Do you like the way combat is changing

[ybbor]

here's the basics of what we know already

• there will only be one single value to represent attack and defense
• HP of damage you do in a hit is relative to the strength of the unit
• units will get bonuses in differant situations

what do you think?

 

[dh_epic]

I don't think this is a fair poll to have when nobody knows exactly how it's going to work.

All in all, when people see that "they've put attack and defense into one number", they're going to be disappointed. Because fans will always choose more over less. It's just the way they are.

So I don't think you can do a poll like this until someone can fairly represent what Firaxis is up to.

 

[DS_Legionary]

I can't really give you an answer until I see this new battle system in action. It sounds intriguing (spelling?), but I'm not sure either way as of now.

 

[mastertyguy]

We don't know. we will know someday, but I think it may add some diversity. SPECIALISTION IS GOOD. And it will always be. Specialistion reduce stacks of tanks, or swords.

 

[oldStatesman]

Not enough info yet to answer...gigo. The proof will be in the pudding.

 

[Vietcong]

got to see how it works and get a bit more detal

 

[HamaticBabylon]

As long as the keep the per turn feature I’m happy!

I would hate it if Civ4 became another Rise of Nations!

 

[North King]

YUMBO!

From what I've heard so far it sounds good, but if it doesn't include some key elements like tactical outflanking and surprise bonus, then I'm not going to like it much more than Civ 3.

 

[warpstorm]

Considering how little was listed, it is near impossible to say if it will be better or worse. Wait till there is more info.

 

[ainwood]

I agree with the general consensus that we need to wait. One thing that always struck me as bizarre was this attack / defence thing anyway. Why should it be easier to kill a cavalry than a knight? Surely it depends on the situation - if your attacking the knight with a rifle, then it should be easier to get the knight (before he gets you).
If its with a sword, then in close-combat, maybe the cavalry should be easier to kill (lame example, as it ignores how to get into close-combat etc).

But anyway - on the face of it, I see the common strength and unit bonuses as a plus. How its implemented remains to be seen.

My only real concern is that it may introduce micromanagement of combat. E.g. I need to remember to attack this type of unit with that type, and that type with this type to get the bonuses.

 

[GenMarshall]

Way much better than Civ3's combat system.

 

[Civrules]

They say it's going to be better, but as some others have said, we still need a bit more details on it.

One thing we for sure know is that Civ III's problem of old units defeating modern units is most likely gone.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, what little I have heard makes me fairly happy-especially the idea of damage being related to strength, and the stronger focus on combined arms for success. Before I make a FINAL judgement, though, I do need certain questions answered first-as I have put forward in the PC Zone Review thread.
Most importantly, I HOPE damage is actually more related to how well you hit someone-as much as being related to strength (there is a strong causal link, given that a stronger unit will almost always hit better-and more often-than a weaker one). I also hope that all combat with stacks is simultaneous-rather than the 'we will all stand in a nice little queue whilst one of our units attacks you' approach !
Until then, the jury is still out !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[nullspace]

My only real concern is that it may introduce micromanagement of combat. E.g. I need to remember to attack this type of unit with that type, and that type with this type to get the bonuses.

That's kind of the way it sounds like it's going. That type of gameplay is really quite braindead, but takes a lot of micromanagement. And then you've got to make sure the AI can figure it out well enough to compete with a human. I hope the bonuses end up fairly simple: only a few types of units, and each has only one bonus and one penalty.

 

[Arkazius]

I would expect to see a lot more special abilities (along the lines of "ignore city walls", etc) adding combat diversity, making up for any loss of diversity from having only a single strength rating. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see a "this unit has triple strength on attack versus infantry, only on grassland" - ie. very specific specials.

Ultimately, we wait and see.

 

[CurtSibling]

Not enough info yet to answer...gigo. The proof will be in the pudding.

I agree - This is my stance until there is more data.

.

 

[rcoutme]

I like the following: Ancient units will be far inferior to modern ones (at least for the fighting of each other). Units will gain experience for fighting, giving potential bonuses for victories won (presumably, an infantry unit that successfully defends a city will not be given the same bonuses as one that successfully destroys a tank in the hills). The damage done will be related to the strength of the units.

Things I fear may cause problems: bombardment may damage every unit in a stack.

Things I am ambivalent about: Units will now have only 1 combat value. I kind of wish they had brought back armor and firepower.

Things I wish had been stated (or read: included): Certain (or all) units will require a supply line. Ships have the "Relocate to port" capacity. Aircraft distances improve based on small, incremental improvements. Units can have multiple means of achieving resource requirements (for instance, if you have no iron, swordsmen can be built either at lesser strength or with gold added).

 

[Elrohir]

They're very differant ways, and you can't say one is better

 

[warpstorm]

They're very differant ways, and you can't say one is better

Oh, I could say which I think is better, if I had the details of the new combat algorithm.

 

[Darwin420]

different ways, can't say which is better.

I reserve the right to judge the new combat system once cIV is installed on my computer and I get to see if for myself!