Hide enemy Promotions.

[stratego]

I think one thing that would make the game more interesting and realistic is if the enemy promotions are hidden from you.

That way you have to be more careful with your attacks, because in the battlefield, you won't be able to make such accurate calculations as you can now. It'll force you to either be more careful or accept bigger risks.

 

[burlicconi]

Yes, I agree with you. I also think that promotions must be hidden, maybe until first battle... That would make game more realistic...

 

[marioflag]

It would also add randomness.
If you don't see enemy units strength planning a strategy would be a lot harder and your most experienced units would die more easily.
IMO it would have this effects:
-combats would be more random without adding strategy
-it would weaken combat experience concept
-probably would make AI weaker

If it is realistic or not, i don't think at least in modern times an army knew often what is its opposing force composition.

 

[WS78]

Probably, make it an option. Though I don't think many would use it.]

Edit: Scout should have the ability to reveal strength and promotions in that case.

 

[Handel]

Who cares about the promotions when there are combat odds calculated? You can select any of your units and check with any of the visible AI stacks the combat odds. So who cares why exactly the odds are 22.46% or 73.11%? When planning the attack you look at the AI units, but don't cancel or don't start the attack because of the promotions, but because of the units and combat odds.

 

[Underdawg]

Who cares about the promotions when there are combat odds calculated? You can select any of your units and check with any of the visible AI stacks the combat odds. So who cares why exactly the odds are 22.46% or 73.11%? When planning the attack you look at the AI units, but don't cancel or don't start the attack because of the promotions, but because of the units and combat odds.

Expanding on what Handel said, if promotions are hidden then I would ask, would the combat odds be hidden too?

Are we supposed to just go into battle blind?

 

[Kevin J]

WS78 had a great idea with the scout thing.

 

[bonafide11]

Don't really like the idea, but yes, with battle odds, it doesn't really matter much anyway.

 

[WS78]

Methinks more of a feature that a choice few would consider. Maybe to offset the random nature, morale and supply could be introduced?

Thanks Kevin J, always thaught scouts were missing something. And explorers need a modern counterpart.

 

[Yzman]

Yes the battle odds make that pointless, I never look at the promotions, only the bottom line chance of me winning.

And it was actually people complaining that made them add that, so I doubt they would get rid of it.

 

[Kevin J]

Well, if they removed the battle odds and promotion information, but offset by having the sentry promotion, for example, allow the viewing of combat odds, it could work.

It's an extra layer of complication, that many could view as needless hassle. I personally like micro-managing huge maps on marathon, so it would be my cup of tea to add a layer of uncertainty to combat odds absent a specific effort to uncover the odds.

 

[stratego]

I would also make combat odds hidden, because otherwise it would make the hiding the promotion useless.

I think that it can be offset by a scout who can tell you how many battles the units have engaged in. That way you can do the calculations.

This can be an option you can check (like no random events), since I'd find this more exciting, while others might not.

 

[Fire.Soul]

Honestly I think that would pretty much ruin the game. Attacking an enemy unit and being killed without knowing why or how, would just be frustrating and an awful design to implement on a videogame.

Understandable as it is to try to go for the most realistic options possible, some choices truly must be made having in mind this is a game and, therefore, the player must have a certain degree of control and understanding over his game. With hidden promotions, we would be thrown into an apparent randomness and lose the thoughtful strategic planning now existent in Civ.

At least, that's my humble opinion on the subject, although I obviously agree others might prefer otherwise. Adding it as an optional feature, either via mod or patch, would still make sense if many people were interested I suppose.

 

[MarkM]

It seems like all this does is remove/diminish your ability to apply tactical strategy, and thus make your combat effectiveness more random.

Perhaps it's more "realistic," but I think a lot of people keep losing sight of the fact this is a GAME (a chance to make decisions, ideally considered ones, preferrably without the burden of keeping track of a lot of things outside what you can immediately see), not a SIMULATION.

the next step would be don't even show what type/# of units are in a square before you attack it (especially a city), wouldn't that also be "realistic?" I just don't get it.

 

[BlastDuke]

I believe that one of the biggest improvements in Civ4 ist the "Combat value"+"Promotions" system because combat no longer is decided on "who attacks first" like it has been in civ1-3. This rule change allowed civ4 to become a real multiplayer game IMHO.
If you would totally remove the Promotion info from foreign units, combat would become like gambling, which sounds no-fun to me.

WS78's scouting idea sounds good at first (although I would implement it as some kind of "reveal enemy info" promotion), but I believe we all should remember that Civ4 is not a tactical wargame, and it should not become too complicated any more (because it is really heavy stuff right now).