Do you like the way combat is changing

[gunkulator]

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.

The problem comes that some of the standard applications of battle, you have a regular tank coming up against an elite spearman (because they've gained experience against other units since the begining of time) and in a highly defensive zone. The chance of victory of a Spearman is 87.4%.

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.

 

[Brain]

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.

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.

 

[oldStatesman]

The problem comes that some of the standard applications of battle, you have a regular tank coming up against an elite spearman (because they've gained experience against other units since the begining of time) and in a highly defensive zone. The chance of victory of a Spearman is 87.4%.
It becomes even worse when it comes to city fighting because of the in-city bonuses such as City Defense, which doubles the defensive ability of units.

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.

 

[777]

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.

 

[Philips beard]

It's not about unluck, but about bad strategi if you lose a war vs a spearman army, when you have tanks!

 

[civzombie]

"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...

 

[civzombie]

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)

 

[777]

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.

I can't remember, how Firepower did work?

 

[searcheagle]

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.

 

[dh_epic]

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).

 

[searcheagle]

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).

That's what I was orginally thinking. However, before those bonuses are accumulated, their attack defensive stats will be the same.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

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.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Good point.

 

[Brain]

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.

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.

 

[sir_schwick]

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.

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.

 

[GoodGame]

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.

 

[BlackBetsy]

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.

Funny how that mimics reality...there has been a strong correlation between military size & technological advantage and a nation's power in the world.

 

[stormbind]

Too soon to tell

 

[stormbind]

Funny how that mimics reality...there has been a strong correlation between military size & technological advantage and a nation's power in the world.

That is what the Third Riech thought.

Diplomacy could be the ballance