[Vanilla] Decisive victory. except not

[newbie2]

When this is going to change? It is one the most infuriating things about combat in this game, and one of the reasons I dislike War so much. It looks like 50% of the time the game says you will have a decisive victory, it isnt the case and the enemy is still alive, which can have pretty bad consequences.


I accept damage randomization in the game. I played 500hours of Xcom 2. The problem is that the combat prediction UI doesnt display this information correctly/fully.


A simple solution is how they do this in Renowned explorers: show the minimum of damage you will do, and if you are lucky, it will be more

 

[Jaybe]

If the minimum damage is displayed, then people will complain that it isn't the median damage, or some such.
It's WAR: the unexpected should be expected, both good and bad.

Personally, I think the spread of combat results is too narrow. There should be a (SMALL) chance of a heavily favored unit to lose a battle, even be destroyed. Make it more immersive/realistic.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

If the minimum damage is displayed, then people will complain that it isn't the median damage, or some such.
It's WAR: the unexpected should be expected, both good and bad.

Personally, I think the spread of combat results is too narrow. There should be a (SMALL) chance of a heavily favored unit to lose a battle, even be destroyed. Make it more immersive/realistic.

Do we need another Tank vs Spearman situation?

 

[Victoria]

It works just fine as it is, the combat predictor is just that. You can always refer to the damage table (see useful posts in my signature) if you want to know the spread for a perticular combat.

 

[Jaybe]

Do we need another Tank vs Spearman situation?

As long as it's rare, I have no objection. Never did.
It was all you gamers that had a cow; had that need for predictability. I (image of snooty, prideful pose), on the other hand, suffer from Rommel Syndrome.*

*From back in the S&T board game days (1970s): So immersed that you put yourself into the command position as if it were, like ... REAL. I get fulfillment along with the 'suffering', of course.

 

[newbie2]

If the minimum damage is displayed, then people will complain that it isn't the median damage, or some such.
It's WAR: the unexpected should be expected, both good and bad.

Personally, I think the spread of combat results is too narrow. There should be a (SMALL) chance of a heavily favored unit to lose a battle, even be destroyed. Make it more immersive/realistic.

Simple solution then: display the damage range, from minimum to max (like Xcom 2 does). Now the only thing it displays and you can base yourself on, is too inaccurate and promotes risk aversion

 

[Jaybe]

and promotes risk aversion

Yeah, I'm into risk aversion on a personal level.
Though playing at Prince diff I find the surprise of losing a unit quite acceptable.

Looks like you want the whole bell curve of potential combat results. But then you would need it for both attacker & defender and the display of that would be so messy.

 

[Forster]

I (image of snooty, prideful pose), on the other hand, suffer from Rommel Syndrome.*
*From back in the S&T board game days (1970s): So immersed that you put yourself into the command position as if it were, like ... REAL. I get fulfillment along with the 'suffering', of course.

Careful there, you are showing your age.

 

[ggalindo001]

When this is going to change? It is one the most infuriating things about combat in this game, and one of the reasons I dislike War so much. It looks like 50% of the time the game says you will have a decisive victory, it isnt the case and the enemy is still alive, which can have pretty bad consequences.


I accept damage randomization in the game. I played 500hours of Xcom 2. The problem is that the combat prediction UI doesnt display this information correctly/fully.


A simple solution is how they do this in Renowned explorers: show the minimum of damage you will do, and if you are lucky, it will be more

I think the combat is right -- in fact, I agree with many of the other posters that I would like a little more "random" than it currently is. Don't want tank v spearman, but I do like that "decisive victories" may end up leaving a little bit remaining. It factors into my strategy. And frankly, I wish that the AI thought more about this when it engaged in combat.

 

[newbie2]

As said, I dont mind the randomness. I play a lot of games with randomness. What I do mind is how badly it is molded into the UI. Xcom 2 and REIS do it much better. When you take a shot in xcom, you know the range of damage . In REIS you know the minimum of damage (but you can also miss completly or do a critical). The only thing you know in Civ is a description (which is in itself pretty weird in a game all about numbers). A description that doesnt tell much and is often wrong


We shouldnt rely on outside tools/spreadsheets for this)

 

[Jaybe]

Careful there, you are showing your age.

My first war game was Tactics II (Avalon Hill), a Christmas gift in 1964, when I was 13. I became addicted to war gaming in no time, probably to my great detriment overall. Now it’s exclusively civ, starting with Civ II.

 

[Hauptman]

I dont understand the OP TBH.

What's the issue?

You didnt kill that scout? Stack MOAR bonuses... and just be done with it.

Spear of Fion +5
Oligarchy or Fascism +4
Defender of the Faith +10
Wars of religion +4
Army +17
General of the era +5

Defensive:
Wooded hill +6
Fort +4
Hill fort +7

Just go ahead and insta-kill anything. You need 30 strength more than the target to one hit kill a full strength unit.

So get an early army general. Find giants causeway, and take DotF (total +32) and anything that gets close to a border will die (not even including promotions).

 

[newbie2]

I dont understand the OP TBH.

What's the issue?

You didnt kill that scout? Stack MOAR bonuses... and just be done with it.

Spear of Fion +5
Oligarchy or Fascism +4
Defender of the Faith +10
Wars of religion +4
Army +17
General of the era +5

Defensive:
Wooded hill +6
Fort +4
Hill fort +7

Just go ahead and insta-kill anything. You need 30 strength more than the target to one hit kill a full strength unit.

So get an early army general. Find giants causeway, and take DotF (total +32) and anything that gets close to a border will die (not even including promotions).

Ok today I learned there are also trolls on civfanatics. too bad

Moderator Action: Please do not accuse others of trolling; that is considered trolling under our rules -- Browd

If you had red and understand, its not about the amount of damage, it's about the combat UI

 

[Lily_Lancer]

In fact I always calculate myself and never really look at the combat screen. There's a formula thread, try using that.

 

[newbie2]

Again, relying on an outside tool is not a fix for bad UI design

 

[Lanthar]

Agreed, relying on an outside tool is not a fix for your perceived UI deficiencies.

But since the UI doesn't display the potential combat results as you would like, the posters were trying to help you overcome the deficiency in the UI unless/until Firaxis or a modder changes it.

 

[Victoria]

But since the UI doesn't display the potential combat results as you would like, the posters were trying to help you overcome the deficiency in the UI unless/until Firaxis or a modder changes it.

Well spoken indeed.
I personally prefer average to pessimistic.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I wasn't even aware combat was random.