Fixing the Melee Line

[WiseGreen]

What if Pikemen were available at Guilds instead of Civil Service? The 8-15 turn delay to get them might make the choice between beelining Education vs. going for Iron less straightforward.

 

[mitsho]

The thing is, if you have a counter unit, it should come at the same time or earlier than the unit it counters. Otherwise you can beeline the unit and romp over the enemy. That's also with the Anti-Tank Gun comes earlier than the Tank...

Moving it around is theoretically a good idea, but the main problem with the Composite Bowmen isn't its strength, but that they can attack without losing health and attack from completely safe positions (cities). See also: Melee units on small islands vs. ranged ships...

Pikemen would get owned by the melee counterpart, but ranged units are even better at that, so melee and pikes are worth less in turn... I agree that the map size makes the pike-sword-horse triangle more awkward since due to 1upt, every unit must survive at least one turn and needs 2 movement... Recipe for disaster on the current map. The main problem with horses in my mind is that they possess primarily a non-combat special ability (extra movement). This might help you get somewhere faster, but not much in the close terrain battles. The move after combat is only effective if you can move a meat shield inbetween. If the move after attack was more than 1 movement, it'd be worth it again. But then what's the difference to a ranged attack? It's circles...

 

[Louis XXIV]

What if Pikemen were available at Guilds instead of Civil Service? The 8-15 turn delay to get them might make the choice between beelining Education vs. going for Iron less straightforward.

That would mean you can get Pikes as the sixth tech as opposed to the twelfth. That's probably worse overall.

 

[Ulthwithian]

mitsho: Really, the simplest solution is to make all Ranged units have a range of 1. (This has the side effect of making the Longbowman the best unit in the game.) The issue is not really a 1v1 fight. It's the fact that 5 Missile troops can actually gang up on 1 Melee troop. Also, if Missile troops only had a a range of 1, then they couldn't use terrain as much to avoid Melee attacks.

Another alternative (that I think was already mentioned) is to actually make the Melee troops useful as meat shields, and have them 'take' missile fire that would be aimed at something behind them. While this doesn't make Melee troops themselves more powerful, it makes them more important because if I bring, say, 3 Missile troops and 2 Melee troops to an engagement, and you bring 5 Missile troops, with proper placement you would have to kill my 2 Melee troops before you can kill any of my Missile troops, and that might have an impact on favorable ratios.

 

[kaspergm]

Wow, this thread really is going in circles now.

Anyway, here's a random thought, taking from other games like Heroes of Might and Magic: I think what we need is both an Attack rating and a Defence rating for each unit. This is not very different from how Archers currently have two combat strengths, namely one for Melee, and one for Ranged. One could even go one step further, and give each unit both a Melee / as well as a Ranged / (0 attack strength if unit is not ranged).

The advantage of having both an attack and defence rating would be that we could distinguish between units more effectively. We could make the Swordsman much tougher - he might not have as high an as the Horseman, but his would be much higher, which would make him a very effective front line meat-shield. Pikeman could have low but very high to emphasize his defensive nature.

 

[MrL567]

Wow, this thread really is going in circles now.

Anyway, here's a random thought, taking from other games like Heroes of Might and Magic: I think what we need is both an Attack rating and a Defence rating for each unit. This is not very different from how Archers currently have two combat strengths, namely one for Melee, and one for Ranged. One could even go one step further, and give each unit both a Melee / as well as a Ranged / (0 attack strength if unit is not ranged).

The advantage of having both an attack and defence rating would be that we could distinguish between units more effectively. We could make the Swordsman much tougher - he might not have as high an as the Horseman, but his would be much higher, which would make him a very effective front line meat-shield. Pikeman could have low but very high to emphasize his defensive nature.

That is a really good idea. Will not only allow for balance, but allow to change UU's around to be different. Like A Catarphact for example, could have a higher then a normal Horsemen, but only have a slightly stronger .

 

[Galgus]

That is a really good idea. Will not only allow for balance, but allow to change UU's around to be different. Like A Catarphact for example, could have a higher then a normal Horsemen, but only have a slightly stronger .

Perhaps Lancers could be reimagined as a very high unit with sub-par .

It could also allow more reason to build Swordsmen over Spearman by giving them more differentiated roles.

 

[MrL567]

If we go by this system, I have an idea how to rearrange the UU's

Example of Spearmen units.

Spearmen: Below Average , above Average .
Hoplite: Average Great
Picts: Above Average Below Average
Immortal: Above Average Above Average

The rearenging the Spear line weakens the offensive generally, but increases their defensive stats to show there role. Hoplites are more trained and better defended so they get better offense and defense. Picts are the inverse of this. They have a strong attack, but a weak defense repersenting there offensive weapons, but lack of armor. Immortals are better overall, so while not GREAT at everything, they are better overall. The way I set it up could be changed to weaken offense even more.

 

[Kurtbob]

Anyway, here's a random thought, taking from other games like Heroes of Might and Magic: I think what we need is both an Attack rating and a Defence rating for each unit.

Civ I, II, and III had units with both attack and defense ratings. Civ IV changed that, giving all units one combat rating but giving every unit an ability to fit a specific niche (archer=city defense, spearman=mounted bonus, axe man=melee bonus, swordsman=city attack bonus). CiV continued this ability niche gameplay and added ranged attack, though as I stated before, in an awkward fashion.

Personally, I wouldn't mind going back to more than one combat rating. (Going off your idea) If the devs were really keen on tactics they would add a combat rating system much like the panzer general games (see below). Each unit would have:

Movement
Spotting (site)
Initiative
Range
Soft attack
Hard attack
Air attack
Naval attack
Ground defense
Air defense
Naval defense
Close defense

Now imagine if CiV units had all of the above combat ratings. I think it would be far easier to balance and flavor units than the current system.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Way too complicated !!!!

It needs to be simple.

 

[Razonatair]

No. It doesn't. CiV has enough problems of oversimplified features. Those stats are pretty simple.

 

[Kurtbob]

Way too complicated !!!!

It needs to be simple.

The list was taken directly from Panzer General...a game made 19 years ago...and you think it's too complicated? The whole hex 1up system in CiV was used because of John Shafer's nostalgia for Panzer General. I'm sure the stats could be implemented and I would love to see it implemented.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You took 3-5 stats and made it 12.

Fine for a tactical combat game, but not a 4x strategy game.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Civ V is a tactical combat game.

That being said, I think that Civ V would work fine with just an attack and defense rating.

 

[Dunkah]

What if you were allowed to link units together. Allow them to move en'-mass. Then you simply applied the results of the entire mass. Or the closest three units to your attack?

This would have the effect of allowing archers to hide behind melee and not get taken out. You could say as long as there are more than three units the army is in good order. Thus not allow flanking bonuses vs. them.

Allow them to move together. Get morale bonuses etc!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What if you were allowed to link units together. Allow them to move en'-mass. Then you simply applied the results of the entire mass. Or the closest three units to your attack?

This would have the effect of allowing archers to hide behind melee and not get taken out. You could say as long as there are more than three units the army is in good order. Thus not allow flanking bonuses vs. them.

Allow them to move together. Get morale bonuses etc!

Combining units into stacks (so that combat was stack v. Stack rather than unit v. Unit). Would be good.

Because civ is Not a tactical combat game (nor is it a trading game, positioning game, matching game, city building game, etc.)
It has tactical combat.
The game would be improved if tactical combat (unit v. unit) was removed for strategic combat (army v. Army).

To allow for broader appeal, I can see keeping some tactical combat. But increasing the tactical combat would ruin the game.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Tactical combat is the opposite of allowing for broader appeal. Derping around with a big stack is always going to be easier than playing tactically (that's why the AI seems so much better in Civ IV; it's not that the AI is any smarter, it's just that combat is easier).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Simple Tactical combat is an appeal broadener (you get to play with individual units). But it dilutes the strategic gameplay. (So its a trade off)
Tactical combat in Single Player is easier since the AI is a moron.

Complexified Tactical combat both
1. Narrows the appeal (because it is more difficult to understand)
2. Reduces strategic gameplay

So it is all around Bad... Unless you want to make a tactical combat game. Like Panzer General/Starcraft 2)

 

[Altisma]

Civ I, II, and III had units with both attack and defense ratings. Civ IV changed that, giving all units one combat rating but giving every unit an ability to fit a specific niche (archer=city defense, spearman=mounted bonus, axe man=melee bonus, swordsman=city attack bonus). CiV continued this ability niche gameplay and added ranged attack, though as I stated before, in an awkward fashion.

Personally, I wouldn't mind going back to more than one combat rating. (Going off your idea) If the devs were really keen on tactics they would add a combat rating system much like the panzer general games (see below). Each unit would have:

Movement
Spotting (site)
Initiative
Range
Soft attack
Hard attack
Air attack
Naval attack
Ground defense
Air defense
Naval defense
Close defense

Now imagine if CiV units had all of the above combat ratings. I think it would be far easier to balance and flavor units than the current system.

Too many stats better to keep it like this

Attack
Defense
Range
Movement

Then add penalties that make sense such as -100% damage to cities for archers and -100% damage to Naval Units from non-siege/non naval units.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Simple Tactical combat is an appeal broadener (you get to play with individual units). But it dilutes the strategic gameplay. (So its a trade off)
Tactical combat in Single Player is easier since the AI is a moron.

Complexified Tactical combat both
1. Narrows the appeal (because it is more difficult to understand)
2. Reduces strategic gameplay

So it is all around Bad... Unless you want to make a tactical combat game. Like Panzer General/Starcraft 2)

And as it turns out Firaxis did want to make a tactical combat game, as shown by the fact that Civ V has tactical combat. Therefore, it appears that you agree with me that we're better off without stacks? Although honestly I don't think Firaxis's intent is much of an argument either way.