CGW Preview from Jonny on Apolyton

[oldStatesman]

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.

The "Charge of the Light Brigade" is a prime example of Heavy Cav going in unsupported by infantry. The failure of Hitler in Russia in 1942 is an example of armored spearheads getting ground down by the mass of opposition gureilla's, ground trooops and not enough logistical support and losing the shock effect.

Contrary to what is felt on this board, "spearman" (guerillas', freedom fighter's insurgent's what ever you want to call them) can kill an unsupported tank fairly easily ... ever hear of the Molotov Cocktail? Or just cut off the supply of fuel through insurgency...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I have to say that I am REALLY starting to warm to the whole 'Single Stat' thing now! There are a number of important combat questions still unanswered though:

1) Will we still have to queue up to fight a 'defending' unit, or will all combat be resolved simultaneously?

2) Will units both 'attack' and 'defend against attack' within the same combat, or will it still be the same as in civ2/3 (i.e. the unit in the square 'defends', the unit entering the square 'attacks')?

3) What is the equation going to be for combat odds, given only a single stat-and when will bonuses be applied? (I'm guessing UnitA/UnitA+UnitB)

4) With damage being based on strength, will it have anything to do with how successful a units hit is (i.e. by how much the RNG is below your combat odds)?

If you're out there still Soren-or any other Firaxians for that matter-would you be interested in answering any of these queries for us?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

Contrary to what is felt on this board, "spearman" (guerillas', freedom fighter's insurgent's what ever you want to call them) can kill an unsupported tank fairly easily ... ever hear of the Molotov Cocktail? Or just cut off the supply of fuel through insurgency...

Regular infantry should do a much better job of taking out tanks than they currently do in any of the Civs. Tanks are not designed to fight infantry in prolonged battles. In the later days of WWII tacticians figured out the best way to deal with unsupported armour was to swarm it with Infantry. Hopefully the change to a single stat means that the differences between infantry and tanks will be bonuses and use, not stats.

 

[oldStatesman]

Regular infantry should do a much better job of taking out tanks than they currently do in any of the Civs. Tanks are not designed to fight infantry in prolonged battles. In the later days of WWII tacticians figured out the best way to deal with unsupported armour was to swarm it with Infantry. Hopefully the change to a single stat means that the differences between infantry and tanks will be bonuses and use, not stats.

Absolutely - tanks are shock weapons that must quickly overrun infantry - and you must in turn quickly support them with your infantry before the enemy grunts can regroup or they will be neutralized quickly. Tanks are designed to take ground - not hold it.

That is why I hope they add some form of logistics to attacking units - you should not be able to let loose a gaggle of unsupported armor in enemy territory - if you can't establish and defend a supply line to them they are quickly turned into million dollar heaps of scrap metal.

 

[RichardMNixon]

The myriad of bonuses everyone is discussing sounds more complicated than a/d + terrain. So much for simplification....
I do really like some of the stuff though, especially the flexible tech tree.
And being able to turn off leader personality does sound like a good idea.

 

[nullspace]

Yes! Someone agrees that the new combat sounds complicated! I think the stuff about civics and great people sounds much more interesting. There should be a lot more onptions about how to run your civ, and perhaps good rewards for pursuing non-military goals. I think this is a good change for a game called "civilization."

But maybe the best new feature is the different game lengths. I know that sometimes I want to try out a new strategy and see if it works without spending 20 hours to get to the end. But the option for a truly huge game is still there.

 

[sir_schwick]

The myriad of bonuses everyone is discussing sounds more complicated than a/d + terrain. So much for simplification....

Soren never stated the new system was more or less complicated than the old. He only said it was different.

 

[rcoutme]

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.

I believe that they said there would be 19 civs and 28 leaders...thus, you certainly do not have a repeat of history here.