IGN Preview and Video (04/08/10)

[Louis XXIV]

Well no, but it could massively change gameplay. It means that while attacking, archers are invulnerable. I could see a case where an army being compromised of a double line of archers could do a very large amount of damage in the turn it attacks. Perhaps even enough damage for it to be able to withstand the counter attack of a melee army. I really think that combat in adjacent tiles should always leave the attacker the risk of being dealt some damage.

Well, you have to keep in mind that they're concentrating their attack on one unit. If that's the only unit around, it means a numbers advantage of somewhere between 3 and 6 to 1. Otherwise, the untouched units will counterattack, while the damaged unit heals.

As for not losing unit strength, I believe that's the case. Civ4 kinda combined HP and unit strength. A damaged unit will be weaker in the sense that, if it gets hit, it'll be more likely to die, but it's chances of hitting the opposing unit and doing damage remain the same.

 

[AriochIV]

Well no, but it could massively change gameplay. It means that while attacking, archers are invulnerable. I could see a case where an army being compromised of a double line of archers could do a very large amount of damage in the turn it attacks. Perhaps even enough damage for it to be able to withstand the counter attack of a melee army. I really think that combat in adjacent tiles should always leave the attacker the risk of being dealt some damage.

The archers shoot the melee unit (which can't fire back), but if the melee unit survives, they're going to wipe the archers out the next turn.

Isn't that pretty much how archers should work?

 

[12agnar0k]

That would be strange. Do we have any info from actual screenshots about damaged units strength?

Its not strange and yes it is correct, infact it is one change to combat mechanics I really like, when a unit is damaged its strength is not decreased like in Civ4.
All units have health & strength (ranged strength), the strength of a unit dictates how much health the other unit loses, so yes if you are all but dead, your melee unit can still attack with full strength however you will certainly die from attacking the archer, we haven't seen a "both die" situation yet, so we can't be sure that is what will happen, it may be the case that the melee unit dies first and doesn't do its full damage to the archer, but thats just speculating an addition to the mechanics for no reason.

Certainly though, A unit on low health, still deals full damage to an enemy, a hurt swordsman still has a sword .

This will make the strategy of "attack the enemy repeatedly till it falls with our inferior troops" much more costly to the attacker as they take full damage each time.

 

[Schuesseled]

I also think attack strength isnt decreased when a unit is damaged so the damaged melee unit would still be able to take out the archer

you should probably note that the melee unit is also likely to die in such a situation, a mutual defeat.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Its not strange and yes it is correct, infact it is one change to combat mechanics I really like, when a unit is damaged its strength is not decreased like in Civ4.
All units have health & strength (ranged strength), the strength of a unit dictates how much health the other unit loses, so yes if you are all but dead, your melee unit can still attack with full strength however you will certainly die from attacking the archer, we haven't seen a "both die" situation yet, so we can't be sure that is what will happen, it may be the case that the melee unit dies first and doesn't do its full damage to the archer, but thats just speculating an addition to the mechanics for no reason.

Certainly though, A unit on low health, still deals full damage to an enemy, a hurt swordsman still has a sword .

This will make the strategy of "attack the enemy repeatedly till it falls with our inferior troops" much more costly to the attacker as they take full damage each time.

I am curious about where you're getting your information, as you seem to already be very confident about the combat mechanics.

I find it hard to believe an injured unit will attack as if he were full strength, but I do understand this is not quite the way you described it. I'd say if a unit (the attacker) was severely injured, the consequences would not just be that he were more likely to die from the battle but also that he is less likely to kill the defender.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Its not strange and yes it is correct, infact it is one change to combat mechanics I really like, when a unit is damaged its strength is not decreased like in Civ4.

Do you have a link? Thanks.

 

[AriochIV]

Yes but if archers are invulnerable when they attack adjacent archers, then you can move in with 2 rows of archers and they can all attack in perfect safety in the first turn. If archers were not safe attacking adjacent units then having 2 rows of archers, even in attack, would be stupid as the front row would get decimated on their first attack.

Well, I agree that ranged units should not be able to attack other ranged units in perfect safety, but as far as ranged units bombarding melee units, I think system appears to work as it should.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Its not strange and yes it is correct, infact it is one change to combat mechanics I really like, when a unit is damaged its strength is not decreased like in Civ4.

Do you have a link? Thanks.

Me too, please.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Me too, please.

Now we could say for sure what that's not right for all civs, since it's Japan unique ability.

 

[V. Soma]

Now we could say for sure what that's not right for all civs, since it's Japan unique ability.

Yes, this is a proof

 

[PieceOfMind]

I wish you'd have posted or linked to it, but I will now anyway:

Bushido (Japan): Units fight as though they were at full strength even when damaged.
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_civilizations.html

This would indeed suggest that usually when units are damaged they are less capable of damaging their opponent than if they were full health. Thus it is similar to civ4's combat model. Exactly how similar is uncertain. I know that in civ4 the effect of reduced HP on combat outcomes was not very intuitive and it did not change during combat (so if you ever bothered to watch the animations, it was not particularly unusual to see a single outnumbered remaining guy take out all 3 of his opponents, but if he commenced battle like that the situation would be much more dire). If a unit's ability to deal damage to the opponent decreases during battle (i.e. a single battle) due to losses from earlier rounds, I can say it would be a bit more difficult working out the combat odds - perhaps a reason for the sort of basic combat odds display we've so far seen.