Combat in Civ4 is extremely dissapointing.

[Megatron83]

I really love a lot of the aspects about Civ 4..... I think they did the game, as a whole, better than anything I could have dreamed up. However, they horribly screwed up combat. The problems are numerous, but here are a few issues:



-The way odds are calculated isn't always the best way. Plus, the AI seems to cheat in combat. The AI cheating by producing faster / resaerching faster etc. is fine. But, when it comes to combat, the AI should NOT cheat. Another problem is this example:

Something with 33:20 odds should win every time EASILY without even taking any damage really. I can't count the time my tank with city raider lvl 3 and 33:18 odds has been damaged down to like 5.7 health.

The game needs to be changed if they're going to use the "health based" combat system that they do. It needs to be changed in the sense that a unit with 30 : 20 odds will come out almost unscathed and has a 0% chance of losing*. A unit with 26:25 odds, even though he only has 1 more odd, should win about 70% of the time.

However, the closer the odds, the more GUARANTEED damage needs to be done. I can't remember hwo often my unit with like 18 v 20 odds has attacked and done 0 damage. With the odds that close, my unit should be guaranteed to lose but also guaranteed to do easily over half damage.

Essentially, the system needs to be expontential. At 10-10 odds, it's a 50/50 split to win. At 11/10 odds it should be like 70% chance to win and 100% chance to take over half damage (for the 11). At 15-10 it should be 100% chance to win with 80% chance to take over half damage. At 20-10 it should be 100% chance to win and 0% chance to take over half damage, 25% chacne to take any damage.

Thus, though the cahnge may be minute for 1-2 difference, the cahnge for 5-7 difference is massive.



-Another problem is simply put: Archers killing rifelmen and riflemen killing tanks. This is RIDICULOUS. Simply put, the games units should be divided into 4 eras. The eras should be early game, mid game, industrial, and mondern. If a unit from one of these eras is fighting a unit from a lower era, then the unit from the higher era should get a strength bonus base of 5. This works out perfectly because the difference between say muskenmen and archers is huge, whereas the difference between modern armor and tanks isn't quite as large. The strenght bonus of 5 would represent 50% or more of 2nd era units strength, and only a small % of modern era units strength. This would effectively prevent this from happening, with my other changes.



-The final problem with the combat system is the overall sytle of combat. It's typical civ based combat that I've always thought is flawed. In reality cities are HUGELY indefensible. It makes no sense to station your military in a city unless you're going to conduct guerilla warfare. However, again in civ4 putting your units in cities is the way to defend. In fact, defending in general is rewarded in civ. If enemies get into your territory and pillage your stuff, don't worry. Just defend and put units on forrests/hills/cities, and pick your spots.

The solution to this IMO is to simply change the dynamics of city combat. Firstly, units fortified in cities SHOULD NOT get the 5-25% fortifiaction bonus. That's what the city defense bonus is for. This way, when siege units take away the cities defense bonus, the fortified units are vulnerable as they should be. This encourages attacking cities more often. Then, instead of right now where the defending player's best unit for the specific fight fights, the defending players AI picks the strongest unit to defned no matter WHAT attacker.

In other words, if a city has an axeman and a pikeman defending right now, and a mounted unit attacks, the pikeman will always dfend b/c it's stronger. It should be changed so the city picks its strongest generic unit to be on top and that unit ALWAYS fights. Thus, the axeman would defend no matter what before the pikeman. This gives teh attacker the edge, which encourages players to be proactive in defending their territory. If they allowe enemies to walk up to them and attack first, they are at a disadvantage.

Secondly, later game the forrest / hills bonus should dissapear when fighting with mechanized units. A forrest isn't going to provide much of an advantage against tanks who can sit back while you're hiding in the bushes and shell your ass out by burning the forrest around you.




I really think that combat in civ needs to be changed to somewhat favour the attacker. Obviously, if the attack does not use siege units to bombar city defenses, he will be at a disadvantage. However, at least with these changes players would be encouraged to defend their territory by spreading their army out and attacking units in their territory first, before their enemy can make the move.

 

[Megatron83]

Basically, barring city defenses that go unbombarded or possibly forrest/hill bonuses (as well as gunpowder vs anti-gunpowder, etc.), the following should be true in civ 4:

-A unit from one era will not lose to a unit from an era below it, and in most situations will take very little damage as well

-The attacker gets the combat advantage in terms of chosing which unit of his will fight a pre-determined unit of his enemy.

-Units in cities dont get the extra fortification bonus

-Units with better odds to win are much more likely to win than the actual odds (technically it's a health vs health system, not odds). In other words, 26vs25 isn't simply a slightly weighted coin toss; it actualy gives a signifigant edge to the 26 power. However, that unit will also take 95% damage if it wins. Whereas, 30vs25 is a guaranteed win and will only take about half damage. 35vs25 will always win and pretty much take as little as 10-15% damage around 90% of the time.

 

[Rellik]

RTW combat would so own in this game

 

[DementedAvenger]

There must be a balance between gameplay and realism. While ensuring units from one era are invincible against units from an earlier era would improve realism, it would destroy gameplay.

With regards to the 33/18 scenario - assuming the defender has a couple first strikes, the odds are only 50:1, so it's not surprising that it happens from time to time. Even with no first strikes, it's about 80:1, so it's not impossible.

Also, what you said should be the case for an 11 vs. 10 battle is the case - the 11-strength unit has a 68% chance to win, and an average of 4.9 health upon victory.


Another point: the odds for this game are multiplicative, not additive. The point differential is irrelevant, what matters it the percent difference. A 40 str. fighting a 20 str. (100% difference) will be less successful than a 12 str fighting a 3 str (200% difference), and I think this is the correct way to go about things.

 

[Megatron83]

There must be a balance between gameplay and realism. While ensuring units from one era are invincible against units from an earlier era would improve realism, it would destroy gameplay.

With regards to the 33/18 scenario - assuming the defender has a couple first strikes, the odds are only 50:1, so it's not surprising that it happens from time to time. Even with no first strikes, it's about 80:1, so it's not impossible.

Also, what you said should be the case for an 11 vs. 10 battle is the case - the 11-strength unit has a 68% chance to win, and an average of 4.9 health upon victory.


Another point: the odds for this game are multiplicative, not additive. The point differential is irrelevant, what matters it the percent difference. A 40 str. fighting a 20 str. (100% difference) will be less successful than a 12 str fighting a 3 str (200% difference), and I think this is the correct way to go about things.

I don't know any of the specifics of how the game mechanics work, so I can't comment on what you said pertaining to it's truth or not. However, I can tell you that the combat system is flawed, because crazy stuff happens like me losing units to horrible odds. The first strike system (if it wrks like you said) is extremely over powered and underpowered. I think that if that's the case, what first strike should do is add on a certain % of strenght. So, say, first strike (if it occurs) would be like +20% strength bonus or something. Because first strike DEFINITELY needs to be changed to be more consistant if what you said is the case.

I didn't see you comment on my idea about making the attacker have more advantages, I'm curious to see what you have to say about that, since you seem to be a fairly sensible person - it's rather rare to find someone like that on online forums.

Lastly, the newer era units would not be "invincible" to lower era units as I said, thus it would not destroy gameplay. They would have +5 power added onto their base. Thus, a rifleman (14 power) vs an archer would have 19 power. He would not be invincible per say, however he would have a signifant advantage. Simply put, archers should be beating gunpowder units 1on1 in any situation.

To facilitate this, I would add one simple addition:

-A feature which uses an obsolete unit an upgrades it for no cost, and uses the cities production. Say, upgrading an old unit requires half the production required to make a new unit which the old unit is being upgraded to. So, say you upgrade a warrior to a rifleman when it takes 6 turns to make a new rifleman. This would result in the warrior taking 3 turns of city production to upgrade to a rifleman.

This would make it easier to cope with properly defending all of your cities. Simply put, this is a necessary change.

 

[snepp]

You're proposing changes to a system that you admittedly do not understand....

 

[anton_z1]

Combat system is good. Weird Stuff Happens from time to time, but i think the game is pretty balanced. Tis makes sure you loose units from time to time and that you cannot Rampage the whole continent with your cavalry.

The fact that cities are difficult to take is a good thing. Losing a city is a real pain in the a$$, thus you should choose wisely whom to attack and prepare well.

The modern units should not be invincible, since the first guy getting to moder era with tanks, will simply devastate all other civs.


The system is good.

 

[dh_epic]

Combat is pretty balanced in Civ. If it were any easier for the attacker to take a city, the game would be ridiculous. All in all, a huge improvement on Civ 3.

 

[Storkraft]

i lost an attack heli to an elefant. and so on,

not realy realistic i think, and on acher killes my abrahms

LOOK OUT, they are shooting arrows at us flee. !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bakaneko]

I want to think it this way, even when talking about a game. Humans are known to be adaptive and clever, making up plans and tactics to win their opponent.

Why people always assume that those pesky spearmen fighting a tank would only poke their spears at the tank. I'd say, it would be tactics. Maybe that winning spearman unit uses some very very clever tactic to win that tank. Tanks are very effective fighting machines but they are controlled by humans. Humans makes the mistakes, not the tanks.

I'd like to think it that way when i lose a gunship to archers that the archers had a great tactic and bunch of luck. Maybe they made that gunship to fly too low and used some king idea to bring them down, not their bows and arrows.

Just my opinion and i do know we are talking about game, not real life situation.

 

[DementedAvenger]

It makes very little sense to me to complain about an issue such as an injured helicopter losing to an elephant. Would you honestly prefer it if helicopters were completely invincible against elephants? What you are suggesting would completely, 100% destroy the gameplay. It is unfortunate that realism has to be sacrificed in some cases, but again, do do otherwise would utterly obliterate any semblance of balanced gameplay.

 

[History_Buff]

Just because you don't understand how it works does not mean is should change. A 26/25 attack will actually give you a 50.91% chance of winning with no damage, and this is right. Similarily, a 40/20 attack will actually give you a 66.6666% chance of winning, without any damage. This is done so that gameplay is not destroyed. Otherwise the first person to get to gunpowder would kick everyones ass. If there was a gentle progression, this would be ok, but because C4 has been tuned to move faster, it cannot be done.

 

[wilwil]

i lost an attack heli to an elefant. and so on,

not realy realistic i think, and on acher killes my abrahms

LOOK OUT, they are shooting arrows at us flee. !!!!!!!!!!!

i lost my gunship to an acher ...

 

[DementedAvenger]

Just because you don't understand how it works does not mean is should change. A 26/25 attack will actually give you a 50.91% chance of winning with no damage, and this is right. Similarily, a 40/20 attack will actually give you a 66.6666% chance of winning, without any damage. This is done so that gameplay is not destroyed. Otherwise the first person to get to gunpowder would kick everyones ass. If there was a gentle progression, this would be ok, but because C4 has been tuned to move faster, it cannot be done.

Actually, a 40/20 attack isn't 66.6% to win, it's over 99% likely to win.

 

[Volstag]

The game needs to be changed if they're going to use the "health based" combat system that they do. It needs to be changed in the sense that a unit with 30 : 20 odds will come out almost unscathed and has a 0% chance of losing*. A unit with 26:25 odds, even though he only has 1 more odd, should win about 70% of the time.

What crazy math are you using to determine this? If the odds are 26:25, I would expect these combats to be roughly 50/50. Where does this magical 20% come from? 30:20 is not that great of an advantage... the lower odds should still, statistically speaking, win 2 out of every 5 combats.

Essentially, the system needs to be expontential. At 10-10 odds, it's a 50/50 split to win. At 11/10 odds it should be like 70% chance to win.

Why are your odds and percentages in two different worlds? If the odds are 11:10, these combats are going to be close to 50/50. How does 11:10 odds equate to 70%? It doesn't make any sense.

Another problem is simply put: Archers killing rifelmen and riflemen killing tanks. This is RIDICULOUS.

Honestly, how often do you really see this? Maybe 2 or 3 times in a game?

The final problem with the combat system is the overall sytle of combat. It's typical civ based combat that I've always thought is flawed. In reality cities are HUGELY indefensible.

That's just silly. I just finished reading Brig. General JFC Fullers "Military History of the Western World", and he took the opposite stance. He even claimed that some cities were nigh impregnabable until the advent of gunpowder. If cities are HUGELY indefensible, you're going to have to explain why so many ancient/classical defensive operations were based in/around cities. Or, more broadly, if cities are HUGELY indefensible, why did so many generals hole-up in cities? They were either completely daft, or your statement is incorrect. Which is more likely?

However, again in civ4 putting your units in cities is the way to defend. In fact, defending in general is rewarded in civ.

Kinda like "real life". Explain to me how an open field provides more defensive advantages than a city with 40ft. high stone walls, keeps, bridges, moats, gates, sally ports, arrow slits, mangonels, ballistae, etc, etc.

Bottomline is this: if the odds are close, the combat can go either way. If the odds are in your favor, you should reasonably expect to win. If the odds aren't if your favor, you should reasonbly expect to lose. It doesn't matter if one of them has a picture of a tank, and the other a picture of a spearman. The ONLY thing that matters are the odds. Forget about the picture and focus on the odds. If you're going after a city, bring siege gear or a corresponding numerical superiority.

 

[FraggyFragbait]

i think the combat odds are about right. And saying certain units should be invincible against other units is just silly in my opinion. In real life its not likely that an archer would beat a tank but it could very well happen. Maybe they use stealth and get on top of the tank,manage to get in and knife everyone...not likely but maybe the tank crew where not payin attention. Saying that though history is full of 'obsolete' units beating 'superior' units. Think of the Zulu's...or the Samurai and Indians beaten Civilized countries with bows and swords while the civilized countries had gunpowder. Anyway that's enough rambling...i like the combat as it as and u just have to accept that sometimes **** happens

 

[DementedAvenger]

Again, you guys are mistaken about the way combat works. If it's 40-20, then the 40 unit has a 66.6% chance to win each round, but not the entire fight, as there are many rounds to a fight. The higher strength unit has both a better chance to win each round, and does more damage when it does win each round, which is why it has such a large advantage.

11 vs. 10 strength is 68%, as I said before, and I like it that way. It makes promotions more important.

 

[jeremiahrounds]

"-A unit from one era will not lose to a unit from an era below it, and in most situations will take very little damage as well"

I was surprised the poster complained about that as well as from my experience if your unit is an era behind its about worthless. It might give you decent odds but almost everytime i did an attack without overwhelming odds with an older era unit it lost horribly.

PErsonally i dont like it that way. I think it slows down the game by making the combat units obsolete. I appreciate some sort of mental image of archers fighting riflemen as being stupid however alot of useless units is boring. And further it makes fighting seem artificial as if you try to fight at the edge of an era your units will soon be obsolete.

For the work around image i usually just pictured the unit as being fully aware of the world however it was just backwards and inefficient. Not neccesarily the same archers that existed in the stoneage.

As an odd question I got all the way through the modern era without researching archery. Does that mean i didnt know about a bow and arrow?

 

[MrCynical]

The changes to combat odds you suggest would make a civ invincible at the slightest advance in technology. 25:26 a victory for 26 most of the time? Ridiculous, it should be practically a toss up since the difference isn't even one level of the most basic combat promotion. You have to be very unlucky to lose 33:20 as it is, and you really don't take that much damage. As many people have pointed out the method Civ 4 uses accentuates the difference between units already. Pushing it further in that direction is ridiculous.

On spearman beats tank issue I have slightly more sympathy, but your suggestion would destroy the combat system. My suggestion for Civ 3 was always that units from two eras behind wouldn't be able to kill an enemy, and from three eras behind wouldn't be able to harm an enemy. You can't put the boundary between two adjacent eras because then a single tech could make a civ unstoppable. With the loss of true eras in Civ 4 this would be awkward to implement, so I don't think it works as well here.

In any case, spearman beats tank is nowhere near as bad as it used to be, thanks to the greater spread of values. Your complaints on this seem to be on the basis that 'Oh I always get appalling results and lose tanks to archers everywhere'. Believe me, you always notice the lousy results and remember them. You don't remember the innumerable times things go as expected. People also don't seem to remember results that are in their favour, partly because I suspect human players deliberately avoid long odds battles, while the AI doesn't. The human player doesn't tend to get their spearmen beating tanks because I suspect the human player isn't going to be using spearmen when tanks are around. This creates the impression that the AI is 'cheating' which if you step back and think for a moment is blatantly rubbish. The game would have to be programmed to use different values for AI units, which it doesn't, and would be far too blatant for a designer to include even if for some reason they wanted to. The AI is not a living thing with a grudge against you, and cannot change the rules for it's own benefit.

 

[Instant_Cereal]

I, too, sometimes find the new combat system disappointing compared to its predecessors, but for different reasons. Quite frankly, if you won every time with odds of, for example, 22:14, then strategy and combat would merely degenerate into bigger army > smaller army every time; and currently that's my biggest gripe about Civ4's new combat system, it rewards quantity more than any other Civ game before it. The system in Civ2 seemed good to me because at least then I could defend against a larger nation on a warpath when my nation was still comparably smaller. Civ4's system favors largers nations with more cities that possess more production capabilities compared to more restrained and smaller nations. History is loaded with examples where larger, in terms of nation and army size, were not always decisive. What I really miss is the chance factor from older Civs, like Civ2; knowing certain soldiers were more powerful than others in attacking or defending, but still realizing things won't be so clear-cut and that sh*t happens.

Civ4's combat system isn't game-breaking or terribly demoralizing, but it certainly isn't the best I've played with. Thankfully you don't see as many 'swordsmen defeating riflemen' situations as you used to; though you sometimes still do, which is a good portrayal of radical and freak events that have occured in history. However, as of now with the new system, 2 battleships will always defeat 1 battleship, which hasn't always been the case and definitely not so when looking at history. Wars in Civ4 are mostly wars of attrition.