I can't understand the Civ4 combat system

[Moutardentube]

I played CTP2 and Civ5 before and had a lot of success with war. But I just don't get the Civ4 combat system.

First, I play on RoM:AND because the first time I thought "I'm going to attack this city" in vanilla it was defended with so much units I couldn't see the entire list and it didn't make any sense (an entire army in a size 2 city, really?)

So I'm playing with a 6 units per tile limit and I'm on war against some civilization. It's the renaissance era and we're still fighting with Macemen and the guys with 13 power that get a bonus when attacking cities (I don't have the english version of the game), while I'm having an advantage thanks to the unit with archaic rifles and 15 power.

I defended the tiles around my city the nearest of its border and I decided to start fighting on his lands, and eventually get a city or two. But, while I'm still inside my borders, he seems to be able to attack me out of the fog of war. Can he actually travel more than 1 tile per turn because his own roads only cost him half a movement point? I don't get how I am supposed to counter this.

Then, because he uses quite a lot of heavy pikemen, I built a hefty number of macemen. But what's the point of having units effective against melee fighters when I can build Crusaders that get 15 power (more than 1.5 times the power of macemen) plus a bonus against cities and a free Warlord? It seems I could only build overpowered units while not caring about the fact more modest units get bonuses against others.

Still, I have a Macemen with so many promotions it takes 3 rows to display them. Is it realistic when a units has 3 times its base power? Well, it's the only thing that leaves me at an advantage when I attack because I find the game to be heavely weighted towards defense. The guy has catapults to take my city's defenses down, and I could destroy them with War elephants, so he protects them with Pikemen. Then I could kill his pikemen with Macemen, so he protects his pikemen protecting his catapults with Bowmen. And even if I attack with a unit that is not completely obliteraded by his, say an other Bowmen, if he is on a forest or hills tile it's not even worth trying.

And talkins about siege weapons, I don't understand what's happening when they attack units in my city like 15 times in a single combat animation while my men don't even it them before they retreat. Aren't they meant to just take defenses down?

Well I hope someone can enlighten me, because everything else about the game is great but I ragequit too often when I get attacked out of nowhere in my own territory, while my only unit looking able to do something else than defending on a forest tile besides a river is my overpowered Macemen with his of promotion and a Warlord supporting him.

 

[crazyotto65]

Combined arms is the name of the game for CIV... Your opponent is 'smart' to have the Pikemen and Elephants stacked. Use seige (catapults, trebs) to hit the opposing stack before hit can strike at you.

The combat animation likely shows that he has 15 catapults in his attack stack. attacking doesn't take the defense of the city down. Only bombardment can do that.

 

[Moutardentube]

If two combined arms stacks face each other, I feel like the one attacking will be the one losing because there are so much defensive bonuses in the game.

I'm having such an easy time defending my city because it has forest tiles around, while it's so difficult to destroy an enemy city because thanks to roads I'm being attacked by units I can't see.

Why bother trying to take cities when I can defend my border with the same units forever and have my cities produce things that will lead to a peaceful victory?

 

[shlks]

Why bother trying to take cities when I can defend my border with the same units forever and have my cities produce things that will lead to a peaceful victory?

Usually if you can conquer another AI and their territory you can "snowball" the game into a likely victory.

I don't know about ROM... (it's combat system is more complicated than the standard game; something about different unit types being able to provide support, like pseudo promotions for other units because of their nearby presence, however stacking to many units in one tile is a penalty to strength, I think they call it overcrowding)

In standard civ 4, the best defender always fights invaders of a tile. Also tile defense can be huge (50% bonus for forests, 25% for hills, 50% for city walls; AI likes to build those, 20% per culture boom). Because this game uses a sort of rock/ paper/ scissors unit system in most eras, you need overwhelming power to get offensive. Or siege tactics.

In standard civ 4, the first siege unit is the catapult. Before this warfare is usually about rushing the copper/ chariot units before their defenses are up, or choking their land and economy. The basic siege unit... (catapult/cannons, ect.) It's the best counter to the games stack defense and city defense for most of the game because when they attack they cause area of effect damage to many units on that tile. Those siege units basically need to suicide after bombarding down the cities walls/ culture. Later on air based units have similar functionality (without the kamikaze). And then there's nukes. Nukes of course. There's also the option of a city revolt incited by one of yours spies. That brings that cities defense down to zero (temporarily?)

 

[LeHam]

Try playing standard Civ IV with the Beyond the Sword Expansion first. RoM is possibly the most convoluted mod I have ever played, and I believe is unbalanced partly because of its complexity.

Play with standard Beyond the Sword first to get used to combat mechanics, I would suggest.

 

[Moutardentube]

I tried BtS without any mods, but I can't get past the units stacking part.

Right now I'm assaulting a city with Riflemen (24 or 26 power) against a civ using Grenadiers (18?) and they still beat me because 20 times per turn I'm getting attacked by units that come out of nowhere and canons that can just bomb my face before retreating. Why can't my canons do the same? I'm sitting at less than 10% chance for any fight I could take with them. They're still a bit useful for collateral damage when bombing, even though the strongest unit on the tile never takes any damage. And if there's only one guy defending a mountain he can stays forever because the canons don't do against him and any other unit only stands a 3% chance against him.

Needless I instantly alt+F4 the game when I saw my entire stacks of riflemen assisted by canons getting wiped out by guys throwing grenades while my guys were defending behind a river with a fully promoted great general with them. That game is so ing dumb, it's not about making the right decisions when it comes to battles, it's just about setting a powerful economy so that I can spam riflemen every turn and eventually get done. Even when some cities are barely defended it sometimes takes two turns to capture them since militia is being spammed forever.

It's really sad that the good features - economy, religion...- only serve the purpose of winning because they allow you to run braindead strategies. I hate that game.

 

[calibur]

You're doing it wrong... there is a great amount of strategy involved, which is why you are losing what should have been an easy conquest...
Siege units are not supposed to win fights. They are supposed to bombard defending units with the little target button and to be suicided against enemy stacks, which has them cause damage to multiple units despite fighting only one.
This will soften up the defenders so you can have a decent fighting chance.
Also, mix in some grenadiers to defend against the riflemen attacking you
The use of cavalry as advance, quick attackers is also recommended.
Mastering siege, however, is the key.

 

[God-Emperor]

If you don't like units coming down roads to attack you, pillage the roads. They can't use a road that doesn't exist.

 

[RD-BH]

Do not attack grenadiers with rifles (read the unit descriptions or look up in Civilopedia).

[edit]
Okay, I'm too vague here.
You can attack grenadiers ... but he HAS grenadiers.
They will retaliate from every nearby city.
Cavalry has 15 strength (can be promoted against gunpowder) and can protect the rifles from grenadiers and cannons.
Ideally you want Rifles, Cannons, and Cavalry in your stack.

 

[Funky]

First, I play on RoM:AND .... I can build Crusaders that get 15 power .... Still, I have a Macemen with so many promotions it takes 3 rows to display them.

Part of your issues are mod-related, not BtS-related. For example those str15 crusaders, and the macemen with all those promotions. Also, Rom:AnD includes ranged bombards and stuff, which, while trying to bring realism, also adds imbalances. Really, you should get used to Civ 4 without mods first and grasp the basic concepts before you delve into mods, especially such complex ones like Rom:AnD.

an entire army in a size 2 city, really?

Where's the problem with an army occupying a small town? Verdun, one of the main battlefields of WWI, would have been a size 2 city in Civ terms. Armies can get really big, learn to deal with it, it's part of the strategy you have to master. Combat requires a lot more thought than in Civ 5, just like the other parts of the game do too.

Can he actually travel more than 1 tile per turn because his own roads only cost him half a movement point?

It's been a while since I played Rom:AnD, but generally melee units have 1 movement, mounted units 2. All units can use roads, as long as they are not in an enemy's borders, which doubles/triples their movement.

I ragequit too often when I get attacked out of nowhere in my own territory

This can't happen. Instead of ragequitting, analyse your situation and understand what mistakes you made. Being new to the game you are bound to make many of them, and you'll only improve by acknowledging them and learning from them.

If two combined arms stacks face each other, I feel like the one attacking will be the one losing because there are so much defensive bonuses in the game.

Ironically, it's the other way around. Bring siege weapons and learn to soften up enemy stacks. It is usually a big mistake to let the AI attack first with his undamaged stack.

Why bother trying to take cities when I can defend my border with the same units forever and have my cities produce things that will lead to a peaceful victory?

First you complain that combat is impossible, now it's too easy? Again, play normal BtS, find the difficulty that suits you (I'd suggest to start on noble) and move on from there. With a suitable difficulty you will probably not have the same units forever, nor would that be sensible, though you can of course try for a win without fighting an offensive war, if the situation allows for it.

Needless I instantly alt+F4 the game when I saw my entire stacks of riflemen assisted by canons getting wiped out by guys throwing grenades while my guys were defending behind a river with a fully promoted great general with them. That game is so ing dumb, it's not about making the right decisions when it comes to battles, it's just about setting a powerful economy so that I can spam riflemen every turn and eventually get done.

Wait, so you are saying the game is dumb and not about making decisions, and then you ragequite when you get obliterated in combat? Something's not right with this logic.
What is right, is that your economy is the backbone of your military strength, just as in reality. That does not mean that combat doesn't need good planning and tactical finesse to be successful, which you noticed quite clearly yourself. Seriously, don't accuse the game, accuse yourself. It's you who are making the mistakes, not the game. Which is natural, you just started playing. Your misconception may be due to Civ 5's influence, where you can start on immortal and win without problems. Civ 4 on the other hand has a very long learning curve. Be more modest and take your time to learn instead of ragequtting. I still learn things today after eight years!

only serve the purpose of winning because they allow you to run braindead strategies. I hate that game.

So, you can either take our advice and learn from your mistakes, or hate the game and angrily call the strategy to progress braindead. I don't honestly care, it would just be ashame to turn aside probably the most compelling strategy game of all times, only because you rage about the mistakes which all beginners make, instead of learning from them.

 

[RD-BH]

I tried BtS without any mods, but I can't get past the units stacking part.

Right now I'm assaulting a city with Riflemen (24 or 26 power) against a civ using Grenadiers (18?) and they still beat me because 20 times per turn I'm getting attacked by units that come out of nowhere and canons that can just bomb my face before retreating. Why can't my canons do the same? I'm sitting at less than 10% chance for any fight I could take with them. They're still a bit useful for collateral damage when bombing, even though the strongest unit on the tile never takes any damage. And if there's only one guy defending a mountain he can stays forever because the canons don't do against him and any other unit only stands a 3% chance against him.

Needless I instantly alt+F4 the game when I saw my entire stacks of riflemen assisted by canons getting wiped out by guys throwing grenades while my guys were defending behind a river with a fully promoted great general with them. That game is so ing dumb, it's not about making the right decisions when it comes to battles, it's just about setting a powerful economy so that I can spam riflemen every turn and eventually get done. Even when some cities are barely defended it sometimes takes two turns to capture them since militia is being spammed forever.

It's really sad that the good features - economy, religion...- only serve the purpose of winning because they allow you to run braindead strategies. I hate that game.

"The insight of a man certainly slows down his anger"
- proverb

To help understand how stacks work, stage specific battles in worldbuilder and note the outcomes.
Test a stack of rifles against grenadiers.
Then reverse it and check grenadiers against rifles.
Test new stacks with cannons, cavalry, etc.
Don't just look at one stack vs one stack (the pRNG is loopie).
Setup three identical stacks in three separate tiles attacking three identical defender stacks in three separate tiles.
Look at how much total health remains across all three attacker stacks and all three defender stacks.

What you learn will make the game more understandable and enjoyable.

 

[shlks]

I don't know about ROM... (it's combat system is more complicated than the standard game; something about different unit types being able to provide support, like pseudo promotions for other units because of their nearby presence, however stacking to many units in one tile is a penalty to strength, I think they call it overcrowding)

Whoops, that would actually be the Realism Invictus mod, which I haven't really played either.

 

[clanky4]

Build catapults, catapults and more catapults. (of course have some units to defend them and to attack the softened up enemy units) But you need tons of catapults(Or cannons/artillery what you have at the time) to win a war against somewhat similar strengthed opponents.

 

[Moutardentube]

Siege units are not supposed to win fights. They are supposed to bombard defending units with the little target button and to be suicided against enemy stacks, which has them cause damage to multiple units despite fighting only one.

Isn't suiciding canons against stacks the same as bombarding them? I thought that in war, canons were valuable and expensive material that you were protecting with infantry, not the other way around...

Also, mix in some grenadiers to defend against the riflemen attacking you
The use of cavalry as advance, quick attackers is also recommended.

His Grenadiers have 22,5 power (accounting the bonus against firearms units) and my Riflemen have 26. I can't get cavalry because this is a pangea map and there are no horses... Riflemen are the best unit I could possibly get.

You're doing it wrong... there is a great amount of strategy involved, which is why you are losing what should have been an easy conquest...

I think it's just that I'm being outnumbered, because at first I'm detroying the attackers, before the reinforcements eventually take my armies down. Is there any other counter than building a truckload of units myself? I could do that but it doesn't seem to be very interesting way of winning a war.

If you don't like units coming down roads to attack you, pillage the roads. They can't use a road that doesn't exist.

Because pillaging costs me my movement points for the current turn, it means that I have to sacrifice units to remove those roads... otherwise I'll just get attacked because the road leading to my units is still there.

Also, Rom:AnD includes ranged bombards and stuff, which, while trying to bring realism, also adds imbalances. Really, you should get used to Civ 4 without mods first and grasp the basic concepts before you delve into mods, especially such complex ones like Rom:AnD.

I played CTP2 a lot before Civ4 and I just can't get past the insane battle system that I can barely stand in RoM.

Where's the problem with an army occupying a small town? Verdun, one of the main battlefields of WWI, would have been a size 2 city in Civ terms.

Actually the city was destroyed and they were just fighting on the lands around.

What is right, is that your economy is the backbone of your military strength, just as in reality.

In reality, does US send billions of soldiers to take over a country because they have the money for? I don't think so.



I might not understand the mechanics very well but this game isn't the most logical I played.

 

[shlks]

Isn't suiciding canons against stacks the same as bombarding them?

The bombard command is different than attacking a stack to inflict the collateral damage. It's a special ability siege units have. (aircraft and warships have the same ability) The bombard command doesn't start combat, it softens the city defense for when you want to attack a city. Once done enough the town is as defenseless as open grassland. The most basic and safest strategy is to move your big ol' stack of doom to their cities, bombard the city defense to low values, then attack with a few siege for collateral damage and sweep up with regular soldiers.

Against the AI this is what I normally do; the war is often won before it even begins.

 

[Funky]

I think it's just that I'm being outnumbered, because at first I'm detroying the attackers, before the reinforcements eventually take my armies down. Is there any other counter than building a truckload of units myself? I could do that but it doesn't seem to be very interesting way of winning a war.

I'm sorry to have to tell you, but having a sufficient number of troops is a pretty important ingredient for being successful in war. I mean seriously, what do you expect? As said before, this isn't the horrible CtP or Civ 5 AI which you can obliterate in battle with a tenth of their army size. If your enemy starts building a large army, you better react.

Because pillaging costs me my movement points for the current turn, it means that I have to sacrifice units to remove those roads... otherwise I'll just get attacked because the road leading to my units is still there.

Nothing comes for free of course. But destroying roads often serves a greater strategical purpose that justifies sacrificing a unit or two.

Actually the city was destroyed and they were just fighting on the lands around.

And how is this different from a possible outcome in Civ 4?

In reality, does US send billions of soldiers to take over a country because they have the money for? I don't think so.

Not billions. But look at the numbers of WWII. At how the USA churned out units with their mass production. How they later sent stacks of land, naval and air units to Vietnam and Iraq. You could just as well take Germany or any other country as an example of course. Even in ancient times armies with many 10.000s of troops were very common.

I might not understand the mechanics very well but this game isn't the most logical I played.

In fact, most of it is very logical, at least much more so than CtP or Civ 5. But although we gave you lots of advice, you keep criticizing how dumb the game and how it makes no sense, despite you being the one who could step it down a notch and overthink his views. Maybe I'm over-interpreting the attitude you display in this thread, but I feel that no matter what we say, you will rather find new reasons to complain before you listen to our reasoning. If you want any help and advice, you will find it here plentiful. But if you already made your mind that the game is terrible, why bother asking in the first place?

 

[Moutardentube]

I know I'm sounding like someone just trying to prove that the game sucks, because I feel the need to rage on my thread when I'm getting my ass kicked for reasons I can't get.
Sorry for that but I can assure you I'm understanding the game a bit better.

The real problem for me is that I'm used with games with either a limited number of units (Warcraft, Age of...) or a a limited production capicity (Total war, Civ 5...) so the numbers involved in Civ 4 are messing with my understanding of strategy games.

Maybe the actual problem is the road spamming that heavily flavours defense, along with the pillaging system. In CTP or Civ5 I could pillage a tile then retreat to a safer one; in Civ4 I'm forced to wait there and still get destroyed. Is sending useless units doing the dirty work the only option? Or using spies maybe?

About suiciding siege units, I think it's no longer an option with RoM because you can inflict collateral damage with a secondary bombard command available to siege units.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Yes, Civ4 model does favour the defender. Human players rarely pillage, though, both in SP and in MP.

Tactics has some role in Civ4 combat, but against the AI, building a boatload of units works.

 

[Pangaea]

Certainly plenty of tactics. Think it was TMIT that went through a list of them in one of the civ 5 related threads recently.

Pillaging can be important, though. If you manage to take out their source of iron (and copper), they're kind of boned. Same with other relevant resources in more modern eras.

 

[Ghpstage]

A significant problem in giving advice in this thread is that few people know ROM, at least not well. Does it actually allow the capping of stacks?

One thing that can be said with a great deal of certainty however, is that this,

His Grenadiers have 22,5 power (accounting the bonus against firearms units) and my Riflemen have 26.

is not absolute.
Promotions in combat are not simle to work out as bonuses other than the standard 'Combat' line are applied to the defending unit in a combat. As an example i'll use numbers from unmodded BTS, a Crossbowman defending against a Maceman will have 6+50% strength, while the Mace retains its 8, but if the Crossbow attacked instead it has 6 strength while the Mace gets 8/1.5 = 5.3333.
Maths in this game is often quite unintuitive and weird unfortunately. Exactly whats going on can be found here

Also, Grenadiers in unmodded BTS only have a bonus against gunpowder units when attacking, they get nothing in defence. Are you sure this isn't the case in ROM?