Do you like the way combat is changing

[Che Guava]

I like the following: Ancient units will be far inferior to modern ones (at least for the fighting of each other).

This is a must. Every time one of my rifleman/infantry units gets routed by a pikeman, I sit back and try to picture what exactly that would look like on the battlefield.....

 

[mastertyguy]

Or a immortal defeating a tank. Seen it sunday. But I won't complain, it saved Gordium!!!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Of course to maintain balance, this means that in a world with tanks there should be almost no Immortals left (ie by the time anyone has tanks everyone should have at least musketmen)

 

[Moonsinger]

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?

According to the post at civfanatics main page, this is what we know so far:

Combat will be more simplified. There will not be separate attack and defense strengths. Units will now have one single base strength. Infantry will have defensive bonuses in difficult terrain, while cavalry will have an advantage attacking ranged units such as archers. Artillery/Siege units will be stronger and will allow for damaging all of the units in a stack. These changes were done to encourage use of combined arms

Of course, it's a better combat system. I have seen similar type of combat system in other games like Age of Wonder or HOMM before. Units with special ability like First Strike, Double Round, Mounted, Siege, ... would definitely encourage the use of combined arms. For example, cavalry (mounted unit) would definitely have an advantage over archers, catapult/artillery (siege weapon) would have an advantage against city/fort, etc.

I really love to give my defenders "First Strike" ability (doubt it will be in Civ4), but since we already kind of having that ability in Civ3, it would be a shame it they don't go all the way in Civ4. Note: the First Strike ability is very limited in Civ3. For example, if you have a stack of artillery defending your city, the artillery get to fire first before your best defender taking over.

 

[DoTheMath]

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

When CivIII came out, didn't they say that it would solve that problem????

Otherwise, it's support of combined units and stacked combat are great impovements. Ctp2 has the best combat system I've seen so far, but I've had to change the unit costs, upkeep, and some of the A/D/M values to make more of the units useful.

I wonder if people will use civ4's subs.

 

[warpstorm]

When CivIII came out, didn't they say that it would solve that problem????

Quite the opposite, Soren intentionally gave outdated units a fighting chance so that they could remain in the game with a tech or resource deficit.

 

[Commander Bello]

Voted for "you can't say, which is better" since there is quite some potential in what has been announced so far, but history tells us that this offers quite some space to really mess it up.
Personally, I *think* the direction they took is a good one - but let's not celebrate victory before the battle is won....

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

The horrible, dice rolling combat system of civ3 exists because of the relatively poor resource model; as stated by warpstorm, Soren wanted it this way so obsolete units would have a chance if the mother civ was short on resources (also because maybe they didn't have time to code the AI to upgrade units properly? ). This new system sounds better, hopefully the resource system will be MUCH improved, allowing for free trade/purchase of limited amounts by ALL civs, no matter who controls the iron, saltpeter, what have you.

While the system sounds exciting so far, one complaint I can foresee is players anticipating attacks by one type of unit, then getting totally slaughtered when another unit type shows up that nullifies the advantages their units would have had against their anticipated foes. For example, the player builds hordes of pikemen, anticipating horseman assaults, and wanting that 2 to 1 defense against the invader. But instead, an army of melee swordsmen shows up, nullifying the 2/1 advantage and getting right in among the pikemen, putting the city to the torch. A good way to gather military intelligence, starting very early on, would nullify this problem.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

So, where's the problem Ivan? Many battles have been won, or lost, on the basis of poor military intelligence-and if this is properly reflected in the game, then so much the better.
One thing you mentioned, though, is 'build a HORDE of Pikemen'-well, there is the problem RIGHT THERE, as Soren has made it clear that stacks of the same unit is NOT the way to go. In this case, a mix of pikemen, swordsmen and archers would have probably been the best combination-IMO. You also forget that some units also defend better in cities.
Truly, combat is the one part of this game that I am truly NOT worried about-as I think they may have finally got it right!!! Still, I will reserve FINAL judgement until more facts come to light !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sgrig]

Can't really say whether the new system is better or not. If the various bonuses are flexible enough, then it will be better, since it will allow for more diverse units. However it will be sad to see A/D gone. In my opinion, Civ2 had a much better combat system than Civ3. Units had lots of hitpoints (in Civ2 1HP actually meant 10 points) which made arbitrary results less likely. Also varying hitpoints and firepower gave a lot of flexibility when designing units. The only thing which I preferred in the combat system in Civ3 was bombardment, alhtough AI didn't know how to use it. So I hope that in Civ4 AI will actually use artillery.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Well, I hope that arillery system gets changed, since as it is, it is impossible to get losses in artillery exempt if enemy units capture your position. You could not even bombard enemy artillery.

SMAC did this part well.
When you bombard tile with enemy artillery, then it's resolved as "regular" unit combat.

 

[Philips beard]

Whatever this combat system will turn out to be, I really hope it will not make the game totally unbalanced! Small nations with less resources, and inferior technology must have a chance to win combats too!

 

[ainwood]

While the system sounds exciting so far, one complaint I can foresee is players anticipating attacks by one type of unit, then getting totally slaughtered when another unit type shows up that nullifies the advantages their units would have had against their anticipated foes.

A real problem with this could be an AI that 'knows' what your defenders / attackers are, and acts accordingly. To me, that would suck for two reasons: 1.) Unfair advantage (a la the AI 'knowing' where resources will pop-up in Civ3) and 2.) would make the game more predictable and less immersing. An AI that builds a balanced army would be much more fun to play against.

 

[dh_epic]

It couldn't be more unbalanced than it is now, Phillips beard. Right now, it's about who can build the biggest army, and who is further along in the tech tree. This has the potential to reward people who choose one unit type over another, and maybe even those who master the nuances of combat.

 

[volbound1700]

this type of battle sounds like aoe strategy which sounds cool. Infantry in Civ has stunk for so long because infantry was used a lot in offenses and on civ2 and 3 mostly infantry in city defending while calvary out fighting. Inf only good for city guard and that it (except maybe legion or marines). They need to make the combats better were you dont have to send 10 calvary to kill 1 infantry unit in a city and make inf better on O. Most my scns I made inf even on offen and defenses or higher in case of civ2 to make inf more valuable.

 

[Philips beard]

It couldn't be more unbalanced than it is now, Phillips beard. Right now, it's about who can build the biggest army, and who is further along in the tech tree. This has the potential to reward people who choose one unit type over another, and maybe even those who master the nuances of combat.

Yes, but in todays system a spearman at least has a minamal chance to fight a tanks, I think it's wrong to make it pre-destined to lose!

 

[Brain]

What I would really like to see is a combat system that is completely separate from the epic game such as in Heroes of Might and Magic, but I doubt there will ever be such a thing in civ.

 

[Philips beard]

What I would really like to see is a combat system that is completely separate from the epic game such as in Heroes of Might and Magic, but I doubt there will ever be such a thing in civ.

That would be a disaster for CIV! A few consentrated armies would perhaps be realistic in the first ages, but not in modern warfare! And a war would be decided in no time = no fun!

But has to rush to say Heroes M&M is a great, awesome game series! Love it! Turn based strategy is the best, and CIV and HMM are the ones doing it the best! A great example for other game developers!

 

[Brain]

That would be a disaster for CIV! A few consentrated armies would perhaps be realistic in the first ages, but not in modern warfare! And a war would be decided in no time = no fun!

Why do you say so? Please explain.

 

[dh_epic]

Nobody said it will be predestined to lose.

Do you really think they hardwired which units are not allowed to win?