civ2 combat model

[Zare]

Altrough i think that it's an real evolution from the original civ model (where one berserk barbarian warrior smashed through the 5 riflemen in the walled city once...), i still think it has severe flaws.

Like the combat against settlers / engineers. How is it possible, that settler can "kill in defence" an enemy horseman, or that engineer can kill an enemy knight?

I think it would be better off this way...combat against settlers goes in three different scenarios, each taking one "shot".

1. settler killed instantly
2. settler gets half of it's HP drained off, and moves one square away (escape)
3. the attacked gets half of its HP drained off, and the attack stops (settlers managed to evade, etc...)

Same thing with engineers. Then, there's an issue of cavalry vs armor. Three-four vet cavs have a large chance to destroy enemy armor. How is it possible, for a man with an primitive rifle on a horse, to do any damage on the battletank? Same issue with fighter vs riflemen, alpine troop or marines. Ok, wooden piston WW2-style fighter, not armored in any way, but try attacking riflemen in fortress, and see how it goes...again, primitive rifle vs something that flies 400kph above your head.

SDI defense thwarts 100% of nuclear attacks. Again, stupid. AEGIS cruisers cannot defend vs nuclear missiles. Again, stupid.

There are tons of examples...an frigate attacking fortified phalanx. It's going to lose. In real life, that's cannons vs thin iron shields. Go figure.

Helicopter...you can fly around the world two times with the helicopter. While you're flying, you cannot attack other aerial units, but the catapult can attack you. Submarine...by it's combat power and functionality it's more of an U-boat from WW2, yet it can carry a large number of nuclear/non-nuclear missiles. Carriers have vastly overrated defensive numbers. If we look at the modern American CBG, carriers are always escorted with a large number of other ships that provide protection, because they cannot adequatly defend themself alone. One exception is the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov class, but it's more of an aircraft-carrying heavy cruiser, it doesn't have housing capacity of the Nimitz for instance, but it has a large number of missile launchers for both maritime, aerial and ground attacks.

Overall, i think that an more complex and more realistic combat model was needed. With minor modifications, things would get more real. Like displaying an message "are you insane?" if you tried to attack an howitzer with the militia.

 

[Peaster]

Zare: I don't really disagree, but since nobody else has posted, I'll offer my opinions. First, I came to Civ2 from Chess, in which Pawns routinely capture Queens, and nobody thinks twice about it. So, I've never been bothered by these Civ2 anomalies. I guess most Civvers don't really think of it as a realistic war game.

Second, you can view a "Settler unit" as a group of maybe 50 to 100 people with tools or basic weapons, such as axes, but not much military skill. You can view the "Horseman unit" as a group of maybe 5 or 10 mounted men. I guess the settlers might have an even chance on defense depending on the numbers. I suppose you can do the same with boats, etc, and it all might make some sense.

But honestly, I don't even think about it much anymore! To me, the game is fun as it is.

 

[Ace]

You have to remember that civ2 is a game and the combat function is based on a numeric system. The AI doesn't think tank=armoured fighting vehicle, settler= ragged guy with a shovel, or milita=another ragged guy with a pitchfork. It compares the numbers, hit points and firepower and plugs them all into a formula to come up with a result. The beauty of the game is that by using tanks, settlers, and milita units, etc, the game player thinks in those terms and gets more enjoyment out of the game. The game also does a great job of juggling the equivalent of rock throwing warriors and jet fighters.

Back in the 60's when board wargames first came out, the only way to do that was to give the warrior a combat factor of 1 and the tank a really large number and try to put modern infanty somewhere in the middle. It was all by the numbers and not very satisfactory compared to civ2's combat system.