In defense of the Giant Death Robot

[Putmalk]

Yeah I agree with PhilBowles, Giant mechs in general aren't realistic at all...something "realistically" futuristic would be something like hover tanks or bigger faster stronger nukes/bombs/artillery.

 

[PhilBowles]

I really don't mean to sound rude but I feel I must correct you on many aspects of your op.

1.) No it doesn't. Regardless of the level you play at, you should plan your victory condition way ahead, usually at the very start of the game, and get there as quickly as possible, without diverting into unnecessary techs. The longer you hang around, the better chance an AI has of winning. Also, you can easily destroy AI GDR without having them yourself (see 3.)

2.) A recent patch gave a diplomacy penalty for nuking a civ, though nukes do not cause global warming. Unlike Civ IV, there is no global warming mechanic in the game. You really should use all uranium for nukes, unless you have loads of it (maybe if you play as Russia), in which case you can build some Nuclear Plants in your best cities. Never give or sell uranium to an AI, they can build nukes with it and these units don't suffer from the lack of strategic resources penalty.

3.) GDRs are no where near unstoppable. Their high strength gives them an advantage in open combat, but a highly promoted standard unit (such as mech infantry) can stand up to them well. In fact, any unit can kill a GDR due to the minimum 1 damage rule, where all units involved in combat take at least one damage per round, regardless of the strength of the units. A Spearman will always cause 1 damage to a GDR when in combat, even though the Spearman will almost certainly die. Therefore, you can grantee killing a GDR by suiciding any ten melee units into it. Its even easier than that though, as the 1 damage rule also applies to ranged units such as Archers. Indeed, 10 Archers can kill a GDR between them in one turn.

I lost a GDR when I used it to assault Karakorum and, once the city was captured, the AI nuked it the next turn before I had a chance to move the victorious units...

 

[ezbutton]

I don't mind GDRs then again I rarely see them in my games. But if I do, it all goes back to Nukes>toy robot.

 

[Wargizmo]

I don't think I've ever built one to be honest, I find the game is almost already decided by then. When it comes to realism the game has much more faults than the GDR, like the fact that a crossbow can shoot twice as far a gun, or that a horse can suddenly become a tank. If anything the GDR is the only unit in the game that could possibly exist in real life the way it is, since it hasn't been invented yet.

 

[ferzen]

The problem I find with the GDR (and tanks vs riflemen) Is that they always take one damage even if they crush their enemy. I understand this is for balance but honestly, what are a bunch of riflemen going to do against a tank?

Worst part of civ 5 >.>

Is this rule still work? Today I could not kill enemy infantry with 1 hp with my full strength scout.

 

[Camikaze]

You can reduce a GDR to 1 HP with 9 scouts, but that last point of damage doesn't work the same way, and you need something more powerful to be successful. See the last paragraph in this part of the Combat Mechanics War Academy article.

With a high enough combat ratio, units become unkillable via melee (though any ranged attack will kill them). A defender with about 3.6x the strength of an attacker (such as infantry vs pikeman) will always do at least 10 damage and and take at most 1, resulting in the defender always surviving.

 

[ETa]

To me, that's exactly what would make it unacceptable. Trying to pass off giant mechs as a realistic future tech development would ruin any sense of realism. Mechs are for space fantasy games that can get away with positing that such a militarily stupid idea would be used in the far future just because it's cool and sells Transformer models to the kids. A game that includes mechs scores points in my book by lampooning the idea in the process; for a game like Civ it's essential not to treat it as a serious inclusion for the reason above.

So why have them in the first place? There would have been many other ways of building a very strong and believable unit or just leave it out. Are they meant to emphasize that Civ 5 is a (not particularly imaginative) joke?

A game that wants to maintain a semblance of realism in a future setting doesn't use giant walkers - look at Alpha Centauri.

I have. For over a decade by now. It is revolutionary when compared to Civ 5 for example in gameplay and atmosphere. However, it takes a little bit more than a space narrative, murky graphics and electronic music to create realistic semblances. With Civs that is not a problem as they describe mostly history and as such have much more semblance of realism until GDR of course.

 

[Becephalus]

It is pretty clear from recent history that if there was going to be one more unit in Civ at the end of the tech tree it should be the unmanned aerial drone.

In 20 years the airforce will barely be using any pilots.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

It is pretty clear from recent history that if there was going to be one more unit in Civ at the end of the tech tree it should be the unmanned aerial drone.

In 20 years the airforce will barely be using any pilots.

that should definitely be Civ 6 material. and not a one use thing like a guided missile.

 

[Volcanon]

Wait, really? Every time you attack you take 1 dmg in this game? How is that remotely realistic when it's bombers versus pikemen?

 

[joncnunn]

Wear and tear on the planes. That's actually typical in many strategy games involving aircraft. Although those tend to have a shorter time scales involved. (A turn representing 12 hours)

Wait, really? Every time you attack you take 1 dmg in this game? How is that remotely realistic when it's bombers versus pikemen?

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

in my last game i think i had fighters taking out embarked infantry with no damage suffered. embarked artillery could shoot back though. this was against america, immortal, with me using babylon.

 

[Camikaze]

Attacking embarked units is different, and works more like capturing civilian units. You can run a ship over them and the ship will not take damage, and will be able to move afterwards, because although it counts as an action, it doesn't count as a regular attack.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

i kind of figured that, but when the artillery attacked back i wasnt sure. i know certain UAs, etc. enable that but it was America who didnt have that.

 

[Camikaze]

The 'embarked defense' promotion would allow it, or your fighter may have been intercepted.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

yeah, hadnt thought about getting intercepted. im not sure what his tech capabilities were at the time but they were behind me. he made peace about 20 turns after i got fighters.

 

[headcase]

One can certainly make the argument that GDR could have been "really good tank" and have the exact same effect in gameplay, so it might as well be called GDR for the lulz. This only holds true for futuristic units though.

 

[sav]

Isn't the point of the GDR meant to be an overwhelmingly powerful unit used to mop up otherwise exceedingly long domination wins? I don't mind it at all, sure beats having to graft out wins like in Civ 4.

And count me in the group that wants future stuff in Civ5 - I played mods on Civ4 and loved the future stuff, like automatons, cities in bubbles, etc. I think it was the Destiny mod that really got me into it.

 

[Bad Brett]

Something like this would have been so much cooler:

Invisible Tank
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkoFoaF_-R8

 

[Dennis Laursen]

hehe or when you bomb a pikeman with your B17 and take 1dmg. Those were some long ass pikes!

LOL, yes - we are back in the Civ III days, where a spearman have high odds to destroy a tank...