edge at the beginning of the battle is very important. Also, you can assume that when you lose hitpoints, its not casualties so much as effective strength. Both sides in a battle are attacking and defending.
I definitely think that is good for gameplay. You have to plan your strategies around how to deal with a breakthrough.
I definitely think that is good for gameplay. You have to plan your strategies around how to deal with a breakthrough.
