1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Do you like the way combat is changing

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by ybbor, May 3, 2005.

?

Do you like the new combat system?

  1. Yes! it is a much needed improvement over civ3!

    36 vote(s)
    29.8%
  2. yes, it's good

    29 vote(s)
    24.0%
  3. seems about as good as the old system

    9 vote(s)
    7.4%
  4. it's not as good as the old system

    9 vote(s)
    7.4%
  5. it is a horrible way to deal with combat

    2 vote(s)
    1.7%
  6. They're very differant ways, and you can't say one is better

    16 vote(s)
    13.2%
  7. YUMBO! (other)

    20 vote(s)
    16.5%
  1. gunkulator

    gunkulator Emperor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,265
    Location:
    NH, USA
    Can't say I've seen even one tank vs. spearman. I have C3C, maybe that makes a difference. The AI seems to prefer to draft over keeping old units. If an AI is so far behind that it actually does have spearmen in era of tanks, I would suspect it would be an extremely simple pushover.

    OK: Regular tank against elite spearman foritifed in a barricade on a mountain across a river. In this ridiculous scenario, the tank still wins 63.7% of the time. You have to reduce the tank to 1 hp to get your result. IMHO, if you attack any unit, ancient or modern, with a 1 hp tank, you get what you deserve.

    In any case, the point I'm trying to make is I don't want civ4 reduced to a race to the next level of units. We had that in Civ2 and, frankly, it got pretty boring.
     
  2. Brain

    Brain Lost in thought

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    522
    Location:
    Warsaw, Poland
    But we're not talking about knight versus spearman here. We're talking about units that are FOUR generations behind. Someone who's that far behind doesn't stand much of a chance anyway.

    You can easily solve the problem you're describing by making sure that there are many progressively stronger units without wide gaps such as horseman to knight in Civ3. That's easy to mod even if the out-of-the-box game doesn't do it right.
     
  3. oldStatesman

    oldStatesman Cybernaut

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    983
    Location:
    Random Map
    If concerned about realism, then armor should never attack in an urban setting without grunt support. ;) They will get quite the rude reception by dug in defenders - unaccompanied mechanized units are too vulnerable to close assault tactics. That is why I have some hope that the new combat system will make combined arms much more usable.
     
  4. 777

    777 King

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fin
    Hard to say, hope it only goes to better direction from Civ3 it's way too simple and way too much based to luck or random, not let space so much for strategy. Only startegy you can use is to look you don't do stupid attacks (across river etc.) and use terrain as an advantage. But that's pretty much it.
     
  5. Philips beard

    Philips beard Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    524
    Location:
    Norseman
    It's not about unluck, but about bad strategi if you lose a war vs a spearman army, when you have tanks! ;)
     
  6. civzombie

    civzombie Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2001
    Messages:
    469
    "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"

    I would like to point out that the rules of the game Fantasy general fit within those three pieces of knowledge you put down. Fantasy general was a sweet stategy game, so it is of course possible that the civ4 system could also be just as sweet given the small amount of info we have at this time!

    I wish they would just emulate the fantasy general combat system...
     
  7. civzombie

    civzombie Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2001
    Messages:
    469
    I voted "much needed improvement" because, while I don't have all the details of civ4, the civ3 system basically sucked big time and the odds are civ4 will be better in terms of combat.

    Do you remember how disappointed everyone was when we found out that firepower (from civ2) was not being included?!? It was such a disappointment. It was like a step backward.

    Furthermore, I think the granularity of HP actually dropped from civ2 to civ3, which in my opinion was another step backwards. (in civ2 it seemed that health was analog instead of exact amounts, eg 1/4, 2/4, etc)
     
  8. 777

    777 King

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fin
    I can't remember, how Firepower did work?
     
  9. searcheagle

    searcheagle Emperor

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,139
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    I liked the addition of all the 41 or so experience bonuses that in Civ 4. I was extremely disappointed, however, that the attack and defense values are being replaced with a single value.

    With this system like this, a phalanx is as likely to become an attack unit as a defending unit. I think this will be will be a bad system to go with because I feel it will cause the development of superunits, while the rest are weaklings.

    Imagine how much depth there would be if a talent was added to a certain skill, either attack or defense, or movement in selected area.

    Hopefully, this idea will be added better then what I think it will, but i dont know if it will.
     
  10. dh_epic

    dh_epic Cold War Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,627
    Location:
    Seasonal Residences
    Searcheagle, I imagine defenders will be differentiated from attack units by giving them a bonus while defending. Just as attackers will be differentiated from defensive units by giving them attack bonuses. Not to mention terrain bonuses, bonuses versus certain kinds of units, and special skills (like first strike, or collatoral damage, and so on).
     
  11. searcheagle

    searcheagle Emperor

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,139
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    That's what I was orginally thinking. However, before those bonuses are accumulated, their attack defensive stats will be the same.
     
  12. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,714
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Although I didn't like the single combat strength stat at first, I do actually think it will work better-mainly from a 'tactical' frame of mind. I don't know about you, but I tended to have this problem where I would leave 'defensive' units behind to defend-forts and cities mostly-whilst using my 'offensive' units to go about and attack. With a single stat, though, this rather artificial distinction is gone, and it will encourage me even more to adopt a more combined arms approach to my unit stacks.

    Yours,
    Aussie_Lurker.
     
  13. player1 fanatic

    player1 fanatic Fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Good point.
     
  14. Brain

    Brain Lost in thought

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    522
    Location:
    Warsaw, Poland
    I think that's the intention at least. However, I'm afraid it will quickly degenerate to "always use your strongest unit only". The game must include special abilities and some very good upgrade possibilities to avoid falling in that trap.
     
  15. sir_schwick

    sir_schwick Archbishop of Towels

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    2,509
    Location:
    USA
    I'm of the feeling that the single stat will be more of a 'technology' placer than stats were in the past. Knights/Pikemen/Crossbows/Longbows/Men-at-Arms(Yeah, I know these all won't be modeled) will be the same strength, but with bonuses that make tactical use important. However AFVs/Tanks/Infantry will have way higher strength, so they will win more by tech disparity than bonus.
     
  16. GoodGame

    GoodGame Red, White, & Blue, baby!

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    13,725
    Hearing the no Armies kind of annoys me.
    Armies are cool. What better way to represent good leaders, than a mega-unit?

    The new 'countering' better mean intelligent stacking to eliminate micro-managements.
     
  17. BlackBetsy

    BlackBetsy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    89
    Funny how that mimics reality...there has been a strong correlation between military size & technological advantage and a nation's power in the world.
     
  18. stormbind

    stormbind Retenta personam!

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,081
    Location:
    London
    Too soon to tell
     
  19. stormbind

    stormbind Retenta personam!

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,081
    Location:
    London
    That is what the Third Riech thought.

    Diplomacy could be the ballance :)
     

Share This Page